On page 6 of Learning in the Field, by Rossman & Rallis, they discuss the difference between basic research and applied research, then they end the paragraph with mentions of "scientists" and "social scientists", but their research contributions go two different ways. How are "social scientists" not "scientists"? Moreover, if they had reversed the definitions of to read as follows, and if I had just been glossing over the section, it sounds reasonable written either way.

Original: "Scientists" may conduct research that leads to direct practical application; "social scientists" may conduct research that contributes to theory.

Flipped: "Scientists" may conduct research that contributes to theory; "social scientists" may conduct research that leads to direct practical application.

In the original definition, the original authors of the Big Bang Theory would be classified as social scientists? To compound the confusion, the earlier parts of the chapter all appear to say research should promote learning and improve a social circumstance, where then I would argue that direct practical application is best to improve those disordered circumstances. Is the whole thing a misplaced tangent in the flow of the chapter or am I just going to extremes?