Martin on Nostr: Most (social) sciences are split into a quantitative and qualitative camp. It's not ...

Most (social) sciences are split into a quantitative and qualitative camp.

It's not just about methodology. These camps are so different that they're almost unable to talk to each other.

In economics: Neoclassical vs. austrian

In education: School effectiveness research vs. pedagogy

In general: Statistical plug-and-play research vs. eclectic ad hoc mumbo jumbo.

(OK, it's not all bad, but the vast majority of published science now seems to be garbage)

Hilariously, in organization theory, the meaning of the word 'organization' is disputed. Quantitative researchers do not consider voluntary, religious or political organizations to be.. well, organizations.

They want comparability, clean datasets and tight definitions.

They also want formalisation, standardization, generalizability, objectivity (as in, no human sentiments), predictability, precision, control, efficiency, quantification and replicability.

I probably could go on, but I refer to this set of... processes, as 'controlmaxxing'.

I've come across two other areas where people are keen on controlmaxxing: The army and industry.

What is going on here?

It has to do with optimization in simple systems. Linear, designed systems are more efficient when you control everything.

(But dynamic, adaptive systems break down, more on that in another post)

Interestingly, the best factories strike a balance between control of the production process, and careful stewardship of the much more complex social layer.

This is known as "lean", "TPS", "scrum", "ToC" and so on in organization theory, but it all boils down to the same.

So why does science look and feel like a factory floor?

One reason is that it is designed as a factory floor. Many researchers literally have to meet publishing quotas to keep their job, and statistics turns out to provide a neat plug-and-play template for the "production" of science.

But it also has to do with centralization.

Controlmaxxing solves the principal agent-problem, and so any central authority will be attracted to it.

And the agents who adapt most efficiently, are rewarded. Goodhart's law, and a destructive cycle of fakery is set in motion.

So the question is: How did we get here, and how do we get out?

Or maybe your question is "Martin, what the hell are you talking about?".

In any case, I will strive to make it clear in the coming posts.