A critique of Sayers ’ statement in the context of social research

‘Social science must be critical of its object. In order to be able to explain and understand social phenomena, we have to examine them critically. ’ (Sayer, 1992:6) To be critical in the context of social science means asking how society could be improved based on verifiable facts and knowledge. Knowledge is a dynamic process not a static entity. Knowledge is not a bucket into which grains of information are dropped in the hope that they somehow coalesce into some kind of explanation of the world. For critical methodologist, knowledge is a process of moving towards an understanding of the world and of the knowledge which structures our perceptions of the world. (Harvey 1990: 3-4). However, some researchers point out that this critical approach to social science goes further than they want to go. By being radically critical of society, a researcher takes a leap into being normative and judgmental. Some authors such as Webster (1986) for instance, have introduced some alternative meanings of the term critical in the phrase ‘critical ’ social science. A weaker meaning would be when a researcher is merely critical of the terms of a debate – not of existing social arrangements per se. Wherever people have engaged in corporate activities, there has been one among them who has attempted to “explain ” what and why about the effort. Wherever one dreams, one has explained; wherever one acts, one has given reasons why