In the land of the Boring, the Vaguely Interesting is king. That said, LA rocks (or is that "Hanoi Rocks"?). The detailed breakdown of the components and definitions for basic elements given in this introduction to empirical and rhetorical research are quite a bit to absorb. I had to settle for writing a bunch down and reflectively (or reflexively) commenting on them. I was ecstatic to get the details of how a construct differs from a relation between observable factors (it's made of them) and how a hypothesis can be, sometimes, a baby theory. Most striking for me were three things, though:
1. A theory is a conceptual framework that aids in understanding and explanation. Does this sound like the definition of "structure" that I've been harping away at for multiple classes? Let's move down a level.
2. A construct must be validated. I immediately think of both Occam's Razor (we all know that one) and Hume's Fork--Basically an assertion for the impossibility of certitude over matters of fact. In validating a construct, it would remind us to keep in mind the limits of what can be claimed based on any observation or series of observations.
3. Related to the last point is the mention of there being 400+ variables in human behavior. Direct quotation from my notes--"Good luck with your 'control group.'"
Ok last point, promise. I'm curious about a seeming contradiction between the Bordieu quote on p.19 of LA, "Objectivist claims can only be made by constituting the world as a system of objective relations independent of individual consciousnesses and will," and p. 2 from Alvarez, "[I was] finding an intellectually objective system through which to examine the problem or situation." Doesn't even recognizing a problem imply bias/non-objectivity?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
On your last point, I agree that Alvarez seems in this article to be less concerned with the complex issues of objectivity and subjectivity than L&A, but I'm put off by her belief that a research methodology can itself be objective, or without epistemological bias. She may be trying to say that only purely empirical designs are acceptable, but I don't know. "intellectually objective" is seems needlessly qualified. Does she mean appropriately objective? Whatever...she's just selling action research and laying out the steps in general terms.
Any ideas about her complaint about positivism?
Post a Comment