Group presentation for Masters @ City University London
-
Upload
ajmalsultany -
Category
Spiritual
-
view
603 -
download
0
Transcript of Group presentation for Masters @ City University London
WEEK 7
Group Presentation
ajmal sultany
kulvir randhawa
michael kelly
sebastian mroczko
denise worland
tony liu corrine anderson
The need to understand the underpinnings of our methods
Philosophy
Methodology
Method
Critical Realism
Positivism Post-Positivism
Empiricism
Objectivity Subjective
Constructivism
Deductive Inductive
Quantitative Qualitative
Hammersley argues:
Critical Realism Fails to Justify Critical Social Research
Lets breakdown the argument
Critical Realism Fails to Justify Critical Social Research
Critical RealismCritical Social Research
Roy Bhaskar
Martyn Hammersley
Introduction
CRITICAL REALISM
Does not disagree with the concept of realism
Agrees that research should be critical
SOCIETY PHENOMENA
Subjected to Criticism
“Very often, the relationship between the political value judgements underpinning this commitment and the values intrinsic to inquiry, as
a distinct form of activity have been left obscure”
“Researchers fail to explicate the basis for their critical orientation”
RATIONAL BEHIND CRITICAL REALISM
Marx and Hegel believed that value conclusions should be drawn from factual evidence
Teleological account of the world
Subjectivist position Contemporary climate, subjectivist positions are encouraged and value judgments do not have to be rationally justified Critical realism offers both an objective but non teleological rationale for ‘critical’ orientation
‘CRITICAL’ TRADITION IN THE PAST...
Hammersley argues that critical realism cannot justify critical social research
Cognitive argument: draw value conclusions from factual evidence
Non cognitive argument: concerns other aspects of human life, draw
conclusions about what is wrong and what ought to be done
He talks about two type of arguments which are at the core of critical realism
HAMMERSELY’S DISCUSSION
Cognitive argument
2If you establish a fact – it’s a truth that other people should believe
If institutions are generating beliefs which are incompatible - these should be criticized or changed1
BUT
Is not logical...
• You can never have ‘absolute’ knowledge
• Can’t assume social science produces ‘true’ facts
• People’s beliefs – in ‘true’ and ‘false’ things – aren’t generated differently
SO
You can’t use your ‘facts’ to criticise institutions
• Do institutions generate beliefs anyway?
• Could they generate both true AND false beliefs?
• How can you tell what is true or false?
For these reasons, Hammersley argues that the cognitive argument is not a secure basis for arguing that social science and realism can and should be ‘critical’
Non-Cognitive argument
If we establish that someone suffers from an unmet need, such as the absence of food, then it follows automatically, other things being equal, that action should be taken to meet this need
Frustration of a need is not only generated by some institution but is necessary for the reproduction of that institution, then the conclusion follows (other things being equal) that the institution should be changed
Factual statement – a person does not have food and is likely to die as a result
Value assumption – no human being should starve to death
Evaluation – this is an undesirable situation
Need is a problematic concept that involves a value assumption...
Denying someone food may be a desirable situation
Many needs involve more than one value assumption
• Literacy and numeracy are basic needs in society
• Elementary or other levels
• Example: Minimum requirement GCSE A-C
• Other things being equal - is not helpful
• Disagreement with multiple values
• What is good or bad?
• What should or should not be done?
• Change in circumstances
• No expertise or authority to make the decision.
Multiple Value
There is no justification for claiming that social scientists can conclusively determine what counts as a need that should be met on any particular occasion.
Since this is a matter for practical value judgement, here too social science cannot claim any distinctive authority.
Conclusion
Critical realism offers a rationale for being critical
However neither of the two arguments making up this rationale is convincing
Reason
Commitment to the principle that researchers should strive to be value-neutral or objective.
Social scientists should not imply that value conclusions can be validated through their work.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
LIMITS