Search results

Why should social scientists be interested in using molecular genetic data? Here are five reasons:

While skeptics dismiss Darwinian approaches to behavior, some social scientists hail evolutionary psychology as a "new science" that will revolutionize how we understand behavior and society. What is the promise and pretense in this new phase in the evolution of sociobiology?

Across the medical and social sciences, new discussions about replication have led to transformations in research practice. Sociologists, however, have been largely absent from these discussions. The goals of this review are to introduce sociologists to these developments, synthesize insights from science studies about replication in general, and detail the specific issues regarding replication that occur in sociology. The first half of the article argues that a sociologically sophisticated understanding of replication must address both the ways that replication rules and conventions evolved within an epistemic culture and how those cultures are shaped by specific research challenges. The second half outlines the four main dimensions of replicability in quantitative sociology—verifiability, robustness, repeatability, and generalizability—and discusses the specific ambiguities of interpretation that can arise in each. We conclude by advocating some commonsense changes to promote replication while acknowledging the epistemic diversity of our field.

Social science and genetic science still have fairly little engagement with one another, but the continued swift development of genetic science has certainly gained social scientists' attention. First, some social scientists are incorporating techniques from quantitative and molecular genetics into their work. Genetic data are increasingly recognized as providing valuable leverage even for research animated by strict interest in social environmental causes. Second, social scientists have been interested in understanding aspects of genetic science as a social phenomenon. This literature identifies possible noxious effects of uncritical public acceptance of genetic science, although how consistent these speculations are with public opinion and other available data is less clear. Because public understanding of genetics can influence behavior and social policies in ways that affect the ultimate causal potency of genes themselves, adequately theorizing genes as causes requires integration of these two lines of inquiry.