Questions: Philosophy of Social Science: Epistemology and Methods

Question 1

A positivist and an interpretivist researcher both study 'trust in government.' How would each operationalize 'trust,' and what would count as evidence?

Model answer: The positivist would operationalize trust as survey responses to standardized items (e.g., 'How much of the time do you trust the government to do what is right?'), measure it across a large sample, and look for correlations with predictors. The interpretivist would examine how 'trust' is understood and discussed in context — through interviews, focus groups, or discourse analysis — and ask how actors construct, maintain, and contest the meaning of trustworthy government.

The choice of method is not arbitrary — it follows from paradigmatic commitments about what trust is. For the positivist, trust is a latent variable with a measurable intensity. For the interpretivist, trust is a relational and culturally situated accomplishment whose meaning must be discovered, not assumed.

Question 2

What does it mean for observation to be 'theory-laden'? Give an example from social science.

Model answer: Theory-laden observation means that what researchers see and record is shaped by prior theoretical commitments — the categories they use, the questions they ask, and what counts as relevant data all reflect theory. Example: whether a researcher categorizes an informal payment as 'corruption' or 'gift exchange' depends on theoretical assumptions about markets, norms, and institutional boundaries that are not visible in the raw behavior itself.

This does not mean objectivity is impossible, but it does mean that 'just looking at the data' is not a paradigm-neutral position. Making theoretical commitments explicit is what makes research criticizable and improvable.