Embracing Human Science in Counseling Research

Abstract

This article reviews the historical antecedents to the human science movement in counseling, describes common human science methods. and concludes by identifying potential benefits of this research model.

Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A primer on research paradigms and philosophy of science.

“…Influenced by Kantian theory, Dilthey rejected the Cartesian reductionistic and objective emphases. Dilthey made the important distinction between Naturwissenschaft (natural science) and Geisteswissenschaft (human science) to help distinguish the positivistic and constructivistic stances (see Hamilton, 1994;Herman, 1997;Schwandt, 2000). The goal of Naturwissenschaft is scientific explanation (Erklaren), whereas the goal of Geisteswissenschaft is understanding (Verstehen) of the "meaning" of social phenomena (Schwandt, 1994(Schwandt, , 2000.…”

“…He further believed that these lived experiences may be outside the immediate awareness of the individual but could be brought to consciousness. It is important to note that Dilthey was of the position that Erlebnis was an empirical concept that was amenable to human science (qualitative) research (Herman, 1997). Understandably, the constructivist-interpretivist paradigm provides the primary foundation and anchor for qualitative research methods.…”

Composing and Revising a Counselor's Narrative

“…My human science course inspired me to consider other types of knowledge more congruent with that which could inform me in session. I shared many values with this new way of understanding the world: its respect for research participants (or co-investigators), its affirmation of diversity, and its compatibility with both counselor and researcher roles (Herman, 1997). In a very real way, I was experiencing a profound shift in the way I viewed therapy and more generally the world.…”

Eliminating gender inequity : why women choose computer science

“…The constructivism-interpretivism paradigm is considered rooted in cultural anthropology (Butin, 2010) but also includes aspects of many other disciplines such as history, phenomenology, and hermeneutics (Merriam, 1991). Dilthey is credited with laying the groundwork for this paradigm by making the distinction between the natural sciences and what has been called human science (Herman, 1997). The natural sciences represent positivism whereas human science is considered constructivist.…”

“…Criticisms of this paradigm stem from concerns that no standards exist to determine if research is accurate or if reality has been distorted by our consciousness (Herman, 1997;Merriam, 1991). Early critics of this paradigm cited concerns stemming from the inability to ascertain if one interpretation is better than another which could lead to questionable conclusions (Merriam, 1991).…”