the social science method developed from the natural science method. major changes primarily because experiments cannot be preformed on human beings.

Actually, in some projects, social scientists will use exactly the scientific method of the natural sciences---whence it is referred to as positivism or quantitative research.

Essentially, social science divergence from natural sciences (e.g. physics etc.) is when we do qualitative research---but even here, arguably, decent qualitative research should adhere as far as possible to the logic of natural science in order to deliver robust outcomes which can be replicated, thereby adding to the certainty of knowledge.

not quite-- just because it is quantitative will not adhere exactly to the natural science experiments because human beings cannot be experimented on-whether it is giving or withholding whatever the research variable/treatment is-- only a "natural" experiment- i.e something going on naturally would that be allowed. here's a good resource including the references. every university and research organization has an IRB that overlooks and guards human subjects in research and any project has to go through the irb-- whether it is qualitative or quantitative research involving human subjects must be reviewed and approved by the irb.

https://www.pcrm.org/ethical-science/human-experimentation-an-introduction-to-the-ethical-issues

Mary-Helen,

I was referring to the general logic of natural science and therefore think that my answer is an arguable position, but I understand that some will not agree and that's up to them---they do not have a monopoly on how to do social science.

don't know what u mean by "they do not have a monopoly on how to do social science" but it is not an opinion. there is an entire history of using humans that became scandals and led to irbs to prevent using humans

M-H,

seems to me that you're diverging from the asked question.

'no-- u r just not following

"How scientific method in social sciences is different from natural sciences"

the social science method developed from the natural science method. major changes primarily because experiments cannot be preformed on human beings."

M-H,

in my answers, I'm referring to achieving robust research while you seem to have brought ethics into it.

robust research? u seem to have forgotten the question

i did NOT bring ethic into it--is IS a key and important part of any research, u r failing to understand the main concept vis-a-vis human subjects and research and as the diffidence between natural science and social science research. u cannot have research w/p ethics. as i suggested before do a little research of our own-- there is so much history on ns vs sc research , human subjects and the many scandals, an also try the philosophy of science, and irb boards

M-H,

well, you have your opinion and I have mine.

Social science shares many commonalities with natural sciences such as physics etc. and to deny this is delusional.

no one is denying that--- u have a big problem understanding and following the postings; i said from the beginning (scroll up) "the social science method developed from the natural science method. major changes primarily because experiments cannot be preformed on human beings."

probably \because u do not understood truly understand research; these are not opinions these are facts; please please get a textbook at least if u refuse to research the issue and stop an argumentative discussion that is just that argumentative

as for me, i am through trying to get through to to someone who refuses to understand----i spent so much time with that with my students

Personally, I do not believe that it is still there such thing as "scientific method". I think this is a misleading term which hides the most important issue: the sicentific practice as a whole.

And I personally believe that there are some characteristics which are universal to all scientific inquiry: argumentation, foundations on conceptual frameworks and previous research, work in accepted methods, and confrontation of evidence to what it means in previously constructed around what is researched. In addition, the use of delimitated terms and concepts, different from the used in daily reasoning. I think it based on my practice and the practice of colleagues, and in the work of G. Bachellard and J. Rostand.

I think also that social science and natural science created different traditions, related to their objects of study. Both of them are valid and interesting, because what matters is the creativity and new pathways created in order to research in different topics. I am fascinated with the work on high energies physics, as much as how they solve the puzzles on species evolution, human cooperation psychogenesis or etnographies to know on different social groups and phenomena.

Yes, I agree with Nicolás Arias Velandia; a good response.

Thank you Dr. Mary C R Wilson

well practice comes from method --in any field of course theres' a scientific method-- i repeat-get yourself a textbook science is not your personal opinions and ideas