Making Social Science Matter by Bent Flyvbjerg Philosophy of Science Friday 16 th of September

1. Making Social Science Matter byBent FlyvbjergPhilosophy of ScienceFriday 16th of September Daphne, Eduard, Laurens, Marlot, Ravenna and Ulrike

2. Contents of the presentation • Introduction of the author and the book • Discussing the mainpoints: Science Wars • Strenght and weaknesses • Film: What the beep do we know? • Case: Howcan we usethisbook?

3. 1. Introduction of the author and the book 1/4 Bent Flyvbjerg • Professor of Planning at the Department of Development and Planning at Aalborg University • Dr. in both technology and Science • Wrote “Making Social Science Matter” in 2001

4. The Guardian – 14-09-2011

5. NY Times – 14-09-2011

6. 1. Introduction of the author and the book 2/4 2 parts: 1st part: Why social science has failed as science “Why social science never have been, and probably never will be, able to develop the type of explanatory and predictive theory that ‘s the ideal and hallmark of natural science” 2nd part: How social science can matter again “Mainstream social science and social science methodology stand in need of an reorientation (...) Part two is an attempt at such an reorientation, based on phronesis”

7. 1. Introduction of the author and the book 3/4 Why social science has failed as science Social science as an imitation of natural science: Thisepistemicscienceaims at predictive, rule-bound, context-independenttheory. Whilepossiblefor the naturalworld, this type of theoryinevitablyfails in the socialworld, where context reignssupreme. In fact, the socialworld must beunderstood as intuitive and phenomenological, standing opposed to context-independenttheory. Thisgivesheightenedcredence to the case studymethod, which has often been denigrated as unreliableaccording to epistemic criteria.

8. 1. Introduction of the author and the book 3/4 How social science can matter again: 3 things: 1. “We must drop the fruitless efforts to emulate natural sciences’ success in producing cumulative and predictive theory; this approach simply does not work in social science” 2. “We must take our problems that matter to the local, national and global communities in which we live, and we must do it in ways that matter; we must focus on issues of values and power like great social scientists have advocated from Aristotle and Machiavelli to Max Weber and Pierre Bourdieu”

9. 1. Introduction of the author and the book 4/5 How social science can matter again: 3 things: 3. “We must effectively communicate the results of our social science from what is fast becoming a sterile academic activity, which is undertaken mostly for it’s own sake and an increasing isolation from society on which it has little effect and from which it gets little appreciation” • Social sciences as activity done in the public for the public (…) Social sciences that matters”

10. 1. Introduction of the author and the book 5/5 “[There are] two scenario’s of clarification (…) ‘science as usual’ and ‘prohnetic social sciences’. The answer: Phronetic science: “The task of prhonetic social science is to clarify and delibarate about the problems and risks we face and to outline how thing may be done differently in full knowledge that we cannot find ultimalte answers or even a single version of what the questions are”.

11. 2. Discussion: Science Wars Do youthinkthat the solution of Flyvbjerg is the right one?

12. 3. Strenght & Weaknesses

13. 4. What the bleep do we know? 1/3 • Natural science VS Social science • Quantum Mechanics: both the natural scientist as the social scientist influence reality • Quantum mechanics tries to find answers to fundamental questions of science: • Who are we? • Where do we come from?

14. 4. What the bleep do we know? 2/3 • Quantum physics and its relation to social science • Assumptions and paradigms • Cumulative replacement • Role of the observer

15. 4. What the bleep do we know? 3/3 • Do you think quantum mechanics is a ‘better science’ than social science? In the sense that it discovers more about reality than social scientist do? • There will be an example of Indians seeing a ship for the first time. ‘Who sees, does the brain or the eyes see, the brain can’t make a distinction of what it sees in the environment and what it remembers?’ ‘Is it possible to see more than the brain registers?

16. One case, two different approaches Federal program in Oakland, 1965

17. The case: Federal project in Oakland, 1965 • Redevelopment area: high unemployment, racial tensions • Creating sustainable jobs: four major projects: • an airport hanger • a marine terminal, • a port industrial park • an access road to the coliseum • Similar projects successful in rural areas • Delays, management changes, participating parties, payments

18. The rational decision making model • Step by step decision making • Sequential • Rational • Result of process: best option

20. Rational perspective • How can we analyze what happened in this case from the perspective of rational decision making?

21. Flyvbjerg’s perspective • What are the main ideas of what Flyvbjerg calls phronetic social science • Task? • Point of departure: questions? • Who are concerned?

22. Flyvbjerg’s perspective • How can we analyze what happened in this case from the perspective of Flyvbjergs’ phronetic social science?

23. Questions?