Search

In the past few decades, there have been efforts to transform qualitative inquiry, drawing on resources from both imaginative literature and art. There have long been tensions within social science that have encouraged the use of these resources, but the recent "literary turn" is more radical. The assumptions underpinning it are examined, and it is argued that what is most important is the purpose for which modes of expression are employed and how well they serve this. The problem with the literary turn is that it frequently involves substitution of the purposes of art or politics for those of social science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper some fundamental criticisms of Max Weber's conception of the vocation of science are addressed. These well-known criticisms focus on his admission that science cannot demonstrate its own value, and his broader claim that there can be no rational basis for committing oneself to one set of ultimate values as against another. Instead, he insisted that the adoption of such values is necessarily a matter of individual decision. Influential critics have argued that this amounts to relativism, or even nihilism: that, if it were true, neither science nor anything else could have genuine value, all value-judgements would be arbitrary or entirely instrumental (e.g. a matter of self-interest). I will outline Weber's position, and then examine the arguments of some of his critics: focussing particularly on Midgley and Strauss. This provides the basis for a careful reassessment of Weber's position, and for some suggestions about how he could respond to these critics. It is argued that fundamental values operate in a dialectical relationship with specific evaluations, and that they arise naturally out of more or less universal features of human beings' life experience. While this does not provide a compelling rational basis for commitment to those values, even less for prioritising one over another, it tells us why we often feel a need to uphold them. Furthermore, despite the fact that it does not guarantee agreement, rational clarification of these values and their implications, as well as appraisal of their relative significance in particular cases, is possible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article, titled "Dangerous Liaisons in the Wasteland? A Found Document," discusses the author's experience with reviewing research proposals related to waste reduction. The author expresses surprise and confusion at the unconventional and theoretical approaches proposed by researchers, such as examining capitalism as the root of waste, exploring structural racism in waste production, and investigating waste through artistic expressions. The author questions the value and practicality of these proposals and suggests that further research should be conducted on the issue of waste in social science. The article raises concerns about the potential wastefulness of research activities and the use of public funds. [Extracted from the article]

It is, perhaps, necessary to reiterate that the article was not primarily about ethnomethodology, or even about ethnomethodological work in Science and Technology Studies (STS), but about a particular line of argument - what can crudely be called radical constructionism - which has long been part of STS and continues to be influential in some quarters there, as Lynch acknowledges. Keywords: ethnomethodology; representation; science and technology studies; constructionism; Michael Lynch EN ethnomethodology representation science and technology studies constructionism Michael Lynch 268 271 4 07/07/22 20220701 NES 220701 I welcome Mike Lynch's response to my article and thank him for it. Reply to Michael Lynch's Comment on "Is Representation a "Folk" Term?". [Extracted from the article]

An influential strand within Science and Technology Studies (STS) rejects the idea that science produces representations referring to objects or processes that exist independently of it. This radical 'turn' has been framed as 'constructionist', 'nominalist', and more recently as 'ontological'. Its central argument is that science constructs or enacts rather than represents. Since most practitioners of science believe that it involves representation, an implication of the radical turn must be that 'representation' is a folk concept; perhaps even a myth or an ideology. This paper explores this anti-representationalism and its implications for the relationship between STS and mainstream social science, in part through drawing parallels with ethnomethodology. 1 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Karl Mannheim's work, particularly his book Ideology and Utopia, has considerable relevance to current concerns about the public role of sociology. However, this is not widely recognised, and key aspects of his thought have frequently been neglected or disparaged. In this article the background to Mannheim's work is outlined, and a summary provided of the central argument of Ideology and Utopia, comparing this with the positions taken by Max Weber and Georg Lukács, both of whom were important influences on Mannheim. The major criticisms of, and problems with, Mannheim's argument are then addressed. While he was by no means completely successful in putting forward a convincing conception of sociology's public role, there is a great deal to be learned from his work, and from the manner in which he pursued it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article, titled "Is There Quality in Qualitative Research?" by Martyn Hammersley, explores the concept of quality in qualitative research. The author questions whether quality can be objectively measured in qualitative research and suggests that it may be subjective and dependent on individual perspectives. Hammersley, an Emeritus Professor of Educational and Social Research, has written extensively on methodological issues in social inquiry. The article raises important considerations about the nature of qualitative research and invites readers to reflect on their own beliefs and perspectives. [Extracted from the article]

A call to empiricists to rise up and reclaim reality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A modest proposal of a sporting analogy is offered as methodological fiction about the democratization of research and the great mission such an ideal places upon qualitative inquiry. With apologies to Jonathan Swift. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]