Lecture 1

(introduction)
What is a paradigm

:The normative way that things are done – the agreed concerns, concepts, methods, ways of
reasoning, and standards that make contributions to the dsicipline recognisable as such
Chapter 2 (Lec 2
research design)
2.3 Epistemological considerations
epistemological issues associated with social research, in other words, the question of what is
(or should be) seen as acceptable knowledge in a discipline. In the social sciences, a central
issue is whether the social world can and should be studied according to the same principles,
procedures, and ethos as the natural sciences

KEY CONCEPT 2.2

What is positivism?

Positivism is an epistemological position that argues for the use of natural science methods to
study social reality and beyond.

Generally, positivism stands by the following principles:

1. Only phenomena, and therefore knowledge confirmed by the senses, can genuinely be
considered as knowledge (a principle known as phenomenalism).

2. The purpose of theory is to generate hypotheses that can be tested so that they enable
explanations of laws —patterns and regularities—to be assessed (the principle of
deductivism).

3. Knowledge is reached by gathering together facts that provide the basis for laws (the
principle of inductivism).

4. Science must (and presumably can) be conducted in a way that is ‘value-free’: in

other words, that is objective.

5. There is a clear distinction between scientific statements and normative statements—

judgements about what is ‘good’ or ‘bad’—and a true scientist should only make the
former. This last principle is implied by the first one because we cannot establish the
truth—or otherwise—of normative statements by using the senses.

For example, positivism involves elements of both a deductive approach (principle 2) and an
inductive approach (principle 3).
Interpretivism

is an epistemology that contrasts with positivism. It is a wide-ranging term that incorporates a

number of different perspectives and approaches.

the view that the social world cannot be studied using a scientific model. This is because the
subject matter of the social sciences—people and their institutions—is fundamentally
different from that of the natural sciences. The logic of social science research is, therefore,
also different, and the methods used in social science research need to reflect the
distinctiveness of human consciousness and experience.

KEY CONCEPT 2.4

What is interpretivism?

It is based on the view that there are fundamental differences between people and the objects
of the natural sciences. Therefore, social scientists need distinct research methods that respect
the differences between the natural world and the human one. These methods require the
researcher to grasp the subjective experience of social action, what these experiences mean in
practice, how those experiences and meanings are understood by others, and why they are
interpreted in such ways

The process of interpretation

Taking an interpretative stance can mean that the researcher comes up with surprising
findings, or at least findings that appear surprising outside the particular social context being
studied.

This attempt to reflect on the process of knowledge-making is often called Reflexivity

2.4 Ontological considerations

Ontology is the study of being, and social ontology is about the nature of social entities, for
example organizations or culture.

The key question for social scientists is whether social entities can and should be considered
as

1. objective entities that exist separately to social actors (people), or

 2. social constructions that have been and continue to be built up from the perceptions
and actions of social actors.

These two positions are referred to respectively as objectivism and constructionism

Objectivism

Objectivism is an ontological position that implies that social phenomena confront us as

external facts that are beyond our reach or influence

KEY CONCEPT 2.5

What is objectivism?

Objectivism is an ontological position that claims that social phenomena, their meanings, and
the categories that we use in everyday discourse have an existence that is independent of, or
separate from, social actors.

Provide examples

 a tree falls in the forest and it does make a sound, even if no one hears it

 everyone else is living a life just as vivid and detailed as yours whether you know it or
not

Constructionism

is an ontological position that asserts that social phenomena and their meanings are
continually being created by social actors. It implies that social phenomena are not only
produced through social interaction but are in a constant state of revision

The authors argue that if we focus on the formal properties of organizations (rules,
organizational charts, regulations, roles), we tend to neglect the degree to which order in
these entities have to be accomplished in everyday interaction—

However, they do stress the active role of individuals in the construction of social reality.
Constructionism essentially invites the researcher to consider the ways in which social reality
is an ongoing creation of social actors rather than something external to actors and that totally
constrains them.

Constructionism also suggests that the categories people use to understand the world around
them are in fact social products. They are not external to us; their meaning is constructed in
and through interaction.

So a category such as ‘masculinity’ is not treated as a distinct entity, but as something whose
meaning is built up during interaction.
Deductive and inductive theory
The deductive approach

In this approach, the researcher draws on what is known about a particular domain and on
relevant theoretical ideas in order to deduce (come up with) a hypothesis (or hypotheses): a
speculation that they can test empirically. Embedded within the hypothesis will be concepts
that will need to be translated into researchable entities (often referred to as variables).
Provide examples of a questionarrie linking to a specific concept

It is worth noting that deductive approaches are more commonly used in quantitative
research; the language of hypotheses, variables and testing does not usually apply to
qualitative research

The last step in this process, revision of theory, it involves induction, as the researcher
reflects on the implications of their findings for the theory that prompted the whole exercise

For example, the findings of a study involving Twitter data by Williams et al. (2017a) built
upon the knowledge base relating to the ‘broken windows’ theory (Wilson and Kelling 1982),
which suggests that visible evidence of low-level crime, such as broken windows, encourages
more crime. In the study conducted by Williams and colleagues, tweets containing certain
terms relating to low-level disorder were found to be associated with rates of recorded crime,
offering an insight into how the theory manifests in social media:
The inductive approach

Here, theory is the outcome of research and is formed by drawing generalizable inferences
out of observations. In this way, induction represents an alternative strategy for linking theory
and research

just as deduction involves an element of induction, the inductive process is likely to involve a
degree of deduction. Once the researcher has carried out some theoretical reflection on a set
of data, they may want to collect further data in order to establish the conditions in which a
theory will and will not hold. This is often called an iterative strategy and it involves moving
back and forth between data and theory.

Example: O’Reilly’s
theoretical idea
(the idea of the ‘service
silo’ as a purposely designed managerial control strategy) comes from her data rather than
being formed before she had collected her data.

-front-line employees working in service silos (i.e. separate areas from which they could not
easily break out)
Considering deduction and induction together

There is actually a third approach called abductive reasoning,

-the deductive approach is in favour of a strict process of theory testing using hypotheses, but
it doesn’t address how researchers should select a theory in the first place. Inductive
reasoning is also criticized because empirical data does not inevitably allow researchers to
build theory.

Abductive reasoning starts with an observation (which could be a puzzle or something

unexpected) and tries to explain it using the most likely explanation, switching back and forth
from the puzzle to the social world and the literature.

Abduction acknowledges that the conclusions arising from an observation are plausible, but
not completely certain.

It can also be thought of as inference to the best explanation—for example, you start with an
observation or set of observations, such as smoke in your kitchen, and reason that the most
likely explanation is that you have burnt the dinner you had in the oven. There could be other
reasons for having smoke in your kitchen (perhaps someone left a window open, and smoke
from an outside fire has entered the room), so you cannot be certain of the source of the
smoke based on the initial observation alone, but the simplest and most probable explanation
is that it is coming from the remains of your meal.
Lecture 3 (Quantitative
research)
This book is about the research methods (see Key concept 1.1)— that is, the tools and
techniques—that social scientists use to explore such topics

KEY CONCEPT 1.1

Research methods

A research method is a tool, such as a survey, an interview, or a focus group, that a

researcher uses to explore an area of interest by gathering information (data) that they then
analyse.

It is important to be aware of the difference between a ‘research method’ and a

‘methodology’: the latter is broader and refers to the overall approach being taken in the
research project and the reasoning behind your choices of this approach and the methods
involved. For example, when writing up a piece of research you will justify your choice of
methods in your methodology section

Methodology: either quantitative, qualitative or mix-method

Quantitative research
- Ontology: The social world is independent, real and observable
- Objectively observed & measurable, General causal relationships
- Epistemology: Positivistic
- Discovering the truth, explaining social patterns & behaviour

Perceptions of quantitative research

it takes a deductive view of the relationship between theory and research, meaning that
theory comes first, driving the research, rather than emerging out of it;

 it has a preference for the natural science approach (and positivism in particular);

 it has an objectivist conception of social reality, implying that social phenomena and
their meanings have an existence that is independent of social actors.
The main methods of data collection associated with quantitative research are

 questionnaires and surveys;

 quantitative content analysis, which evaluates documents and texts;

 secondary data analysis, which evaluates data already collected by others;

 structured observation, which involves systematically observing and recording

behaviour.

Measurement

Causality

Quantitative researchers are rarely focused on just describing how things are; they want to say
why things are the way they are. For example, if a researcher was studying racial prejudice,
they would generally want to go further than describing how much prejudice exists in a
certain group of individuals, or what proportion of people in a sample are prejudiced. They
would probably want to examine the causes of variation in racial prejudice, perhaps
explaining it in terms of personal characteristics (such as levels of authoritarianism) or social
characteristics (such as education or social mobility).

Generalization

is whether they can generalize their findings beyond the context of their study—in other
words, whether their research has sufficient external validity

Replication

In order to minimize the influence of these potential problems, scientists may seek to
replicate (to reproduce) each other’s experiments. If the findings repeatedly couldn’t be
replicated, serious questions would be raised about their validity. As a result, scientists are
often very explicit about their procedures so that their experiments can be replicated.
Quantitative researchers in the social sciences also regard the ability to replicate as an
important part of their activity. It is therefore often seen as important that researchers clearly
present their procedures so they can be replicated by others, even if the research does not end
up being replicated.

Goals of quantitative research

- Describing quantifiable phenomena
- Testing hypothesis (Does X influence Y)
- Generalisation: from sample to population

Basic Principles of quantitative research

 - Deduction: What theories are at our disposal?

- Operationalization: Turning abstract conceptual ideas into

measurable observations

- Sampling: Is the sample representative of all?

Generalising: How likely/unlikely are our results?

7.4 The main steps in quantitative research

-
Sources of quantitative data
- Perfect information: i.e. election results
- Experiments: Medicine vs placebo (high level of control)
- Sampling in surveys, involvement of variables
- Observations: Smokers/nonsmokers, little background knowledge

Types of variables
- Textual: Education level, Opinions, ethnicity etc
- Measurement: Nominal and Ordinal
- Numerical: quantities
- Measurement: Ratio

Research goal => research design

- The goal of the research defines methodology
- Method of experiment: experiment, quasi experiment
- Method of data collection: counts, surveys, census
- Method of data analysis: correlation, regression analysis, univariate
- Space/time/level etc

Research designs
- Quasi-Experiments
- Cross sectional research
- Research done at single point in time
- Many observations in a single or multiple spatial units
- Residents of one or many neighbourhood
- Good for describing & measuring associations

Example of weighing scale to explain Validity and Reliability

7.7 The critique of quantitative research

The four most common criticisms of quantitative approaches to research are as follows.

1. Researchers treat people and social institutions in the same way as ‘the world of
nature’.

2. The measurement process involves an artificial sense of precision and accuracy.

3. The reliance on instruments and procedures limits the connection between research
and everyday life.
 4. The analysis of relationships between variables creates a static view of social life as if
it were independent of people’s lives.

 .

Lecture 4 (Qualitative
research)
Slides
16.1 Introduction

Qualitative research is a type of research strategy that emphasizes words, images, and
objects when collecting and analysing data. It is broadly inductivist, constructionist, and
interpretivist, but it can take a wide variety of forms;

16.2 What is qualitative research?

Qualitative research aims to generate deep insights concerning particular topics, and it does
this through a considered engagement with places and social actors. This might include
people, communities, organizations, or institutions.

 It tends toward an inductive view of the relationship between theory and research,
with the former generated out of the latter (though see the discussion in Section 2.2 on
abductive reasoning, in which we qualify this view).

 It is broadly interpretivist in nature, meaning that it tries to generate an

understanding of the social world by examining how its participants interpret it.

 It has an ontological position we can describe as constructionist, in that social

properties are seen as outcomes of the interactions between individuals, rather than
phenomena that are ‘out there’ and separate from those involved in constructing them.

1. The term ‘qualitative research’ is sometimes taken to imply that it is a research

strategy that does not involve any quantitative data. there are also ways of
incorporating numerical elements into qualitative research.

Traditions and perspectives in qualitative research

We might summarize the more recent themes and ‘movements’ associated with qualitative
research as follows.

 A questioning of normative concepts of identity and experience. We introduced the

idea of intersectionality in Chapter 2 (see Key concept 2.7), and it has become a key
focus for some qualitative researchers. This has led to a renewed emphasis on how
 such positionality might intersect to produce particular experiences, and to
reflections about who might be best positioned to access and research these areas.
Queer methodologies, for example, have built on some of the ideas developed in
feminist and postcolonial research, and further work within the field of gender and
sexuality is taking into account all kinds of non-dominant identities and experiences
(for example, those relating to ethnicity).

• The use of creative and participatory approaches. Creative research and participatory
research methods attempt to rebalance power relations in research by conducting studies ‘by’
or ‘with’ rather than ‘on’ participants.

Creative methods include collage, storytelling, sandboxing, puppetry, drawing, theatre, and
various other forms or artistic expression, as well as everyday activities such as walking

Data-collection methods in qualitative research

The main methods of data collection associated with qualitative research are

 ethnography/participant observation;

 qualitative interviewing;

 focus groups;

 the collection of texts and documents.

16.4 The main steps in qualitative research

16.5 Theory and concepts in qualitative research

KEY CONCEPT 16.2

What is grounded theory?

Strauss and Corbin define grounded theory as ‘theory that was derived from data,
systematically gathered and analysed through the research process. In this method, data
collection, analysis, and eventual theory stand in close relationship to one another’ (1998:
12). There are two central features of grounded theory:

1. theory develops out of data;

2. the approach is iterative (sometimes called recursive), meaning that data collection
and analysis proceed in tandem, repeatedly referring back to each other.

Research design 3: Longitudinal research

- Unlike cross sectional research, longitudinal research done over several
points in time
- Many observations in single or multiple spatial units in a single level
- Residents of one or many neighbourhoods
Good for
- Causal analysis

Types of longitudinal data

- Panel
- Time series
- Pseudo panel: Census

Variations/Effects in longitudinal research

- Between person: Comparing men and women
- Within person: Moving houses, aging
- Cohort: Comparing GenX with GenZ
- Period effects: Comparing financial crises with Covid 19

Correlation vs Causality
- Correlation: Two things appearing together regularly
- Causality: One thing being caused by another
- Taking place in chronological order

- Ontology: Reality is socially constructed: meaning exists within humans

- Epistemology: interpretivism
 - Measuring is meaningless, meaning is produced through
interpretation

Qualitative research
- Goals of qualitative research
- Describing / Understanding
- Explaining (how?)
- Interpreting meanings & narratives

Basic principles
Induction
-What relationships emerge from the data
Operationalization
-are the concept clearly defined
Sampling
-What sample is needed? Typical or extreme
Generalizing
-Focusing on diversity rather than on the average

Sources of qualitative data

- Texts: conversations, documents, media
- Observations: Short term or immersive (ethnography)
- Ethnographic data: Thick description: insight from within contexts

Key features: Qualitative research

- Data = Text (while quantitative: numbers)
- Small N (while quantitative: Large N)
- Induction (while quantitative: deduction)
- Iterative process (while quantitative: linear)

Qualitative:

Quality of qualitative research

- Credibility
- Purposive sampling, interviewing skills, triangulation, long
engagement
- Transferability - are findings relevant to other contexts?
- Thick descriptions
- Dependability - are findings dependent on specific interpretations &
context?
- Clear operationalization, direct quotes
- Confirmability - What decisions were taken when collecting and
analysing data?
- Audit trail of decisions
Lecture 5
(philosophies of social
science)
Slides
Induction vs Deduction (refer back to chapter 2)
- Deduction: making inferences based on facts/premises/theories
- Often trivial, difficult to make complex inferences / apply to other
cases
- Induction: making inferences based on facts and data from observation
- Translating observation to theory is difficult; general statement
may be incorrect

For example: data shows that Paris & Amsterdam have expensive city centers
- Deduction: because ALL city centres are generally expensive,
Amsterdam city centre is relatively expensive
- Induction: Ams & Paris city centers are expensive, therefore ALL city
centres are relatively expensive

Some inductions don’t make sense…

- “My laptop didn’t explode in the last 30 days” => “it will never explode”

Inductions make sense when:

- Observations repeated under diff conditions
- Observations are representative to the topic
- Theory about both the topic and the sample

Karl Popper: Falsification (always uses deduction)

- Scientists always try to test their own theories through deduction
- Start with a hypothesis and test to falsify it: It can either be true or false.

Karl Popper was a prominent philosopher of science known for his contributions to
the philosophy of knowledge and the scientific method. One of his key ideas was the
concept of falsificationism, which challenges the traditional view that scientific
theories can be proven true through empirical evidence. Instead, Popper argued that
scientific theories can only be falsified, but never definitively proven true. Here's a
breakdown of Popper's falsificationism:

1. Falsifiability:
 Popper proposed that for a theory to be considered scientific, it must
be potentially falsifiable. This means that it must be possible, at least in
principle, to conceive of evidence that could prove the theory wrong.
 According to Popper, theories that cannot be falsified, such as those
that make vague or unfalsifiable claims, are not scientific but belong to
the realm of metaphysics or pseudoscience.
2. Empirical Testing:
 Scientists, according to Popper, should not aim to confirm their
theories but rather to test them rigorously by seeking evidence that
could potentially refute or falsify them.
 Scientific inquiry involves formulating hypotheses or conjectures and
subjecting them to empirical testing through observation and
experimentation.
 If empirical evidence contradicts a theory's predictions or hypotheses,
then the theory is considered falsified or refuted.
3. Deductive Reasoning:
 Popper emphasized the role of deductive reasoning in scientific inquiry,
particularly in formulating hypotheses and making predictions.
 Scientists use deductive reasoning to derive specific predictions or
hypotheses from general theories or hypotheses. These predictions are
then tested against empirical evidence to determine their validity.
4. Testing Hypotheses:
 Popper's approach to scientific inquiry involves formulating hypotheses
that are specific and testable and then subjecting them to rigorous
empirical testing.
 When testing hypotheses, scientists strive to design experiments or
observations that have the potential to falsify the hypotheses if they are
incorrect.
5. Falsification and Progress:
 Popper argued that science progresses not by accumulating evidence
in support of theories but by eliminating or falsifying false or
inadequate theories.
 Each instance of falsification leads to refinement or replacement of
theories, resulting in the advancement of scientific knowledge.
Pseudo-Science: Science that lacks scientific backing (Astrology/horoscope,
Religion etc.)
- Pseudoscience makes claims that cannot be falsified
ChatGPT
Pseudoscience refers to practices, beliefs, or claims that are presented as scientific but lack
empirical evidence, scientific methodology, or credibility within the scientific community.
Pseudoscientific ideas often rely on unfalsifiable claims, lack rigorous testing, and fail to adhere
to the principles of the scientific method. Here's how pseudoscience is characterized and
examples of pseudoscientific beliefs:

1. Lack of Empirical Evidence:

 Pseudoscientific claims are typically based on anecdotal evidence, testimonials, or
subjective experiences rather than empirical research or scientific data.
 Pseudoscientific practices often lack reproducibility and fail to produce consistent
results under controlled conditions.
2. Absence of Scientific Methodology:
 Pseudoscientific beliefs often disregard or distort established scientific principles
and methodologies.
 They may rely on untestable hypotheses, logical fallacies, or flawed reasoning to
support their claims.
3. Unfalsifiable Claims:
 Pseudoscientific ideas frequently make claims that cannot be falsified or tested
empirically.
 They may invoke supernatural or metaphysical explanations that lie beyond the
scope of scientific inquiry or rely on ad hoc explanations to account for
contradictory evidence.
4. Resistance to Critical Scrutiny:
 Pseudoscientific beliefs are often resistant to critical scrutiny and skeptical inquiry.
 Practitioners or proponents of pseudoscience may dismiss or ignore contradictory
evidence, engage in confirmation bias, or resort to ad hominem attacks against
skeptics.
5. Examples of Pseudoscience:
 Astrology and Horoscopes: Astrology claims that the positions and movements of
celestial bodies influence human affairs and personality traits. Despite lacking
empirical evidence, astrology remains popular in popular culture.
 Creationism: Creationism posits that life and the universe were created by a
supernatural deity or divine force, often contradicting the scientific theory of
evolution.
 Homeopathy: Homeopathy is a form of alternative medicine based on the
principle of "like cures like" and the dilution of substances to the point where no
molecules of the original substance remain. Numerous studies have found
homeopathy to be no more effective than a placebo.
 Psychic Phenomena: Psychic phenomena, such as telepathy, clairvoyance, and
precognition, claim to involve the ability to perceive or communicate information
beyond the known senses. However, scientific investigations into psychic
phenomena have failed to provide conclusive evidence of their existence.
 UFOlogy: UFOlogy involves the study of unidentified flying objects (UFOs) and
extraterrestrial visitations. While some UFO sightings may have mundane
 explanations, claims of alien encounters or government conspiracies lack scientific
support.


Karl Popper: Scientists are very critical

Kuhn: Not always critical, or usually uncritical

- Scientists critical about new ideas but not established ones
- Being critical/out of the box is a waste of time

Kuhn ideas of Progress

- Theres no objective way of evaluating progress as we see things from
WITHIN paradigms, we can’t compare paradigms
- For example, something may seem wrong because of the
worldview through which we see it: doesn’t mean it’s actually
wrong.
Paradigm shift according to him
1. Criticism in Science:
 Kuhn argued that scientists are typically critical of new ideas that
challenge established paradigms but are often uncritical or accepting of
the dominant theories within those paradigms.
 When a scientific community operates within a paradigm, it tends to
focus on solving puzzles and anomalies within that paradigm rather
than questioning the underlying assumptions or framework.
 However, Kuhn noted that scientific revolutions occur when anomalies
accumulate, leading to a crisis within the dominant paradigm and
eventually resulting in a shift to a new paradigm. (paradigm shift)
2. Progress and Paradigms:
 According to Kuhn, scientific progress is not necessarily cumulative or
linear. Instead, progress occurs through revolutions or shifts from one
dominant paradigm to another.
 Within a particular paradigm, scientists work within a shared set of
assumptions, methods, and beliefs, which Kuhn referred to as a
"disciplinary matrix."
 The criteria for evaluating progress and success within a paradigm are
determined by that paradigm itself, making it difficult to objectively
compare progress across paradigms.
3. Incommensurability:
 Kuhn introduced the concept of incommensurability, which refers to
the idea that paradigms are fundamentally different from one another
and cannot be directly compared or evaluated using a common set of
criteria.
 Different paradigms may have different ontological, epistemological,
and methodological assumptions, making it challenging to translate
concepts or findings from one paradigm to another.
4. Worldview and Perception:
 Kuhn emphasized the role of worldview or paradigm in shaping
scientists' perceptions of reality and scientific practice.
 Scientists operate within a particular paradigmatic framework, which
influences how they perceive and interpret data, formulate hypotheses,
and conduct experiments.
 Anomalies or discrepancies may arise when data or observations
conflict with the assumptions or expectations of the prevailing
paradigm, leading to shifts in scientific thinking and the emergence of
new paradigms.
Lecture 6 (ethics in
social and spatial
science)
Slides

Reflexivity: process of self reflection as researchers

- How subjectivities and biases guide & inform the research process

The reflexive approach

Researchers who take the position that research cannot be value-free exercise reflexivity

This involves trying to identify and recognize the impact of their social location—that is,
their gender, age, sexual orientation, ethnicity, education, background, and so on—on the
kind of data that they produce and analyse during their research process. These researchers
argue that our values, preferences, and inclinations can exert an influence at many stages in
the process of social research, including

• choice of research area;

 formulation of research questions;

 choice of method;

 formulation of research design and data-collection techniques;

 implementation of data collection;

 analysis of data;

 interpretation of data;

 conclusions.

The researcher’s values can also intrude into their work if they develop an affection or
sympathy for the people being studied.

As we will explore in Chapter 18, this is quite a common issue for researchers working
within a qualitative research strategy, particularly when they use participant observation
 or very intensive interviewing, and they can find it difficult to disentangle their stance as
social scientists from their subjects’ perspective(s).

Turnbull (1973) studied an African tribe known as the Ik and perceived them as a loveless
(and for him unlovable) tribe that left its young and very old to die. Turnbull identified the
conditions that had led to this culture but he was very honest about his strong disapproval for
what he witnessed.

This reaction was the result of his Western values about the family, and it is likely, as he
acknowledged, that these values influenced his perception of what he witnessed. He wrote
(Turnbull 1973: 13): ‘the reader is entitled to know something of the aims, expectations,
hopes and attitudes that the writer brought to the field with him, for these will surely
influence not only how he sees things but even what he sees.’

Ethical approaches
- Teleological (utilitarian): Bentham (18th century) & Stuart-Mill (19th)
- Consequentialism: end justifies the means
- Taking the solution that maximises social pleasure, minimises
social pain
The teleological or utilitarian ethical approach, advocated by philosophers such as
Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, is a consequentialist theory that emphasizes
the outcomes or consequences of actions as the basis for moral judgment.
Utilitarianism holds that the right action is the one that maximizes overall happiness
or pleasure and minimizes suffering or pain for the greatest number of people.
Here's an example to illustrate the utilitarian approach:

Example: Vaccination Policy

Imagine a government considering whether to implement a vaccination policy to

combat a widespread infectious disease. The government must weigh the potential
benefits and harms of vaccination and make a decision based on utilitarian principles.

Benefits of Vaccination:

 Vaccination can prevent the spread of the disease, reducing the number of
infections and associated deaths.
 Immunizing a significant portion of the population can lead to herd immunity,
protecting even those who cannot be vaccinated due to medical reasons.
 A decline in disease prevalence can alleviate strain on healthcare systems and
reduce healthcare costs.
 Economic benefits may be realized through increased productivity and
reduced healthcare expenditures.

Harms of Vaccination:
  Some individuals may experience adverse reactions or side effects from the
vaccine, though these are typically rare and outweighed by the benefits.
 There may be logistical challenges in distributing and administering vaccines
to large populations.
 Public resistance or skepticism towards vaccines may undermine the
effectiveness of the vaccination program.

Utilitarian Analysis: In this scenario, a utilitarian approach would involve weighing the
aggregate benefits and harms of implementing the vaccination policy. If the
expected benefits, such as reduced disease burden, saved lives, and societal well-
being, outweigh the anticipated harms, such as potential side effects and logistical
challenges, then the policy would be deemed ethically justified.

The government would aim to maximize overall utility or well-being by implementing

the vaccination policy, ensuring the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
This utilitarian approach prioritizes the consequences of actions and seeks to
promote the greatest happiness and minimize suffering for society as a whole.

- Deontological: Kant (18th century)

- Right vs wrong: Duty as human being
- “Act in the way you want others to act in the same situation”
-
The deontological ethical approach, as advocated by philosopher Immanuel
Kant, emphasizes moral duties, principles, and rules as the foundation for
ethical decision-making. Deontology holds that certain actions are inherently
right or wrong, regardless of their consequences, and individuals have a moral
obligation to adhere to universal principles or duties. Here's an example to
illustrate the deontological approach:
- Example: Promise-Keeping
- Consider a scenario where an individual has promised to meet a friend for
lunch at a specific time and place. However, on the day of the meeting, the
individual receives a tempting job offer that could significantly advance their
career if they attend an interview scheduled at the same time as the lunch
meeting.
- Deontological Analysis: From a deontological perspective influenced by
Kantian ethics, the individual would prioritize their moral duty to keep their
promise over the potential benefits of attending the job interview. Kant
argued that moral duties arise from rational principles that apply universally,
regardless of individual desires or consequences.
- In this scenario, the deontological approach would dictate that the individual
has a moral obligation to act in accordance with the principle of promise-
 keeping, regardless of the personal benefits or consequences. By adhering to
their duty to fulfill their promise, the individual upholds the moral principle of
treating others as ends in themselves rather than as mere means to an end.
- Therefore, the individual would choose to honor their commitment to meet
their friend for lunch, even though it may involve sacrificing the opportunity to
attend the job interview and potentially advance their career. This decision is
guided by the deontological principle that one should act in a manner
consistent with universal moral duties, such as honesty, integrity, and respect
for promises, irrespective of the perceived benefits or consequences of the
action.

“Teleological theories evaluate actions based on whether they accomplish a

certain goal or end. Deontological theories focus on whether the actions are
performed in accordance with duty”

Ethics of care - Feminist theories in 20th century

- Morality on the basis of human relationships
- Caring is a part of being human: More important than rules/regulations or
principles

The ethics of care, rooted in feminist theories and developed in the 20th century,
emphasizes the moral significance of relationships, empathy, and responsiveness to
the needs of others. This ethical approach challenges traditional moral theories, such
as deontology and utilitarianism, which prioritize abstract principles or rules. Instead,
the ethics of care highlights the importance of caring and interconnectedness in
moral decision-making. Here's an example to illustrate the ethics of care:

Example: Elderly Care

Consider a scenario where a family member is responsible for making decisions

about the care of an elderly relative who is no longer able to live independently. The
family member must decide whether to arrange for the elderly relative to receive
care at home with assistance from caregivers or to transition them to a nursing home
facility.

Ethics of Care Analysis: From the perspective of the ethics of care, the family member
would prioritize the relational and compassionate aspects of caregiving in making
this decision. Rather than solely focusing on abstract principles or rules, such as
autonomy or utility, the ethics of care emphasizes the importance of empathy,
compassion, and responsiveness to the needs of the elderly relative and their
caregivers.
In this scenario, the family member would consider factors such as the elderly
relative's preferences, comfort, and well-being, as well as the quality of the caregiving
environment and the availability of support services. The decision-making process
would involve engaging in empathetic understanding, listening to the concerns and
perspectives of all involved parties, and striving to ensure that the chosen course of
action promotes the elderly relative's dignity, autonomy, and quality of life.

The ethics of care encourages individuals to recognize and value the

interconnectedness of human relationships and to prioritize caring and compassion
in their moral deliberations. By centering morality on the basis of human
relationships and the recognition of shared vulnerability and interdependence, the
ethics of care offers a relational and empathetic approach to ethical decision-making
that acknowledges the complexities and nuances of caregiving situations.

Example from tearoom trade (Humphreys)

Unconscious biases
- Conscious brain operates on facts and data
- Unconscious brain operates on patterns, rules & what is known based on
experience
Such as…
- Affinity bias: positive response to people similar to oneself
- Categorization based on existing ideas: good vs bad

Unconscious biases can significantly influence various aspects of academic research,

from the initial stages of formulating research questions to the interpretation and
dissemination of research findings. Here's how these biases can manifest in academic
research contexts, along with examples:

1. Topic Selection and Study Design:

 Unconscious biases may influence researchers' decisions regarding
which research topics to pursue and how to design their studies.
 Example: A researcher, unconsciously influenced by their personal
experiences and beliefs, may choose to study a topic that aligns with
their own cultural background or ideological preferences, potentially
overlooking alternative perspectives or underrepresented issues.
2. Data Collection and Analysis:
 Unconscious biases can affect the collection, interpretation, and
analysis of research data, leading to skewed results or flawed
conclusions.
  Example: A researcher conducting interviews may unintentionally steer
the conversation or ask leading questions that confirm their existing
beliefs, resulting in biased data collection. Subsequently, during data
analysis, the researcher may focus on information that supports their
hypotheses while discounting contradictory evidence, leading to
confirmation bias.
3. Peer Review and Publication:
 Unconscious biases can influence the peer review process, where
researchers evaluate the quality and validity of submitted manuscripts.
 Example: A peer reviewer may exhibit affinity bias by favoring research
conducted by scholars from prestigious institutions or researchers with
whom they share professional connections. This bias can lead to
discrepancies in the acceptance rates of manuscripts based on the
authors' affiliations rather than the quality of the research.
4. Interpretation and Communication of Results:
 Unconscious biases may shape how researchers interpret their findings
and communicate them to the academic community and the public.
 Example: A researcher, influenced by confirmation bias, may selectively
interpret study results to support their preconceived beliefs or
hypotheses, downplaying contradictory evidence. Consequently, when
presenting the findings in academic publications or conferences, the
researcher may emphasize only the aspects that align with their biases,
potentially misrepresenting the overall implications of the research.

Stereotype threat
- When discriminated against, individual may tend to confirm one’s own
stereotypes (learnt in DP psych)

Stereotype threat refers to the phenomenon where individuals facing stereotypes

about their social group may experience anxiety or concern that they will confirm
those stereotypes, leading to underperformance in situations where the stereotype is
relevant. In the context of academic research, stereotype threat can act as a barrier
for researchers, particularly those from marginalized or underrepresented groups.
Here's how stereotype threat may manifest in academic research and its impact on
researchers, along with examples:

1. Research Performance:
 Researchers who belong to groups that are stereotypically perceived as
less competent or capable in certain domains may experience
stereotype threat when conducting research or presenting their
findings.
 Example: A female researcher in a male-dominated field of science may
experience stereotype threat when presenting her research at a
 conference. Due to the stereotype that women are less competent in
STEM fields, she may feel pressure to perform exceptionally well to
prove her competence, leading to heightened anxiety and potentially
impacting her presentation skills or confidence.
2. Perceptions of Competence:
 Stereotype threat can influence how researchers perceive their own
competence and abilities, which may impact their willingness to pursue
certain research topics or career opportunities.
 Example: A researcher from an ethnic minority background may
internalize stereotypes about their group's intellectual abilities. As a
result, they may hesitate to apply for prestigious research grants or
academic positions, fearing that they will be judged based on negative
stereotypes rather than their qualifications and achievements.
3. Retention and Advancement:
 Stereotype threat can contribute to feelings of alienation, imposter
syndrome, and reduced sense of belonging among researchers from
underrepresented groups, which may hinder their retention and career
advancement in academia.
 Example: A researcher who is the only person of color in their
department may experience stereotype threat, feeling pressure to
represent their entire racial group. This heightened awareness of their
minority status and the fear of confirming negative stereotypes may
lead to feelings of isolation and disengagement from academic
activities, ultimately impacting their career progression.
4. Bias in Peer Review:
 Stereotype threat can also affect the evaluation of research and
scholarly contributions, with reviewers potentially being influenced by
stereotypes when assessing the work of researchers from marginalized
groups.
 Example: A study conducted by Moss-Racusin et al. (2012) found
evidence of gender bias in peer review, where identical research papers
were rated lower when attributed to female authors compared to male
authors. This bias may be influenced by stereotypes about women's
competence and credibility in academic settings, contributing to
disparities in publication rates and career advancement.

Positionality:
- Unique social, cultural, and personal perspectives that shape an
individual's understanding and interpretation of the world around them.
 - Plays a role in forming biases/ideas: acknowledging one's positionality
involves recognizing how personal background, beliefs, and experiences
might shape the research process and findings.
Positionality is a concept that acknowledges the influence of an individual's social, cultural, and
personal perspectives on their understanding and interpretation of the world, including their
approach to academic research. In the context of conducting academic research, positionality
recognizes that researchers bring their own unique backgrounds, experiences, values, and biases
to the research process, which can shape the formulation of research questions, the design of
studies, the interpretation of findings, and the dissemination of results. Here's how positionality
operates in academic research:

1. Formulation of Research Questions:

 Researchers' positionality can influence the topics they choose to study and the
questions they ask. Their personal experiences, cultural background, and social
identity may lead them to prioritize certain research areas or perspectives over
others.
 Example: A researcher who has experienced discrimination based on their gender
identity may be more inclined to investigate issues related to gender equality or
LGBTQ+ rights, drawing on their own lived experiences and interests.
2. Design and Implementation of Studies:
 Positionality can shape researchers' methodological choices, data collection
techniques, and sampling strategies. Their social and cultural context may
influence how they engage with participants, select research sites, or interpret
qualitative data.
 Example: A researcher conducting ethnographic research in a foreign country may
navigate cultural differences and power dynamics differently based on their own
background and identity, impacting their interactions with participants and the
depth of their understanding of the local context.
3. Data Interpretation and Analysis:
 Researchers' positionality can affect how they interpret and analyze research
findings. Their personal beliefs, assumptions, and cultural perspectives may
influence their understanding of data, leading to subjective interpretations or
biased conclusions.
 Example: A researcher analyzing survey data on political attitudes may approach
the analysis differently depending on their own political beliefs. They may
unintentionally interpret ambiguous responses in a way that aligns with their own
ideological stance, potentially skewing the results.
4. Dissemination of Results:
 Researchers' positionality can influence how they communicate their findings to
the academic community and the broader public. Their cultural background,
language choices, and values may shape how they frame their research
conclusions and recommendations.
 Example: A researcher studying healthcare disparities may emphasize the
importance of culturally sensitive interventions based on their own understanding
of the challenges faced by marginalized communities, highlighting the need for
contextually relevant solutions.
Research Ethics:
- Respect => Informed Consent
- Do no harm while researching
- Protect participant privacy
- Do not deceive
- Justice => Fairness in costs and benefits of research

- Critiques: Research ethics are culturally dependent: what is believed in

one place may not be valid/applicable in other places