Human Relations Through a Social Science Perspective
This paper examines human relations through the lens of social science, beginning with a comparison of social and natural sciences and their historical origins. It surveys three core social science disciplines—sociology, anthropology, and political science—noting their commonalities and differences. The paper then reviews major qualitative and comparative research tools used to study the social world, addresses fundamental ethical and philosophical challenges facing social scientists, and outlines the steps of the scientific method. It concludes by drawing a direct connection between social science and human relations, arguing that both fields share a foundational concern with understanding human behavior individually and collectively.
- Social Sciences and Natural Sciences: Fundamental Differences: Contrasting origins and defining features of each branch
- Three Core Social Science Disciplines: Sociology, anthropology, and political science defined
- Commonalities and Differences Among the Disciplines: Overlaps and distinctions across the three disciplines
- Tools and Methods for Studying the Social World: Case study, comparative, content, and ethnographic research
- Issues of the Social World: Ethics, knowledge, capital, and social science challenges
- The Scientific Method and Its Steps: Six-step scientific method applied to social inquiry
- Social Science and Human Relations: Direct link between social science and human relations
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Grounds abstract disciplinary distinctions in concrete historical examples, such as Comte's and Durkheim's foundational works, making the comparison between social and natural sciences accessible.
- Moves logically from broad definitions to specific disciplines, then to research methods, and finally to a practical application in human relations — giving the essay a clear progressive structure.
- Uses the scientific method section as a bridge, showing how a traditionally natural-science framework is applied within social science contexts.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates disciplinary synthesis: it draws on philosophy of science (Okasha, Wittgenstein), historical context (the Renaissance, Auguste Comte), and applied social research methods to build a unified argument about what social science is and why it matters for human relations. This technique shows how definitions alone are insufficient — historical and methodological context is needed to distinguish disciplines meaningfully.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a philosophy-of-science framing using Wittgenstein's family-resemblance concept. It then defines social and natural sciences separately before profiling sociology, anthropology, and political science. A comparative section examines overlaps and distinctions among those disciplines. Subsequent sections cover research tools (case study, comparative, content analysis, ethnographic), social world issues (ethics, knowledge, capital), the scientific method's steps, and a concluding section linking social science directly to human relations.
Social Sciences and Natural Sciences: Fundamental Differences
Science is commonly understood as an attempt to predict, understand, and explain our world using distinctive modes of analysis for developing theories. However, defining a collection of attributes that distinguishes science from religion, fortune telling, astrology, and other such disciplines — which also aim at understanding and explaining the world — is not a simple task (Okasha, 2002). Wittgenstein maintained, in the context of games, that no fixed group of features exists for defining a "game"; one can, however, find a loose collection of common features that most games possess. Okasha feels that sciences can be explained in a similar manner. On the basis of some common features among sciences, two branches — social and natural sciences — will be contrasted in this paper (Donmez & Domigall, 2011).
Social Sciences
The field of social science focuses on human society, societal institutions, social groups, social relationships among people, and cultural and material goods as manifestations of human coexistence. Different branches of study within social science all address these subjects (Bayer, 1992).
The scientific study of human society and societal relationships is a much younger discipline compared to natural science. Despite scholars' interest in societal interactions for several centuries, social interactions only began being studied scientifically in the nineteenth century, which saw the publication of sociological works such as Auguste Comte's Système de politique positive and Émile Durkheim's Suicide. Comte's work laid the foundation for a positivist social science approach (Donmez & Domigall, 2011).
Natural Sciences
Natural sciences have been defined by Ledoux (2002, p. 34) as branches of study that exclusively examine natural events — in other words, natural dependent and independent variables — through the use of scientific methodology. Natural sciences typically, though not exclusively, employ scientific methodology, but this is not the key feature differentiating them from social science; rather, the distinguishing aspect is their emphasis on natural phenomena. Natural sciences represent branches of learning that explore natural, physical processes or objects through scientific methodology (Ossenbrink & Stephan, 2013).
Buchel (1992) states that the natural science field emerged from Renaissance thinkers' revolutionized views about the world. These intellectuals called prior explanations into question, seeking new, systematic modes of inquiry. Galileo, Copernicus, and other pioneers of the Renaissance period's scientific revolution became absorbed with questions from the fields of physics, astronomy, and related disciplines. Natural sciences stemmed from a curiosity about the world, in addition to the attempt to adapt nature to mankind's advantage — for meeting human needs that could not, earlier, be freely pursued (Buchel, 1992).
References
Allardt, E. (1969). Political science and sociology. Scandinavian Political Studies.
Bayer, O. (1992). Sozialwissenschaften. In H. Seiffert (Ed.), Handlexikon zur Wissenschaftstheorie. München: Ehrenwirth.
Blunden, A. (2000). What is the most important problem of social science?
Buchel, W. (1992). Naturwissenschaften. In H. Seiffert (Ed.), Handlexikon zur Wissenschaftstheorie. München: Ehrenwirth.
California Department of Fish and Game. (2008). Master plan for marine protected areas.
Donmez, D., & Domigall, Y. (2011). What is the difference between social and natural sciences? Zurich: Universität St. Gallen.
Economic and Social Research Council. (2015, September 6). What is social science? Retrieved from http://www.esrc.ac.uk/about-esrc/what-is-social-science/
Ledoux, S. F. (2002). Defining natural sciences. Behaviorology Today, pp. 34–36.
Okasha, S. (2002). Philosophy of science: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ollman, B. (2015, September 6). What is political science? What should it be? Retrieved from New York University:
Ossenbrink, J., & Stephan, A. (2013). What is the difference between social and natural sciences? Zurich: University of St. Gallen.
Reece, B. L., & Brandt, R. (2008). Effective human relations: Personal and organizational applications (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Science Buddies. (2015, September 6). Steps of the scientific method. Retrieved from http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.