THE Centre for Policy Research and International Studies (CenPRIS), Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) has the privilege of being Malaysia’s first social science research centre. This journey began when its predecessor, the Centre for Policy Research (CPR), was set up in 1974, and immediately took up a pivotal role insofar as the nation-building project was concerned.
CPR was at the forefront of cutting-edge social scientific research and provided policy input to the Malaysian government on a number of crucial policy issues, ranging from poverty alleviation to ethnic relations.
Needless to say, CPR’s action-oriented approach to social scientific research was ahead of its time and we have to thank its founder and first director, Professor Emeritus Datuk Dr K.J. Ratnam, for having the foresight to establish the first social science research outfit in the country.
That being said, it is important to note that social science research is a contentious subject mainly because predictions are rare in the various sub-disciplines in the social sciences.
One reason why specific predictions are rare is that from an epistemological perspective predictions are inherently difficult because our knowledge of social phenomena is limited, and accordingly, our theories are “soft”.
They are soft because social phenomena are the result of multiple causes at different levels of analysis, and it is often difficult, if not impossible, to determine the weight of different causal variables.
Moreover, since social systems are open rather than closed, as in many natural sciences, there is always room for learning and the emergence of new behavioural patterns which may make theories invalid.
This is not to imply that we should not take social scientific research seriously. While the nature of social science as a science has been debated endlessly, explicit forecasting based on social science theories, however soft, is better than predictions based on intuition.
The onset of the industrial revolution in Europe in the second half of the 18th century, for example, saw the birth of multitudes of social, economic and environmental problems which required active intervention by the state.
The aforementioned problems were, in one way or another, addressed through systematic social scientific research which, in turn, provided the impetus for the emergence of broad philosophical and theoretical traditions within which attempts to understand the social world were conducted.
The increase in the scope and functions of the state, more so within the welfare state model, requires close scrutiny on how different social forces interacted, and what is their net effect on society as a whole.
Since modern states are complex creatures, and social problems are by nature intricate, understanding their dynamics is extremely crucial. This is where the social sciences can contribute.
Deducing testable hypotheses and predictions helps policymakers and social scientists. It may help the social scientist to improve existing theories, especially if the credibility of a particular theory is enhanced as a result of empirical research.
The past and future provide laboratories with different advantages and shortcomings for theory-building. One of the advantages of deriving specific predictions from social scientific theories is that we may be able to check their accuracy and, therefore, the explanatory power of the theory against the historical record at some specified point in the future. From a social scientific point of view, whether a prediction turns out to be right or wrong hardly matters. We may even learn more from theory-based predictions that turn out to be wrong than from those that are right.
In any event, we will be in a better position to point to the strengths and weaknesses of the respective theories and be able to refine or even reject a theory.
The formulation of theory-based predictions is not only useful to the social scientist. Contrary to claims by those who criticise theory as irrelevant to practise, theory-based predictions are more useful to the practitioner than are hidden, non-falsifiable predictions because they enable policymakers to make an informed choice concerning his or her agreement or disagreement with the social scientist.
If the practitioner agreed with the assumptions and reasons underlying a specific prediction, and if the social scientist took care to point out how the predicted event may still be prevented or promoted, the practitioner would be in a position to act upon it. Put in another way, by actively engaging with researchers, policymakers would be able to make good decisions. It is widely accepted that good policy decisions should be evidence-based for at least two reasons.
First, it is only such policies that are likely to be effective. Second, with evidence to back them up, they can expect to command public support. Social Science research can therefore inform policy formulations. They help even those who disagree to frame their ideas by clarifying points of disagreement.
CenPRIS aims to contribute in increasing the body of social scientific knowledge by continuously engaging in empirical research and promoting evidence-based policy-making (EBPM). This requires active engagement with various stakeholders while embarking on research projects that cuts across the artificial categorisation of science and social science.
Dr Azeem Fazwan Ahmad Farouk is director of the Centre for Policy Research and International Studies (CenPRIS), Universiti Sains Malaysia