Hi all
Critical realist assumes that all our observations are theory laden. Well, I am not sure to what extent I agree with this but found it “true” when I formulated my research problem. As my work progressed, I found some findings that I was not aware of, findings that I did not read about. From critical realist view, this claim is not true. It assumes that there is something at the back of my mind that made me reached my conclusion.
Now, my question is: am I supposed to find the relevant theory and claim that it has affected my interpretation? Is it acceptable from critical realist to argue that there has been some theories that affected my perception of the problem at the early stage but I eventually reached a stage where I have got new findings without reviewing the literature?
Let me address a couple of issues from your post.
The theory ladenness of knowledge refers to the fact that we filter our perception of the world through our theory of how the world is constructed and how it works. Because of this theory the facts that we see are determined by the theory. For example, consider the tribe that views a lunar eclipse as being caused by a dog eating the moon. What they see is not the shadow of the earth blocking the sunlight from shining on the moon but rather a very large dog taking bites out of it. Because of their theory, their reality is very different from ours. This theory ladenness requires us to hold that everything we know can possibly be wrong and that all claims must be examined against our observations to prove which claims have better explanatory power for the phenomena.
You don't tell us anything about your research, but I am mystified when you say that you found some readings you didn't know about and therefore, I guess you mean that they invalidated your research question. This is perfectly understood from what I wrote above. You did some research, you identified a research question that you thought was a statement about reality. However, you later got more information that invalidated it requiring you to redraw your research question.
Now in regard to your question. The answer is that you don't have to discuss the theory ladenness of observation at the beginning or really at any point. What you do in CR research methodology is to first, describe a phenomenon in as much detail as you can describing its extent and characteristics. Then you attempt to explain it under the rubric of various theories, perhaps creating an amalgam of theories or creating your own. They you examine each of those as to explanatory power, selecting the theory with the most explanatory power. The literature review is covered in the use of extent theories.
The theory ladenness aspect of knowledge is taken into consideration in the different theories considered. Each of them having a different view of the entities and causal powers that brought the phenomenon to pass.
If you are doing social science research, you should look at Danermark, et al, 2002's book on Explaining Society. This will help you a lot.
Let me know if I can explain this further or help you in any way.
I think that you can pretty much do whatever you want. If you want to get it published and have an audience read it, the standard practice is an abstract that summarizes the article and a literature review of a few paragraphs that situates it in the context of previous research. This practice cues up your audience, saves their time, and orients them toward the meanings that you intend. Writing is a social practice and thus requires some attention and respect to the society in which it i situated. If you want an audience.
Yes, Francis's points bears reiteration here. When work is reviewed, readers and referees wish to understand what might be called its 'situated-ness'. It may be that the additional sources you describe validate your current thinking, in which case, even if you arrived at your conclusions independently they can still be cited as corroborating markers.
Hi - to me, you can't be doing critical realist reserch without reviewing the literature. CR investigations begin with a clear research question, some literature to underpin how others have addressed that question and assess to what extent a potential answer is already 'out there' but the beauty of CR is that it accepts you may find NEW knowledge in the field and so must consult the literature again to see if what you are findings was missed on your first scan of hte literature. Two papers which may be useful attached. Terri
One issue is the disambiguation of CR. Terri Byers' references point to one set of meanings. My own context is the field of international relations, which implies others.A literature review would point readers in the direction of your own mentality.
https://www.academia.edu/8196191/Post-Realism_Post_9_11
You seem to be confusing epistemic and ontological issues, something that CR was developed in order to clarify; I would suggest you improve your grounding in the relevant social theory and philosophy in order to avoid misinterpretation; both Terri and Michael's advice seems eminently sensible. Andrew Collier's book on Critical Realism or Andrew Sayer's Method in Social Science might be useful.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Microbiology
- Scientific Research