
We have argued that the social sciences cannot be distinguished from the natural sciences in terms of their explanatory structure. They are both properly causal in idiom, just as they avoid the temptation to explain the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’ in different idioms. Yet there are few who would disagree that the social sciences look different from the natural sciences. Their credibility is lower, their status less secure and their disputes more public. In this chapter we offer a tentative explanation for these differences that is consistent with the network theory. Not surprisingly it is an explanation in terms of social interests and their distribution. First, however, we want to offer an example of different social science approaches to what is apparently the same phenomenon.
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
