Integrated social sciences (ISS) brings empirical studies of individuals and groups, gathered from the interactions from a particular time and place, into a framework of description and analysis . Where limitations of research in physical sciences may be moved by technological improvements in instrumentation, the reproduction of physical interactions, such as in a game of billiards, is simply infeasible when working with the the unique state of individuals and groups, those complex adaptive systems known as “human beings”.

Well-intentioned (and some not-so-well intentioned) structures in modern human society have inadvertently sabotaged their own well-being, as a necessary consequence of normal human behavior and the cognitive biases we all face. For this work to be useful to the visitor, it must provide strong references to other works, to both demonstrate credibility but also to engage in existing discourse. The work must also be accessible, through excellent presentation and available interaction with the author (me) or association with another place of conversation (the Internet).

Studies in ISS encourage dialogues, of critical theories about social structures and influence; the authors of Project Implicit (Harvard 2011, Vedantam 2005), use quantitative measurements (reaction time) alongside subjective labels (good and bad), to tease out the reflexes of ingrained bias, so as to spark reflection and discourse. They set rigor through instrumentation and bring social value through critical discussion, asking their reader to consider social causes and consequences. They remind us to truly think, about inequities and reflexive decisions, so as to better our ability as a society in creating healthy social outcomes.

What data we may collect and discover through ISS is made ever-more valuable by our ability to present it to others. Though creative methods of demonstrating data, by sound, movement and tactile experience are important to make our work accessible to our audience and the larger world of interest. As Friendly (2008) documents, visualization has a long history of usefulness in showing trends, ratios and other dynamics of activity, representing data points in a manner understandable by people. Statistics summaries, of likelihood, correlation and ranges are important, but simple. Beyond those simple items, visualizations and other representational techniques help us to access larger number of data points, so we may both explore and describe the interactions of those points in salient manner.

Social science research draws on both quantitative and qualitative observation and analysis; it is intrinsically subjective, while often pragmatic. Research often has a goal, through which the process of elaboration calls for some praxis, beyond mere appreciation, such as art. It as such requires that we “[develop] instruments that yield empirical data [unavoidably developed through] a subjective decision at every stage… SUBJECTIVITY + OBJECTIVITY = SUBJECTIVITY” (Onwuegbuzie 2005, p. 377). This logical constraint, that “any interpretations of the scores yielded cannot be 100% objective” (ibid.) arguably extends to the physical sciences as well -- and C I Lewis did argue that point, in his 1923 writings on conceptual pragmatism, “Mind and the World Order”. The objective realm of the quantitative simply cannot be separated from the qualitative environment in which the experiment and all instruments therein are created. Because of this, quantitative research always holds a qualitative component, and it is up to the reporter to include an introspection, in awareness of what assumptions and environment they perceived in their work.

Quantitative and qualitative analysis of data through statistical labeling and exploration techniques is important for confirming or disproving theories, as well as developing additional insights. Rigorous analysis and data collection helps to create repeatable and justifiable experiments. While social sciences depend on the dynamism of human interactions, quantitative theories must rely on relatively stable instrumentation, repeatable conditions and numeric categories. Computational capacity over the last century has improved so as to make data processing and mathematical rigor available on a simple mobile phone. Our capacity for data collection and analysis is now less of an issue of practical ability than of social capability.

We ask, of those researchers that wade deeply into ethnographic description, that they provide some grounding on which to understand their own work, as a document that demands more of its reader than attention: we ask them to give us some level of measurable understanding, that by reading their work we may obtain some anticipatory power (Geertz 1973, p. 351) in our better awareness of human being. To the extent we can use qualitative information, to make ourselves more intelligent, we can so delineate the boundaries of the humanities and their wonderful works of art and culture, from the social sciences and their rigorous pursuit of understanding in the framework of “actual” events and the “thick description” (Geertz 1973) needed to comprehend the human reasoning surrounding them.

By attuning our work toward the intrinsic value of human life, and our role as fellow humans and scientific explorers, we guard ourselves from overzealous and calloused actions. Through inductive exploration or deduction through hypothesis-based experimentation, we set rigor to our experiments. In challenging ourselves to maintain these standards, we can aspire to the greater ideals of science, as the community iterates forward toward a better understanding of who we are as a species and how we can develop technology to improve our world. In failing, we find ourselves taking steps back, polluting the policy and public discourse around pressing social needs.

Friendly, M (2008) Milestones in the history of thematic cartography, statistical graphics, and data visualization. Accessed

Geertz, C. (1973) from The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. "Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture"Preview the document (pp. 332-55).

Harvard. (2011) Project Implicit. Accessed: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/

Lewis, C. I. (1929). Mind and the World Order: Outline of a Theory of Knowledge, New York: Charles Scribners. Reprinted by Dover Publications (New York), 1956. Access: https://archive.org/details/MindAndTheWorldOrderOutlineOfATheoryOfKnowledgeClarenceIrvingLewis

Vedantam, S. (2005). "See No Bias," Washington Post. Sunday, January 23, 2005. Accessed: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27067-2005Jan21.html