Claiming Relevance for Social Science and the Humanities: Relevance Expressions Across Methodological Divides

This article addresses the issue of how Social Science and Humanities (SSH) researchers frame and argue relevance, where there are no explicit expectations to do so. It uses research project reports submitted to a Swedish research council, to distil and further analyze ‘relevance expressions’. These expressions illustrate some methodological differences along the lines of the long-standing distinction between nomothetic (generalization oriented) and idiographic (case /description oriented). We extracted relevance claims from a database of project abstracts and reports from the following fields: History, Linguistics, Political Science and Psychology. We interrogated these statements for possible differences with respect to how relevance is expressed. The study finds differences in the way that nomothetic and idiographic expressions imply, argue or derive support for relevance, and that these may be somewhat associated with fields, although with certain qualifications. Importantly, relevance expressions can be viewed as epistemic operations that occur in degrees of concretization, broadly or narrowly formulated, and in different levels of everyday and technical expressions. A key insight is that relevance in SSH appears to be closely associated with the way subjects relate to the empirical. This ultimately lends support for the application of the nomothetic/idiographic as a conceptual, albeit not exhaustive, analytical approach to understanding the relevance of SSH.