Learning and Construction of Knowledge

In this essay, the strengths and limitations of creation of knowledge in the paradigm of social science is being discussed. The various nuances involving the pros and cons of the knowledge creation of social sciences will be discussed.

Running head: LEARNING AND CONSTRUCTION OF KNOWLEDGE
Learning and Construction of Knowledge
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Authors Note

LEARNING AND CONSTRUCTION OF KNOWLEDGE
In this essay the strengths and limitations of creation of knowledge in the paradigm of
social science is being discussed. In the pre-enlightenment era, methods employed in social
sciences were modelled after natural sciences. For instance, “sex” was considered as
sociological category and it referred to one morphological entity (Hird, 2004). The shift from
“gender” to “sex” was achieved in the post-enlightenment era witnessing the slow epistemic
shift from revelation-based knowledge to scientific-based knowledge. Owing to historical
change, there has been major paradigmatic shifts in the field of social sciences. From the
positivistic paradigm to interpretative then there are epistemological shift that include the
feminist and critical methodology. The history of social science has witnessed number of
upheavals that have brought change in the epistemic standpoint of one viewing the range of
social reality. In this essay, the various nuances involving the pros and cons of the knowledge
creation of social sciences will be discussed.
In the diverse paradigms of social science, initiatives have been taken to construct
knowledge and reality in a well-defined format (Nakkeeran, 2010). However, the grounds on
which knowledge in constructed in social science contains both the element of positivist and
interpretevist philosophy. Thus, it makes social science an oxymoron that enjoys the dual
status of verstehen and scientism (Gordon, 2002). Reality is considered as something that is
independent of one’s volition and knowledge refers to the understanding of that phenomenon.
Thus, knowledge is something that can stand the test of time to reach the ultimate status of
truth, which implies that knowledge needs to be true, vice versa. However, in reality all forms
of knowledge do not stand the test of time and sometimes vary from person to person. These
forms of knowledge do not exist in the concrete material forms sometimes they exist in forms
of ideas, thoughts and believe. From the post-enlightenment era the grounds of measuring
these forms of knowledge has remained contentious, so is the status of social sciences.
According to the principle of Vienna Circle positivists, social science disciplines adopt the

LEARNING AND CONSTRUCTION OF KNOWLEDGE
unity of science thesis. Social science and the methods of measuring social phenomenon has
always been modelled after natural science model. Thus, the intricacies involved in the social
reality of life could not be taken into account.
According to Berger and Luckmann, reality has the intrinsic nature of being socially
relative (Berger and Luckmann, 1971). Social relativity shuns any form of universal or
absolute form of knowledge. On the other hand, Probalilism advocates on the possibility of
many future events, suggesting on the line that the nature of universe is not deterministic but
probabilistic. Future is constituted with the ontological and physical chances of possibilities,
because of this probabilism requires an instant where there will be an absolute version of
truth. This is to divide the reality of “one past from many alternative possible futures”.
Reality can be derived in many forms, one in its empirical version and the other in its logical
format. The responsibility of social science is to get as close to the reality as possible.
Realities and the existing paradigm of knowledge cannot be reduced to the rational and
logical ground because unlike natural sciences, a daffodil does not choose to bloom or an
apple does not decide to fall. Human are involved as the subject matter of social science
disciplines and they cannot be studied only on their level of actions. As Max Weber has
rightly stated that, the interpretation of their actions needs to be brought under the scanner of
sociological enquiry. Thus, he advocated on building up a new framework of enquiry mainly
known as Verstehen, which implies the interpretivist understanding of social reality. In this
way, he denies the articulation of unity of science. Karl popper another social scientist
insisted that social reality could best be understood if “situational analysis” is practiced. This
is because social world is empirically and logically experienced, which means that the objects
are subjectively experienced. This argument uncovers the gamut of subject domain, which
demands to be experienced, where emotional and the cognitive variables of human plays a
dominant role. This altogether makes the reality subjective and relative. Owing to this set of

LEARNING AND CONSTRUCTION OF KNOWLEDGE
argument, one can easily conclude that there is radical disunity of knowledge. This kind of
radical departure of knowledge can foster the situation of chaos so again there needs to a
common sense of reference that enforces the sense of solidarity.
All these kind of nuances becomes very hard to grasp if scientific methods of
experiments and observations are applied. The limitation of knowledge creation in social
science can arise due to various reasons. Observation in the social world can often be theory-
driven which brings biasness in the reasoning and analysis of the social problem. Often due to
pre-convinced notion of the researcher, the subject matter of research gets value-laden. Since
social world in inclusive of the researcher herself or herself, there is an omnipresence of the
values in the forms of motives or intentions. Value-laden research practices can result in the
circularity of reasons that portrays a very stagnant nature of social reality. Hence, the truth is
falsified. A total absence of scientific method can often bring in falsified analysis, which will
lack accuracy and delve too much on quality. Again, in addition, intrusion of scientific
methods can result in getting only the fragmented picture of the reality.
However, there are also strength of creation of knowledge in the social science. A
researcher in the coven of social science is also a member of the society itself. Thus, one can
effectively infuse his or her part of understanding in their respected analysis. Michel Foucault
one of the great pioneer in the post-modern literature of social sciences in his book The birth
of Clinic shows the slow epistemic shifts taking place in the field of anatomy. The body in
pre-modern societies was given the sacred status but in modern days, body has become the
place where science can be practiced. In this, the anatomy loses its private space and each
parts of the body become the site for explorations. Thus, the ultimate purpose of dissection of
body was bringing out truth based which was based on more scientific methods. In this way,
sexual difference was inscribed in the body forms, from a superficial believe to a more
tangible form. However, it must be noted that tangibility does not allow flexibility and the

LEARNING AND CONSTRUCTION OF KNOWLEDGE
true nature of social is defying the rigidity. Thus, the two-sex model serves as incomplete
from of reference against the multitude variation of reality. Again, in the words of Jean
Jacques- Rousseau the subjective domain of sexual difference gets exposed, where he points
out the idea of a perfect man and women “ought not to resemble each other in mind any more
than looks”. The multiple layered social realities along with the change in the nature of quest
of knowledge can bring out dynamic status of conditions of reality. In this way social science
promises to a better understanding of past, present and future, thus it can be considered as the
strength of creation of knowledge in the fields of social science.
Either knowledge can be discovered with the constant zeal and curiosity in the subject
matter or it can be constructed for which a researcher needs to delve deeper and submerge
oneself with their subject matter. He or she must also be aware of the danger of precision and
must acknowledge it at the same time. Owing to this kind of ambivalent position, one can
access the truth in its momentary span.
It can be concluded that creation of knowledge in social sciences demands proper
understanding of what knowledge is and how it should be measured. Too much relying on the
quantitative methods can bring teleological conclusion and emphasising much on the
qualitative phenomenon can bring only the fragmented picture of the reality. The epistemic
history of the knowledge quest in social sciences have gone through paradigmatic shifts
where there has been continuous negotiation going on with the status of social science as
science. The quest for truth with the concept of social relativity and probabilism promises the
malleable nature of knowledge which gives social science a dynamic character. The dynamic
nature of social science can only be harnessed if a balance approach to social reality is
undertaken. This kind of dilemma in social sciences can offer as both strength as well as
limitation to the researcher.

LEARNING AND CONSTRUCTION OF KNOWLEDGE
References
Berger, P.L. and Luckmann, T., 1971. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the
Sociology of Knowledge.
Blokland, H. 2015. Creating Useable Knowledge for Tomorrow’s Democratic
Societies: The Academic Background of Social Science Works. [online]
Socialscienceworks.org. Available at:
http://socialscienceworks.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Blokland-Hans.-2015.-The-
Academic-Background-of-Social-Science-Works.pdf [Accessed 14 Feb. 2019].
Gordon, H.S., 2002. The history and philosophy of social science. Routledge.
Hird, M.J., 2004. Making sex, Making sexual difference. In Sex, Gender, and Science (pp.
17-28). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Nakkeeran, N. 2010. Knowledge, Truth, and Social Reality: An Introductory
Note on Qualitative Research. [online] Available at:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2963873/ [Accessed 14 Feb. 2019].