PHILOSOPHICAL WAGERS
After reading scholarship that put the methodological debates into practice, I began to understand methodology on a more practice level. In particular, the Wedeen piece posed a stark contrast to the Fox article and therefore highlighted the distinctions between interpretivism and (neo)positivism. As I read through Wedeen’s research, I found her debate to focus on meaning found through the interaction between people and symbols within a society, an idea that adheres to interpretivist methodology. [1] In contrast, Fox’s research clearly employed a neopositivist methodology as seen through his identification of dependent and independent variables, along with hypotheses he proceeded to test. [2]
Generally I understand methodology to be the reasoning behind method selection where methods can be enumerated as anything from ethnographic to small-N comparisons. Abbott’s “Basic Debates” chapter allowed me to grasp the meaning of ontology, particularly with Table 2.1 which plainly outlined social ontology. [3] I understand ontology as our convictions about reality and how we see the world or understand social circumstance. Abbott’s description of ontology has made ontological choices easier to spot as I research for my own project.
And as a researcher, I do not believe it is possible to be an objective observer of the social world. We are all co-producers with our own innate biases stemmed from early enculturation into our own societies: our families, schools, friendships, and so on. These biases can never be fully removed to understand the social world. An example of this can be seen within international law. A researcher may ask why the 28 states in sub-Saharan and northeast Africa, including states in parts of Asia and the Middle East agreed to international law banning the practice of female genital mutilation in the 1990s after decades of rejecting such a law by citing cultural rights. [4] Two researchers may pose the same question and yet will choose distinct methodologies, use different methods, and will arrive at unique conclusions due to their ingrained personal assumptions.
My beliefs about the social world will shape my research project as I will pay close attentions to context, culture, behavior, and interaction, elements that are main parts of interpretivist research. While I do see my research following this methodological approach, I am nonetheless intrigued by small-N research which would allow me to look at a handful of cases to offer comparisons in regards to my topic of gender violence.
I believe knowledgeable claims come from immersing oneself into the research area, and although this does not necessarily mean living in whichever region one chooses to study social phenomena, one must understand the social norms in play and the invisible social structures. This is achieved by speaking with or reading literature based on personal accounts of that certain phenomenon to understand the mindset of whichever state, group, or people one chooses to study.
NOTES
[1] Wedeen, Lisa. “Acting ‘As If’: Symbolic Politics and Social Control in Syria,” Comparative Studies in Society and History. pp. 503-523. July 1998.
[2] Fox, Jonathan. “State Religion and State Repression,” The Routledge Handbook of Religion and Security. pp. 182-192. 2012.
[3] Abbott, Andrew. Methods of Discovery: Heuristics for the Social Sciences. 1st edition. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. p. 52. 2004.
[4] Brysk, Alison. Speaking Rights to Power: Constructing Political Will. 1 edition. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 80-94 2013.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abbott, Andrew. Methods of Discovery: Heuristics for the Social Sciences. 1st edition. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. p. 52. 2004.
Brysk, Alison. Speaking Rights to Power: Constructing Political Will. 1 edition. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 80-94 2013.
Fox, Jonathan. “State Religion and State Repression,” The Routledge Handbook of Religion and Security. pp. 182-192. 2012.
Wedeen, Lisa. “Acting ‘As If’: Symbolic Politics and Social Control in Syria,” Comparative Studies in Society and History. pp. 503-523. July 1998.
Theodora – you are off to a good start in thinking through these important “Basic Debates” from Abbott. I would be careful in using the term “bias” though — as we’ve discussed in class, this concept *only* makes sense in the neopositivist world where there is the assumption of an actual, separately existing truth against which we can test our explanations. Assumptions is probably a more accurate term. “Bias” implies some sort of deliberate slant, whereas our ontological and epistemological assumptions are more subconscious and involuntary (and certain methodological tools in the neopositivist world do allow for the researcher to be aware of, and control for, potential biases). Keep reading and thinking about these important debates as you read and continue your research!