My latest enthusiasm–also a subject of discussion in our Summer Institute today–is the Danish professor Bent Flyvbjerg. His slogan is “social science as phronesis.” The Greek word ???????? means “practical wisdom,” prudence, or wise practical thought. It is always about a particular situation, because one acts in particular cases, not in generalities. (See my recent post on generic thinking.) Phronesis combines a view of what is, what can be, and what would be good. These are not strictly separable matters; norms influence facts and strategies. According to Flyvbjerg, phronesis should also involve a consideration of power: who is causing things to be the way they are, and who would benefit from changing them in various ways.

We deliberate about practical matters, not about abstract principles. Flyvbjerg recommends that social scientists contribute to practical deliberation by doing research that is closely attuned to particular situations. The social scientist’s contribution will rarely be definitive; it will simply inform other actors by providing perspectives on what is, what can be, and what should be.

The opposite is social science on the model of physics–systematic, general, and predictive. I have not yet read Flyvbjerg’s full argument for why social science cannot be like physics, but he is obviously skeptical of that idea and notes that “no predictive social theories have been arrived at yet” (PDF). He explains:

The epistemic model finds its ideal in the natural science model for doing science. Here the objective of the social scientist is to discover the theories and laws which govern social action, just as the objective of the natural scientist is to discover the theories and laws which govern natural phenomena. Praxis, according to the natural science model of social science, is social engineering which applies social theories and laws to solve social problems.

A classic simile for this type of social science is the so-called “moon ghetto metaphor,” named for social scientists who argued during the 1960’s and 1970’s that if natural science and engineering could put a man on the moon, surely social science could solve the social problems of the urban ghetto (Nelson 1977). History proved them wrong.

I was on much the same track in my June 26th post about the disappointing results of quantitative social science.