Search

In this paper, I address a range of arguments put forward by Kwame Gyekye (1992) and Bernard Matolino (2014) denying Menkiti's twin propositions that persons differ ontologically from human beings and that human attitudes, behaviours and practices constitute persons in social reality. They argue that his account of "maximal" persons, rooted in African traditional thought‐worlds, conflates issues and ultimately involve him in a category mistake. I argue that their arguments do not succeed, and that Menkiti's view is not in any predicament because of them. Then, I draw on John Searle's account of social ontology to clarify the sense in which attitudes, behaviours and practices are constituents of persons. Thus, I characterise persons as social entities belonging in a social ontology. Finally, I argue that realism regarding persons is not undermined by the threat of conventionalism lurking behind the view. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Some methodologists have challenged the usefulness of statistics by arguing that the ontology implied by their use is inconsistent with the complex ontology of critical realism. Other critics of statistics take a strong social constructivist approach to research methodology. One problem with these sceptics' arguments is that they confuse the method of analytical statistics with the methodology of empiricism. We disentangle the two, and present a constructive argument supporting the cautious use of analytical statistics. The first part of the paper argues the case for an interpretive approach to statistical findings. In the middle of the paper an exemplar is presented showing that multivariate regression results can offer nonintuitive findings, can support non-atomistic interpretations, and can help underpin retroductive explanatory arguments. In exploring the nature of the warranted arguments that can arise after doing analytical statistics, we stress that explanations are emergent and do rest upon the workings of the statistical techniques and practices. We argue against seeing statistical techniques as a 'black box'. Instead, arguments can be developed, with justification resting in part upon the statistical results, in an audience-specific context of argumentation. The data which underlie statistical methods are not factual; the data are more like ficts than facts. Our argument is therefore that warranted arguments can be and are developed by social scientists who may use analytical statistics alongside other methods of research. Details of the argument can be explored further but it is important to establish that the sceptics' arguments are too dismissive of multivariate statistical analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we argue that trust is an important aspect of social reality, one that realist social theory has paid little attention to but which clearly resonates with a realist social ontology. Furthermore, the emergence of an interest in trust in specific subject fields such as organization theory indicates the growing significance of issues of trust as market liberalism has developed. As such, the emergence of an interest in trust provides support for Archer's characterisation of late modernity in The Reflexive Imperative (2012) as a period of heterogeneity and greater incongruity. Commenting on this provides an opportunity to discuss the issue of habit in relation to trust and also the importance of the analysis of integration as a means to explain problems of trust. The commentary draws on examples from finance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]