I have come to believe that transparency around the question—how we know what we know—is essential for building effective organizations.

In religious organizations, truth claims are often supported through the use of sacred texts, using both the accuracy of interpretation and the weight of a theological tradition to ground the claims. Likewise, every organization and institution has its “tradition” out of which it makes truth claims. 

But what happens to this type of truth claim when it meets social science? Let me use one example that arises in the faith community to illustrate the misunderstanding that can arise between truth seeking that arise out of traditions and the nature of truth claims in the social sciences.

A religious organization might emphasize the unity created in marriage that should not be broken.  And as a very general finding, social research shows that children do better when they are raised in two-parent homes. What social science means by this finding is that in large survey data sets, children from homes that have experienced divorce do not do as well in particular ways as do children from homes with the parental marriage intact, at a statistically significant level—beyond what we would randomly find in the population. The research shows a statistical relationship between two factors in a large data set.  It is not a claim on what any one individual child experiences.

How might organizations misuse the results of this social science methodology? They tend to over-generalize social science findings—they take narrowly defined quantitatively measured relationships and apply them beyond what has been asserted, often to back up traditional truths. The result is that program evaluations are not appropriately constructed or used. What lies at the heart of these mistakes are, I believe, a naiveté about the methods of social research, a desire for “numbers” to overcome insecurity about missional and tradition-related truth claims and thus the use of social research to back up positions, rather than its use as part of an honest, transparent learning process related to the effectiveness of practice.

Henri Nouwen describes what I see as appropriate integration: We must first articulate the truth of the pain and suffering in the world, grounded in a worldview understanding of the nature of reality.  We must next be transformed by the stories of people’s lives through entering into their suffering. Third, we must reflect on the situation until emotion can be transformed into intellectual understanding. We must understand the larger context of society and societal structures around us. And this is where positivist social science might be helpful—it can help us understand the larger context in which individuals exist and the context for the framing of a program. It helps us respond wisely, appreciating the nuances in programs.

Finally, we move from understanding to action and again use social research to measure whether programs are working the way they are envisioned. Effective institutions embody all these ways of knowing in their organizations and embed them into all aspects of planning, evaluations, and institutional life.