1. D. Gile Doct semin 1 Engl1 PRINCIPLES OF ‘SCIENCE’: A REMINDER D.Gile daniel.gile@yahoo.com www.cirinandgile.com

2. D. Gile Doct semin 1 Engl2 Speaker’s bias - Initial training in mathematics - Also training in sociology (empirical studies orientation) - No training in humanities  - Observation of research practice as an interpreter in scientific conferences - Teaching research methods in mixed environments (students of Japanese, T&I and terminology students) - Analysis of research in humanities through contact with translation research

3. D. Gile Doct semin 1 Engl3 Main points of presentation Reminder about the Scientific Approach, its rationale and norms → CSA The Scientific Approach/CSA is not necessarily the best way to explore the world Sophisticated methods are not necessarily the best in all circumstances Compliance with ‘scientific’ norms is not correlated with the degree of sophistication of the methods used When doing a PhD, need to choose paradigm and comply with the relevant norms

4. D. Gile Doct semin 1 Engl4 Science: a reminder (1) Our knowledge about the World/representation of the World comes from: - Experiential knowledge (direct experience through sensory experience and its analysis) - Inherited knowledge (what we learn from others) and What our brain does with all the information

5. D. Gile Doct semin 1 Engl5 Science: a reminder (2) Data acquisition and their processing by the brain are constrained by: - Sensory limitations - Cognitive limitations - Emotional interference (which tends inter alia to make us see what we want to/expect to see and disregard what we would not like to see/do not expect)

6. D. Gile Doct semin 1 Engl6 Science: a reminder (3) Recognizing these limitations, philosophers and scientists have been developing for centuries the ‘Scientific Approach’ (SA), in order to push them back. The Canonical Scientific Approach (some sort of ideal) Relies strongly on empirical research, that is, on the collection and analysis of data and on a strict use of such data for inferencing

7. D. Gile Doct semin 1 Engl7 Science: a reminder (4) SA was first used in the natural sciences, it was also imported into social sciences Henceforth ‘CSA’ – Canonical Scientific Approach Some of its norms (in particular writing norms) are found in the humanities as well On the whole, it is found in empirical disciplines more than in theoretical disciplines

8. D. Gile Doct semin 1 Engl8 Norms and methods SA/CSA can be represented through: - Conceptual Norms - Social norms and institutions to enforce their implementation (academic hierarchy, peer reviewing…) Social norms and institutions are very similar in CSA and in non-CSA academic disciplines - Technical research methods - Writing norms

9. D. Gile Doct semin 1 Engl9 Conceptual norms (1) ‘Science’ (CSA) is supposed to be ‘Rigorous’ - Systematic - Cautious - Objective Logical ‘Collective’ - Communicative - Critical - Explicit

10. D. Gile Doct semin 1 Engl10 Conceptual norms (2) In concrete terms, CSA scholars: - Systematically conduct empirical testing of their ideas and theories -Systematically provide evidence to back up claims - Are explicit about their materials, methods and factual and/or logical grounds for their claims - Make a clear distinction between documented facts and speculative thoughts

11. D. Gile Doct semin 1 Engl11 SCIENTIFIC CAUTION… A carpenter, a schoolteacher and a scientist were travelling by train in Scotland. They saw a black goat through the window. “So”, said the carpenter, “We now know that goats are black in Scotland” “You mean that some Scottish goats are black?”, said the schoolteacher. “No”, said the scientist. “All we know is that there is at least one goat in Scotland and that that goat is black at least on one side”.

12. D. Gile Doct semin 1 Engl12 THE SCIENTIFIC CYCLE – POPPERIAN MODEL (1) Observation (empirical) Provisional Generalization (theory) Factual testing (empir.) New generalization (theory)

13. D. Gile Doct semin 1 Engl13 THE ERA CYCLE (More realistic) OBSERVATION THEORY (EMPIRICAL) TESTING + SOCIAL FORCES NEW/IMPROVED THEORY (EMPIRICAL) TESTING + SOCIAL FORCES... [ Inter alia: Kuhn’s theories of scientific (r)evolution ]

14. D. Gile Doct semin 1 Engl14 THEORIES AND TESTING IN ERA New theories are considered Provisional models/explanations of reality They are tested systematically for match with empirical data The expectation being (in principle) that they will be found to be only partially adequate and will have to be improved

15. D. Gile Doct semin 1 Engl15 CSA – EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

16. D. Gile Doct semin 1 Engl16 THE HUMAN SCIENCES APPROACHES (HSA) - Mostly conceptual analysis – Essays - Can be empirical - in a wide sense (with examples, not representative samples in the statistical sense of the word, i.e. samples designed to represent the same features as the population) -Personal interpretation of phenomena, statements, actions without necessarily considering alternatives -In many cases, subjectivity is accepted as valid, corrections being expected to come from discussion with other scholars

17. D. Gile Doct semin 1 Engl17 THE HSA CYCLE OBSERVATION or IDEAS/THEORIES DISCUSSION (Reflection) NEW / IMPROVED (?) THEORIES NO EMPIRICAL TESTING BUT EMPIRICAL FINDINGS FROM OTHER SCHOLARS’ STUDIES CAN BE TAKEN ON BOARD IN THE DISCUSSION

18. D. Gile Doct semin 1 Engl18 ARE NEW THEORIES IN HSA ‘IMPROVED’ THEORIES? Sometimes they are because of better thinking but They need not be As they are not required to fit reality better than previous theories So move from one theory to the next May be due to more powerful rhetoric by a leader, to fashion…

19. D. Gile Doct semin 1 Engl19

20. D. Gile Doct semin 1 Engl20 HSA vs. CSA - HSA less cautious (No strong requirement that samples be representative No testing requirement before claims) - Less stringent objectivity requirements - Less stringent explicitness requirement Authors can make claims without explicating their tentative nature, without testing them, without providing evidence systematically. More generally, inferences are not subject to strict, logic and scepticism-driven rules to the same extent as in CSA. So not fully compliant with SA norms

21. D. Gile Doct semin 1 Engl21 HSA INFERIOR TO CSA? Perhaps loss in reliability but - Faster - Some theories cannot be tested or tested well (difficult to find valid measurable indicators, variability…) HSA does provide a way of exploring phenomena collectively and critically. Cannot say it is “inferior” in absolute terms

22. D. Gile Doct semin 1 Engl22 CSA vs. HSA and other types of exploration of reality - No claim that CSA is better than HSA - No claim that CSA is better than direct experience, intuition and other ways of exploring the world - Non-scientific exploration often leads to faster and more extensive knowledge acquisition - No special value to “Science” - But CSA corresponds to a specific approach and behavior, partly different from the approaches generally found in the humanities

23. D. Gile Doct semin 1 Engl23 Typical objectives of CSA vs. HSA studies CSA - Explore/Find out about something - Test a theory - Develop a method to explore/test something, a theory … HSA -Think about a phenomenon (its meaning, relation with other phenomena,…) - Analyze a theory - Compare theories …

24. D. Gile Doct semin 1 Engl24 WHY DIFFERENTIATE CSA / HSA? (1) Criticized in CSA, acceptable in HSA: - “Unsubstantiated claims” - “Personal, subjective conclusions” - “Interpretation of phenomena without considering alternative explanations” -“Theories without intent to test them” -“Classifications with no apparent purpose” -“Prescriptive & judgmental attitudes” -“Not quite accurate representation of facts” -“Randomly (or) biased selection of examples”

25. D. Gile Doct semin 1 Engl25 WHY DIFFERENTIATE CSA / HSA? (2) Criticized in HSA, acceptable in CSA: - “Concepts defined operationally are not defined well enough conceptually” - “Focus too narrow (failure to address more relevant aspects for practical or methodological reasons), so exploration incomplete” -“Focus too narrow, focuses on one theory only whereas there are many…” -“Pointless accumulation of data” -“Research with no social relevance”

26. D. Gile Doct semin 1 Engl26 DOES ONE HAVE TO CHOOSE? Question often put to me, quest for common ground I do not see a theoretical impossibility To conduct one part of a project under CSA and one under HSA (eg establishing facts by observation then speculating on them) One example: Karen Bennett. 2008. English academic discourse: its hegemonic status and implications for translation. University of Lisbon. but Two projects in one Potential problems with supervisor, with assessors

27. D. Gile Doct semin 1 Engl27 NOT ALL ACADEMIC TEXTS ARE HSA OR CSA Because not all of them are research projects - Didactic texts - Literature reviews / state-of-the-art reviews - Analyses of situations and policies - Reflections on various technical/“political” issues Published in academic journals/proceedings etc. but not as research projects Research projects, especially PhDs, are generally considered different in nature With specific research questions And reader/assessor expectations about norms

28. D. Gile Doct semin 1 Engl28 Requirements from PhD Work 1. Comply with ‘scientific’ norms (CSA or HSA) 2. Innovate - Facts (Not yet known, which require research to be uncovered) → CSA - Ideas → HSA, CSA (Hypotheses, Models, New interpretations of data, New concepts) - Research methods → CSA if development & testing included

29. D. Gile Doct semin 1 Engl29 LOCAL CONDITIONS NORMS VARY (CSA versus HSA, length of thesis, theoretical exploration, empirical versus theoretical, citations, writing style,…) FOR PhD STUDENTS: THE ‘RIGHT’ NORMS ARE THE SUPERVISOR’S NORMS THE AMOUNT OF REQUIRED INNOVATION VARIES: ‘ENOUGH’ IS WHEN THE SUPERVISOR SAYS IT IS

30. D. Gile Doct semin 1 Engl30 WARNING/REASSURANCE - Most contributions of scientists in any research project are small -Most major contributions are the result of major, prolonged, collective efforts - Don’t be overambitious (Risk of failure, of burn-out) -Don’t aim for major innovation in your PhD -Read other PhDs and identify and assess their contribution - Seek to make a similar contribution If you can do better, fine – but it is not mandatory