Posted: February 14th, 2023

Standard Social Science Methodologies

Standard Social Science Methodologies
“Standard Social Science Methodologies (SSSMs) have regularly been used to test various hypothesis by a large portion of criminological research. First, explain what is meant by SSSMs. Next, discuss some of the major problem with SSSMs? Please provide clear examples and draw graphs if necessary.

Please cite ALL your sources within your text in APA style and include full APA formatted “References” in the end of your assignment. This assignment will be checked for plagiarism via TurnItIn.”

Standard Social Science Methodologies
Standard Social Science Methodologies represent four philosophies including relativism, constructivism, cultural determinism and blank slate which combined and capsulized together with Standard Social Science Methodologies form the dominant theoretical paradigm. They define the mind a cognitive entity whose nature is generally defined by culture. These methodologies have for a long time being used in testing of hypothesis involved in the field of criminology. According to Tooby and Cosmides (2005), the blank slate theory suggests that human being are born as blank slates and only acquire their knowledge through their different experiences. The relativism theory on the other hand suggests that beliefs and values can only be justified from epistemic practices. Constructivism theory indicates that human beings acquire their knowledge from their interactions with other human beings. Cultural determinism indicates that the culture in which we grew up in determines how we handle our emotions and the behavior which we display. The four theories form the SSSMs which is commonly used in determining criminal cases through scientific methodologies.
Even though they have been excelling results, the field has not come without problems. Occasionally the model is faced with challenges such as criticisms from multiple researchers. At the same time, social science alone cannot be used in cases of criminology, it requires other scientific backing in order to be deemed as relevant. A problem of SSSMs is that it excludes factors that might have a factor to play in the growth of a person’s cognitive being. Hillary Rose (2001) strongly disagrees on Tooby and Cosmides theory of the brain being initially as a clean blank entity stating that the sociologist eliminates factors that might be influential to the growth of knowledge such as economic and political stating that the methodology is not relevant enough on its own. The elimination of external factors defeats the main objective of the model to understand the working of the mind based purely on a cultural standpoint. The omission of these factors in the paradigm provides a loophole stating that it cannot be completely accurate until all factors have been included.
Another major problem that is associated with Standard Social Science Methodologies is that they have received criticism from multiple angles from philosophers. Scientists claim that they have been wildly overstated when it comes to the influence they have on human cognitive mechanisms. They have challenged the use of the paradigm to provide accurate result because of its inability to accommodate other theories. According to Wallace, the model is a false dichotomy that has been claimed to be overrated in terms of how much impact it has on brain functions (2010). According to research, there are other factors that play into a human beings cognitive being besides culture. Sociologist argue that the use of the culture overstates the longevity through which these factors play towards the growth of the mind. It shows that there are factors that are more influences than one’s culture and social interactions.

References
Duschinsky, R. (2012). Tabula rasa and human nature. Philosophy, 87(4), 509-529.
Rose, Hilary (2001). “Colonising the Social Sciences?”. In Rose, Steven; Rose, Hilary (eds.). Alas Poor Darwin: Arguments Against Evolutionary Psychology. London: Vintage. pp. 203–212. ISBN 978-0-09-928319-5.
Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2005). Conceptual foundations of evolutionary psychology. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 5–67). Hoboken: Wiley.
Trifiletti, L. B., Gielen, A. C., Sleet, D. A., & Hopkins, K. (2005). Behavioral and social sciences theories and models: are they used in unintentional injury prevention research?. Health Education Research, 20(3), 298-307.