643
1 INTRODUCTION
The origin of maritime research lies in a multi‐
disciplinaryapproachtotheseaasahighway anda
resourcebase,thoughnotjustascollectionofsubjects
relatedto the sea[1]. Thenatural science dimension
has been interspersed with social sciences as an
integrated approach to
subject areas that demand a
cohesiveexaminationofaresearchproblem.Further,
thephilosophicalgroundingforanacademicresearch
inherentlyshapesthemethodologicalapproach,data
collectionmethods adopted, andanalysis techniques
deployed [2]. Therefore, it is important that the
philosophicalconceptsinsocialsciencebestudiedin
relationtotheir
relevancetomaritimeresearch.Asit
is a vast domain, this paper only focuses on the
philosophical approach of ‘Values’ in maritime
context.
Thestudyofsocialsciencesasadistinctdiscipline
hasdevelopedquiterecentlycomparedtothestudyof
naturalsciences.Thehistoryofsocialsciencehasbeen
a
long and arduous effort to become aware of the
thingshiddenortakenforgranted:thingswedidnot
know existed [3]. Social Science or perhaps Social
Sciences (because they are multiple and relatively
distinct) were only invented in anything resembling
their modern form in the mid‐1800s, and they
only
reachedtheircurrentformintheearly1900s[4].
1.1 ResearchQuestion
The paper is focused on the question‐What is the
relevance of philosophical approach to ‘values’ in
socialscience,tomaritimeresearch?
1.2 Method
The overall analytical framework applied for
answering the research question is by broadly
applying
qualitative research strategy. Thus, social
science and its grounding in philosophical concepts
Relevance of Philosophical Approach to Values in Social
Science to Maritime Research
D.R.Sharma
WesternNorwayUniversityofAppliedSciences,Haugesund,Norway
ABSTRACT:Theoriginofmaritimeresearchliesinamulti‐disciplinaryapproach.Thephilosophicalgrounding
foracademicresearchinherentlyshapesthemethodologicalapproach,data collectionmethodsadopted,and
analysis techniques deployed. Thus, there is a need for an insight into the philosophical underpinnings
of
maritime research for better understanding of research design in maritime context. The paper will examine
social science and its grounding in philosophical concepts for qualitative research, and the relevance of
philosophicalapproachto‘values’insocialscience,tomaritimeresearchbyusingqualitativemethods.Theaim
is to apprise
the novice maritime researchers‐in simplistic language, about the philosophical approach to
values,asanalternativetocomplexdescriptionsofconceptsavailableinphilosophicalarticlesandreferences.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 17
Number 3
September 2023
DOI:10.12716/1001.17.03.16
644
forqualitativeresearchwillbebroadlyidentified,and
subsequently, it will be discussed with a particular
reference to ‘values’, highlighted with examples in
maritimecontext.
2 SOCIALSCIENCEVSNATURALSCIENCE
The study and research of natural sciences usually
followed well‐structured and widely accepted
principles, theories, concepts related to
scientific
knowledge and experimental laws & methods.
However, the social sciences demanded a flexible
approach in designing new theories and
methodologies appropriate to the discipline. The
naturalsciencesaredifferentfromthesocialsciences
in several respects as the natural sciences are very
precise, accurate, deterministic, and independent of
the
person making the scientific observations,
however, the same cannot be said for the social
sciences,whichtendtobelessaccurate,deterministic,
orunambiguous[5].
Incidentally,theinitialattemptstoconformtothe
idealsofnaturalscienceresearchmayhaveinfluenced
the development of the doctrine of positivism.
AugusteComte(1798–1857),
founderofthediscipline
of sociology, attempted to blend rationalism and
empiricism in a new doctrine called positivism [5].
Comtebelievedthatthetimewas rightforapplication
of methods that were so successful in astronomy,
physicsandothernaturalsciencestothesocialrealm
[6]. He defined three methods
of philosophizing
development of human intelligence, theological‐
phenomena caused by supernatural things,
metaphysical – explanations through abstract forces
inherentinhumanbeingsandpositive–reasoning&
observation. Thereafter, he goes on to argue use of
positivephilosophyforsocialscienceresearch.
Subsequently, Durkheim postulated treating the
social facts scientifically as
‘things’ – which are
realities, and must be proved empirically, also
accepting that his positivism results from the
rationalism[7].However,healsopointedoutthatthe
social facts are not the only things which can be
observed and measured. Thus, this approach can be
considered slightly different from the
positivism of
Comte,though bothargueuseofscientificmethods,
primarilyquantitative,inobservationandanalysisof
asocialphenomenon.
However, as the social science developed,
limitations of these early doctrines were questioned
and accordingly antipositivism and postpositivism
were propounded by the philosophers to address
themand make more relevant observations
of social
phenomena.
Geertzprovidedadifferentapproachinsearching
fortheexplanationsthroughnotonlyexperimentsbut
alsointerpretationsinprobingthemeaning[8].Oneof
the methods of getting the truth is through
naturalistic inquiry which primarily relies on field
study and is more suited to the socio‐
behavioural
inquiryandevaluation[9].Whilethescientificinquiry
focuses on general phenomena existing and
discoverable in real world, the naturalistic one
identifies multiple realities or interrelations of the
multipletruths.
Consequently, social science has been recognized
as a significant field of study contributing to the
important social and cultural phenomena.
Even the
initial challenges for the relevance of social science
researchcalledforittoberesponsivetothepressing
issuesofthedayandplayanactiveroleinpromoting
social change [10]. Hence, it has evolved into an
importantchangeenablerinsocialarena.
At this stage, it
is important to bring out the
relationship between philosophy and social sciences
before examining the philosophical concepts and its
relevance.
3 PHILOSOPHYANDSOCIALSCIENCES
Though philosophy and social science are two
separate subjects, there is a distinct relationship
between the two. There are two basic models of the
relationship[11].
Inoneview,philosophycouldarrive
atcertainknowledgebyrationalargument.Themost
fundamentaltruthsaboutourselvesandthenatureof
theworldwelivein,aswellastherulesforarriving
at such knowledge, could be established by
philosophers. In this way, philosophy provided
‘foundations’ for the
research done in the particular
scientificspecialisms.Theyfurtherbringoutthatthe
alternative view of the relation between philosophy
and the sciences is sometimes called the
‘underlabourer’view.
On this view, it is accepted that armchair
speculationaboutthenatureoftheworldcannotgive
us certain or reliable knowledge.
Knowledge can
comeonlyfrompracticalexperience,observationand
systematic experimentation. So, the special sciences
don’tneedtowaitforphilosopherstoprovidethem
with foundations, or to tell them what they should
think.Ontheunderlabourerview,philosophyshould
bethereto providehelpandsupporttothework
of
the scientists, as they get on with the job of
discoveringhownatureworks.
Incidentally, these two views rightly summarize
the link between the philosophy and social science
and highlight the significance and necessity of
philosophicalfoundationsfora valuableresearchand
studyofasocialsciencephenomena.
Further,while
discussingtherelationshipbetween
philosophyand socialscience,it hasbeen attempted
to specify in a general way how philosophy,
conceived as the study of the nature of man’s
understanding of reality, may be expected to
illuminate the nature of human interrelations in
society[12].Thedistinctionbetweentheapproach
and
applicability of philosophical concepts to natural
sciences vis‐a‐vis social sciences has also been
highlighted. Other scholars focused on the
methodologies as an underlying conceptual
frameworktodeliberateonthe relationshipbetween
philosophyandthesocialscience[13].
However, while enhancing intelligence with
digitaltoolsandartifacts,itis
saidthatPhilosophy,in
itsbroadestsense,isasystematicandrigorousmeans
645
to study, criticize, reconsider, and affect a perceived
problem [14]. As such, it is never the answer to a
problemoranendtosomething.Instead,philosophy
isatoolforcastingawidernet,consideringexpanded
ranges of options, and evaluating consequences
againstabackdropofalongertime
periodorinlight
ofoverarchingphenomena.
Thus, the philosophy is now considered
conceptually much closer and deep rooted in the
social sciences research than what was thought by
scholars in early years and initial deliberations,
whereby, natural sciences was thought to be more
rootedinphilosophicalconcepts.
4 ‘VALUES’
INSOCIALSCIENCE
As the scientific inquiry of the social phenomena
emergedtoberecognisedasameaningfulscienceand
social science research was widely accepted in the
nineteenth century, it was still desired that the
methods and logic of natural science need to be
adoptedorappropriatelymodifiedtostudy
thesocial
phenomena and accordingly, the concept of
objectivityinsocialsciencewasarticulated[15].While
theontologicalissueswererelatedtotherealfacts,the
epistemologicalissueswererelatedtothe‘Values’.
The focus of this paper is limited to the role of
values in maritime context as a
social science
approach. Therefore, the objectivity will not be
discussedindetail,thoughtheseareinterrelatedand
influencethescientificobjectivityperse.
Values are primarily meant to indicate the
normative or emotive commitments people hold,
which may be tacit or explicit while they can also
concernawidevarietyof
things,fromcommitments
toethicalprinciples, communal patternsof being, or
even to qualities one wants to have in one’s
knowledgeabouttheworld[16].
A more contrasting definition was derived from
thatgivenbyKluckhohn(1951)thatValues,positive
and negative, are (1) elements in the effective
definition of
the situation of action that designate
desirableandundesirablemodes,meansandendsof
action,i.e., normative orientationsrelated invarying
waystocognitiveandaffectiveprocesses;(2)maybe
explicit or implicit, i.e., given directly in value
judgments or inferred from verbal and non‐verbal
behavioursthatinvolveapproval,disapproval,
blame,
praise,reward,punishment,supportandsuppression;
(3) are persistent through time and manifest
directionality, i.e., there is observable consistency of
response to recurrent situations; and (4) are
interrelatedas elements in culturally or individually
distinctive patterns or systems, i.e., as differentiated
butinterdependentpartsofawhole[17].
The
twodistinctkindsofvaluesrelatetoepistemic
or cognitive practices and moral & social life
respectively. As the former primarily includes
simplicity,explanatorypower,theories,etc,theseare
not considered to have a negative influence on
science.However,thelaterrelatedtofreedom,justice,
etc. are usually unacceptable to scientists
and
philosophersasitmaycorruptthescientificinquiry.
Epistemicvaluesarethusnotathreattoobjectivity
whilemoral and political(non‐epistemic) values can
be potentially upsetting [18]. However, many
philosophers have brought out that the character of
thecognitivevaluescanbeheavilyinfluencedbythe
social
factors and therefore it is questionable how
thesevaluescanbeconsideredtobemoreacceptable
thanthemoralvalues.Thus,theargumentdoesseem
to have some basis for evaluation, at least
philosophically,ifnotpractically.
Letusnowtakefewexamplestodemonstratethis
inmaritimecontext.
Threedifferent
typesofepistemicpractices,which
theUnitedNationsreliesontorendermaritimepiracy
knowledge were identified in a research study –
Quantification by acting as Centres of Calculating
Piracy data, Local Knowledge and Detective Work
through Monitoring Groups such as UN Monitoring
Group on Somalia, and generation of Network
and
DiplomaticKnowledgethroughSpecialAdvisors[19].
Each of these approaches look into the subject area
fromadifferentcontextandlensofexamination.
Recognizing that Human‐technology interactions
havebecomeanimportantmultidisciplinaryresearch
topicforshipping,theoreticalconceptsrelativetothe
dimensions of psychology, sociology and ecology in
Human
Computer Interaction (HCI) were used in a
research study in order to form a deeper
understanding instead of traditional epistemic
practicesinthisfield[20].Thus,itexaminedthetopic
throughthescopeofdifferentapproacheswhichwere
notcustomarytothisfieldofscientificinquiry.
Therefore, in both these
cases,the understanding
oftheknowledgeinaparticularresearchareaortopic
is explored or approached through new theories &
explanatory power and thereby it enriches the
scientificinquiry.
However, the hypothetical research, for example,
related to promiscuity patterns in seafarers due to
theirlongabsenceawayfrom home,could
influence
andposecertainmoraland socialvaluejudgements,
notonlybytheresearcherbutalsoonusingthetool
for enhancing scientific knowledge. Thus, it may
present challenges to the objectivity of the scientific
inquiry.
Socialsciencescannottellusanythingabouthow
we ought to live and what
makes a good societyas
thereisanimpassablechasmbetweenthe“is”andthe
“ought”, a bright line between “facts” and “values
[21]. It is also highlighted that not only the facts
themselves are “value laden”, what is less often
noticed,however,isthatvaluesare“factladen”.
Inphilosophy,
normativerulescannotbeformally
derived from facts. Hence, there is no precise
definitionfortheconnotationsofethicalbehaviour,a
termbelonging tothe realm of normative rules [22].
Themoral(prescriptive)judgementswerecontrasted
with factual (descriptive) judgments, leading to the
conclusion that the former, unlike the latter,
are not
rationallysupportable.
Weber also states that Hume found that there
seems to be a significant difference between
descriptive statements (about what is) and
prescriptive or normative statements (about what
646
oughttobe),andthatitisnotobvioushowonecan
coherently move from the descriptive statements to
the prescriptive ones. Hume put forward the “is‐
ought” problem (Hume’s Law), negating the
possibilityoflogicallyderivingwhatoughttobefrom
whatis.Thus,tobeobjective,itshould
onlyfocuson
anddescribefacts¬values.
The arguments appropriately highlight the basic
premise and the origin of the well‐argued debate
about the fact‐value dichotomy, which has been the
focus of many scholars. This also brings out that
valuesplayquiteacontrastingpartinproviding
the
scientificbasisofobjectivitytosocialscienceresearch.
If we do not see that facts and values are deeply
entangled,weshallmisunderstandthenatureoffact
as badly as logical positivists misunderstood the
natureofvalue[23].
However, science cannot be completely “value
free”andcompletelyvaluefreescience
isanillusion
[24].Thoughthevaluecommitmentsofapersonand
hisinterestsshapeandinformthepracticesofscience
inmanyways,however,thesemaynotinfluencethe
value‐ladennessofscientificknowledgeitself.Infact,
the influence of values upon social science is not
necessarily undesirable and
the only illegitimate
valuesarethosewhichleadtospuriousfindingsand
conclusions[25].
Insciencerelevanttopublicpolicy,thenormative
argumentthatvaluesarerequiredforgoodreasoning
inscienceandvalues play a crucialdecision‐making
role in science, holds merit [26]. Both epistemic and
non‐epistemicvalues
playacrucialroleinthechoice
ofsubject,methodology,interpretation,etc.
Incidentally, Max Weber, the renowned
philosopher,couldbeconsideredtheoriginatorofthe
ideaofthevaluefreedominsocialscience,wherehe
wrote extensively on the subject. To summarize his
views,valuesplayaroleinthe
definitionofaproblem
forstudy, butthese values neednot and should not
affecttheprocessofinvestigationitself[27].
5 ROLEOFVALUES
Aswehavediscussedinpreviousparagraphs,science
cannot be totally value free and not all values have
negativeinfluenceonthescientificinquiry,especially
in
thecontextofsocialscience.Hence,thevaluesplay
animportantroleinmanyways,whichmaybesubtle,
inherent or inevitablebut not always corrupting the
conclusions of the scientific inquiry. Whether it is
madeexplicitornot,everyresearchdesigncontainsa
set of values about its ontology,
epistemology,
methodology, and axiology, and reflectsa particular
worldvieworparadigm[28].
Therearethreekindsofrolesofthevaluesinsocial
science [16]. These are directive, inferential and
linguisticroles.Insimplewords,thefirstrelatestothe
role of values in the direction and selection of
research, which
means the decision about which
researchtodo.Thesecondrelatestotheroleofvalues
withrespecttoinferenceinscience,thedecisionabout
whattoinferfromtheevidence. Thethird relatesto
the role of values with respect to the language in
science, and the way in
which values influence the
wordsweusetodescribethings.Tounderstandthese
threerolesofvalues,letusdiscussthemindetail.
5.1 DirectiveRole
Quoting John Heron’s (1996) Cooperative Inquiry
ResearchintotheHumanCondition,itisarguedthat
valuesarethedirectorialmotiveofallpeople’sactions
[28].
Interestingly,thisresearcharguesthatvaluesasa
guidingtoolwill bethe standardsagainstwhichwe
make our judgementsand choose what isimportant
tous; andtomeetourneedsandpreference.Thisis
what sums up the directive role of values, which
influencs the choice of the
researcher about the
directionoftheresearch.
The values play a role in decisions concerning
significanceinscientificresearchandvaluescanenter
intothecoreofscientificinquiryandcontributetothe
scientific knowledge [29]. Thus, the values could be
considered to be legitimizing the very concept and
existence of
science in broader sense. However, it is
considerablydifficultorchallengingtodecidewhatis
theoverallvalueofthisscientificknowledge.
Values invariably influence how we select and
definetheproblemsweinvestigate.Weberisalluding
to the fact that, because our perceptions, thoughts,
and acts as human beings
are largely founded on
values,ourchoicesassocialresearcherseffectivelyare
framedbyevaluativecriteria[30].
Thus, values play a selective role in deciding
whichsubjectorareaisinterestingtotheresearcher,
sometimesbased on it’saesthetic value, moralvalue
or a personal epistemic value or a combination of
thesevaluesasthesekindofvaluesshapeanddirect
theattentionoftheresearchertoaparticularproblem
onwhichtheresearchisfounded[16].
However,itagainposesaninterestinginescapable
dilemma or predicament about which values will
influenceorprioritizeoverotherswhiletheresearcher
decides which
questions to research. Further, while
discussing role of values, it refers to a normative
notion that characterizes the way things should be
done,whichwilldifferamongdifferentsocialgroups
andcontexts[31].Therefore,it is alsochallengingto
decide which context or whose values will be
appropriate in deciding the
research questions
withoutcorruptingtheobjectivityoftheresearch.
For example, if we look into the research study
which examines the effects of national culture and
leadership style on safety performance in bulk
shipping companies [32], it obvious what the
researcher’s interest are. Apart from recognition of
multiculturism in an
international industry such as
shipping, which calls for studying impact of
nationalitiesofseafarersasa variable,theyalsostate,
‘…relativelyfewresearchhavebeendonetoexamine
the national culture in shipping and how these
national cultural differences influence on seafarers
safetybehaviours’.Thus,innovative and novelareas
ofresearch
also provide a directionormotive tothe
researchers.
In certain situations, the values themselves could
be the subject of research or may be the normative
647
end‐resultofaresearchthusinfluencingthequestion
beingresearched,themethodologybeingadoptedor
theinterpretations/conclusions.Thistopicalroleofthe
values calls for overcoming challenges on deciding
the degree of responsibility of the researcher in
helpingfindmeanstothegivenends.
Inaresearchstudyingthe
cultivationofvaluesof
maritime college students’ occupational pride,
interestingly,inthe research background,the author
distinctlystates ‘..Maritimecollege students ….have
grown into senior specialized talents in the national
shippingindustry….thecorevaluesoftheirvaluesare
weakenedandtheiroccupationalprideis notstrong
enough,andso
shouldbepaidmoreattentionto’[33].
This amply brings forth the value influence in
formulating the research question, the questionnaire
usedandmethodfordataanalyses.
Anotherimportantdirectiveroleusuallyrelatedto
moral and ethical values is to place restrictions on
how the research is conducted and how the
data is
handled, especially concerning human subjects,
privacy,informedconsent[16].Conductingparticular
research which uses methods that are disturbing or
creates psychological/physicaldistress demandsit to
be weighedin termsof thebenefits or valuesofthe
results or scientific knowledge provided such
research. Further, to what extent these
values shall
constrainthetopicorthemethodologyortheoverall
researchdesignisadifficultpropositiontodecideasa
pureandneutralscientist.
Inastudyhighlightingtheuniquechallengesand
difficulties of maritime security research on piracy,
terrorismorillegalfishing,seekingin‐depth insights
through sources not
widely available, such as
information from parties involved in or affected by
illegal activities, the author recommends that
fieldwork is still crucial as it adds valuable insights
into maritime issues that cannot be gained from
publishedsources[34].
Further,inastudyexaminingthementalhealthof
seafarers, the issue
of distress while using the
statisticaldata is evident by the statement of author
‘…in describing seafarers’ mental health, the use of
rates to cite trends in suicides by seafarers was not
employed’[35].It isalsosignificantthat information
on the causes of depression and suicide was also
obtained from
the so‐called ‘grey’ literature on the
healthandwelfareofseafarersandanecdotalreports
from individuals closely aligned with seafarers and
theirneeds(e.g.,chaplainsinseafarers’centres),apart
from the published studies or reports. Therefore,
examining the sensitive issue of suicides does pose
thisdilemma.
Itisalso
observedthatthesensitiveissueofdrug
abusebyseafarershasnotbeenwidelyresearchedby
generalmaritimeresearchersandusuallyundertaken
byindustryorganizationsorinternationalregulatory
organizations in the form of reports, guidance,
manual and statistics. Though, sometimes, it forms
part of a larger study on stress and psychological
well‐being studies of seafarers or medico‐legal
aspects.
5.2 InferentialRole
In inferential roles, deciding the methodology to
produceorinfluence aparticularreasoningorresult
maycompromisethe valueto knowledgeitself from
suchscientificinquiryandcreatesanillegitimaterole
of values. Thus, it is illegitimate for
non‐epistemic
valuestodriveinquirytoapredeterminedconclusion
[36].Itis legitimatefornon‐epistemicvalues toplay
an indirect role in scientific reasoning, while it is
illegitimateforthemtoplayadirectone[37].
Another aspect is the values determining in a
subtle way the interpretation of
the evidence or
deciding what to make of the evidence obtained in
particular research, especially if the evidence is
inconclusiveorinconsistent.Asthisisusuallyacase
in most of the research, it can be legitimately
acceptable if the uncertainty is avoided by a claim
followingdeductivelyfromthe
evidence[16].
Inmaritimecontext,inaparticularcase,itcouldbe
more apparent where document analysis is used by
utilizingdocumentsfortheorizingorinterpretingina
totallydifferentwaythantheoriginalintentionofthe
document.Forexample,thedataanalysedfromsafety
reports which were just compiled to
document the
safety activities in an organization could be
misinterpreted to claim certain aspects related to
missing information, which was originally not
intendedtobepartofthereport.
However, in deciding whether the evidence is
sufficient to support the claim in the face of
uncertainty,aresearcherisusing
hisvaluejudgement
too.Insuchacase,itisnecessarytoassesswhatare
the implications of making an incorrect choice or
judgement. It may result in accepting a false
hypothesisorrejectingatruehypothesis.So,itisfor
theresearchertodecidewhichofthesetwooutcomes
is
more acceptable, whichagain will be based onor
influencedbyhisvaluejudgement.
A classic case to demonstrate this in maritime
context,thoughnotfromacademicliteraturebutfrom
operationalpractices,wasexperiencedduringCOVID
pandemic, when remote audits and surveys were
undertaken to obviate the difficulties of conducting
the in‐person or physical ones, due to travel
restrictions, social distancing and quarantine
requirements. However, the primary principle
adopted was that objective of remote audits is to
achieve the same results as obtained with regular
audits.Thiswasadifficultprepositionasitprovided
subjective interpretation of the equivalence of
outcomeofauditbytheauditorormaritimeauthority
conducting the audit in the absence of any agreed
guidelines.However,itwasnecessarytocontinueto
takeacallonthisastherewasnooptionavailableto
ensure continuation of maritime transport.
Incidentally, these difficulties have been recognized
by
IMOandnowitisworkingtodevelopguidanceon
thisissue[38].
Thus, these roles played by the values are
legitimateandcannotbeavoidedcompletely,evenif
thevaluesmayhavebeendevelopedorinfluencedby
researcher’sownscientificknowledgeofaparticular
fieldofresearch.Further,itis
importanttoensurethat
these values do not play a direct role to corrupt,
distortortwisttheinferencedrawnfromtheevidence
648
ofaresearch.Otherwise,itmaybedetrimentaltothe
valueofthescientificknowledgeorthescienceitself.
5.3 LinguisticRole
The values also play linguistic roles in which the
language used by the researcher in terminologies
defined/used during the study, framing of the
research questions, writing or recording
of the
evidence, scripting the arguments for conclusions/
interpretations and sometimes inventing new
terminologyisinfluencedbyhisvaluejudgements.
As Audrey Azoulay, Director‐General of the
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO), said on the occasion of
InternationalMotherLanguageDayinFebruary2018
that “A language
is far more than a means of
communication; it is the very condition of our
humanity.Ourvalues,ourbeliefsandouridentityare
embeddedwithinit”[39].
So,itisevidentthatvaluejudgementsandmoral
judgementsplayaroleinshapingourlanguageand
thecharacterizationofempiricalphenomena
insocial
science, though value laden language is not unique
only to social sciences [16]. Three specific linguistic
rolesofvalueshavebeenhighlighted.Whileuseofa
specific term by intending to enlarge its scope may
sometimes obscure or corrupt the phenomena
describedbythetermitself,itmay
sometimesonthe
otherhand, alsobringforth further insightsinto the
phenomena by illuminating or revealing totally new
aspectsthusenrichingitinatruelinguisticsense.
Forexample,theterm‘maritimecrime’isusedby
various researchers selectively to include or exclude
certain specific type of crimes relevant to
their own
studies such as terrorism, piracy, illegal fishing,
smuggling, drug trafficking, human trafficking, etc.
Though the formal definition of the term may
describe it more comprehensively. While examining
interstatehostilityandmaritimecrimefromsoutheast
Asiainarecentstudy,theauthorsexplaininresearch
backgroundthatpirates,smugglers,
andillegalfishers
can use the contested border zones as sanctuaries,
however, they use statistical data related to only
piracy and armed robbery in the research for their
hypothesis[40].
Interestingly, in another study about unexpected
consequencesoftheCOVID‐19pandemiconmaritime
crime, the same authors clearly state that
‘present
studyevaluatestheeffectsofCOVID‐19onmaritime
pirateattacksintwocountries,Nigeria,locatedinthe
Gulf of Guinea, and Indonesia, located in the Indo‐
Pacific’[41]. This demonstrates the concept of
linguistic role of values as the intention and
understanding of authors is to consider piracy as
a
significantcontributorormajorimpactorinmaritime
crime, which they repeatedly use in their research
studiesandisobviouslycorrectinthecontextofthese
twoarticles.
Further, in designing, creating, interpreting and
using a particular term in research context, the
underlying value judgement sometimes may play a
role whereby
the classification of data, situational
observationsandbehaviourscouldbeskeweddueto
perceived value judgement of the researcher. It also
needstobeconsideredwhosevaluejudgementwould
berespected,theresearcherhimselforthesubjectsor
units of research (if humans or otherwise) or social
normsorsociety.
Asthismayinfluencetheevidence
andinterpretationorconclusionstherebyinfluencing
thefinaloutcomeofthescientificinquiry,it needsa
carefulconsideration.
The research related to topics about ‘Open
registries’ could be a relevant example in this case.
Thesubjectofferscontrastingchallengesnowasalot
of traditional
countries have also opened their own
internationalregistries, which have lower regulatory
compliance and financial incentives thanthe normal
registries.Therefore,itwillbearesearcher’sdilemma
whether to consider these international registries at
parwithopenregistriesornot.
In a study about European response to open
registries, the
authors use the term open registries
withtheterm‘flagofconvenience’forcountriessuch
as Panama, Liberia, etc. while they use the term
‘offshore and international ship registries’ for the
traditionalcountriesnewregistries[42].Thoughitis
obviousthatthetwocannotbeequatedinmostofthe
aspects,
however, in some cases, they could be
classified together, such as studying governance or
regulatorycompliance,etc.
Thus, the importance of the values is obvious,
especially in social science research and legitimate
roles of the values need to be recognised so that
objectivity in research is ensured in true sense.
Knowledge about various kinds of roles played by
values will ensure that a researcher is
comprehensively prepared to recognize their
influenceonobjectivityandthusappropriatelycaters
forit.
6 CONCLUSION
Values are something which are elementary and
essentialbeliefsthatguidesandmotivatesouractions
and attitudes. In the context
of philosophy of social
science,itisconsideredanessentialelementinterms
ofensuringobjectivityintheresearch.However,total
value free research is an ideal which does not exist
andisnotevendesirableintruesense,evenifsome
scholarsstillwantthatcriteriaforsocialscience.
The
roles of values are inherent in not only shaping the
existence of the research or the scientific knowledge
and science but also acting as an influencer in
designingresearch.
Itshallbetheintentionofanyresearcherthatthe
non‐epistemic values be not allowed to corrupt or
influence the
interpretations and conclusions of the
scientific inquiry. Further, the influence of the
epistemic values be recognised and consciously
factoredsothatthis plays onlyalegitimateroleand
notanillegitimateone.
The values play three types of roles – directive,
inferential and linguistic. The directive roles
determinewhatto
researchorwhichsubjectischosen
bytheresearcherbasedonwhichvaluesinfluencethe
selection of research questions, the methodology
employed during research and how he considers it
649
will contribute to the scientific knowledge. The
inferentialrolesofvaluesontheotherhandhighlights
theriskwheretheresearchermayfalsifyorfudgesor
deliberatelycreatesevidencetoinfluencetheoutcome
oftheresearchandtherebyunderminesthevalueof
the scientific knowledge and the science itself.
However,
it does have a legitimate inferential role
where it needs to be determined how and what to
interpretoftheuncertainorinconsistentevidenceofa
particularresearchthough,mostimportantly,keeping
in mind the implications if a false hypothesis is
acceptedandatruehypothesisisrejected.
An important
aspect of the values playing a
linguisticrolebrings out thatlanguageis embedded
with our values, moral judgement and beliefs and
thereforesometimesdepictsordemonstratesinherent
value laden statements. It can not only obscure a
phenomenon by intentionally or unintentionally
enlargingthescopeoruseofaparticularterminology
therebycorruptingthescientificinquirybutalsohelp
inilluminatingaphenomenabyrevealingsignificant
aspects which enrich the scientific knowledge by
bringing into focus even newer conclusions or
interpretations. Finally, the underlying value
judgementmayalsoinfluencetheuseofthetermsin
their meaning which conveys a particular
interpretationpresupposedevenpriortotheresearch
without providing an opportunity for a contrasting
viewpoint.
Thus, the value free ideal, especially for social
sciencecouldbeconsideredamythastheconceptthat
social science is value laden as compared to natural
sciences, which is supposedly more empirical, has
been discounted
by many scholars over a period of
time.
Itisevidentthatthesenuancesofvaluesinsocial
sciencesarehighlyrelevantinmaritimeresearchand
conform well to the philosophical underpinnings in
qualitative approach. Further, the knowledge and
understandingaboutaspectsandrolesofvaluesalso
enriches the discourse
and scientific inquiry in the
multi‐disciplinaryfieldofmaritimeresearch.
REFERENCES
[1]A. D. Couper,ʺWhy Maritime Studies?,ʺ Maritime
StudiesandManagement,vol.1,no.1,pp.1‐2,1973.
[2]M. Gannon, B. Taheri, and J. Azer,ʺContemporary
Research Paradigms & Philosophiesʺin The
Contemporary Research Methodology in Hospitality
and Tourism F. Okumus, S. M. Rasoolimanesh, and S.
JahaniEds.:Emerald
Publishing,2022,pp.5‐19.
[3]R.CollinsandM.Makowsky,TheDiscoveryofSociety
5thed.NewYork:Mc‐GrawHillInc,1993.
[4]J. D. Eller, Social Science and Historical Perspectives:
Society, Science, and Ways of Knowing. New York:
Routledge,2017.
[5]A. Bhattacherjee, Social Science Research: Principles,
Methods, and Practices. . USF Tampa Library Open
AccessCollectionsatScholarCommons,2012.
[6]M. H. Salmon,ʺSocial Sciences: Historical and
philosophicaloverviewofmethods and goals,ʺHistory
andPhilosophyofScienceandTechnologyvol.III,2011.
[7]E.Durkheim,ʺTheRulesofSociologicalMethod,ʺ New
York:TheFreePress,
1982.
[8]C. Geertz,ʺThe Interpretation of Cultures,ʺ New York:
BasicBooksInc.,1973.
[9]E.G Guba and Y.S Lincoln,ʺEffective Evaluation –
ImprovingtheUsefulnessofEvaluationResultsthrough
ResponsiveandNaturalisticApproaches,SanFrancisco:
Jossey‐BassPublishers,1981.
[10]H. C. Kelman,ʺThe Relevance of Social Research to
Social Issues: Promises and Pitfalls,ʺ The Sociological
Review,vol.16,no.1,pp.77‐89,1968.
[11]T. Benton and I. Craib, Philosophy of Social Science‐
The Philosophical Foundations of Social Thought, 2nd
ed.NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan,2011.
[12]P.Winch,Theideaofasocialscienceanditsrelation
to
philosophy2nded.London:Routledge,1990.
[13]M. Natanson,ʺA study in philosophy and the social
sciences,ʺ Social Research, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 158‐172,
1958.
[14]D.W.Stuckart,ʺPhilosophicalGuidelinesfortheSocial
Studies: Enhancing Intelligence with Digital Tools and
Artifacts,ʺ in Academic Knowledge Construction and
MultimodalCurriculumDevelopmentD.J.LovelessEd.
Hershey:IGIGlobal,2014,pp.53‐70.
[15]E.Montuschi,ʺScientificObjectivity,ʺ in Philosophyof
socialscience:AnewintroductionN.CartwrightandE.
Montuschi Eds.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014,
pp.123‐144.
[16]H.Douglas,ʺValuesinSocialScience,ʺinPhilosophyof
socialscience:AnewintroductionN.CartwrightandE.
Montuschi Eds.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014,
pp.162‐182.
[17]E. M. Albert,ʺThe classification of values: A method
and illustration. American Anthropologist,ʺ American
Anthropologist,vol.58,pp.221‐248,1956.
[18]M. Risjord, Philosophy of social science: A
contemporary
introduction.NewYork:Routledge,2014.
[19]C.Bueger,ʺMakingThingsKnown:EpistemicPractices,
the United Natio ns, and the Translation of Piracy,ʺ
InternationalPoliticalSociology,vol.9,pp.1‐18,2015.
[20]Y. Man, M. Lundh, and S.N. Mackinnon,ʺTowards a
Pluralistic Epistemology: Understanding Human‐
TechnologyInteractionsinShippingfromPsychological,
Sociological and Ecological Perspectives,ʺ TransNav,
International Journal on Marine Navigationand Safety
ofSeaTransportationvol.12,no.4,pp.795‐811,2018.
[21]P.S.Gorski,ʺBeyondtheFact/ValueDistinction:Ethical
NaturalismandtheSocialSciences.,ʺSociety,vol.50,no.
6,pp.543‐553,2013.
[22]F.G.Weber,ʺ
TheFact‐ValueDichotomy:ANewLight
onanOldProblem.,ʺ.SociologyMind,vol.7,no.4,pp.
154‐170,2017.
[23]H. Putnam, The collapse of the fact/value dichotomy
and other essays. London: Harvard University Press,
2002.
[24]J. T. Roberts,ʺIsLogicalEmpiricism committed to the
idealof
valuefreescience.,ʺinValuefreescience:Ideals
andillusionsH.Kincaid,K.H.Dupre,andA.WylieEds.
Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2007,pp.143‐238.
[25]D.Hanson,JʺValuesandsocialscience,ʺSocialScience,
vol.44,no.2,pp.81‐87,1969.
[26]H.Douglas,ʺRejectingthe
IdealofValue‐FreeScience,ʺ
inValuefreescience:IdealsandillusionsH.Kincaid,K.
H.Dupre,andA.WylieEds.Oxford,:OxfordUniversity
Press,2009,pp.120‐142.
[27]A.N.Sharlin,ʺMaxWeberandtheoriginsoftheideaof
valuefreesocialscience,ʺEuropeanJournalofSociology,
vol.
15,no.2,pp.337‐353,1974.
[28]M.DuffyandR.J.Chenail,ʺValuesinQualitativeand
QuantitativeResearch,ʺCounselingandValues,vol.53,
no.3,pp.22‐38,2009.
[29]K.H.Rolin,ʺObjectivity,trustandsocialresponsibility,ʺ
Synthesevol.199,pp.513‐533,2021.
[30]R. G.
Dunn, Toward a Pragmatist Sociology: John
DeweyandtheLegacyofC.WrightMills.Philadelphia:
TempleUniversityPress,2018.
[31]M. F. Pinto and D. J. Hicks,ʺLegitimizing Values in
RegulatoryScience,ʺEnvironmentalHealthPerspectives,
vol.127,no.3,2019.
650
[32]C.‐S. Lu, C.‐N. Hsu, and C.‐H. Lee,ʺThe Impact of
Seafarers’ Perceptions of National Culture and
Leadership on Safety Attitude and Safety Behavior in
Dry Bulk Shipping,ʺ International Journal of e‐
Navigation and Maritime Economy, vol. 4, pp. 75‐87,
2016.
[33]Q. Wang,ʺA Study on
the Cultivation of Values of
Maritime College Students’ Occupational Pride,ʺ
International Journal of Information and Education
Technology,vol.9,no.6,pp.433‐436,2019.
[34]C. Liss,ʺThe Unique Challenges and Difficulties of
MaritimeSecurityResearch,ʺSAISReview,vol.XXXIII,
no.2,2013.
[35]R. T. B. Iversen,ʺThe
Mental Health of Seafarers,ʺ
InternationalMaritimeHealth,vol.63,no.2,pp.78‐89,
2012.
[36]E. Anderson,ʺUses of Value Judgments in Science: A
GeneralArgument,withLessonsfromaCaseStudyof
Feminist Researchon Divorce,ʺ Hypatia, vol. 19,no. 1,
pp.1‐24,2004.
[37]I. Koskinen and
K. Rolin,ʺDistinguishing between
legitimate and illegitimate roles for values in
transdisciplinary research,ʺ Studies in History and
PhilosophyofScience,vol.91,pp.191‐198,2022.
[38](2021).ReportoftheMaritimeSafetyCommitteeonits
104thSession.
[39]United Nations.ʺOur values, beliefs and identity’ are
embedded within language,
UNESCO says on Mother
Language Day.ʺ
https://news.un.org/en/story/2018/02/1003191#:~:text=Ou
r%20values%2C%20our%20beliefs%20and,our%20traditi
ons%20and%20our%20knowledge.(accessed2023).
[40]A. Phayal, A. Gold, and B. Prins,ʺInterstate hostility
and maritime crime: Evidence from South East Asia,ʺ
MarinePolicy,vol.143,2022.
[41]A. Gold, A. Phayal, and B. Prins,ʺThe unexpected
consequences of the COVID‐19 pandemic on maritime
crime: Evidence from Indonesia and Nigeria,ʺ
InternationalAreaStudiesReview,vol.26,no.1,pp.7‐
23,2023.
[42]P.SaviolakisandM.Pazarzis,ʺTheEuropeanResponse
To Open Ship Registries And Flags Of Convenience
Through The Creation Of Offshore And International
Ship Registries,ʺ Regional Science Inquiry, Hellenic
AssociationofRegional
Scientists,vol.0,no.2,pp.69‐81,
2021.
