Reflections on methodology VII: In social science (Hirzel, 2011)

Reflections on Methodology VII
In Social Sciences
Tabea Hirzel, 2014
Doctoral Candidate: Tabea Hirzel
Program: Doctorate of Diplomacy/ Political Economy
University: SMC University, Zug, Switzerland
Date: 12.30.2011

Theoretical framework
Philosophy of
science
• First principle
• Apriorism
Action Theory
• Misean
Praxeology
Information
Theory
• Ontological turn
• Information
society (Hayek /
Machlup)
Theory of
agency
• Theory of mind
• Theory of liberty
• Theory of identity
Learning
theory
• Theory of
narration
• Game theory
19/11/2017 2© Tabea Hirzel

Paradigm
methodological
epistemologicalnormative
19/11/2017 3
Relation between theory
and empirics
Conditions for
falsification/verification;
Relation research subject-
object (selfreference)
Research goals (interest);
normative orientation
Kornmesser, 2014, p. 20
© Tabea Hirzel

Normative element (why testing)
• Why should something be kown/tested?
• Make the process of social constitution transparent
• Life/personal identity/liberty is an apriori value
• Purpose of science:
(1) Pragmatic goals
– Control of the world: objectify encounter (phenomena)
– Control of other persons: objectify subjectivity (convert the other in an object)
– Control of self: objectify subjective thought (doubt)
(2) Aims toward «truth» (focus on discrete units)?reductionism?
– Materialization of potentiality: it is the analytical splitting (logical reasoning) that creates the
implied apriori of unity (out of chaos)
– Materialization of other: naming things (love)
– Materialization of self: shape one’s world, take on/reject roles, create a social space, etc.
(3) Ethical goals: motivation to moral goodness (Joseph Daleiden)
(4) Aims toward «liberty» (focus on relations and understanding)?  discursive?
(5) Communication / Becoming

Epistemological element (what testing)
• What can be known?
• How can it be known (tool)?
• Why should it be known?
• Social constitution and individual identity as co-constituted (science
as self-transforming pratice)
19/11/2017 5
what is to be observed and scrutinized
the kind of questions that are supposed
to be asked and probed for answers
in relation to this subject
© Tabea Hirzel

Methodological element (how testing)
• How can something be known?
• Theory of mind and mind as subject/measuring instrument
19/11/2017 6
how these questions are to be structured
how the results of scientific investigations should be interpreted
how is an experiment to be conducted, and
what equipment is available to conduct the experiment.
© Tabea Hirzel

Science and meaning
«Science is always an objective context of meaning, and the theme of
all sciences of the social world is to constitute an objective meaning-
context either out of subjective meaning-context generally or out of
some particular subjective meaning-context. The problem of the every
day social science can, therefore, be summarized in the question: How
are sciences of subjective meaning-context possible?» (Schütz, 1932,
p. 223 in Augier, 1999, p. 147)

Knowledge implies orientation
«The term ‘knowledge’ presupposes conduct oriented toward the
others. [And] … [a]ccording to the postulate of investigation of the
meaning intended, the knowledge of the sociologist is based on the
knowledge that the actor has of the ‘subject of orientation’ … The
expression ‘oriented toward’, implicitly already contains ‘knowledge’ of
the other … Acting [upon this knowledge] is measured according too…
the validity of the interpretative scheme of the type of reality is tested by
its purposiveness» (Schütz, 1928, p. 76 in Augier, 1999, p. 151).

Universal validity and objective meaning
“Only a science of objective meaning is capable of forming “laws of
universal validity”. Political economy is a science of objective meaning.
It does not deal with action which is built up phase-by-phase in the
course of consciousness pertaining to the Thou; it deals instead with
the anonymous processes of actions by an impersonal “someone”. Just
this sets off the subject-matter of political economy from that of
understanding sociology (and also that of history)” (Schütz, 1930, p. 86
in Augier, 1999, p. 157).

Meaning constitution
[t]he primary task of ... science is to describe the processes of
meaning-establishment and meaning-interpretation as these are carried
out by individuals living in the social world. This description can be
empirical or eidetic; it can take as its subject matter the individual or the
typical; it can be performed in concrete situations of everyday life or
with a high degree of generality. But, over and above this, interpretive
sociology approaches such cultural objects and seeks to understand
their meaning by applying to them in interpretative schemes thus
obtained” (Schütz, 1932, pp. 248–249 in Augier, 1999, p. 160).

Meaning vs. calculus
• Economics as «study of rational behavior»
• Boundaries to «human computational capacity» in calculating best
choices (Auspitz et. al, 1992, p.26)
• Vs. meaning

Hayek, Schutz, Machlup
• Hayek: division of knowledge
• Schutz: structure and distribution of knowledge
• Machlup:

Requirements
1. Complete
2. Coherent
3. Explanatory power (David Deutsch)
4. Reproducible/ Predictable (empirical verification)
5. Reducible/ Abstractible (comparison)
6. Scalable (Aggregation problem see Auspitz et. al, 1992, chap. 1)

Austrian philosophy and Austrian economiy (Barry Smith in
Auspitz et. al, 1992, p. 259)
19/11/2017 14
Brentano School
Franz Brenano
Alexius von Meinog
Christian von Ehrenfels
Oscar Kraus
Mengerian School
Carl Menger
Friedrich von Wieser
Eugen von Boehm-
Bawerk
Phenomenological
Movement
Edmun Husserl
Adolf Reinach
Roman Ingarden
Alfred Schütz, etc.
Vienna Circle
Moritz Schlick
Otto Neurath
Richard von Mises
Karl Menger, etc.
Mises School
Ludwig von Mises
Friedrich von Hayek
Oskar von
Morgenstern
Fritz Machlup, etc.
Austrian Philosophy
of Science
Mach Kortabinski
Bolzman, Popper,
Polanyi, Wittgenstein,
Fleck, Feyerabend
Austro-
Phenomenological
Social Science
Alfred Schütz
Felix Kaufmann
Neoclassical
mainstream
Chicago school
American Neo-
Austrians
Israel Kirzner
Murray Rothbard
Mario Rizzo
Gerald O’Driscoll, etc.
Hermeneutic of
Economics
Ludwig Lachmann
Don Lavoie
one way influence
mutual influence
informal influence
© Tabea Hirzel

Two approaches in Apriorism (Barry Smith in Auspitz et. al, 1992,
p. 261)
Kant approaches (Epistemological A Priori) Aristotle, Brentano, Husserl, Reinach (Ontological A
Priori)
The a priori is a matter of relations between universal
concepts which enjoy a purely mental existence.
The a priori is a matter of relations between essences or
species of objects in the world, relations which would
obtain even if there were no minds to aprehend them
[1].
The a priori is a matter of non-contingent knowledge. The a priori is in the first place a matter of non-contingent
(universal and necessary) structures in reality;
propositions are a priori in a derivative sense to the extent
that they relate to structures of this sort.
A priori is prior to and therefore independent of
experience. It is in this sense a matter of what is innate
to the human mind.
A priori knowledge is triggered by our familiarity with
corresponding a priori structures in the world.
A priori knowledge is in some sense a contribution of the
knowing subject; it is read into the world.
A priori knowledge is read off the world. It is in a certain
sense the only immediate sort of knowledge.
A priori knowledge is prior to experience; such
knowledge is therefore either empty (analytic), or it is a
result of the fact that we see the world through ‘conceptual
spectacles’ which somehow allow us to make sense of
what would otherwise (as far as our knowledge is
concerned) be chaotic.
A priori knowledge is prior to induction; some structures
in reality are intrinsically intelligible.
The class of a priori propositions is restricted; leaving
aside the case of physics, it amounts to a more or less ad
hoc selection of isolated examples.
There are whole families of a priori propositions
constuting entire disciplines.

Extreme Apriorism (Rothbard) Synthetic Apriorism (Barry Smith)
(a) that the fundamental axioms
and premises of economics are
absolutely true;
(b) that the theorems and
conclusions deduced by the laws of
logic from these postulates are
therefore absolutely true;
(c) that there is consequently no
need for empirical “testing,” either
of the premises or the conclusions;
(d) that the deduced theorems could
not be tested even if it were
desirable.
19/11/2017 16
Rothbard, Murray N. (1956). In defense of extreme apriorism.
Extreme vs. synthetic apriorism
© Tabea Hirzel

Apriorism in Philosophy
Philosophy
Non-empirical
Apriorism
Necessary-
contingent
Necessary
Contingent
Analytic-synthetic
distinction
Analytic (strong/extreme
apriorism  Kant, Rothbard)
(necessarily true  see
Gettier problem)
Transcendentalism
(Kant)
Formalism
Non-empirical &
empirical
(rationalism)
Logical positivism
(logical
empiricism)
Constructive
empiricism
Critical theory
(Deconstructionis
m; Post-
structuralism)
Antipositivism
Epistemological
pluralism 
Synthetic apriorism
(contingent)
Structuralism
Engaged-Theory
Empirical evidence
(Empiricism)
Positivism
Social positivism Reductionism
Theoretical (more general
theory)
Methodological (single super-
theory)
Ontological
(~metaphysics)
Ontological
emergence
Dualism
pluralism
Monism
Monism (wholes are anything
more than their parts)
Atomist reductionism (wholes are
not "really real“)
Critical monism
19/11/2017 17
[2] Truth statements (propositions)
[1] Source of knowledge (truth)
© Tabea Hirzel

Meaning in Science
Science
Meaning (object of
science)
External
internal
Epistemology
Rationalism (rule-
based; Gettier
problem)
Fallibilism
Infallibilism
Indefeasibility
Justified true belief
(Timothy
Williamson)
Reliabilism
"tracking theory" of
knowledge
(Nozick)
Appropriate
reasons (Simon
Blackburn)
Causal Theory of
Knowing (Alvin
Goldman)
Epistemological
pluralism
Radical
constructivism
Empistemological
anarchism
Irrationalism Postmodernims
Scientific evolution
Relativism
Instrumentalism Subjectivism
Comparative
mythology
Goal (why?
Science (truth) vs.
True beliefe)
Virtue
epistemology
epistemic
reliabilism
Science as
metanarration
(structural)
Foundation of truth
(Larry Laudan)
19/11/2017 18
[2] Truth statements (propositions)
[4] Distinction science –
pseudoscience, superstition
© Tabea Hirzel

QUESTIONS FROM BARRY
SMITH
19/11/2017 © Tabea Hirzel 19

19/11/2017 20
Certain pre-empirical synthetic intrinsically plausible propositions thus require
ontological correlates which are their truth-makers. Hence, there are
intelligible structures in the world, which we could also call ‘a priori structures’.
Do we have an infallible knowledge of all the synthetic pre-empirical
propositions which are presupposed by the various sciences in the different
phases of their development?
yes (extreme Cartesians) No [(synthetic apriorism)]
Could these assumptions, which are presupposed by the empirical sciences,be arbitrary?
yes (Feyerabend [= empistemological anarchism]) No [(rationalism)]
The propositions in question must therefore be characterized by a certain
plausibility. Is this plausibility always a contextual affair?
yes (Hermeneutic relativists) [Hugh Lewis?] No [(synthetic apriorism)]
There is therefore something like an intrinsic plausibility. Are the intrinsically plausible
pre-empirical synthetic propositions which play an indispensable role in the sciences
given only individually, so that we have only a few isolated examples thereof between
which no systematic relations would obtain?
yes no
yes (Kantians) No [(Aristotelianism et al.)]
Is it really true , as the Kantians assert, that the intrinsically plausible or intelligible pre-empirical
synthetic propositions here at issue are read into or imposed upon the world by us?
Might the intrinsically plausible pre-empirical synthetic propositions all be false?
Yes [(Aquinas)] No [(Plotinus, St. Anselm, Descartes)]
Do the empirical theories with the help of which we seek to approximate a
good or true picture of reality rest on any non-empirical presuppositions?
yes [(rationalism)] no (extreme empiricists)
[1]
Are the propositions which express these pre-empirical assumptions in every
case analytic (tautological, lacking in content)?
yes (logical positivism) no
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[1] Source of knowledge: only empirical data? (aprioricity)
[2] Scientific propositions are: analytic; ? (analyticity)
[3] Scientific propositions are necessarily true? (necessity)
[4] Science is arbitrary (vs. rule based)
[5] Contextual plausibility, contingence
[6] Synthetic (vs. Analytic)
[7] Epistemological a priori (vs.
Ontological)
[8] Certainity of onotological
a priori
Based on Barry Smith. (1996). In defense of extreme (fallibilistic) apriorism. Additions made in edgy brackets.© Tabea Hirzel

[1] Do the empirical theories with the help of which we seek to
approximate a good or true picture of reality rest on any non-
empirical presuppositions?
No «extreme empiricists»
• Empiricism (Locke, Hume): an epistemological theory that draws knowledge only from observable data
(sensory/material experience) and synthetic deductions; requires testing all theories against evidence
• Radical empiricism (William James, 1890, Principles of Psychology): Experience is "double-barreled": content
(“sense data”) and context (“connections”)  Pragmatism (Charles S. Pearce, John Dewey)
Yes  Rationalism
• Rationalism:
– regards reason as the chief source and test of knowledge (Encyclopaedia Britannica)
– a theory "in which the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive“ (Burke, Vermon,
1962, Rationalism, p. 263)
• Antique: Socratic inquiry, Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle
• Modern: Descartes, Spinoza, Leibnitz, Kant
• (1) The intuition/deduction thesis
• (2) The innate knowledge thesis
• (3) The innate concept thesis
• (4) The other two theses

[2] Are the propositions which express these pre-empirical
assumptions in every case analytic (tautological, lacking in
content)?
• Yes  logical positivism
• Positivism (Steven Hawking) -> see also reductionism
– information derived from logical and mathematical treatments and reports of sensory experience is the exclusive
source of all authoritative knowledge;
– valid knowledge (truth) only in this derived knowledge;
– Verified data received from the senses are known as empirical evidence.;
– society, like the physical world, operates according to general laws.
– Introspective and intuitive knowledge is rejected
– True knowledge is scientific (Alan Bullock and Stephen Trombley, [Eds] The Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought,
London: Harper-Collins, 1999, pp. 669–737)
• Social positivism (Auguste Compte, Emily Durkheim):
– circular dependence of theory and observation in science
– Max Weber  Georg Simmel, Ferdinand Tönnies, George Herbert Mead, and Charles Cooley
– Neo-Kantianism , Hermeneutics, Phenomenology
– Contemporary American Sociology
• Logical positivism (logical empiricism): combines empiricism with rationalism
– Wittgenstein, Berlin, Reichenbach, Neurath, Carnap

[2] Are the propositions which express these pre-empirical
assumptions in every case analytic (tautological, lacking in
content)? (Continued)
• Constructive Empiricism (Hacking, I., 1988, Scientific Revolutions)
– A focus on science as a product, a linguistic or numerical set of statements;
– A concern with axiomatization, that is, with demonstrating the logical structure and coherence of these statements;
– An insistence on at least some of these statements being testable; that is, amenable to being verified, confirmed, or
shown to be false by the empirical observation of reality. Statements that would, by their nature, be regarded as
untestable included the teleological; thus positivism rejects much of classical metaphysics.
– The belief that science is markedly cumulative;
– The belief that science is predominantly transcultural;
– The belief that science rests on specific results that are dissociated from the personality and social position of the
investigator;
– The belief that science contains theories or research traditions that are largely commensurable;
– The belief that science sometimes incorporates new ideas that are discontinuous from old ones;
– The belief that science involves the idea of the unity of science, that there is, underlying the various scientific
disciplines, basically one science about one real world.
– The belief that science is nature and nature is science; and out of this duality, all theories and postulates are created,
interpreted, evolve, and are applied.
• Antipositivism
– Max Weber, Georg Simmel, Werner Heisenberg
• Critical Theory
– Karl Marx, Max Weber  Jürgen Habermas
– Karl Marx  Vygotsky

[3] Do we have an infallible knowledge of all the synthetic pre-
empirical propositions which are presupposed by the various
sciences in the different phases of their development?
• Yes  extreme Cartesians

[4] Could these assumptions, which are presupposed by the
empirical sciences,be arbitrary?
• Yes  Feyerabend, Lakatos
• Other: Terence McKenna, Thomas Kuhn, Ian Hacking, Jean Largeault, Alan Watts
• Methodological problem: THE scientific method
• Demarcation problem: Scientific criteria vs. pseudoscience, superstition  see Phillips and Huntley’s distinction
of propaganda (Science as metanarration)
• Incommensurability of scientific theories (is commensurable if scientists can discuss them in terms permitting
direct comparison of theories to determine which theory is truer  Ludwig Fleck, Thomas Kuhn)
• Language-games: Wittgenstein  Lyotard: authority, power and legitimation
• essentially contested concept (Walter B. Gallie) -Problem of Talking past each other:
– Abstract notion,
– Qualitative notion, and
– Evaluative notion
• What is the question: Clark "locate the source of the dispute”
– "essentially contested" : "is to attribute significance to the contest rather than to the concept“(polysemantic
including internal conflict  therefore “inherent potential for "generating disputes" Clarke (1979), p. 124)
– "essentially contestable“: "attribute some part of any contest to the concept“
• Value problem
– Virtue epistemology
– Epistemic reliabilism: Linda Zagzebski, Wayne Riggs and Richard Swinburne
– Science as aiming towards a mental state - Knowledge vs. Understanding: Kvanvig, J., The Value of
Knowledge and the Pursuit of Understanding. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Cambridge University Press.
2003

[5] The propositions in question must therefore be characterized
by a certain
plausibility. Is this plausibility always a contextual affair?
• Yes  hermeneutic relativists

[6] There is therefore something like an intrinsic plausibility. Are
the intrinsically plausible pre-empirical synthetic propositions
which play an indispensable role in the sciences given only
individually, so that we have only a few isolated examples thereof
between which no systematic relations would obtain?

[7] Is it really true , as the Kantians assert, that the intrinsically
plausible or intelligible pre-empirical synthetic propositions here
at issue are read into or imposed upon the world by us?
• Yes  Kantians
• Deontology  binding force is reason «categorical imperative»
• John Stuar Mill adds social conventions

[8] Might the intrinsically plausible pre-empirical synthetic propositions
all be false?

[9] Certain pre-empirical synthetic intrinsically plausible propositions
thus require
ontological correlates which are their truth-makers. Hence, there are
intelligible structures in the world, which we could also call ‘a priori
structures’.

Categories of ethcis
• Apriorism:
– Synthetic apriorism
• Philosophical ethics:
– Normative ethics: examines standards for the rightness and wrongness of actions
• Role of reason: moral binding forece vs. Behavioral motivation
– Meta-ethics: studies the meaning of moral language and the metaphysics of moral facts
• Moral realism: empirical investigation of people’s moral beliefs: moral facts are both descriptive and
prescriptive at the same time
– Descriptive ethics
• Normative ethics:
– deontology
– consequentialism
– virtue ethics
– pragmatic ethics
• Deontological ethics:
– (1) Kantianism
– (2) Moral absolutism
– (3) Divine command theory
– (4) Contemporary deontology

Kant vs. Lyotard
Kant
• Knowledge
• Argument
• Justification
Lyotard
• Authority
• Power
• Legitimation

The narrative as meaning
A “master narrative” is "coherent system of interrelated and
sequentially organized stories that share a common rhetorical desire to
resolve a conflict by establishing audience expectations according to
the known trajectories of its literary and rhetorical form.“
(Halverson, Jeffry R., H.L. Goodall Jr. and Steven R. Corman. Master
Narratives of Islamist Extremism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.
p. 14)

Engaged Theory
• Categories• Theory
• Concept• Codes
Empirical
analysis
(ways of
doing)
Conjunctural
analysis
(ways of
acting)
Integrational
analysis
(ways of
relating)
Categorical
analysis
(ways of
being)
19/11/2017 34
Grounded theory method does not aim for the "truth" but to
conceptualize what is going on by using empirical research.
suggests that empirical data collection is a neutral process that
gives rise to theoretical claims out of that data.. (Wikipedi)
Levels of epistemological
abstraction
Engaged theory is a reflexive
levels of epistemological abst
© Tabea Hirzel

Table 10.1. Relationships Among Different Traditions in the Study
of Practice
Perspective The Individual The Social Both: Reflexive–dialectical
view of individual–social
relations and connections
Objective (1) Practice as individual
behavior, seen in terms of
performances, events, and
effects: Behaviorist and most
cognitivist approaches in
psychology
(2) Practice as individual behavior,
seen in terms of performances,
events, and effects: Behaviorist and
most
cognitivist approaches in
psychology
Subjective (3) Practice as intentional
action, shaped by meaning and
values: Psychological
verstehen (empathetic
understanding) and most
constructivist approaches
(4) Practice as socially structured,
shaped by discourses, tradition:
Interpretive, aesthetic-historical
verstehen (empathetic
understanding), and
poststructuralist approaches
Both:
Reflexive–
dialectical
view of
subjective–
Objective relations
and Connections
(5) Practice as socially
and historically constituted and
as reconstituted by human
agency and social action: Critical
methods; dialectical analysis
(multiple methods)
19/11/2017 35
Kemmis & McTaggart: Participatory Action Research, in Denzin & Lincoln, 2007, p. 291
© Tabea Hirzel

Table 10.2. Methods and Techniques Characteristic of Different
Approaches to the Study of Practice
Perspective The Individual The Social Both: Reflexive–dialectical
view of individual–social
relations and connections
Objective (1) Practice as individual
behavior: Quantitative and
correlational–experimental
methods; psychometric and
observational techniques, tests,
and interaction schedules
(2) Practice as social and systems
behavior: Quantitative and
correlational–experimental
methods; observational
techniques, sociometrics, systems
analysis, and social ecology
Subjective (3) Practice as intentional
action: Qualitative and
interpretive methods; clinical
analysis, interview,
questionnaire, diaries, journals,
self-report, and introspection
(4) Practice as socially structured,
shaped by discourses and
tradition: Qualitative, interpretive,
and historical methods; discourse
analysis and document analysis
Both:
Reflexive–
dialectical
view of
subjective–
Objective relations
and Connections
(5) Practice as socially and
historically constituted and as
reconstituted by human agency
and social action: Critical
methods; dialectical analysis
(multiple methods)
19/11/2017 36
Kemmis & McTaggart: Participatory Action Research, in Denzin & Lincoln, 2007, p. 295
© Tabea Hirzel

WK Kellogg Foundation defines CBPR (Community-based
Participatory Research) as a:
“collaborative approach to research that equitably involves all partners
in the research process and recognizes the unique strengths that each
brings. CBPR begins with a research topic of importance to the
community and has the aim of combining knowledge with action and
achieving social change to improve health outcomes and eliminate
health disparities.” (In Frequently Asked Questions about Community-
Engaged Research)

The continuum of research
Traditional Community-Engaged CBPR
Research
Objective
Based on epidemiologic
data & funding priorities
Community input in
identifying locally relevant
issues
Full participation of
community in identifying
issues of greatest importance
Study Design Design based entirely on
scientific rigor and
feasibility
Researchers work with
community to ensure
study design is culturally
acceptable
Community intimately
involved with study design
Recruitment
& Retention
Based on scientific
issues & “best guesses”
regarding how to best
reach community
members
Researchers consult with
community
representatives on
recruitment & retention
strategies
Community representatives
provide guidance on
recruitment & retention
strategies and aid in
recruitment
Instrument Design Instruments
adopted/adapted from
other studies. Tested
chiefly w/psychometric
analytic methods.
Instruments adopted from
other studies &
tested/adapted to fit local
populations
Instruments developed with
community input and tested in
similar populations
Data Collection Conducted by academic
researchers or
individuals w/no
connection to the
community
Community members
involved in some aspects
of data collection
Conducted by members of the
community, to the extent
possible based on available
skill sets. Focus on capacity
building.
Analysis &
Interpretation
Academic researchers
own the data, conduct
analysis & interpret the
Findings
Academic researchers
share results of analysis
with community members
for comments &
Interpretation
Data is shared; community
members & academic
researchers work together to
interpret results
Dissemination Results published in
peer-reviewed academic journals
Results disseminated in
community venues as well as peer-reviewed
journals
Community members assist
academic researchers to identify appropriate
venues to
disseminate results (public
mtgs, radio, etc.) in a timely
manner & community
members involved in
dissemination. Results also
published in peer-reviewed
journals.

???
A B C
1 Environment Object(ives) Tool ???
2 Speech Language Meta language interaction
3 Expression Argument Logic (rules) narration
4 Ideal type Theory World view reflection
5 Personhood Role (Social) Identity performance
19/11/2017 39
materialization - abstraction
personification–objectification(anonymity)
Occurs/Reveals through… Plays with.. Institutionalizes…
1 Experience Game Work
2 Discourse Poetry Grammar
3 Rhetoric, music Story Politics, Science
4 Idea Research Mythology
5 (individual) Mind Theatre Society
singularity- complexity
individualization- institutionalization
e
© Tabea Hirzel

Categories of narratives
Not all Games are Stories
Not all Poetries are
Not all Stories are
Not all Research works are games
Not all Theatres are
Arguments Are Self-expression
19/11/2017 40
Not all Games are
Not all Poetries are
Not all Stories are arguments
Not all Research works are
Not all Theatres are
Arguments Are Self-expression
© Tabea Hirzel

Reflections on methodology VII: In social science (Hirzel, 2011)

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

En vedette

En vedette (8)

Similaire à Reflections on methodology VII: In social science (Hirzel, 2011)

Similaire à Reflections on methodology VII: In social science (Hirzel, 2011) (20)

Plus de Dr Tabea HIRZEL

Plus de Dr Tabea HIRZEL (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Reflections on methodology VII: In social science (Hirzel, 2011)