The recent discussions of
positivism, postmodernism, etc. has been
really annoying <grin> to me. I had just finished writing
a perfectly good
discussion of the implications of postmodernism for social research
and was
ready to move on. Now I find myself hooked on this discussion
the way
others are hooked on General Hospital or the OJ trial. So here's
my $.02.
As I've struggle to squeeze
the unfolding discussion into the
frameworks of my mind, I've finally concluded that our concepts have
done
it to us again. They've tricked us into thinking they mean something
real
when they are actually symbols intended to represent more complex
phenomena. It has become clear that each of us means something
different
when we use any of these symbols (positivism, postmodernism, etc.).
I thought Jeremy Straughn's
recent summary of some of the important
issues was right on the money.
> 1) Take one's values
and cognitive frames into
>
account (anti-pos'm).
> 2) Use interpretive
methods (qualitative).
> 3) Allow for multiple
valid interpretations of data
>
(anti-positivism).
> 4) Look for "laws"--perhaps
we could call them
>
recurring patterns or associations--in data
>
(positivism).
> 5) Make the analysis
more systematic, replicable,
>
and freer of inadvertant spuriousness or
>
skewedness (positivism?).
These are all important issues to discuss, find common ground, disagree,
change our minds later, etc. Attaching the conceptual buzzwords,
however,
is what often gets us in trouble, I think.
As valuable as concepts are,
they seem to come with reification
microcircuitry that turns them lethal.
I think I'll stop trying
to decide if I'm more postmodernist than
positivist or vice versa; I know I'm both to some degree (which is
probably
a postmodern thing to say) (but I'm positive about it). Just
call me a
methodologist who's still trying to sort it all out.
Earl
(c) Earl Babbie 2000