Social Science Practical Class 10 Pdf Download Jac Board [2021]

A few years later I became director of theNational Opinion Research Center (NORC) at Chicago. Here, social science was(and still is) presented in an altogether different way. There was basicresearch, but it was now embedded in practicality-based government contracts.NORC was not either basic or applied, it was both. There was room for a lot oftrial-and-error learning and, when needed, persuasive argument about how bestthe government should use our findings. After all, NORC was speaking truth topower, and power, having paid for it, listened.

They also borrowed methods and content: fromnatural science (Baconian principles of measurement and classification,experiments, causal models, generalization, positivism) and from humanities (interpretiveprinciples and methods, as well as access to political philosophy, economictheory, and historical scholarship).

Social Science Practical Class 10 Pdf Download Jac Board

DOWNLOAD 🔥 https://shurll.com/2y7Y1v 🔥

Thefirst half of the twentieth century took for granted that social scientistswere agents of improvement, and the second half constructed a correspondinglyrobust and well-funded social science enterprise. But what the enterprise as awhole failed to anticipate was the uncomfortable fact that social scienceresults can be challenged, not just politically but on scientific grounds, fromwithin. Academic neoconservatives found unintended consequences hidden insocial welfare policy, in such diverse areas as ruined inner-city schools anddampened economic growth. In effect, an edifice built by what was taken to bemainstream social science could be (and partly was) dismantled by a morepolitically conservative social science.

It is true only when talking to ourselves. Not somuch when talking to nonacademics, and especially not when appealing tocongressional appropriators. The reason is not the failure of basic socialscience to provide explanations of human behavior and social structures thatbecome embedded in socially beneficial practices and policies. Pause and considerthese concepts: GNP, social capital, unintended consequences, invisible hand,networks, institutional racism, moral hazard, early childhood intervention,deterrence theory, cost-benefit analysis, implicit bias, peer pressure, freeriders, authoritarianism, deviance, gentrification, public good, stereotype.These concepts, and hundreds more, share two traits. All result from socialscience research. None are generally recognized as such.

NORC presented 50 social science concepts to 100 respondents withsome college education, asking them to indicate those they recognized, and whenthey did recognize them, to enter a brief definition. Deterrence theory was onthe list. Four percent recognized the term, half of whom could provide areasonable working definition. If nuclear deterrence is our gift to the public,we seem not to get any applause. Other terms fared better. Those recognized byat least 85% of the respondents included capitalism, discrimination, socialnetworks, and some others; less known were self-fulfilling prophecy (64%),opportunity cost (44%), externalities (28%), and moral hazard (20%). Of course,even where the percentages are high, obliteration by incorporation reminds usthat recognition of the concept does not mean recognition that the concept isbased in social science research. (That is a later phase of the NORC project.)

I chaired the NAS committee that produced the 2012 report Using Science as Evidence in Public Policy. Our job proved difficult. It took not the three years expected, but seven; it ran out of money; its initial product failed NAS review; it had to negotiate a fresh statement-of-task with its funders. We were finally successful (it does exist), but only because we got past the evidence-based policy terminology, basically rephrasing it as evidence-influenced politics. That too is a weak framing, but it started a project (Future of Scholarly Knowledge, funded by the Sara Miller-McCune philanthropies) that led me to ask what are the barriers to retrofitting social science. These are described above. The Fourth Purpose answers what we should do once the barriers are set aside.

It has three features. First, loosen theattachment to frameworks that impede fresh thinking. Then replace thoseframeworks with a clearer, more forceful (thus risky) purpose: notably,reestablish a social science for the sake of society, reasserting itsauthoritative voice, initially established in the 1880s and sustained for acentury, but losing its edge in recent decades. Finally, and going back to ourroots, firmly institutionalize this retrofitted social science in researchuniversities, directing it along the two tracks emphasized above. The firstfeature is straightforward; the second is a much greater challenge, but doable;the third is difficult, really difficult, requiring hundreds of person-hoursjust to design the Fourth Purpose, let alone implement it. Maybe we academicswill have to give our home universities a little more time, and our disciplinaryassociations and conferences a bit less.

Positivist social scientists use methods resembling those used in the natural sciences as tools for understanding societies, and so define science in its stricter modern sense. Interpretivist or speculative social scientists, by contrast, may use social critique or symbolic interpretation rather than constructing empirically falsifiable theories, and thus treat science in its broader sense. In modern academic practice, researchers are often eclectic, using multiple methodologies (for instance, by combining both quantitative and qualitative research). The term social research has also acquired a degree of autonomy as practitioners from various disciplines share similar goals and methods.

The history of the social sciences began in the Age of Enlightenment after 1650,[2] which saw a revolution within natural philosophy, changing the basic framework by which individuals understood what was scientific. Social sciences came forth from the moral philosophy of the time and were influenced by the Age of Revolutions, such as the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution.[3] The social sciences developed from the sciences (experimental and applied), or the systematic knowledge-bases or prescriptive practices, relating to the social improvement of a group of interacting entities.[4][5]

The beginnings of the social sciences in the 18th century are reflected in the grand encyclopedia of Diderot, with articles from Jean-Jacques Rousseau and other pioneers. The growth of the social sciences is also reflected in other specialized encyclopedias. The term "social science" was coined in French by Mirabeau in 1767, before becoming a distinct conceptual field in the nineteenth century.[6] Social science was influenced by positivism,[3] focusing on knowledge based on actual positive sense experience and avoiding the negative; metaphysical speculation was avoided. Auguste Comte used the term science sociale to describe the field, taken from the ideas of Charles Fourier; Comte also referred to the field as social physics.[3][7]

Following this period, five paths of development sprang forth in the social sciences, influenced by Comte in other fields.[3] One route that was taken was the rise of social research. Large statistical surveys were undertaken in various parts of the United States and Europe. Another route undertaken was initiated by mile Durkheim, studying "social facts", and Vilfredo Pareto, opening metatheoretical ideas and individual theories. A third means developed, arising from the methodological dichotomy present, in which social phenomena were identified with and understood; this was championed by figures such as Max Weber.[8] The fourth route taken, based in economics, was developed and furthered economic knowledge as a hard science. The last path was the correlation of knowledge and social values; the antipositivism and verstehen sociology of Max Weber firmly demanded this distinction. In this route, theory (description) and prescription were non-overlapping formal discussions of a subject.[9][10]

The foundation of social sciences in the West implies conditioned relationships between progressive and traditional spheres of knowledge. In some contexts, such as the Italian one, sociology slowly affirms itself and experiences the difficulty of affirming a strategic knowledge beyond philosophy and theology.[11]

Around the start of the 20th century, Enlightenment philosophy was challenged in various quarters. After the use of classical theories since the end of the scientific revolution, various fields substituted mathematics studies for experimental studies and examining equations to build a theoretical structure. The development of social science subfields became very quantitative in methodology. The interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary nature of scientific inquiry into human behaviour, social and environmental factors affecting it, made many of the natural sciences interested in some aspects of social science methodology.[12] Examples of boundary blurring include emerging disciplines like social research of medicine, sociobiology, neuropsychology, bioeconomics and the history and sociology of science. Increasingly, quantitative research and qualitative methods are being integrated in the study of human action and its implications and consequences. In the first half of the 20th century, statistics became a free-standing discipline of applied mathematics.[13] Statistical methods were used confidently.

In the contemporary period, Karl Popper and Talcott Parsons influenced the furtherance of the social sciences.[3] Researchers continue to search for a unified consensus on what methodology might have the power and refinement to connect a proposed "grand theory" with the various midrange theories that, with considerable success, continue to provide usable frameworks for massive, growing data banks; for more, see consilience. The social sciences will for the foreseeable future be composed of different zones in the research of, and sometimes distinct in approach toward, the field.[3] 006ab0faaa