Chapter Two: How Do
Social Workers Know
Things?
Scientific Method
• Scientific Method p. 12 - an
approach to inquiry that
attempts to safeguard against
errors commonly made in
casual human inquiry.
– Features include:
• Viewing all knowledge as
provisional and subject to refutation
• Searching for evidence based on
systemic and comprehensive
observation
• Pursuing objectivity in observation
• Replication
Scientific Method
• Emphasizes the pursuit of
objectivity.
• Everything is open to question.
• The ideal of objectivity vs. the
reality.
– Empirical (RB, p. 19): empirical
evidence is evidence based upon
observation.
• The act of observation affects the
observed.
• Important to acknowledge biases.
– Back to the blind men and the
elephant
– Replication (RB, p. 20): “Replication
means duplicating a study to see if the
same evidence and conclusions are
supported.”
– Extension (replication over a different
time period):
• i.e. What did human needs mean 18001921, and what did is mean 1921-1969 to
the National Conference on Social
Welfare?
Ways of Knowing
• Ann Hartman’s Editorial In
Social Work
• Social workers as witnesses:
– “Perhaps one might call social
work witnessing. The idea
being that one is in a privileged
position to witness and help
alleviate human suffering and
harm and therefore has a
responsibility to testify to society
about its nature. The goal
shouldn't be to withdraw from
that role but to fully implement it,
no?” (Dover 2005)
• Practice Wisdom
Other Ways of Knowing
• Charles Ragin’s Elements of Social
Research (Handout):
– Research as one way of constructing
“representations of social life”
– Others: films, novels, diaries,
process recordings of your practice
and interactions
Other Ways of Knowing
• Tradition (RB, p. 13)
– Each generation does not have to relearn
the lessons that created the present body of
knowledge.
– “Knowledge is the cumulative, and an
inherited body of information and
understanding is the jumping-off point for
the development of more knowledge.”
– In practice tradition may involve
conforming to an agency’s preferred way
of doing things.
• Example of substance abuse treatment.
– Downside of tradition:
• Erroneous assumptions
• Overconfidence in veracity of current
knowledge
• Sanction of controversial questions
Other Ways of Knowing
Continued
• Authority (RB, p. 13)
– Considering the reputed expertise of the
source of information in deciding whether
to be guided by that information.
– Knowledge is more likely to be accepted if
it comes from an authority
• e.g. scholarly sources such as journals,
reliable sources, etc.
– “Can help and hinder human inquiry.”
– MD: Resistance to “Expert knowledge” or
the “cult of the expert”
Other Ways of Knowing
Continued
• Common Sense (RB, p. 14)
– Pros: Pragmatic and can generate
scientific research questions
– Cons: Risky and insufficient
– Why not research whether common sense
makes sense?
• Popular Media (RB, p. 14)
– Pros: Source of digested research results
• Only as good as the journalist
who did the abstracting of results
• If an independent review of the
cited sources shows a good
source, can be helpful in
informing practice and clients
– Cons: Source of new but unvalidated
results and misinterpretation
Recognizing Flaws
• Inaccurate Observation (RB, p.
15) – All inquiry is based on
observation.
– Occurs when we are too causal in our
observations, not making deliberate
attempts to reduce errors.
– Essential to know what is occurring
before we can determine why it is
occurring.
– Human Observation vs. Scientific
Observation
• General human observation is
unsystematic and haphazard
• Scientific observation is conscious
activity and thereby reduces error
Recognizing the Flaws
Continued
• Overgeneralization (RB, p. 15) –
the assumption that a few similar
events are evidence of a general
pattern
– occurs when we generalize based on
an insufficient number of observations
• PB example of interviewing
“rioters”:
– My research in Detroit in 1967 - If you
don’t overgeneralize, can be a source
of valuable hypotheses for further
research, such as role of exempt
property in deterioration of cities.
• Science guards against it with large
samples and replication (hopefully
independent)
Recognizing the Flaws
Continued
• Selective Observation (RB, p. 16) - We
attend to events that correspond to our
predictions and overlook contradictions.
– “The world is as we see it.”
• The review of peers assists scientist to
control for this source of error
• Value of using eco-systems approach to
organize research findings in a way
which guides practice, and avoids
selective observation:
– “Nobody Loves You When You’re
Down and Out: Knowledge of the
Psychosocial Consequences of
Unemployment, 1979 and 2004”
(Dover 1979 and Dover in progress,
see blackboard)
Recognizing the Flaws
• Ex Post Facto Hypothesizing
(RB, p. 16)
– Making new hypothesizes based
on one studies results
• Happens when we think up
reasons to explain away
inconsistencies between what we
believe and what we observe
• Ok to do as long as we test the
new hypothesis, otherwise it is just
made-up information
– EXAMPLE: Battered women’s
outreach
– EXAMPLE: Abandonment of the
seduction theory (Freud and Fliess)
Recognizing the Flaws
• Ego Involvement in
Understanding (RB, p. 17)
– Can create error when we resist
accepting observations that make us
look less desirable
• Always a danger
• Partially controlled for in science by
peer review.
• Commonly seen in program evaluation
research.
Recognizing the Flaws
Continued
• Premature Closure of Inquiry (RB, p.
18)
– Occurs when we rule out certain
lines of inquiry that might produce
findings that we would find
undesirable
• Overgeneralization, selective
observations, made-up information,
and defensive uses of illogical
reasoning.
– A particular type of treatment that
works with one client does not
mean it will work with all clients
Illogical Reasoning
– "the exception that proves the rule”
– "gambler's fallacy”
• a good turn of luck is just around
the corner.
– Related: string of good or bad
luck seen as a real trend
– Saved by not wearing a seatbelt
• Key Concept:
– anomalies
Illogical Reasoning
Continued
• Straw Person Argument (RB, p.
18)
– When someone attacks a particular
position by distorting it in a way that
makes it easier to attack
• Ad hominem attack (RB, p. 18)
– Attack the messenger rather than the
message
• Bandwagon Appeal (RB, p. 18)
– where a relatively new intervention is
touted on the basis of its growing
popularity
Illogical Reasoning
Continued
• Mystification - occurs when
attribute things we do not
understand to supernatural or
mystical causes.
– Assertion of the unknowable- A
cherished belief about practice
effectiveness must be true and is
beyond the ability of researchers
to test out.
– An article of faith in science is
that everything is potentially
knowable
To Err is Human…
•
Science differs from casual,
day-to-day inquiry in two
ways:
1. Science inquiry is a conscious
activity
– we decide what, how, and for how
long we will observe the object or
phenomenon of interest.
2. Scientific inquiry is more
careful than our causal efforts
Objectivity and
Subjectivity in Scientific
Inquiry
• Paradigms (RB, p. 19)
– fundamental model or scheme
that organizes our view of
something
• Research Traditions (Laudan)
Objectivity & Subjectivity
• Acts a frame of reference that
help shape our observations
and understandings
– Positivist paradigm –
emphasizes the pursuit of
objectivity in our quest to
observe and understand reality
– Social constructivist –
emphasizes multiple subjective
realities and the most
impossibility of objectivity
– Postmodernism (an extreme
form of Constructivism)– an
objective reality does not even
exist
Key Concepts By Page
• Direct, personal inquiry 11
• Scientific method 11
• Direct experience and observation
(how we know things, p. 11)
• Everything is subject to refutation
(tentative until proven) 12
• Everything is open to question 12
• Authority 12
• Dogma 12
• Empirical Support (G) 12
• Tradition 13
• Common Sense 14
Key Concepts By Page
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Inaccurate observation 15
Overgeneralization 15
Replication of inquiry (G) 16
Selective observation 16
Ego involvement in
understanding 17
Ex post facto hypothesizing 17
Ad Hominem Attack
Bandwagon effect or appeal 18
Straw person argument 18
Illogical reasoning 18
Premature closure of inquiry 18
Key Concepts By Page
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Positivist paradigm (G) 19
Postmodernism (G) 19
Positivism (G) 19
Social constructivist paradigm
(G) 19
Modernism 19
Frame of reference (paradigm)
19
All knowledge is provisional
(tentative until proven beyond
reasonable doubt)
Hypothesis (G) 323
Key Concepts ABC
• Ad Hominem Attack
• All knowledge is considered
provisional (tentative until proven
beyond reasonable doubt)
• Authority 12
• Bandwagon effect or appeal 18
• Common sense 14
• Direct experience and observation
(how we know things, p. 11)
• Direct, personal inquiry 11
• Dogma 12
• Ego involvement in understanding
17
• Empirical Support (G) 12
• Everything subject to refutation 12
Key Concepts ABC
• Everything is open to question
12
• Ex post facto hypothesizing 17
• Frame of reference (paradigm)
19
• Hypothesis (G)
• Illogical reasoning 18
• Inaccurate observation 15
• Modernism 19
• Overgeneralization 15
• Positivism (G) 19
• Positivist paradigm (G) 19
Key Concepts ABC
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Postmodernism (G) 19
Premature closure of inquiry 18
Provisional knowledge
Replication of inquiry (G) 16
Scientific method 11
Selective observation 16
Social constructivist paradigm
(G) 19
• Straw person argument 18
• Subject to refutation
• Tradition 13
Key Points Ch. 2
1. Remember what Ann Hartman said
about many ways of knowing? And
how Charles Ragin pointed out that
researching social life is much like
other forms of inquiry such as
journalism? Our attempts to learn
about the world we live in come
from all sources, including direct
experience, tradition, authority, and
direct, personal inquiry. But
research is a special form of
learning about the world. This is
not to say that science offers total
protection against the errors that
nonscientists commit in casual,
day-to-day inquiry, it doesn’t. But
we try.
Key Points Ch. 2
2. Often, social workers tend to view
psychiatrists and pschologists or
social workers who have doctorates
as authorities, when for all you
know that MSW with a clinical
license and his doctorate did a
dissertation on property tax
valuations in Ohio’s urban areas,
so he is no more an authority on
clinical social work than any other
MSW with 10 years of post-MSW
experience working with
individuals. Let’s not set each
other up as an authority just based
upon degrees. When a social
worker makes a practice decision
based upon the advice of someone
just because they have a doctorate
or some other credential, they are
basing that decision not on
evidence but on authority.
Key Points Ch. 2
3. But let’s say that that person with a
doctorate just authored a small study of a
particular intervention and it wasn’t based
on a random sample in any case.
Wouldn’t there be a danger of
overgeneralization? Yes. In that case,
what would be one way to try to gather
further data? Well, you wouldn’t want to
replicate the study, since it wasn’t based
on a random sample anyway, and
perhaps there wasn’t a control group that
received a standard intervention to which
it could be compared. But let’s say it was
a well-designed study, but the sample
was small. One way to guard against
overgeneralization would be to do a
replication of this study with another
random sample from the same or similar
population.
Key Points Ch. 2
4. It is important not to prematurely close
inquiry, thinking you already know
enough. That’s a good lesson for our
research in this class on SWK 100
students and the time schedules of social
work majors and intents. Replication of a
study is often a good idea, and there is
nothing wrong with not exactly duplicating
the study, if flaws were found. Improve
by all means, even if it means items
aren’t identical from year to year. After
all, the sample has changed as well, and
changes in samples are likely to affect
answers more than changes in questions!
Don’t assume an intervention is a
success if there is a risk that there was a
premature closure of inquiry. For
instance, in last year’s SWK 100 study,
the one’s studied were the ones who
showed up for class, but there were a lot
of absences! Anyway we could solve that
problem? A blackboard survey by any
chance?
5. One of the worst errors in is to ignore
events that don't correspond with a
previously observed pattern of events is.
That is called selective observation. It’s
important not to try to thing that concepts in
the text mean what they might mean in
everyday usage. For instance, selective
observation doesn’t mean something like
choosing the wrong sample or picking
which items to pay attention to. Nor does it
mean the same thing as selection bias,
covered in chapter 16. It means what it
says it means in chapter 2, it is a common,
human thing to do. You are used to seeing
a pattern of events. You see something
new and different that might contradict what
you thought, and you disregard it! That is
what selective observation means in this
context. And the best antidote to it is using
a clear research design, consulting with
colleagues about the previous patterns and
the new observations (rather than ignoring
them), and planning research which studies
things over time and across a sufficient
number of observations that you can
ascertain whether a newly observed finding
is truly an exception to the rule or evidence
that your rule needs to be rethought!
6. Another hard to understand word is
“ex post facto hypothesizing”.
Unless you studied a lot of Latin or
had a Latin dictionary handy, you
wouldn’t know that “ex post facto”
means “after the fact.” Ex post
facto hypothesizing is fine if it
means you did an inductive study,
the kind where you start without
any clear hypotheses and collect
data and then afterwards try to
theorize about what you saw.
That’s especially ok if you plan to
do more research later. It really is
legitimate to engage in ex post
facto hypothesizing if doing so
requires additional research.
Key Points
• 7. But if your ex post facto
hypothesizing amounts to
explaining away your inability
to confirm your initial
hypothesis, that’s a source of
common misinterpretation of
findings. Yes it’s illogical, but
there are lots of kinds of
illogical reasoning, this after
the fact hypothesizing, a
specific kind of flaw in scientific
reasoning.
Key Points
• 8. Ok, we’ve talked about Latin, now what
about your typical everyday language.
For instance, common sense. I’m sure
you will realize that the scientific method
doesn’t tend to put much store in
common sense. So even if you might
think common sense is a good thing in
general, on the average research test,
common sense may not get you very far.
Knowing Latin, maybe. Common sense,
problem know. But what about knowing
what words like “straw person” means?
Priceless. Me, I’m always clueless and
have to look it up, even though I’ve been
the victim time and time again of straw
person attacks. You say A, someone
says you said B and since B makes no
sense whatsoever, you make no sense
whatsoever. So what a straw person
argument does is distort the position of
the person you are trying to attack.
Key Points
• 9. Now let’s move from Latin to
Philosophy! It is the
philosophy of science and
social science which has
developed these concepts
such as paradigm. A paradigm
is simply a frame of reference
shared by a number of people
within a field or subfield.
Another way of thinking about
a paradigm is that it is a
fundamental model or scheme
that organizes our view of
something.
Key Points
• 10. One paradigm is the
positivist paradigm, and you
will hear a lot about how this
paradigm strongly emphasizes
the pursuit of objectivity. You
will hear that it believes in
maximizing precision and
objectivity in testing whether an
intervention reduces an
undesirable behavior. The
positivist paradigm embraces
rather than rejects the pursuit
of objectivity in our quest to
observe and understand
reality.
Key Points
• 11. Whereas you will hear that the social
constructivist paradigm does, and for the
purposes of this course and the quiz, that
is true, because the social constructivist
paradigm stresses that people have
multiple subjective realities. But what if it
is objectively true that people have such
multiple senses of reality, can’t we study
those perceptions objectively?
Philosophically, the issue is whether or
not we as scientists believe that there is
some objective reality. Postmodernism is
a point of view which actually does
believe that there are only multiple
subjective realities, and questions the
existence of an objective external reality.
So it goes beyond mere social
constructionism, which although it is
referred to as a paradigm by the authors
is really in my opinion a theoretical point
of view held by people from any number
of epistemological perspectives.
Modernism and postmodernism are more
than pardigms, they are philosophies of
science about how we understand the
world around us, they are
epistemologies.
• 12. In my paper, Teaching Yourself
to Write A Thesis: Several Easy
Steps, which I’ve posted on the
website, I cite Michael Mann as
saying that it matters little whether
the sociologist advocates
positivism, interpretivism or realism
or some other epistemological point
of view, since in reality the
sociologist operates “as if they
could apprehend and describe
reality through the process of
operationalization, and as if they
could rely on absolute standards of
scientific proof for their results to be
evaluated” (Mann, 1981: 548,
emphasis in the original). (Not on
quiz)
Key Points
• 13. A word on overgeneralization: The
bottom line is that it refers to drawing
conclusions about an entire population
from a sample of that population which
wasn’t representative. Or, it refers to
drawing conclusions about population B,
when the research was on population A.
That’s not selective observation! That’s
overgeneralization. Yes, the conclusions
draw from overgeneralization may be
inaccurate, but they are not inherently
inaccurate. In fact, they may not be
inaccurate at all! Population B may in
fact be like Population A. But you don’t
know that because you overgeneralized
based on the study available.
• 14. You are sure to be asked about ego
involvement. Basically that’s a form of bias in
which you lose your ability to evaluate
whether research is effective because you
have so much ego involvement in the results.
I mean let’s say let’s say you and your
colleagues use nothing but ACT for treating
cancer, despite the fact that ECT is used in
Canada and Europe because of the
cardiotoxicity of the A drug and because
since it took so long to get E approved in the
USA it costs 22 times as much here in the
states. You see a study from France, one
from Italy, and one from the US (but with the
US one done by a doctor with consultant ties
to the drug coming making E.) You put down
the studies about ECT because it is not on
the list of the approved regimens at the top
20 research universities, as approved by the
board on which you sit! You call ECT an
unnecessary treatment no more effective or
less toxic than ACT and you call yet another
new cancer treatment used at a top medical
school not in your consortium an “outlaw
treatment.” That’s a great example of “ego
involvement” in evaluating research studies.
It goes on all the time, and is done even by
leading clinicians. Ego involvement is when
you are biased against something because it
threatens your authority, the tradition in which
you work, or threatens your own work.
Key Points
• 15. Now that doesn’t mean you
should disregard agency traditions.
The ethics say you should respect
your colleague’s findings, but that
doesn’t mean you should agree
with them. It also doesn’t mean
you should disregard authority,
since the ethics discuss the
appropriate use of consultation and
stress our accountability (but note
they don’t say as much about
supervision as you might think!).
Think critically, and realize that
tradition and authority aren’t always
what they are cut out to be, but you
have an obligation to seek out
alternative sources of knowledge or
research findings that might
challenge that authority or tradition.
Key Points
• 16. After all, all existing knoweldge, even
that based on authority or tradition should
be:
• Provisional (tentative until proven true)
• Ssubject to refutation
• Supported by objective observations
• Supported by systematic and
comprehensive observations
• Supported by a large and diverse sample
of observations
• Supported by observations gathered in
ways that seek to reduce the influence of
researcher biases
• It is not enough that it is supported by the
teaching of a few authoritative scientists.