خلاصة:
Indigenization of social sciences is one of the important issues in scientific development in the Third World countries which has close relations with the developments in the field of modern sociology of science. The main objective of the present paper is to demonstrate that normal science can lead to indigenization of social sciences. For this purpose، in the first place two approaches، i.e. positivist and critical (historicist) to social sciences were explained and their viewpoints about the necessity of indigenization of social sciences were discussed. It was found that contrary to the first approach، the second approach considers indigenization of social sciences a fundamental necessity. In the next step، the conceptual framework of the research، i.e. Thomas Cohen’s theory of scientific revolutions was explained briefly to shed light on the status and meaning of the gradual and revolutionary scientific changes and normal science in scientific research in Cohen’s perspective. Then، by alluding to the five fundamental dimensions of research in social sciences – that is، selection of the subject، selection of research method، exploration، description and explanation – indigenization was discussed in each dimension in positivist and critical approaches. The findings indicate that despite fundamental theoretical differences between the two paradigms، when the advocates of the two approaches practically engage in a serious research، the outcome of their activities are indigenization of social sciences. Therefore، what is important is that the researchers، who follow any of the two approaches، engage in serious، precise critical research and go through all stages of the process of research from selection of the subject to explanation and criticism of theory.
ملخص الجهاز:
Then, by referring to the five basic dimensions of research work in the social sciences - namely topic selection, method selection, discovery, description, and explanation - we discussed the issue of indigenization in each dimension from the perspective of the positivist and critical approaches.
These discussions showed that despite fundamental theoretical differences between the two paradigms, when the proponents of both approaches actually engage in serious research work, the result of their activity is the indigenization of the social sciences.
This means that social and cultural factors interfere in the selection of research topics, influence the formation and manner of operation of scientific communities, and are also effective in how scientific productions are accepted and used, the manner of which is investigated by the sociology of science.
In principle, we can show how certain social transformations have caused the emergence of science; we can investigate whether scientific sociology has specific characteristics that make the institutionalization of the scientific method and the practical elimination of error, pre-judgment, and theoretical distortion possible; and we can also observe how minority views of scientific specialists are accepted by other completely differentiated parts of societies.
(Farhadi, (1388: 24-42) Regarding theories, although there is a fundamental difference of opinion between the positivist and critical views, if, as Kuhn says, normal scientific activity is carried out, in practice the two views approach each other and the localization of social sciences is achieved.
(
, 
, 
)
