Studying people: Where is the line between science and the humantities?

[Floppit]

Personally, I enjoy a certain degree of vagueness and I like people, so attempting to learn more about human (and sometimes animal) behaviour has always been a fairly natural choice for me.

In the process of my wanderings through both formal education and self guided learning I've skipped across the lines between clear science and arts so many times I've begun to wonder where the line actually is. The extremes are easy enough to spot but there is a bloody great grey area slap bang in the middle and that greyness interests me.

I want the line to be methodology, I think probably it is, but there's a whole load of mixing that happens in the pot!

I'm also interested in how skeptics here view areas of study that fall outside of science, do you view them all as woo?

[Tim the Mage]

You may be right on methods:

Is qualitative research scientific, or merely relevant? Research-interested primary care and hospital physicians' appraisal of abstracts.

Johansson EE, Risberg G, Hamberg K.
Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Family Medicine, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden. eva.johansson@fammed.umu.se
OBJECTIVE: To compare the assessments of primary care and hospital physicians of quantitative and qualitative research abstracts, and to analyse what they put into 'scientific accuracy'. DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: Two fictive research abstracts, one quantitative the other qualitative in design, were constructed. Randomly selected Swedish physicians were asked to appraise the two designs for linguistic clarity, clinical relevance, interest value, trustworthiness and scientific accuracy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: 286 primary care and 396 hospital physicians delivered complete answers. Their assessments were analysed and compared using Pearson's chi-square test, multivariate logistic regression analyses and Spearman's rho. RESULTS: Primary care physicians and hospital physicians judged the quantitative abstract similarly. More primary care physicians than hospital physicians appreciated the qualitative abstract. Both primary care and hospital physicians assessed scientific accuracy of the quantitative abstract more highly than clinical relevance, while the qualitative abstract was appreciated more for its relevance than for its scientific accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: The study indicates that qualitative research is valued for its relevance, but is considered lacking in scientific accuracy. To encourage high scientific quality and relevance in medical research, we need to enhance knowledge about qualitative methods, and their scientific guidelines, especially when complex and comprehensive phenomena are to be studied.
PMID: 12718454 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12718454

[Mulder]

I'm also interested in how skeptics here view areas of study that fall outside of science, do you view them all as woo?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'woo' - in fact, I'm not sure what anyone means by it. Personally, I certainly view the world through the prism of science but I am still moved by great art and get the tingle in the back of the neck when listening to great music. It doesn't make me want to find out which particular neurotransmitters are involved - I can accept it for what it is.

What IS frustrating is when people write a book to make some particular, often rather trite, observation of the human condition. If you want to write great fiction then fine I can enjoy that. But if you want to say something profound that you've noticed about humans, just come out and say it.

[Floppit]

What IS frustrating is when people write a book to make some particular, often rather trite, observation of the human condition. If you want to write great fiction then fine I can enjoy that. But if you want to say something profound that you've noticed about humans, just come out and say it.

I can really relate to this, being asked to read Scott Peck *spits* as part of a uni course and realising they (course leaders etc) viewed him in a positive light made me realise I may have been on the wrong course!!

I confess to liking both science and the odd profound observation - I actually enjoy some of the greyer areas between the two and while I never viewed qualitative research as 'scientific' I know it has worth, I've used it functionally as part of work. I like the abstract above but it is centred on medicine which is an area I would hope errs towards science whenever there's doubt. Social Care on the other hand I'm less sure about, the story of people can start to be much more informative and important.

I'm not yet sure what I see as woo, I hear it here alot and just wondered whether others saw non scientific study in that light. I suppose at it's most basic level I've taken woo to mean half baked ideas sold as knowledge.

Not sure it's relevant here but I remember discussing/debating whether the sciences needed the humanities more than the humantities needed the sciences. If you want to make science functional (ie get ideas out there and influencing life) then it does seem to rather rely on people skills at some level.

[Mulder]

If you want to make science functional (ie get ideas out there and influencing life) then it does seem to rather rely on people skills at some level.

Absolutely agree! Unfortunately, few scientists are great at communicating with the public and those that are may be seen as 'lightweight' by their colleagues. I think this is a very short sighted attitude.

Scientists must realise that they have to justify their existence in the same way as bankers, manufacturers or artists. There are fantastic things going on in science but hardly anyone knows about them. People need to be inspired to support science and to do that they need to understand it, at least at a basic level.

Sadly, the non-specialist media are scientifically illiterate which is why there is so little science coverage. Perhaps scientists should gain more people skills if they're to overcome such barriers.

[Tim the Mage]

Sadly, the non-specialist media are scientifically illiterate which is why there is so little science coverage. Perhaps scientists should gain more people skills if they're to overcome such barriers.

Some would say this is because too few people with science skills go into the media (better things to do?). However, recent events demonstrate the depth of ignorance in the media of my 'science' of economics - I know we inhabit part of Floppit's grey area but it scares me to see supposedly intelligent and informed people who are suckered by political spin. My recent favourite headline was about the Chancellor or PM summoning the heads of credit card companies to ask why their rates were going up. Lots of guff was talked but no-one explained the relationship between increased risk of default in a recession and increased rates.

On the more general point, skills are a slightly different matter from knowledge or information - these relate to the ability to do something such as write cogently and concisely without jargon. However, the gray area is more substantive - hence my earlier post. Many in the so-called "social sciences" teach that qualitative research is as valid - or even more valid - than quantitative analysis or experiment.

I've learnt more about human behaviour from a professional interest in consumer behaviour (a sub-set of marketing and very quantatively focused) than I ever did from studying sociology or human geography with their stress on qualitative analysis. But in marketing I know the story of how a former armed robber and drug addict was turned round is always more effective than the dry statistics about the effectiveness of the interventions concerned.

[Acleron]

Scientists must realise that they have to justify their existence in the same way as bankers, manufacturers or artists. There are fantastic things going on in science but hardly anyone knows about them. People need to be inspired to support science and to do that they need to understand it, at least at a basic level.

I'm quite sure that that research scientists have to justify their efforts by their applications for grants. But I would argue that bringing down their efforts to the level of bankers would not do very much for them. Scientists and artists can only exist in a rich society that can support them. Popularising science is good, it will bring in more young people but sooner or later it has to be realised that research into science will produce benefits to the whole of society that cannot be quantified in a research grant application.

[Mulder]

I'm quite sure that that research scientists have to justify their efforts by their applications for grants.

Ultimately, that money comes from the public, whether through taxes, donations or purchasing products. The people allocating grants need to justify spending money on research and it is a lot easier if they have the support of those providing the money. During a recession, in particular, public opinion may call for research to become much more narrowly based, on economic goals or immediate relief of human suffering.

Preparation of grant applications is taking up more and more of scientists' time. Increasingly, there is a requirement to justify research against narrower criteria of immediate gain. In the long term, such 'easy wins will no longer be possible because the 'blue sky' research is no longer providing the fundamental breakthroughs that drive science forward.

[Acleron]

Preparation of grant applications is taking up more and more of scientists' time. Increasingly, there is a requirement to justify research against narrower criteria of immediate gain. In the long term, such 'easy wins will no longer be possible because the 'blue sky' research is no longer providing the fundamental breakthroughs that drive science forward.

The exclusion of 'blue sky' research for immediate gain has been progressing for some years and you are right that the recession will probably tighten things further. However, perhaps lessons could be learned from those companies that allow open ended research as well as short term gain oriented research. IBM and Google appear to be moderately successful.

[Floppit]

Many in the so-called "social sciences" teach that qualitative research is as valid - or even more valid - than quantitative analysis or experiment.

I think the method of study chosen should reflect the nature of the question needing to be answered. For example, if we want to know why an otherwise middle of the road school has a high trauncy rate amongst older pupils. There are numbers which can be crunched, social demographics, staff turnover, exam results etc. but it would be hard to beat actually asking the truanting kids as a source of information. Only they could tell you that the kids from Chavworth are picked on severly so they bunk off. Different kids, different issues but that used to be my job and the quality of the information would be implausible to match through number crunching. It takes an 10yr old to say 'When they tell you it's their professional opinion all they mean is 'I'm right, you're wrong', it means you don't have a say'. That strikes home to a room full of professionals because they bloody well KNOW they have done that, and they also know that 10 yr olds don't get the legalities of professional status, that when said to an 10 yr old it's a misuse of 'professional opinion'. I would get asked to discover why children don't use their rights as much as would be expected, why they don't want to share their views and for THAT question there's a usefulness in qualatitive data.

There is a place for both sources of information. What used to amaze me in social services was the amount of data stored - a mind blowing amount. I couldn't understand why it went largely unused. There are hot issues such as cross cultural/ethnic group adoption/fostering, on a national basis. It could be measured whether to send a BME child out of county (miles away from home) or foster them within a white british local family is best in terms of life chances, stability etc - nobody measures it though, actually they do but no-one puts the numbers together. Instead a black kid who says going out of county is wrong and that they would rather stay nearby is viewed as lacking in cultral identity so shipped even faster and further away. I don't know who's right in that debate but for THAT question the answer isn't in qualitative research because it is so conflicting depending on age and beliefs.

the crux is what's being asked, the methods are tools but while those who study spanners refuse to engage with hammers and those who study hammers snub even the suggestion of a spanner I think the misuse and confusion between what they are and what they do will continue.

Ten years ago I hated qualitative research, I still dislike large chunks of the way it's done and used BUT by looking at it closer I think I've understood the quantative and qualitative better as well as appreciating how they could potentially work together.

Just out of interest, (if there are any physicists out there) in the more complex realms of physics is there an equivalent of qualitative research? By that I would mean where a small part or individual is looked at closely knowing that it cannot be replicated? That question might be dumb but I can take it if it is.

[Floppit]

Grant application is one end of the chain, however at the other end the science community sometimes has to sell itself in a way that changes entrenched behaviour within billions of people in order to make the science functional in creating change. Without that ability science becomes just for it's own sake, distant and further doubted - something I would hazard a guess influences the number of young people wanting to enter the scientific fray!

I have a very good friend who's an excellent geologist and is currently engaged in much persausion of landowners to A) be able to study what they need to and B) to make it worth studying.

[Mulder]

The 'hard sciences' deal as much with qualitative and quantative (these are horrible words - are there some better alternatives) as any other. The story about actually asking the kids why they bunk off school is a good example.

If a physicist needs to understand a problem they will obviously use every method to obtain all possible data on it. The maths bit usually comes later to make sense of all the information. Maths crunching of collected data can tell you things that no amount of looking at the detail will ever reveal. It's a vital tool but doesn't replace the data itself.

You need both qualatitive and quantative (yuk!) approaches equally in all sciences. To neglect either means you'll probably miss important stuff.

[Pebble]

The 'hard sciences' deal as much with qualitative and quantative (these are horrible words - are there some better alternatives) as any other.

You need both qualatitive and quantative (yuk!) approaches equally in all sciences. To neglect either means you'll probably miss important stuff.

The social sciences and business/political community have hijacked qualitative research to mean talking to people without any standardised method of neutralising the impact of your own predjudices in interview structure or subsequent analysis. We certainly gain new information from such approaches, but it is very difficult to know what we are learning about. Science does demand neutralising the impact of the observer irrespective of whether we are working qualitatively or quantitatively. Even in qualitative research reproducibility of main findings by several independent observers should be a minimum standard.

[Acleron]

The social sciences and business/political community have hijacked qualitative research to mean talking to people without any standardised method of neutralising the impact of your own predjudices in interview structure or subsequent analysis. We certainly gain new information from such approaches, but it is very difficult to know what we are learning about. Science does demand neutralising the impact of the observer irrespective of whether we are working qualitatively or quantitatively. Even in qualitative research reproducibility of main findings by several independent observers should be a minimum standard.

Agreed, but please sober up first.

[Mongrel]

Agreed, but please sober up first.

Pish and Tosh

It's Friday night