Bolshoi Spasiboa, Sasha!
That was an incredible exhibition! I sure wish I could write that clearly in
Russian, never mind should I thinks so
interestingly.
If I understand you correctly, my desire to distingush method and
methodology is because among American social
scientists there are a very large proportion who engage in what C Wright
Mills called " abstract empiricism." It uses
an eclectic set of methods and conventionalized statistical inference
devices that pass as science.
Datum/methodology/theory is itself an ideologically inflected world view.
Which leaves us "systematic critical thinking/probing" as perhaps a
definition of science.
On 8/28/05, Alexander Surmava <monada@netvox.ru> wrote:
>
> *Hi all,*
>
> *The number of posts I have to reply is threateningly growing so I have do
> my best to survive under them :-).*
>
> *First of all I have to give a clarification of my provocative tone
> concerning this at the first sight banal term.*
>
> *According to tradition formed from early sixties of the past century in
> Russian (Soviet) psychology, the tradition that has noting to do neither
> with Marxism as it is nor with ideas of Ilyenkov (Vasilij Davydov was
> extremely alone among soviet psychologists with his consistent Marxism and
> Ilyenkovism) so called methodology is practically an euphemism for
> non-marxist philosophy.*
>
> *Realizing that serious theoretic analysis is impossible without a
> philosophic reflection and having no case to use openly one of non-marxist
> philosophies (I have to repeat, that genuine nonideological Marxism with
> some minor exceptions was in the Soviet Union and lately in Russia
> practically unknown among serious investigators) they rename this
> philosophical or logical reflection into "methodology", as if it was an
> independent from philosophy, positive, free from ideology discipline.*
>
> *According to this attitude the curriculum of psychological faculties even
> now includes a courses of so called "methodology of psychology" which has
> nothing to do neither with classical philosophy nor with definite
> psychological theory. It has nothing to do with any kind of specific
> experimental methods as well. As a rule it is a florid, eclectical
> reflection based on popular here and now ideas or philosophical systems.
> Only one quality unifies all those reflections that's its non-marxist
> character.*
>
> *One of the best and mostly typical examples of such "methodology"
> proposes Vladimir Petrovitch Zinchenko. (Here I have to underline, that I
> deeply appreciate Vladimir Petrovitch as an****** outstanding scientist
> and a very kind person, moreover I'm seriously insisting that I regard him
> as one of my principal teachers in psychology. It was Zinchenko who pushed
> me to pay attention at Nikolai Bernstein – the greatest Russian physiologist
> with its ideas of alive movement. Unfortunately our mutual understanding is
> finishing as soon as we enter a field of so called "methodology".)*
>
> *VPZ stands openly on anti-Marxist position and in the same time pretends
> to be a vigotskianist. He claims marxist method as extremely nonproductive
> and in the same time tries to tackle the problem of germ cell. He put
> forward a brilliant Bernstein's idea of alive movement as a germ cell of
> psyche and there and then "enriches" it adding such additional "germ cells"
> as signs, symbols, speech and… God-Man. He modestly doesn't pretend to
> formulate a new psychological theory and in the same time he tries to
> formulate new pluralistic methodology combining with ease the materialistic
> and idealistic elements. Finally he pretends to be a profound methodologist
> and in the same time boasting that he have never read Spinoza or Hegel and
> that his university test on philosophy was written by Vasia Davydov.*
>
> *I want to repeat, the VPZ's understanding of "methodology" is typical for
> modern Russian psychology. And the case of VPZ is not the worst. *
>
> *I can repeat after Steve* "I certainly agree that there is no such thing
> as a methodology without theory, but I also would agree with the statement
> that there is no such thing as a theory without methodology."***** In
> other words theory and methodology are initially connected so that bad
> methodology is equal to bad theory and vice versa. Nowadays one can rarely
> meet in Russian psychological journals an article pretending to formulate
> some new theoretic idea, or containing serious critic of basic theoretic
> concepts. But each journal have a special part concerning "methodological
> questions" and the mostly popular position in modern methodology is
> "methodological liberalism" or simply banal eclecticism****** and
> pantophagy.*
>
> *That is why I'm usually insisting that I have nothing to do with
> methodology, I am a psychologist.*
>
> *The other side of the issue is connected with the name of Georgi
> Petrovitch Schedrovitsky who called himself a methodologist, a methodologist
> without any additional definition. G.P. was an influential figure in
> seventies and left after himself many followers.*
>
> *But, again I have to add a drop of poison into my appreciation. All his
> followers in striking contrast to their dainty methodological reflection
> give us very modest theoretic results, the results interesting and
> understandable as a rule only for their narrow close circle.*
>
> *And this result is natural. If we as investigators are trying to work
> with subject matter or PREDMET which is created by a methodologist we are
> dealing with those narrow content which was put in it by a methodologist
> whereas the empirical object of our theorizing stays misunderstood. The
> point is that according to marxist logic the process of constituting of
> PREDMET of any science is the objective historical process funded in
> historically developing material practice instead of pure intellectual
> product of one genial scientist or methodologist.*
>
> *The best critical analysis of this issue contains in brilliant book of
> EVI's friend, co-author and disciple as well as a member of our newborn
> ISCAR's "Dialectical psychology" section Lev Naumenko «Monism as a principal
> of dialectical logic». Those of XMCA members who know Russian can find this
> book on my website* *****http://www.voxnet.ru/~monada/archive.php?lng=ru*
> ***** . The subject is discussed in the second part of the book in
> paragraph 2. Printsip gomogennosti. Ob'ekt nauki i ee predmet.*
>
> *Many years ago at the time of the first conference on Vygotsky's theory
> at the Moscow Institute of Psychology in 1981 I weighed in on the debate
> with G.P. on the round table concerning the methodological problems. (A
> funny detail was that this time being an evening department psychological
> faculty student I was working in Davydov's Institute as cloakroom attendant.
> So the discussion started in academic circumstances in "Malaya" auditorium
> continued and finished in cloakroom.) I've asked G.P. about the role of
> methodologist in real scientific process. I insist that so called
> methodology, or methodological reflection is an inseparable part of any real
> cognition process and all big theorists had to be in the same time big
> methodologists, that division of labor between scientists and methodologists
> is something equivocal, that scientist that alienates his rights on
> methodological reflection to anybody looks like a husband who alienates his
> wife or daughter to the first who comes along. *
>
> *The G.P's answer was literally the following: Marx, Vygotsky, Einstein
> were high-brow highbrow and they really can realize not only scientific
> investigation but a methodological reflection as well. But the actual
> scientists are far from high philosophical culture (and often from any
> culture) so they are need of him as a Methodologist. ( I suspect that the
> utmost openness of the answer was provoked by the circumstances of cloakroom
> :-) ).*
>
> *Mike wrote:*
>
> *>>* Once stabilized (if stabilized?) we arrive at what Schedrovitsky
> refers to as scientific activity. My
>
> >> main reservation is that I am unsure that there is ever a really stable
> relationship where the
>
> >> methodology is conventionalized.******
>
> *I can subscribe to Mike's reservation an add that stabilization of
> methodology simply means the death of science because substantial movement
> can't be realized without permanent specification and development of its
> methods.*
>
> *Peter wrote:*
>
> >>> I'd be interested to know what you think about this usage of the term
> "methodology." If this sense
>
> >>> of the term is acceptable, can we not say that Aristotle, Galileo,
> Descartes, Newton, Marx were all
>
> >>> doing "methodological work"?
>
> *I think that I completely formulate my attitude to G.P.'s terminology. I
> think that any serious thinker is in the same time a theorist and
> methodologist. Aristotle, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Marx can't be the***
> *** exception******.*
>
> *Victor's dissertation on Spinoza is very interesting for me especially
> the footnote. It can be interesting to organize some time a special
> discussion concerning Spinoza and EVI, Spinoza and LSV. By the way I am
> going to put on my website the materials (meanwhile in Russian) of current
> and very bitter dispute concerning the EVI's interpretation of Spinoza. The
> dispute is taking place among the EVI's followers. *
>
> *Cheers,*
>
> *Sasha*
>
> > -----Original Message-----
>
> > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu<xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu>]
> On
>
> > Behalf Of Mike Cole
>
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 7:47 PM
>
> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>
> > Subject: Re: [xmca] Method/Methodology
>
> >
>
> > Peter, Sasha, Steve et al--
>
> > Since I am stuck at a car dealer waiting for brakes to be replaced and
>
> > they
>
> > have
>
> > a wireless hotspot, I have a moment to write on this topic which I have
>
> > learned
>
> > a lot about in reading various comments.
>
> > My own eclectic educational path has led me to distinguish between the
>
> > terms
>
> > method and methodology which appear to be used interchangeably by many
>
> > in the chat literature I read and some in this discussion.
>
> > It may be that Schedrovitsky's point is compatible with what I have been
>
> > thinking.
>
> > In my work I habitually use several ways of gathering evidence.
>
> > Observations, test
>
> > scores, products of people's activity, newspaper stories, budgets of
>
> > organizations.
>
> > Each of these "sources of evidence" I consider a method. The ensemble of
>
> > these
>
> > mehods and the ways in which I combine them (as systematically as I can
>
> > manage)
>
> > is what I think of as a methodology. Some might refer to this usages as
> a
>
> > synonym
>
> > for "multi-method" research strategies. The difference, I think, is the
>
> > extent to which
>
> > there is systematicity in how the variety of methods is chosen and the
>
> > logic
>
> > that
>
> > connects them to each other (on the one hand) and on the theory and
>
> > predmet
>
> > on the other.
>
> > Once stabilized (if stabilized?) we arrive at what Schedrovitsky refers
>
> > to
>
> > as scientific
>
> > activity. My main reservation is that I am unsure that there is ever a
>
> > really stable relationship
>
> > where the methodology is conventionalized. But maybe that is simply
>
> > because
>
> > I work in
>
> > such a foggy arena of human inquiry.
>
> > mike
>
> >
>
> > On 8/24/05, Peter Moxhay <moxhap@portlandschools.org> wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > > Sasha, Steve, and all:
>
> > >
>
> > > It is interesting that G. P. Schedrovitsky sometimes uses the term
>
> > > "methodology" or "methodological work" to refer to work that is done
>
> > > in order to *bring into being* a new science or theory. That is, the
>
> > > work that is done in order to constitute a new PREDMET or object of
>
> > > study/ subject matter. For example, he wrote (my translation):
>
> > >
>
> > > > Here you may ask: Why, in particular do I call this work
>
> > > > "methodological," rather than, say, scientific? Primarily because
>
> > > > scientific work properly speaking, i.e. work according to the
>
> > > > canons and laws of scientific research, is possible only within the
>
> > > > bounds of an already existing PREDMET (subject matter/object of
>
> > > > study). For example, Galileo constructed the scientific apparatus
>
> > > > of mechanics -- after which the scientist can make his entrance on
>
> > > > the stage, conduct his research within the bounds of this PREDMET,
>
> > > > and, in parallel, develop and transform it into other scientific
>
> > > > PREDMETS. And if such a PREDMET does not yet exist, scientific
>
> > > > research and development can simply not exist. And therefore in the
>
> > > > "Conversations" Galileo acted not as a scientist but as a
>
> > > > methodologist. And Descartes worked in precisely the same way, when
>
> > > > he created analytic geometry and natural-sciences type disciplines.
>
> > > > (From a collection, Myshlenie, ponimanie, refleksiya, published in
>
> > > > 2005)
>
> > >
>
> > > I'd be interested to know what you think about this usage of the term
>
> > > "methodology." If this sense of the term is acceptable, can we not
>
> > > say that Aristotle, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Marx were all doing
>
> > > "methodological work"?
>
> > >
>
> > > Peter
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > Sasha's discussion of the term "methodology" is intriguing. I
>
> > > > certainly agree that there is no such thing as a methodology
>
> > > > without theory, but I also would agree with the statement that
>
> > > > there is no such thing as a theory without methodology. In other
>
> > > > words, methodology - the use and study of method - is an essential
>
> > > > property of any serious theoretical system, and all serious
>
> > > > theories employ methodology. This of course applies to Marxism,
>
> > > > which can be claimed to be the most methodologically advanced
>
> > > > theoretical system because it consciously synthesizes all
>
> > > > methodologies (formal logic, dialectical logic, observation,
>
> > > > experiment, induction, deduction, analysis, synthesis, etc. etc.).
>
> > > > It is very common among Marxists of many tendencies to speak of a
>
> > > > "Marxist methodology," which seems to be used more or less
>
> > > > synonymously with the more commonly employed term "Marxist
>
> > > > method." One or the other or both of the two terms to my knowledge
>
> > > > are used ubiquitously by virtually the entire rainbow of Marxist
>
> > > > tendencies, dating back to the late 19th century. Googling around a
>
> > > > little, I notice that the term "Marxist methodology" is sometimes
>
> > > > used to mean "Marxist method," but not in a way that attempts to
>
> > > > differentiate the two. The news that Ilyenkov never used the terms
>
> > > > methodology (or epistemology) certainly gets my attention, and I
>
> > > > will think about that as I study EVI. But until Ilyenkov or Sasha
>
> > > > can persuade me otherwise - and I admit, I have been finding EVI
>
> > > > quite persuasive over the last couple years since I discovered him
>
> > > > through xmca - my perspective is to continue to view the term
>
> > > > methodology as a property of theory, and to apply the method (or
>
> > > > methodology if you prefer) of Marxism as best I can to understand,
>
> > > > among other things, the ways method and methodology are used in
>
> > > > human affairs.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > Best,
>
> > > > - Steve
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > > At 03:09 PM 8/21/2005 +0400, Sasha wrote:
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >> Hi all,
>
> > > >>
>
> > > >> IMHO the problem of meaning of so called "methodology" is a little
>
> > > >> bit more
>
> > > >> complicated than it can be estimated from the first sight. First
>
> > > >> of all this
>
> > > >> term is rather new. It was brought into fashion in the beginning
>
> > > >> of the last
>
> > > >> century. Neither Hegel nor Marx had ever used it. Certainly
>
> > > >> Ilyenkov knew
>
> > > >> this term but never used it either.
>
> > > >>
>
> > > >>
>
> > > >>
>
> > > >
>
> > > > <snip>
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > _______________________________________________
>
> > > xmca mailing list
>
> > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>
> > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
> > >
>
> > _______________________________________________
>
> > xmca mailing list
>
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 01 2005 - 01:00:10 PDT