In the ever-evolving landscape of academic inquiry, the social sciences have long grappled with unique methodological challenges that differentiate them sharply from the natural sciences. The latest treatise by J. Morsel, titled Are the social sciences combat sports? Reflections on the obstacles to the scientific study of the social, between Markovian temptation, scalar indifference, and the historian’s obsession with the past, published in the International Journal of Anthropology and Ethnology, sheds critical light on the intricate hurdles that impede the rigorous scientific examination of social phenomena. This profound work prompts a reevaluation of how researchers approach complex social systems, highlighting persistent tensions between methodological rigor and the innate complexity of human societies.
Morsel provocatively likens the social sciences to a kind of combat sport—a metaphor underscoring the often adversarial relationship between the desire for scientific precision and the unpredictable dynamism of social realities. This analogy serves as a conceptual frame that exposes the often fragmented efforts to apply rigid scientific models to inflamed and mutable social contexts. The metaphor also resonates with the notion that scholars must contend with both external methodological pressures and internal theoretical disputes, making social scientific investigation a field of ongoing intellectual contestation.
Central to Morsel’s argument is the critique of what is termed the “Markovian temptation.” This refers to the seductive allure of Markov models—stochastic processes where current states determine future states without recourse to past trajectories—in the attempt to simplify complex social dynamics. While these models offer elegant mathematical tractability and the promise of predictive power, they inherently discount historical contingencies and deeper causal webs, thus risking superficial representations of social phenomena. Morsel’s analysis emphasizes that reliance on such models, though methodologically convenient, often results in loss of explanatory depth and the erasure of context that imbues social actions with meaning.
Further complicating the scientific study of social phenomena is the problem of scalar indifference. Here, Morsel identifies a troubling trend: the tendency of social scientists to apply models and analytical frameworks agnostic to the scale—micro, meso, or macro—at which social processes unfold. The failure to adequately calibrate the level of analysis leads to disjointed and uneven insights, where fine-grained interpersonal interactions may be mistakenly conflated with broad institutional trends or vice versa. This disregard for scale not only generates analytical confusion but also hampers the formation of coherent theories that can reliably navigate the nested hierarchies inherent in social systems.
Equally significant is the historian’s obsession with the past, a theme Morsel dedicates considerable scrutiny to. The historian’s focus on episodic, detailed accounts of past events can clash with the social scientist’s aspiration for generalizable theories and predictive models. This temporal fixation leads to rich narratives that, while illustrative and descriptive, may resist abstraction and systematization. Morsel argues that balancing the historian’s rich chronology with the social scientist’s quest for law-like regularities is an ongoing, often uneasy negotiation—a tension that pervades the disciplines of anthropology and ethnology particularly acutely.
In unraveling these three intertwined obstacles, Morsel does not merely offer a critique but underscores the deep epistemological and ontological complexities that define social scientific inquiry. The social world, unlike physical systems, is constituted by reflexive agents aware of and responsive to the knowledge generated about them, introducing layers of complexity and unpredictability that are resistant to reductionist methods. Scientific approaches, therefore, must evolve to address this reflexivity, accommodating ambiguity and context rather than striving solely for deterministic explanations.
The article further dwells on the methodological innovations attempted by social scientists striving to circumvent these challenges. Mixed-methods research, integrating qualitative depth with quantitative breadth, emerges as a promising avenue—balancing the historian’s detailed temporal narratives with the social scientist’s demand for systematic patterns. Computational social science tools, including agent-based models, are highlighted for their potential to simulate interactions at multiple scales, capturing emergent phenomena that traditional models neglect.
Furthermore, Morsel critically appraises the role of big data in transforming social science research. While data proliferation offers unprecedented granularity and scope, the author cautions against the uncritical adoption of data-driven approaches divorced from theoretical grounding. The risk of “data fetishism” looms large, where voluminous datasets are misinterpreted as inherently insightful, masking deeper interpretative challenges and conceptual gaps.
The piece also interrogates the ontological assumptions embedded in various modeling strategies. For example, the simplification of actors as utility-maximizing rational agents—common in economics and political science—clashes with ethnographic findings revealing multi-dimensional motivations and social embeddedness. Morsel calls for paradigmatic openness, encouraging cross-pollination between disciplinary perspectives to foster richer, more responsive methodologies attuned to social complexity.
One of the article’s compelling contributions is its call to embrace complexity rather than shy away from it. The author advocates for “methodological pluralism” and multi-layered analytical frameworks that can reconcile micro-level narratives with macro-level structures. This approach necessitates new theoretical syntheses and innovative tools capable of accommodating non-linear dynamics, feedback loops, and adaptive behaviors prevalent in social systems.
Morsel’s reflections resonate powerfully with ongoing debates about the nature of evidence in social science, challenging positivist paradigms predicated on control and repeatability. The social sciences are depicted not as deficient sciences but as uniquely tasked disciplines grappling with the paradox of studying systems that both influence and are influenced by their analysis. This reflexivity demands humility, creativity, and methodological flexibility.
In conclusion, Are the social sciences combat sports? is both a critique and a manifesto—a call for the field to acknowledge and engage critically with its distinctive challenges. By foregrounding issues such as the Markovian temptation, scalar indifference, and the historian’s obsession, Morsel encourages a rethinking of epistemological foundations and methodological strategies. This work is poised to influence future research trajectories, urging scholars to craft more nuanced, robust frameworks that honor the complexity and contingency inherent in human social life.
This timely and provocative contribution enriches the intellectual discourse on the social sciences’ scientific ambitions, prompting scholars to reexamine their assumptions and recalibrate their approaches. The metaphor of combat sports captures the dynamic, contested terrain of social inquiry, reflecting both the intellectual rigor required and the adaptive skill necessary to navigate the intricacies of the social world. As the social sciences continue to evolve amidst technological advances and interdisciplinary collaboration, Morsel’s insights offer a compass to guide thoughtful, innovative, and impactful scholarly endeavors.
Subject of Research: Social sciences methodology and challenges in scientific study of social phenomena.
Article Title: Are the social sciences combat sports? Reflections on the obstacles to the scientific study of the social, between Markovian temptation, scalar indifference, and the historian’s obsession with the past.
Article References: Morsel, J. Are the social sciences combat sports? Reflections on the obstacles to the scientific study of the social, between Markovian temptation, scalar indifference, and the historian’s obsession with the past. Int. j. anthropol. ethnol. 9, 21 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41257-025-00144-8
Image Credits: AI Generated
DOI: 10.1186/s41257-025-00144-8
