class: center, middle, inverse, title-slide .title[ # SSPS4402</br>Philosophy of Social Science Research ] .subtitle[ ## Week 03</br>Post-positivism in the Social Sciences ] .author[ ### Francesco Bailo ] .institute[ ### The University of Sydney ] .date[ ### Semester 1, 2026 (updated: 2026-03-02) ] --- background-image: url(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6a/Logo_of_the_University_of_Sydney.svg) background-size: 95% ## Acknowledgement of Country I would like to acknowledge the Traditional Owners of Australia and recognise their continuing connection to land, water and culture. The University of Sydney is located on the land of the Gadigal people of the Eora Nation. I pay my respects to their Elders, past and present. --- Francesco Bailo (francesco.bailo@sydney.edu.au) I am a Senior Lecturer in the School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Sydney and co-director of the [Centre for AI, Trust and Governance](https://www.sydney.edu.au/arts/our-research/centres-institutes-and-groups/centre-for-ai-trust-and-governance.html). I am interested in research the impact of information and communication technologies on political engagement and organisation. I am interested in computational and mixed-methods. I have a book coming out in 2026 on how to use Wikibase for interdisciplinary research (happy to take questions on this!). This year I am teaching CISS6022 (S1), SSPS4102/SSPS6006 (S1), GOVT3901 (S2) and GOVT6139 (S2). --- # Post-positivism: A Critical Perspective ## What is Post-positivism? - **Definition:** Emerged in response to positivism’s limitations; rejects foundationalist epistemology and embraces fallibilism. - **Central belief**: Knowledge is always tentative, supported by empirical evidence but open to continuous testing and revision (Popper’s idea of knowledge as "conjectural"). - Seeks a balance between empirical rigor and epistemological humility. > “The postpositivist sees knowledge as **conjectural**. These **conjectures** are supported by the strongest (if possibly imperfect) warrants we can muster at the time and are always subject to reconsideration.” (Burbules & Phillips, 2000). --- ## From my dictionary... > ## <svg viewBox="0 0 448 512" style="height:1em;position:relative;display:inline-block;top:.1em;" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"> <path d="M448 360V24c0-13.3-10.7-24-24-24H96C43 0 0 43 0 96v320c0 53 43 96 96 96h328c13.3 0 24-10.7 24-24v-16c0-7.5-3.5-14.3-8.9-18.7-4.2-15.4-4.2-59.3 0-74.7 5.4-4.3 8.9-11.1 8.9-18.6zM128 134c0-3.3 2.7-6 6-6h212c3.3 0 6 2.7 6 6v20c0 3.3-2.7 6-6 6H134c-3.3 0-6-2.7-6-6v-20zm0 64c0-3.3 2.7-6 6-6h212c3.3 0 6 2.7 6 6v20c0 3.3-2.7 6-6 6H134c-3.3 0-6-2.7-6-6v-20zm253.4 250H96c-17.7 0-32-14.3-32-32 0-17.6 14.4-32 32-32h285.4c-1.9 17.1-1.9 46.9 0 64z"></path></svg> > **conjecture** | kənˈdʒɛktʃə | > *noun* > an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information: *conjectures about the newcomer were many and varied | [mass noun] : a matter for conjecture.* > - an unproven mathematical or scientific theorem. > - [mass noun] (in textual criticism) the suggestion of a reading of a text not present in the original source. --- ## Historical Context: From Positivism to Post-positivism .pull-left[ - **Positivism**: - Founded by Auguste Comte (see Figure <svg viewBox="0 0 448 512" style="height:1em;position:relative;display:inline-block;top:.1em;" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"> <path d="M190.5 66.9l22.2-22.2c9.4-9.4 24.6-9.4 33.9 0L441 239c9.4 9.4 9.4 24.6 0 33.9L246.6 467.3c-9.4 9.4-24.6 9.4-33.9 0l-22.2-22.2c-9.5-9.5-9.3-25 .4-34.3L311.4 296H24c-13.3 0-24-10.7-24-24v-32c0-13.3 10.7-24 24-24h287.4L190.9 101.2c-9.8-9.3-10-24.8-.4-34.3z"></path></svg>), advanced by Logical Positivists. - Asserts knowledge derives *exclusively* from observable, measurable facts. - Rejects unverifiable statements as meaningless speculation (Logical Positivism).] .pull-right[<img src = 'https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Auguste_Comte.jpg'>] --- .pull-left[ #### Criticism of Positivism: - Oversimplifies scientific inquiry. - Fails to account for theory-laden perception and the complexity of human knowledge. #### Emergence of Post-positivism: - Philosophers like Karl Popper (<svg viewBox="0 0 448 512" style="height:1em;position:relative;display:inline-block;top:.1em;" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"> <path d="M190.5 66.9l22.2-22.2c9.4-9.4 24.6-9.4 33.9 0L441 239c9.4 9.4 9.4 24.6 0 33.9L246.6 467.3c-9.4 9.4-24.6 9.4-33.9 0l-22.2-22.2c-9.5-9.5-9.3-25 .4-34.3L311.4 296H24c-13.3 0-24-10.7-24-24v-32c0-13.3 10.7-24 24-24h287.4L190.9 101.2c-9.8-9.3-10-24.8-.4-34.3z"></path></svg>) and Thomas Kuhn argued against certainty, promoting fallibilism and critical inquiry. > “Scientists—according to these views—are no less human, and no less biased and lacking in objectivity, than anyone else; they work within frameworks that are just that: frameworks.” (Burbules & Phillips, 2000). ] .pull-right[<img src = 'https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Karl_Popper.jpg'>] --- ## Philosophical Commitments of Post-positivism - **Fallibilism**: - Human knowledge is inherently tentative and provisional, subject to revision based on new evidence or criticism. > “Our best methods for securing knowledge are apt occasionally to fail. They may, like a hung jury, yield no verdict, leaving us in ignorance about the matter at hand. But sometimes they do worse. In counting undetected errors as knowledge, they yield false positives.” (Elgin, 1996, quoted in Burbules & Phillips). --- .pull-left[ - **Warranted Assertibility** (John Dewey <svg viewBox="0 0 448 512" style="height:1em;position:relative;display:inline-block;top:.1em;" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"> <path d="M190.5 66.9l22.2-22.2c9.4-9.4 24.6-9.4 33.9 0L441 239c9.4 9.4 9.4 24.6 0 33.9L246.6 467.3c-9.4 9.4-24.6 9.4-33.9 0l-22.2-22.2c-9.5-9.5-9.3-25 .4-34.3L311.4 296H24c-13.3 0-24-10.7-24-24v-32c0-13.3 10.7-24 24-24h287.4L190.9 101.2c-9.8-9.3-10-24.8-.4-34.3z"></path></svg>): - Rather than seeking absolute truth, post-positivists seek beliefs that are justified or "warrantably assertible" given current evidence. - **Truth as a regulative ideal**: - Truth guides the research process but is understood as an ideal rather than an attainable endpoint. ] .pull-right[ <img src = 'https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/John_Dewey_cph.3a51565.jpg'> ] --- ## Activity 1: Fallibilism and Policy Change – When Social Science Research Gets It Wrong **Time**: 30 minutes **Format**: Small group discussions + Class-wide Padlet ### 1. Warm-up Discussion (5 min) - Can you think of a **government policy or law** that was based on ‘scientific’ research but was later overturned or revised? Base your answer to historical and contemporary cases. .center[Please respond on [Padlet](https://sydney.padlet.org/francescobailo/can-you-think-of-a-government-policy-or-law-that-was-based-o-geothee9e99xtxq4) (Link from Canvas, slide or QR Code) <img src = 'https://padletcdn.com/cgi/fetch?disposition=attachment&url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.padletcdn.com%2Fpadlets%2Fgeothee9e99xtxq4%2Fqr_code.png%3Fsource%3Dimage' width = '20%'> ] --- ### 2. Group Case Study (20 min) Pick one of the examples on Padlet (or alternatively **Stop-and-Frisk Policies**, **Voter ID Laws and Electoral Fraud**, **Austerity Economics**). ### Answer these questions (find relevant sources on the Internet if you can or want) 1. What original research justified the policy? 2. What later evidence or critique led to its revision? 3. How does this illustrate fallibilism in social science? Discuss these your answers then summarises key points on Padlet with a new post. --- ## Nonfoundationalism and the Nature of Knowledge - **Critique of Foundationalism**: - No ultimate or unquestionable foundation for knowledge exists (neither rationalist nor empiricist). - All claims must be critically evaluated and remain open to challenge and revision. > “There are no ultimate sources of knowledge. Every source, every suggestion, is welcome; and every source, every suggestion, is open to critical examination.” (Popper, quoted in Burbules & Phillips, 2000). - **Illustrations**: - Historical shifts in scientific understanding (e.g., counting human chromosomes incorrectly—48 corrected to 46). - Theories are constantly refined or replaced, showing knowledge as provisional. --- ## Theory-laden Perception and Underdetermination - **Theory-laden Perception**: - Observations always depend on the observer's existing beliefs, theories, and expectations (e.g., basketball analogy—observers see different events based on background knowledge). > “What an observer sees, and also what he or she does not see, and the form that the observation takes, is influenced by the background knowledge of the observer—the theories, hypotheses, assumptions, or conceptual schemes that the observer harbors.” (Burbules & Phillips, 2000). - **Underdetermination of Theory by Evidence**: - Empirical data alone can support multiple competing theories. - Observations never fully determine theoretical conclusions; background assumptions influence interpretations (Duhem-Quine thesis). --- ## Objectivity, Subjectivity, and Bias - **Post-positivist view of objectivity**: - Objectivity refers to transparent, rigorous methods that are open to scrutiny by others—not absolute neutrality. - "Objective" does not necessarily mean "true," as even widely accepted scientific claims have later proven false (chromosome example). > “The fact is, objectivity does not *guarantee* that a belief or viewpoint is true… Scientists had good reason to accept [the idea of 48 chromosomes] for it was warranted by ‘objective’ evidence, that is, the best evidence that was available at the time.” (Burbules & Phillips, 2000). --- ## **Understanding Subjectivity and Bias in Research** ### **Subjectivity in Research** - **Definition**: Subjectivity refers to the **inevitable** influence of an individual's background, experiences, and theoretical commitments on how they perceive, interpret, and analyse information. - Post-positivists acknowledge that **complete neutrality is impossible**—every researcher has prior knowledge, disciplinary perspectives, and assumptions that shape their inquiry. - **Example**: Two researchers analysing the same classroom discussion may focus on different aspects depending on their theoretical orientation (e.g., a cognitive psychologist might focus on memory retention, while a sociologist might focus on group dynamics). - Observation is not ‘neutral’; what an observer sees, and how they describe it, is shaped by their theoretical framework and background knowledge. --- ### **What is Bias?** - **Definition**: Bias refers to a **systematic distortion** in research that affects results in a way that is **unjustified or misleading**. Unlike subjectivity (which is inherent to all inquiry), bias is problematic when it skews findings or undermines the validity of knowledge. - Bias can arise from **methodological flaws, cultural assumptions, or selective use of data**. .pull-left[<img src = 'https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Great_white_shark_south_africa.jpg'>] .pull-right[<img src = 'https://www.cnet.com/a/img/resize/c65e302ad87035390098700413f95b66d7ff4422/hub/2015/01/21/2c44c4c1-2b2e-4930-b19e-c3a3f8f48e84/2015-infiniti-qx80-14.jpg?auto=webp&width=1200'> <span style="font-size:0.7em; line-height: 20px; display:block">**1,313** people killed in Australia in **past 12 months** according to the Australian Government. **Between 1791 and Feb 2026**, **262** people killed by sharks in Australia according to the Australian Shark-Incident Database, or about 1 person a year on average.</span> ] --- ## The Origin and Meaning of "Bias" ### Historical Origin of "Bias" - The term **"bias"** originates from the game of **lawn bowls**. - In lawn bowls, balls are **weighted off-center**, causing them to **curve when rolled**. - This means they do not travel in a straight line but always **veer away from the direct path**. ### Implications for Human Bias - **Bias in individuals** functions similarly to the curving movement of the biased ball. - It represents a **deep-seated characteristic or attitude** that consistently shapes behavior. - Often, **bias is seen as relatively immune to eradication**. - It is typically regarded as **illegitimate in contexts requiring objective evaluation**. --- ### Examples of Bias in Social Contexts - A **mathematics professor** might be biased against **football players**, assuming they lack mathematical ability simply because they are “jocks.” - An **employer** might harbour **biases against certain groups**, such as **Jews or women**, regardless of their actual job performance. .content-box-yellow[ - **Bias is not just a momentary opinion** but a **fundamental orientation** that affects judgment. - **Recognising bias** is crucial in ensuring **fairness and objectivity** in decision-making. - **Overcoming bias** requires **deliberate awareness and effort** to counteract unwarranted assumptions. ] --- #### **Types of Bias in Research** 1. **Cultural Bias** – When research methods or interpretations reflect the norms, values, or assumptions of one cultural group over others. - *Example*: Early intelligence (IQ) tests were criticised for favouring **Western, middle-class knowledge**, leading to **systematic disadvantages** for individuals from different backgrounds. 2. **Confirmation Bias** – The tendency to seek, interpret, or prioritise evidence that supports pre-existing beliefs while ignoring contradictory evidence. - *Example*: A researcher studying gender differences in education may selectively highlight findings that support traditional gender roles while overlooking counterevidence. 3. **Selection Bias** – When the sample chosen for a study is not representative of the broader population. - *Example*: A study on student engagement that only includes high-performing students may **overestimate engagement levels** in the general student body. 4. **Measurement Bias** – When research instruments or tools systematically favor certain outcomes. - *Example*: A survey with **leading questions** can influence participants’ responses, distorting findings. > “An intelligence test should be labeled as biased if it has a built-in element that will systematically turn it away from the ‘true’—in this case, from giving a measure of ‘intelligence’ rather than some other factor such as class or ethnicity.” (Burbules & Phillips, 2000). --- ## The most famous example of bias in research During World War II, statistician Abraham Wald analysed the damage on returning bombers and made a counterintuitive recommendation: instead of reinforcing the areas that showed the most bullet holes, he advised adding armor to the areas that appeared undamaged. .center[<img src = 'https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/Survivorship-bias.svg' width = '35%'>] - Why do you think Wald suggested reinforcing the parts of the aircraft that showed no visible damage? - What does this reveal about survivorship bias, and how can failing to account for it lead to flawed conclusions in research? --- ### **How to Address Bias in Research?** To uphold **post-positivist principles of rigorous inquiry**, researchers must actively **identify, minimise, and account for biases** through careful methodological design and critical reflection. **Strategies to Reduce Bias**: ✅ **Transparency** – Clearly document research processes, decisions, and limitations. ✅ **Peer Review & Reflexivity** – Engage with **critical feedback** from other scholars to identify potential blind spots. ✅ **Diverse Perspectives** – Incorporate **multiple viewpoints** and interdisciplinary approaches. ✅ **Replication & Triangulation** – Use **multiple methods or data sources** to verify findings and reduce reliance on any single perspective. Post-positivism does not claim **absolute objectivity** but emphasizes **methodological rigor** and the **systematic examination of assumptions** to produce the most **credible, justifiable knowledge**. > “Objectivity does not guarantee that a belief or viewpoint is true… but the best evidence available at the time must be used, with the awareness that new findings may later refine or revise our understanding.” (Burbules & Phillips, 2000). --- ## Activity 2: Survivorship Bias in Social Science – Who Gets Counted in Research? **Time**: 30 minutes **Format**: Whole-class interactive analysis + Group Reflection (Google Slides, but pen and paper will also do if you don't have a computer!) ### 1. Warm-up Discussion (5 min) .pull-left[ Think again about the Wald’s bomber study... .center[<img src = 'https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/Survivorship-bias.svg' width = '40%'>] .center[**How might this bias appear in social science research?**] ] .pull-right[ .center[Please respond on [Padlet](https://sydney.padlet.org/francescobailo/how-might-this-bias-appear-in-social-science-research-9s82ppcghmwwbtbh) (Link from Canvas, slide or QR Code) <img src = 'https://padletcdn.com/cgi/fetch?disposition=attachment&url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.padletcdn.com%2Fpadlets%2F9s82ppcghmwwbtbh%2Fqr_code.png%3Fsource%3Dimage' width = '40%'> ] ] --- ### 2. Group Analysis (15 min) Each group to get one of these real-world examples .small[ - **Crime Statistics** – Only reported crimes are counted, underestimating hidden crimes like domestic abuse. - **Political Polling** – Polls often exclude low-income, digitally disconnected or simply politically disengaged populations. - **Economic Inequality Studies** – Focus on wage earners, ignoring undocumented or informal labourers. - **Migration Research** – Focus on migrants who successfully integrate, missing deported or marginalised individuals. Each group to discuss and prepare a **1-minute presentation summary** on 1. What is missing from the data? 2. How does policy change when bias is accounted for? 3. How can researchers correct for survivorship bias? ] .center[Link to [Google Slides here](https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1sTyMtLRpIKnqfXOeBfrfud2_-soJxgRwEe_FeRSd57A/edit?usp=sharing) or on Canvas]. --- ## Truth, Belief, and Multiple Realities - **Truth vs. belief**: - Strong belief does not equal truth (e.g., controversy around recovered memories demonstrates that subjective certainty doesn't equal empirical validity). > “It is a confusion—and a pernicious one—to say that because a person believes X, and another doesn’t, that X is both true and not true.” (Burbules & Phillips, 2000). --- ## Scientific Inquiry as a Social Activity - **Community of inquiry**: - Research occurs within professional communities sharing paradigms (Thomas Kuhn). - Community standards and collective judgments determine which claims are accepted as knowledge. > “The very existence of science depends upon vesting the power to choose between paradigms in the members of a special kind of community.” (Kuhn, quoted in Burbules & Phillips, 2000). --- ## Post-positivism in Educational Research: Example of Kohlberg’s Theory ### **Kohlberg’s Moral Development Theory (Simplified)** - **How do people decide what is right and wrong?** - **Three levels, six stages** (People progress step by step, but not everyone reaches the highest level). - **Preconventional (Self-Interest)**: Avoiding punishment, personal gain. - **Conventional (Social Rules)**: Seeking approval, following laws. - **Postconventional (Ethical Principles)**: Questioning laws, acting on universal values. --- ### **Main Criticisms of Kohlberg’s Theory** 1. **Gender Bias (Carol Gilligan’s Critique)** - Only studied boys, assuming moral thinking was the same for all. - Women may emphasise **care and relationships** over justice and laws. 2. **Cultural Bias** - Based on Western values of individual rights and justice. - Some cultures prioritise **community, tradition, and harmony** over personal principles. 3. **Focus on Moral Reasoning, Not Actions** - Thinking about morality doesn’t always match real-world behaviour. - Example: People may say stealing is wrong but might steal in desperate situations. --- ## Critiques and Limitations of Post-positivism - **Common Critiques**: - Accused (often incorrectly) of being relativistic or overly skeptical due to its rejection of absolute certainty. - Questions raised about reliability and usefulness if all knowledge is provisional. > “If knowledge claims can always be overthrown, why should we believe or accept anything?” (Burbules & Phillips, 2000). --- ## Concluding Reflections - **Epistemological Humility**: - Post-positivism promotes humility in research, recognising knowledge as fallible but critically important. - It represents a balanced approach between the extremes of positivist certainty and radical relativism. > “If we did not believe that truth can be found… why would we bother to carry out inquiries? If any old beliefs would suffice, we needn’t bother to go to the trouble to do research.” (Burbules & Phillips, 2000). --- ## “There are all kinds of sources of our knowledge, but *none has authority*.” > "Philosopher of science Karl Popper, a key figure in the development of nonfoundationalist postpositivism, put it well when he wrote, 'But what, then, are the sources of our knowledge? The answer, I think, is this: there are all kinds of sources of our knowledge, but *none has authority*.' Thus the empiricist’s questions, 'How do you know? What is the source of your assertion?', are wrongly put. They are not formulated in an inexact or slovenly manner, but they are entirely misconceived: they are questions that beg for an authoritarian answer” (Burbules & Phillips, 2000) --- ## Activity 3: Objectivity vs. Bias in Social Science – Can Research Be Neutral? **Time**: 30 minutes .center[**Can social science research ever be truly objective or if it is inevitably shaped by power, politics, and bias?**] ### 1. Opening Exercise (5 min, Padlet Discussion) > “The fact is, objectivity does not guarantee that a belief or viewpoint is true... Objectivity refers instead to the rigorous process of inquiry, not the elimination of bias.” .pull-left[ - Do you agree that objectivity is about process rather than neutrality? Why or why not? Please respond on [Padlet](https://sydney.padlet.org/francescobailo/do-you-agree-that-objectivity-is-about-process-rather-than-n-w84sfndvtiuj3vq6) (Link from Canvas, slide or QR Code) ] .pull-right[ .center[<img src = 'https://padletcdn.com/cgi/fetch?disposition=attachment&url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.padletcdn.com%2Fpadlets%2Fw84sfndvtiuj3vq6%2Fqr_code.png%3Fsource%3Dimage' width = '40%'>] ] --- ### 2. Each group takes one position - **Position A:** *Social sciences can be objective if it follows rigorous methodology.* or - **Position B:** *All social sciences are subjective and shaped by political interests.* - Within each group, discuss the argument is support of your position. - On Google Slide (or on paper), each group summarise their **two strongest arguments** for a two-minute presentation. - During the presentation the other groups can challenge these statements. .center[Link to [Google Slide here](https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/10Z7Sl5gp6ToO-qaOgcc7az-pR3-rtGRxfUv33yzm9ds/edit?usp=sharing) or from Canvas] --- class: center, middle # Thanks!