Search results

The article examines the problem of relations between the General and the Unique in the social and political sciences. The author highlights the different views on this perspective: some scientists explain specific cases by bringing them under general theories and laws while others researchers emphasize that each case, each phenomenon is unique and shouldn't be generalization. The author theorizes that there is a methodological bridge between the generalizing spirit of social science and uniqueness of events and cases.

AbstractConfused students researching papers not knowing where they are going. Articles, lectures, and books on exciting topics that turn out to be boring. Such familiar phenomena are symptoms of a widespread, largely unconscious methodological habit of focusing on topics rather than problems. This habit rests on views about knowledge that are deeply ingrained in commonsense knowledge and in the methodology of mainstream social science. Such views saturate the understanding of scientific inquiry assumed by most methods textbooks. This article criticizes the method of topics and contrasts it with the method of problems. The word "topic" suggests that there is some surface to cover, but not why covering it might be interesting. Interesting research is problem-driven. It begins with a sense that something is amiss with existing knowledge and requires explanation. Problem-driven research begins, not with collection of data or facts, or with clarification of concepts, but with identification of inconsistencies or gaps in existing knowledge. It seeks to solve problems through free invention and severe criticism of hypotheses.