Social Sciences and Knowledge: Scholarly Learning Journal 3 Analysis

This scholarly learning journal entry delves into the sources of knowledge valued within the social sciences. It emphasizes the significance of qualitative research, highlighting the contributions of social sciences to research methodology and content. The assignment explores the concept of knowledge as an understanding of the world, examining epistemology and its role in analyzing and categorizing phenomena. It contrasts scientific approaches based on experience and reasoning, while also addressing the unique focus of social sciences on human awareness, subjectivity, and interpretation. The journal entry discusses the challenges of studying human behavior, the potential for observer bias, and the distinction between social sciences and fields like law and business. The author concludes that social sciences value human-related knowledge and often relate to truth and injustice due to the normative aspects of human behavior and decision-making. References from various scholars support the arguments presented.

SCHOLARLY LEARNING JOURNAL 3
1

What sources of knowledge are (not) valued in your discipline? Why?
Social sciences have a significant impact on research in terms of methodology and health content
(Nonaka and Von Krogh, 2009, p 640). The contributions of social sciences to qualitative
research are particularly important. In other words, the basic concept of social sciences is the
synthesis of reality and knowledge and the logic of the theory. It can be a useful starting point for
evaluating the nature and strength of qualitative methods.
Knowledge refers to an understanding of the world around us. It helps us to live as a member of
society. Epistemology deals with the understanding of knowledge. It enables an understanding
regarding the world as a place for analysis and research. It allows categorization of phenomenon
that makes up the world. It allows understanding connection amongst various phenomenons. It
helps to predict events that alleviate suffering or improve the well-being of individuals and
groups (Kincheloe and McLaren, 2011, p 290). We generally understand that science is
understood in two fundamental ways: experience (empirical) and reasoning (logical). The first
includes knowledge acquired through sensory perception, and the latter includes logical and
mathematical information. In practice, however, we get knowledge through a combination of
processes and experiences (Podsakoff, MacKenzie and Podsakoff, 2012, p 540).
Science is a domain that wants to learn regarding human aspects, such as conscience and
subjectivity. On the other hand, social sciences deal with human awareness and subjectivity at
the observed and observer level. This includes studying the beliefs, values, intentions, and
reports given to culture in human activity. The study of "reality" of social sciences must not be
given from the outside, but from within, so the possibility of interpretation and the social
structure of reality.
2

The "reality" that the social sciences want to learn is not an apple or a swinging pendulum, but a
human and human spirit. Its goal is to use the subject of the word instead of the subject. The
object is passive and indifferent about it. An individual is defined as subjectivity, consciousness,
or internal cognitive process. One of the problems is that we actively get all the external
processes from the agency. In other words, there is no clear link between research and research.
The presence of an observer may affect the observer and vice versa.
However, there are no laws or regulations in the social sciences. Therefore, these laws do not
apply to mean. Instead, we'll look at the latest results. In other words, we are constantly
presenting new comments (Berkes, 2009, p 1701). However, this statement is never taken into
account, an explanation is always possible. Social sciences are often related to truth and
injustice. This is due to the fact that social sciences tend to behave on human behavior and
decisions, which are determined by the right/wrong and the right/wrong normative aspect, not
the real/false dimension (Tracy, 2010, p 840). Therefore, social is seen not valuing law, sciences
and business fields. The discipline of social sciences values human related knowledge.
3

References
Berkes, F., 2009. Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge generation, bridging
organizations and social learning. Journal of environmental management, 90(5), pp.1692-1702.
doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.12.001. Retrieved from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479708003587
Kincheloe, J.L. and McLaren, P., 2011. Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research.
In Key works in critical pedagogy (pp. 285-326). Brill Sense. doi: 10.1007/9789460913976.
Retrieved from https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789460913976/BP000024.xml
Nonaka, I. and Von Krogh, G., 2009. Perspective—Tacit knowledge and knowledge conversion:
Controversy and advancement in organizational knowledge creation theory. Organization
science, 20(3), pp.635-652. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1080.0412. Retrieved from
https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/orsc.1080.0412
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, N.P., 2012. Sources of method bias in social
science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual review of psychology, 63,
pp.539-569. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452. Retrieved from
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452
Tracy, S.J., 2010. Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative
research. Qualitative inquiry, 16(10), pp.837-851. doi: 10.1177/1077800410383121. Retrieved
from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1077800410383121
4