David writes:
>Martin. I made the same guess that Pedro did and
>was obviously wrong, and I think you have put another face on the issue
>entirely.
...but
>Now, however, it seems you are
>so mad at the physicists for being less than they claimed to be, that you
>would eschew all their tools, even when productively adapted to new
>settings
David, I wasn't mad, but I'm starting to get a little hot under the collar!
One assumption floating around here seems to be that interpretive analysis
is just easier than that empirical-analytic stuff, so it's what people do
when they can't hack it in a stats course. I invite all empirical-analytic
researcher to undertake the rigors of ethnographic investigation, discourse
transcription and analysis, report writing, etc., and see how easy it is.
Not to mention the fact that, as Eugene Matusov points out, many funding
agencies and journals have, until very recently at least, spurned such
work. See how easy it is to build a career in such a climate, guys!
.
Nor am I angry at physicists, David. Is it too much to ask that the
possibility be considered that people explore alternatives to
empirical-analytic inquiry because they genuinely believe that this
paradigm of inquiry is a flawed way to investigate human phenomena? That
doesn't mean you have to accept the reasoning, just acknowledge that there
IS reasoning behind the choice, rather than people being stupid or mad.
Nor do I eschew the tools of physicists. But we have to better understand
what mathematics is--a social, cultural activity. A number of times I've
mentioned on XMCA Brian Rotman's efforts to show how mathematics is social;
how, for example, the assumption of "infinite iterability" is a
questionable cultural stance. On my pile of books to read is "The Ethics
of Geometry," which challenges the notion that it's a value-free endeavor.
I think the boolian logic of case analysis that Charles Ragin has developed
is very interesting (Ragin, C. C. (1987). The comparative method: Moving
beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies: Berkeley: University of
California Press.). As is Bourdieu's use of correspondence analysis,
apparently a kind of non-parametric factor analysis.
So, David, I'm going to take you at your word. You write:
>there is much room for both mathematical and narrative
>approaches in the study mind and culture. Wouldn't it be nice if they
>could learn from each other?
Can I ask that, to begin with, you sit down with these simple texts? Let
us know what you learn.
Bernstein, R. J. (1976). The restructuring of social and political
theory: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Bernstein, R. (1983). Beyond objectivism and relativism: Science,
hermeneutics, and praxis: Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Heidegger, M. (1927/1962). Being and time. (J. Macquarrie & E.
Robinson, Trans.). New York: Harper & Row.
Phew!!! Okay, I feel better now. Had to get that off my chest!!
Martin
================
Martin Packer
Associate Professor
Department of Psychology
Duquesne University
Pittsburgh PA 15282
(412) 396-4852
fax: (412) 396-5197
packer who-is-at duq3.cc.duq.edu
http://www.duq.edu/liberalarts/gradpsych/packer/packer.html