DOMINANT APPROACHES

AND IDEAS IN THE

SOCIAL SCIENCES
 3 CLASSIFICATIONS:
1. POSITIVISM
Structural-Functionalism
Rational Choice Theory
Institutionalism

2. INTERPRETIVE SOCIAL SCIENCE

Hermeneutic Phenomenology
Symbolic Interactionism

3. CRITICAL SOCIAL SCIENCE

Feminist Theory
Marxism
Psychoanalysis
Human-Environment Systems Source:
Jose, M. D., & Ong, J. (2016). Disciplines and Ideas in the Social Sciences. Vibal Group, Inc.
 INTERPRETIVE
SOCIAL SCIENCE
Hermeneutic Phenomenology
Symbolic Interactionism
INTERPRETIVE SOCIAL
SCIENCE: AN OVERVIEW
▪ Interpretive Social Science or simply Interpretivism, this
approach claims that people create and associate their own
subjective meanings as they interact with the world around
them.
▪ Methodological approach based upon understanding the
interpretations and meanings people give to actions
▪ Interpretivists (a.k.a. interpretivism researchers) focus on
trying to gain an insight into the experiences of individuals and
groups
KEY IDEAS OF
INTERPRETIVISM
 KEY IDEAS OF
INTERPRETIVISM
▪Society is constructed
of individuals who
have free will
 KEY IDEAS OF
INTERPRETIVISM
▪Looks at individual
meanings –
microsociology
 KEY IDEAS OF
INTERPRETIVISM
▪Looks to obtain qualitative
data and is more subjective
 KEY IDEAS OF
INTERPRETIVISM
▪Individuals are unique in
their interpretations of
events and cannot be
scientifically studied
 POSITIVISM vs. INTERPRETIVISM
POSITIVISM
❖ ONLY those objects or events can be
experienced directly should be the object of
OVERVIEW inquiry
❖ There is an objective knowledge out there
that can be discovered by the human mind
❖ Positivism assumes the belief that
WHEN APPROPRIATED researchers simply “find” or “observe”
in the SOCIAL research findings
SCIENCES and
HUMANITIES
RESEARCH
❖ Aim of research is scientific explanation of
social phenomena and individual behavior
(Neuman, 1997 as cited in Disciplines and
Ideas in the Social Sciences, 2016)
AS an APPROACH in ❖ Merging deductive logic with clear-cut
RESEARCH empirical explanations of individual behavior
in order to ascertain and verify a set of
possible laws that can be used to foresee
general patterns of human actions
INTERPRETIVISM
❖ There is no objective knowledge out there waiting to be
discovered
❖ Interpretivism assumes the belief that the
meaningfulness of the research findings is dependent on
the interpretation of the researcher
❖ Focuses on analytically disclosing the meaning of the
findings, while showing how this meaning configures to
generate observable outcomes
❖ Interpretivism attempts to reach an understanding of a
phenomenon through an interpretation of the elements
of the study
❖ Interpretivist researchers belief that access to reality is
possible on through social constructions (i.e. language,
consciousness, shared meanings, documents, and other
artefacts)
 POSITIVISM vs. INTERPRETIVISM
POSITIVISM
❖ ONLY those objects or events can be
experienced directly should be the object of
OVERVIEW inquiry
❖ There is an objective knowledge out there
that can be discovered by the human mind
❖ Positivism assumes the belief that
WHEN APPROPRIATED researchers simply “find” or “observe”
in the SOCIAL research findings
SCIENCES and
HUMANITIES
RESEARCH
❖ Aim of research is scientific explanation of
social phenomena and individual behavior
(Neuman, 1997 as cited in Disciplines and
Ideas in the Social Sciences, 2016)
AS an APPROACH in ❖ Merging deductive logic with clear-cut
RESEARCH empirical explanations of individual behavior
in order to ascertain and verify a set of
possible laws that can be used to foresee
general patterns of human actions
INTERPRETIVISM
❖ There is no objective knowledge out there waiting to be
discovered
❖ Interpretivism assumes the belief that the
meaningfulness of the research findings is dependent on
the interpretation of the researcher
❖ Focuses on analytically disclosing the meaning of the
findings, while showing how this meaning configures to
generate observable outcomes
❖ Interpretivism attempts to reach an understanding of a
phenomenon through an interpretation of the elements
of the study
❖ Interpretivist researchers belief that access to reality is
possible on through social constructions (i.e. language,
consciousness, shared meanings, documents, and other
artefacts)
 HERMENEUTICAL
PHENOMENOLOGY
 HERMENEUTICS PHENOMENOLOGY
Art of understanding and theory of The study of experience and how
interpretation we experience

HERMENEUTICAL PHENOMENOLOGY
A form of phenomenology in which research is oriented
toward interpreting “texts” of life (hermeneutical) and lived
experiences (van Manen, 1990)
 HERMENEUTICS PHENOMENOLOGY
Art of understanding and theory of The study of experience and how
interpretation we experience

HERMENEUTICAL PHENOMENOLOGY
A form of phenomenology in which research is oriented
toward interpreting “texts” of life (hermeneutical) and lived
experiences (van Manen, 1990)
HERMENEUTICAL PHENOMENOLOGY:
AN OVERVIEW
▪ It is a philosophy and a method for
interpreting human experiences as a means to
understand the question what is it to be human
▪ Sometimes referred to as interpretive
phenomenology or existential
phenomenology
▪ The hermeneutic phenomenology of
research is conducted through empirical
(collection of experiences) and reflective
(analysis of their meanings) activities (Fuster,
2019).
▪ In this sense, according to Van Manen (2003),
the methods are description of personal
experiences, conversational interview, and
close observation (Fuster, 2019).
 HISTORICAL
ROOTS OF
HERMENEUTICAL
PHENOMENOLOGY
 PHENOMENOLOGY: EDMUND HUSSERL
(1859-1938)
▪An inquiry on how the human
mind can grasp the true nature
of things as experienced in the
world
▪It is a question how a thorough
examination of experiences of
the world can provide deeper “Within the bounds of positivity we say and find
it obvious that, in my own experience, I
insight and perception of the experience not only myself but others—in the
particular form: experiencing someone else.” –
world Edmund Husserl
 PHENOMENOLOGY: EDMUND HUSSERL
(1859-1938)
▪ Suggested that prejudgments,
prejudices, and biases must first be
removed in order to grasp the
essential nature of things
▪ Hoped that a thing would reveal
what it truly is if these unnecessary
descriptions are removed “Within the bounds of positivity we say and find
it obvious that, in my own experience, I
▪ “to go back to the things experience not only myself but others—in the
particular form: experiencing someone else.” –
themselves” – describing a for Edmund Husserl
what is really is reveals its universal
truth
PHENOMENOLOGY: EDMUND HUSSERL
(1859-1938)
▪ To remove preconceived ideas in
order to arrive at a pure description
of experiences
▪ Was first a student of mathematics
before philosophy
▪ Epoche/Bracketing – removal of
preconceived ideas as means to “Within the bounds of positivity we say and find
it obvious that, in my own experience, I
arrive at something for it really is, and experience not only myself but others—in the
it is not based on our prejudices, particular form: experiencing someone else.” –
Edmund Husserl
allows us to gain a deeper insight into
the nature of the thing
Example:

We may know someone who is a

working single mother. We could
describe her by her job and
company, by the amount of time she
spends with her children (or the lack
thereof), by the clothes that she
wears, or by her friends and the like.
 HERMENEUTICAL PHENOMENOLOGY:
MARTIN HEIDEGGER (1889-1976)
▪ Similarly seeks truth in things as
experiences in the world
▪ It attempts to see truth in things as a
means to understand what it is to be
human
▪ Interpret experiences of the world
to find truths, which can be used to
learn about human existence or
being “The most thought-provoking thing in our
thought-provoking time is that we are still not
thinking.” – Martin Heidegger
 HERMENEUTICAL PHENOMENOLOGY:
MARTIN HEIDEGGER (1889-1976)
▪ Humans are born in particular historical
period, country, community, and
background
▪ The human mind is shaped by these
factors and is therefore constitutive of
how we experience and interpret the
world
▪ More concerned with how experiences
are interpreted and how they generate
meaning
“The most thought-provoking thing in our
▪ What is the revelation of the thing mean thought-provoking time is that we are still not
thinking.” – Martin Heidegger
for you?
 HERMENEUTICAL PHENOMENOLOGY:
MARTIN HEIDEGGER (1889-1976)
▪ Throwness – humans are thrown into the
world which already possess established
rules, norms, standards, histories, and
societies 🡪 Heidegger’s concept of
being-in-the-world
▪ The world where humans exist was long
established before one is born 🡪 An
individual’s awareness of the world is
influenced by the world itself, and these
pre-established facets cannot be
removed from one’s consciousness as “The most thought-provoking thing in our
thought-provoking time is that we are still not
he/she experiences the world thinking.” – Martin Heidegger
 HERMENEUTICAL PHENOMENOLOGY:
MARTIN HEIDEGGER (1889-1976)

▪ Husserl focused on understanding beings or phenomena, Heidegger

focused on Dasein or “the mode of being human” or authentic human
being
▪ The hermeneutics of Dasein is to highlight that he/she is always found in a
spatio-temporal context within he/she lives.
STRENGTHS &
CRITICISMS OF
HERMENEUTICAL
PHENOMENOLOGY
 STRENGTHS
▪ Hermeneutical phenomenology as a social science approach
helps researchers to clarify lived experiences and expose
meaning through a process of understanding and interpretation
(Wilcke, 2002)
▪ It allows the experiences of people to be presented in a
straightforward and suggestive manner, giving the reader an
opportunity to imaginatively take part into the experiences
described
▪ It also serves a vehicle for readers to reflect on the meaning of the
experiences described, reminding them that experiences are far
more complicated than we actually think
CRITICISMS & LIMITATIONS
▪ It is criticized for its findings, which, because of their subjectivity
and specificity, cannot be used as basis for policy frameworks
▪ Its micro-level analysis is also cited as one of its weaknesses
since it focuses on individual experiences and not on the effects
of structures on individuals’ understanding and interpretation of
their experiences
▪ It lacks the application of scientific method 🡪 lacks an actual
method
 SYMBOLIC
INTERACTIONISM
SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM: AN
OVERVIEW
▪ Individual’s interactions with objects and other people
▪ Behavior influenced and can only be examined through social
interactions
▪ Explores the social dynamics between people and how they assign
meanings to things
▪ Meaning is not monopolized by a single person or a perspective,
something can have different meanings as there are different
perspectives
SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM: AN
OVERVIEW
▪ Meaning is not monopolized by a
single person or a perspective,
something can have different
meanings as there are different
perspectives
INTERACTIONIST VIEW
▪ Actions are determined by the meaning people associate with things
Example: A tree can be perceived as a source of shade during hot
day or as a means to produce thousand sheets of paper
▪ Symbolic interaction sees reality not just as meanings but sees
meanings as constitutive of reality itself
Example:

The Filipino word for window is

‘bintana’ which came from the
Spanish word ‘ventana’
Spanish: a window is associated
with ventilation which allows cold
air to circulate around the house
and the hot air to replaced by a cool
breeze
Example:

Filipino: formal word is “dungawan” and something to look outside

on (a place where Filipinos could socialize at)
Changes over time – from “dungawan” to “bintana”
Therefore, symbolic
interactionism explores not
just associations of meanings
but also changes that occur
within the association
 HISTORICAL
ROOTS OF
SYMBOLIC
INTERACTIONISM
 HERBERT BLUMER (1900–1987)
▪Humans act toward things on
the basis of the meanings that
things have for them
▪The meanings of things derive
from social interaction

“The fact that the human act is

self-directed or built up means in no sense
that the actor necessarily exercises
excellence in its construction. Indeed, he
may do a very poor job in constructing his
act.”
– Herbert Blumer
▪These meanings are handled in
and modified through an
interpretive process used by
the person in dealing with the
things they encounter
▪Role Play – ability to perceive
the object of conversation
through the eyes of the other

Source: Santo, M. L. (2017, September 17). Martial Law

Musicals: Theatre of a New War? The Theatre Times. Retrieved
September 20, 2022, from
https://thetheatretimes.com/martial-law-musicals-theatre-new-war/
 GEORGE HERBERT MEAD (1863–1931)
▪Language allows communication
through which attitudes,
opinions, emotions and ideas are
conveyed between individuals
▪Symbols, gestures, and sounds
▪Understand internalized opinions

“History is always the interpretation of the

present.” – George Herbert Mead
CHARLES COOLEY (1864–1929)
▪Looking Glass Self Theory –
self is understood as that
which is formed from
interactions (i.e. those done
with the primary
group–family)
▪Self-conscious emerges
through the lens of the other
CHARLES COOLEY (1864–1929)
▪Through encounters in
interaction, the individual
formulates a self-identity by how
others perceive them
▪Therefore, the individual
recognizes himself in the eyes of
the other

“I am not what I think I am, and I am not

what you think I am. I am what I think you
think I am.” – Charles Cooley
STRENGTHS &
CRITICISMS
OF
SYMBOLIC
INTERACTIONISM
 STRENGTHS
▪ Among the strengths of symbolic interactionism as a social
science approach is the recognition that people are symbol users,
that one can examine society by concentrating on the subjective
meanings that people impose on things, incidents, and actions
▪ Another strength is the claim that people respond to others based
on their understanding of the situation, that people behave based
on what they perceived to be true and not on are objectively true
▪ The recognition that society is a process by which people have
constructed meanings and have negotiated social interaction
CRITICISMS & LIMITATIONS
▪ Lack of testability due to its focus on small group interactions
▪ Unsystematic, unreliable in analyzing empirical data and in predicting
outcomes of social activities
▪ Relies on qualitative data
▪ Cooley’s development of the self is based on the person’s imagination
and reflection
▪ Imagination is not always based on reality and the person might create
self-identity that is completely separate from reality