Social scientific controversy Research

Social scientific controversy Research

The Two Books I chose are : “How the Other Half Learns” by Robert Pondiscio and “Slaying Goliath ” by Diane Ravitch

The research project invites students to substantively discuss a social scientific controversy or
debate by placing it in its wider social context. The aim is for students to explore how the
production of scientific knowledge may be influenced by societal forces and interests, social
identities, emotions and ideologies. Your exploration of a controversy should culminate in a
well-written and organized research paper, typed and double spaced, of approximately 3000
words (though you may run over).
Your project will entail reading two books (or selected chapters therein). The list of book
options are available by following the list of controversies/book options link on Blackboard.
Among the questions that your paper should address:
• Why is this issue controversial in society? What are the basic fault lines (sides) of the
debate in society?
• What position does your chosen author take in the controversy? Does your author
explicitly challenge other writers or positions in the book? If so, which?
• What evidence and methods (e.g. surveys, interviews, historical documents, etc.) does
your author use in support of his or her argument? Does your author selectively
perceive or “cherry pick” information to support their view?
• What evidence and methods do critics bring to bear in challenging your author’s
argument? Do critics selectively perceive or “cherry pick” information in support of their
views?
• Does your author accuse other authors of ideological bias? That is, does your author
engage in “ideology critique,” i.e., draw out the allegedly harmful political implications
or ideological motivations of other authors? Do critics ideologically critique your
author’s views?
• How might the different sides in the controversy reflect different societal interests,
identities, or political, emotional, or ideological orientations?
• How do you assess the debate? Which position do you believe is best supported by the
evidence?
Do not simply answer these questions in a stepwise fashion, but rather integrate them into
your narrative. Make sure that in doing so you describe the historical or social background of
the controversy, including how it has played out in public or in the press. Try as well to apply in
your discussion – but only if appropriate — relevant concepts that we have reviewed in the
course (e.g., sociological imagination, objectivity, generalizability, falsifiability, reductionism,
nomothetic, idiographic, variables, induction, deduction, etc.).
Writing suggestions:
Provide an introductory paragraph that lets the reader know where you are going in the paper.
This should refer to the controversy and the two or more central sources you will be examining.
You should conclude the introductory paragraph by briefly noting (in a sentence or two) the
position you will take at the end of the paper.
Your project should not read as two separate or disconnected book reviews. Try to compare
and contrast the claims and evidence on each side in an integrated way. That is, look for areas
where the two texts may “speak to each other” or make conflicting empirical claims; critically
examine how each author may frame the controversy differently; and note any potential blind
spots where an author may leave out relevant facts or parts of the story. Note, finally, that
your assessment of the debate should come at the end of the paper. You should not elaborate
on your own standpoint or “take a side” in the debate until the conclusion (based on your
assessment of the relative arguments and evidence of each side).
———————
Papers will be graded based on both substance and form:
Substance (70 percent of grade): Accuracy and substantive content of project; depth of
discussion; amount of research and detail; appropriate integration of concepts.
Form (30 percent of grade): Coherence of narrative; clarity and organization of ideas; grammar
and spelling; conscientiousness; consistency in citation style.