Performative and Traditional Social Sciences - Definitions and Differences - Assignment Example

Performative social science (or PSS) is an emerging and growing discipline of specialised human knowledge. At the outset, PSS was essentially considered as part or parcel of the social sciences such as sociology. The domain of PSS, in fact, comes generally from the social sciences. In spite of the origin of PSS, the performative social science is, at certain extent, a departure from the traditional social science (or TSS). As it appears, the theoretical framework, methodology, ethical concern, and evaluative facet inherent in the performative social science are quite divergent to the traditional social science in many and varied respects. This paper discusses the definitions of PSS and TSS. Moreover, this essay follows and answers the queries asked by Yallop, de Vallejo, and Wright concerning performative social science. Finally, it tackles the divergences or differences between performative and traditional social sciences. Of Definition: Performative Social Science Theory Yallop, de Vallejo, and Wright ask two important questions concerning the theoretical framework of performative social science: where is it coming from and where is it going to? The first question inquires the specificity of field discipline in which the performative social science comes from or directly associated to. The signifier “where” signifies a location or cite wherein the topic in question is previously and presently situated. Perhaps this quarry is connected to the current dominant thought pertaining to the discipline-based field of study. That is to say, a particular theory is embedded in a particular body of knowledge possessing a unique and systematic approaches and principles. In the process, PSS as a theory requires a field discipline in order for such theory to be validated or construed. Roberts has historised the emergence of the theory of PSS; he notes that the origin of performative social science comes from the rise of “performance studies” (Roberts). Performance studies are associated to the study of “drama in social relations.” Thence, PSS comes from the interconnectedness or overlapping between two fields of discipline, namely, literature and social science in their “technical” terms. The second question addresses the potentiality of the creation of a distinct body of knowledge in which it involves and revolves around the concept and praxis of PSS. The clause “where to go” entails a futuristic time in which PSS will ultimately or possibly arrived at. Here, the objective of PSS is interrogated. In this note, Roberts warns us that defining or coming up with the discipline or paradigm of PSS is not a matter of simple opposition -- of the new against the old. In fact, Worthen persuasively argues of the futility of forming or reforming the idea of PSS based from oversimplified opposition or argumentation; he contends that such argumentation fails to sufficiently “capture the rich, contradictory, incommensurable ways” the two paradigms that are being engaged or interrogated at. Roberts seems to say that PSS as an emerging “discipline” should be perceived in a distinct manner in which it is far from the common perception of text versus performance. Method Of the methods of PSS, Yallop et al. pose two general questions: what are its methods and how these methods change the doing or performing of the “dominant” research of today? The first question, on the one hand, inquires the many and probably varied methods characterised in PSS. In the PSS paradigm, methods or methodologies are arguably manifold and multifaceted. Madge provides one valuable example of a particular method to be used in the research work with the application of “tools” prominent in performance social science: virtual interviews over the Net (184). Among other qualitative researchers, Gergen and Jones have utilised the tools of the Internet in exploring the terrain of performative social science. In their A Conversation about Performative Social Science, they heavily employ the electronic mail as a tool in doing, communicating, and applying the PSS framework. Thence, Gergen and Jones become both the researchers and the participants in the exploration and experimentation of performative social science. The second question, on the other hand, concerning PSS methodologies interrogates the ways in which such methodologies alter or change the perception or notion of the dominant methods marked in contemporary discipline-centred practice. In the traditional social science, the methodologies used are commonly done through the utilisation of print media and PowerPoint presentations (Yallop et al.). With the sharp contrast pertaining to methodologies between traditional and performative, the latter fundamentally revolutionises the process or processes inherent in the latter’s research methodology. The basic change of doing research with respect to PSS is the change of relationships among groups (e.g., participants and researchers) involved in the research endeavor or activity. Ethics Of the ethics concerning PSS, Yallop et al. have presented two fundamental questions: what are its ethical concerns and what are the ways of ensuring that participants are ethically represented? The first question seeks the things or factors associated to ethics in doing or performing activities (e.g., research) characterised in PSS. Among the things that concern ethics, the human factor -- especially the researcher involved in the PSS work -- is the central focus of such ethical matter; the researcher, which includes his or her interpretation, is subject to ethical interrogation. Within the system of performative social science, researchers -- besides the participants or subjects -- are vital in the outcome of the research project. The tools or materials (e.g., choice of language) that they used have the subtlety of influencing or shaping the reading or interpretation of the subject being discussed. Moreover, researchers -- despite their aim of “objective” research -- possess subjectivity inherent in their backgrounds and foregrounds (e.g., educational and social). Conquegood categorises ethics with respect to the researcher among other peoples as his or her virtue, good intention, and commitment to “values such as justice, honesty, and respect” (qtd. in Denzin, “Qualitative Inquiry” 167). On the other hand, Doane suggests a reflexive form of ethics; that is to say, a researcher has to be conscious in his or her observation -- moving “back and forth between self and other” (100). On the one hand, the second question addresses the ways or elements in which one (i.e., researcher) can ensure and assure that participants or subjects in the research are well represented. In the realm of PSS, the choice of participants (e.g., their number and group background) is very essential for it greatly shapes the result or impact of the research being undertaken. To be ethically represented, the qualitative researcher has the moral duty to choose properly and appropriately the subjects for his or her work. Evaluation Of evaluating the research in the PSS paradigm, Yallop et al. have presented two major questions: who evaluates it and how can it be appraised? First, the query on the evaluation of a research work which is done in the PSS format addresses the particular person or group of persons that should evaluate or appraise such work. In the performative social science, there are many “stakeholders” at stake here: researcher, subject, audience, among other peoples. In contrast to the traditional social science -- its evaluator is mainly the academic scholar or researcher -- the evaluators in PSS are quite complex and complicated. Researchers are no longer at the center stage as the sole entity who appraises the study in question. Subjects have, Mienczakowski says, voices of their own (qtd. in Denzin, “Performing Evaluation” 152) -- voices which are not given by certain pundit. Secondly, the query refers to the process or processes in which the evaluation or appraisal should be undertaken. Yallop et al. seem to value the qualitative aspect of the appraisal; they ask on what constitutes “quality.” Here, it appears that Yallop et al. are not deviating from the traditional type of social science; they still emphasise the meaning or concept of “quality” based from the “academic frameworks.” Thence, Yallop et al. implicitly answer the question of who reviews the PSS work: academic people. Of Definition: Traditional Social Science Theory Fay says that the traditional social science highly considers the “heteronomic character of social scientific causal generalizations” not as a liability but as a virtue (qtd. in Martin and McIntyre 108). That is, the social science does not explore or examine the “truthfulness” of general knowledge or principle but rather values it as something inherent or probably self-evident. Martin observes that such social science attempts to model or imitate certain principles or premises characterised in the natural science. In contrast to the natural science, however, the traditional social science views its validity, truth, or principle as it is. Knowledge or truth concerning the world and men is not only existing but also graspable by the social scientist through the interpretation of its “causal generalizations.” Martin argues that the social scientist in its traditional sense is someone who “see[s] his causal generalizations … [as a means of] alter[ing] the way they (i.e., subjects) live.” As opposed to PSS, traditional social science highly stresses the importance of the qualitative researcher in the research endeavor -- even at the expense of the participants. Of where it comes from and where is it going, the traditional social science originates from the natural science and moves forward towards a world wherein it is altered according to the social scientist’s generalised knowledge. Method On the other hand of the scale, MacIver views the traditional social science as a departure from the natural science or what he calls as the physical science. He observes that the attempt of this social science to “conform to [the] methods” eminent in the physical science has caused disappointment and “suffered greatly” (qtd. in Singh 6-7). MacIver provides ample examples of this “suffering” or disappointment in which the social science in the traditional sense has hurdled. The methodology utilized in the physical science, MacIver contents, is measurable in the mathematical fashion while the social science’s method is generally not measurable or quantifiable. MacIver gives the quantifiable and unquantifiable aspects of the signifier “time” (14). In the social science and even in the natural science, time as a meaning is difficult to be grasped for the reason that it is not measurable like the unquantifiable nature of happiness or pain. Of the method of the social science, MacIver describes it as the search for the “relation of means to ends” (15). As it appears, MacIver distances himself from the debate pertaining to cause and effect which is prominently the “way” of the natural science. Further, he states that the method of this social science is the choosing of certain social phenomena in which the researcher or social scientist is interested in. As if agreeing to MacIver’s thesis, Davis argues that the method of the social science depends on the appropriateness to a specific question (16). Further, the methodology common in TSS is largely text-based. Ethics Kitchener categorises ethics notable in the social science as a type of applied ethics (qtd. in Mertens and Ginsberg 6). In this kind of ethics, the principles characterised in the normative ethics are applied in order to “resolve specific moral issues in concrete and particular settings.” That is, the ethics in the social science is the practice of “[h]ow should an individual behave.” Almost similar to the ethics salient in PSS, the ethics in the traditional social science greatly concerns the ways or characters in which the individual involved in the research (i.e., the researcher) is asked to “behave” in an appropriate manner. But unlike PSS, the ethics in this sort of social science is more formalist in character. Here, ethics refers to the consistency of following the systematic methodologies marked in such paradigm. To be ethical, a social scientist has to abide the rules and premises in performing his or her work. The participants or subjects are hardly given a role or function in the act that is ethical in nature. Evaluation In the traditional social science, the individuals who evaluate research works are apparently those peoples coming from the sphere of the academe. The world and its representations, for these traditional scholars, are only graspable or knowable to highly trained and specialised individuals. Conversely, laymen who have no training or discipline in a particular field of study (i.e., social science) have no capacity, if not right, to review or evaluate certain “academic” or research work. Thus, the social scientist -- by virtue of his or her educational training -- is the only professional entity who is capable of reviewing and construing one’s research endeavor. Martin reveals the intention of the social scientist and, in the process, shows how this “scholar” views his or her participant or subject: that this subject is a passive character both in thought and action within the field of the traditional social science. Of what constitutes “quality,” perhaps the “quality of mind” of the social scientist is the measure or category. Interpretations, readings, and translations of and about the world and men generally constitute an aspect or level of quality when the social scientist possesses a “great” intellect. Intelligence is, presumably, directly proportional to the educational background of the said researcher. Of Differences: Between PSS and TSS Theory The origins of performative and traditional social sciences are divergent. The former comes from several fields of discipline while the latter comes from one particular field of human knowledge. Performative social science, on the one hand, is an outgrowth of the merging or overlapping of two or more distinct bodies of knowledge: drama and social science. The pioneers of PSS have greatly used, implicitly or explicitly, the interconnection and interrelatedness of these two areas of knowledge that essentially become the so-called performance studies. At the outset, the overlapping and perhaps crisscrossing of drama and social relation have generated an idea or theory of an existing, or possibly that is to exist pertaining to a, system or paradigm quite unique to the “present” or traditional social science. Here, it seems that the “social relation” has overpowered “drama” or literature, yet, in the present context, PSS is an on-going field of study. On the other hand, the traditional social science generally comes from the physical science such as physics. Here, the systematic methodologies, categories, and even “axioms” marked in the natural science are explored and expanded into the domain of the human society and environment. When the exploration and expansion become evidently futile, the traditional social science has departed from the physical science altogether. In contrast to PSS, the social science in the traditional sense has formed or reformed its own sphere quite different from the field of discipline in which it originates. The “future” of performative and traditional social sciences is arguably similar and different. In terms of their sameness in relation to where they are going, PSS and TSS belong to the domains of the social sciences. PSS, for one, is an emerging discipline wherein it is more renowned in the sphere of the social sciences such as ethnography. In the future, perhaps PSS and TSS as two divergent fields of knowledge will no longer be divergent after all. Perhaps PSS will be viewed in the future as one of the many disciplines of the “social science” or perhaps PSS will be the social science itself. In terms of their central difference, PSS and TSS are probably going into different directions. TSS might remain as it is -- that is, a domain of human knowledge in which it operates with a sense of limits or boundaries. Departing from the physical science, the traditional social science is presently perceived as a highly specialised text-based body of knowledge. And in contrast to TSS, the future of the performative social science is fluid and malleable; text and performance are obscured. PSS is susceptible to change or modification. In fact, it is an on-going process of sea change. Method The methodologies in performative and traditional social sciences are widely different. In PSS, on the one hand, the methods are wide-ranging. In TSS, on the other hand, the methods are limited and probably limiting. The methodologies in performative social science include, but not limited to, the usage of modern-day technologies such as the Internet. Moreover, PSS goes beyond the text-based methods. What is fascinating in the performative social science is the employment of performance-centred methodology. Unlike the traditional social science, the qualitative researchers in the PSS domain actively participate, say, in the literary or drama activities (e.g., draft making of the play). It must be noted here that the main role of qualitative researchers is, by and large, to gather and probably to organise data from the information generated by the participants or subjects. In the participative performance, qualitative researchers consider their subjects not as spectators but as actors in the on-going process of doing and performing. There are exchanges and collaborations between researchers and participants. In performative social science, researchers do not only “organized” the research endeavor but also do several tasks such as becoming participants themselves. As opposed to PSS, the traditional social science heavily uses a text-based methodology. In doing research, for example, social scientist in the field of TSS uses written documents probably of or about the past in which he or she can obtain relevant information. Individuals from the TSS domain limit their works or activities based from the available data that they possess. If, for instance, the social scientist employs the interview tool in getting certain amount and “quality” of data, its limit is grounded on the fact that it is fixed or one-sided. Conversely, qualitative researchers from the performative social science undergo a complicated and intricate process or processes of back and forth -- from participants to researchers and vice versa -- in practicing, performing, or using their tool (i.e., interview). The methods applied in performative and traditional social sciences have great impacts to the results of the research being undertaken. In the PSS paradigm, its methodology subverts the existing method of doing research within the realm of the social sciences. The performance-based research more pronounced in the performative social science dramatically alters the perception or treatment of research as a whole. In the process, the roles of the researcher and the participant tremendously shift, if not blur. As method or approach changes, the relationship between the researcher and the subject also changes. In PSS, the researcher no longer assigns empowerment to his or her participant but rather the participant and the researcher are treated or viewed as persons with power and autonomy unique to them. In the traditional social science, however, the text-based methodology shapes the outcome of the research endeavor. Almost a dead-end, the methods or approaches in the TSS domain generate a border or frontier between persons involved in the work. Here, the social scientist obtains, through one-way approach, certain information or data about the subject in question. Like the natural science, the methodology practiced in the specialised field of traditional social science is hinged on the principle or theory that the subject is a passive one (i.e., not influencing the research both implicitly and explicitly) and that the social scientist is an active entity who has the ability or skill to organise or collect data from the specimen at hand. In general, the existing deviation between PSS and TSS with respect to their methodologies is much visible in the roles that the researchers and the participants greatly play. Thus, their individual and distinctive methods fundamentally alter the performance of and perception towards their research works or undertakings. Ethics The ethical concerns of performative and traditional social sciences are far from similar; their main difference is the perspective that they take. In the PSS, on the one hand, the perspective is personal, if not “subjective.” Unlike the TSS field, the performative social science is dynamic in approaching the subjective-oriented perspective. This is the central ethical concern of PSS: the ethical consideration of the qualitative researcher to his or her subject or subjects. Performative social science questions the applied ethics prominent in the traditional social science. In contrast to the latter, the former is more transparent and fluid. The researcher in the disciplinary area of PSS moves here and there -- from him or her to the “other” and vice-versa -- in order to fully see of what is going on. PSS, as it appears, has an implication to the epistemology of human knowledge. Perhaps from this epistemology, ethical concerns arise from the domain of the performative social science. In the TSS system, on the other hand, the primary ethical concern is formalistic in orientation. That is, persons involved or participating -- “actively” or “passively” -- in a particular research work are not considered or accounted as an integral part of ethics. Social scientist only performs the rules inscribed in the ethical standard that is set, or assumed to be there, in carrying out his or her project. Moreover, the ethical concern of the TSS paradigm centers on the “quality” of thinking and interpreting by the technical social scientist with regard to his or her subject in question. In terms of the ethical representation of participants, the performative and traditional social sciences are utterly varied. The sharp contrast between PSS and TSS is the categorisation or signification of the signifier “participant.” For the performative social science, the roles of qualitative researcher and of subject are undetermined, if not indeterminable. This is the special feature of the PSS domain: the researcher becomes the participant him- or herself. Qualitative researcher is conscious and, in fact, acknowledges the influence or impact of which he or she can make in performing the research task. In PSS paradigm, the methods, approaches, participants, and even the language chosen have intrinsic character that subtly affects and effects the result or results. Unlike the PSS, the traditional social science views the social scientist as the researcher while the subject as the participant. Evaluation Of who reviews the project, the performative and traditional social sciences are in the opposite direction. Qualitative researchers in the PSS discipline are still in the process of determining concerning the reviewer of the research work in question. With the blurring of researchers and participants, the performative social science is faced with the dilemma, at least for the moment, of the “right” entity or person who will review or construe a particular work. Since the qualitative researcher becomes the participant him- or herself, the question rises of whether or not the “participant” (i.e., subject) in the research project has the capacity or ability to evaluate the truthfulness or ethical aspect of such project. As opposed to the PSS system, the traditional social science has already a fixed reviewer who evaluates the work under consideration. Works Cited Davis, Michael. Justice in the Shadow of Death: Rethinking Capital and Lesser Punishment. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 1996. Print. Denzin, Norman K. Qualitative Inquiry Under Fire: Toward a New Paradigm Dialogue. California: Left Coast, 2009. Print. Doane, Gweneth. “Reflexivity as Presence: A Journey of Self-Inquiry.” Reflexivity: A Practical Guide for Researchers in Health and Social Sciences. Eds. Linda Finlay and Brendan Gough. Oxford: Blackwell Science, 2003. Print. Fay, Brian. “General Laws and Explaining Human Behavior.” Reading in the Philosophy of Social Science. Eds. Michael Martin and Lee C. McIntyre. Massachusetts: Massachusetts IT, 1994. Print. Gergen, Mary, and Kip Jones. “Editorial: A Conversation about Performative Social Science.” Forum: Social Research 9.2 (2008): n.p. Print. Madge, Clare. “Internet Mediated Research.” Key Methods in Geography. 2nd ed. Eds. Nicholas Clifford, Shaun French, and Gill Valentine. London: Sage, 2010. Print. Mertens, Donna M., and Pauline E. Ginsberg, eds. The Handbook of Social Research Ethics. California: Sage, 2009. Print. Roberts, Brian. “Performative Social Science: A Consideration of Skills, Purpose and Context.” Forum: Qualitative Social Research 9.2 (2008): n.p. Print. Singh, Yogesh Kumar. Fundamental of Research Methodology and Statistics. India: New Age International, 2006. Print. Worthen, W. B. Shakespeare and the Authority of Performance. New York: Cambridge UP, 1997. Print. Yallop, John J. Guiney, Irene Lopez de Vellejo, and Peter Wright. “Editorial: Overview of the Performative Social Science Special Issue.” Forum: Qualitative Social Research 9.2 (2008): n.p. Print. Read More