What kind of field is computational social science? Fragmentation, pluralism, and unification
TL;DR
An analytical framework is developed that brings Otto Neurath’s and Thomas Kuhn’s views on scientific development into dialogue, theorizing CSS as a non-paradigmatic science whose epistemic commitments remain strongly shaped by more established disciplines.
Abstract
What kind of field is computational social science? This paper addresses that question through the lens of the philosophy of social science, examining CSS’s rapid growth not only as a product of technological innovation but as a site where foundational questions concerning explanation, theory, and social reality are being renegotiated. Drawing on empirical indicators of research practices and disciplinary self-identification, CSS is conceptualized as an emerging field organized around a shared computational axis yet marked by a pronounced multidisciplinary composition. An analytical framework is developed that brings Otto Neurath’s and Thomas Kuhn’s views on scientific development into dialogue, theorizing CSS as a non-paradigmatic science whose epistemic commitments remain strongly shaped by more established disciplines. This framework is applied to current methodological, epistemological, and ontological debates within CSS, showing how different approaches to computation generate divergent developmental trajectories for the field. Three trajectories are identified: fragmentation into existing disciplines, stabilization as a pluralist multi-paradigm field, or consolidation around a unified paradigm centered on computational social theory. The analysis suggests that fragmentation remains the default risk, pluralist consolidation is the most plausible near-term trajectory, and full unification is the most demanding and least likely outcome. By clarifying the philosophical stakes of each trajectory, the paper contributes to ongoing debates on the reconfiguration of social theory in the wake of the computational turn.