Book Review: Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How it Can Succeed Again

To suggest that social science has been less successful than natural science is almost de rigueur for philosophers of science and students of research methods. Evidence of the truth of this assertion is too abundant to brook serious argument, whether we examine the myriad transformations of daily life since the scientific revolution or the relative credence given social and natural scientists in public discourse. Still open to dispute are the questions posed by Bent Flyvbjerg, professor of planning at Aalborg University, Denmark: How do we explain this disparity, and what should social scientists do about it? Flyvbjerg quickly answers the first question: “The study of social phenomena is not, never has been, and probably never can be, scientific in the conventional meaning of the word ‘science’ ” (p. 25). He develops more gradually an answer to the second question, about social science praxis, and states it most succinctly near the book’s end: “The purpose of social science is not to develop theory, but to contribute to society’s practical rationality in elucidating where we are, where we want to go, and what is desirable according to diverse sets of values and interests” (p. 167). Throughout this wideranging, insightful, and provocative book, Flyvbjerg adduces evidence and argument from philosophy, learning theory, political science, and practical research in support of these two answers. Although the book’s chapters are divided into two parts, the topics they cover are best apportioned conceptually into four sections: (1) statement of the problem, (2) explication of challenges for social science research methodology, (3) perspectives on the role of power in social processes, and (4) guidelines for social science practice. I will first review sections 2, 3, and 4 and then evaluate Flyvbjerg’s evidence and arguments; at that point, I will also return to his initial statement of the problem. What methodological challenges does social science face, in contradistinction to the natural sciences? If the natural science goal, as well as achievement, is, as Flyvbjerg avers, context-independent theory that explains and predicts phenomena, the social sciences are handicapped by the evident context dependence of social processes and by the subjective meanings that peo-