In modernist era methodology of social sciences was believed to be used for seeking scientific truth, better understanding, right posing of questions, in many cases - creation of set of rules and normative models, etc. But post-modernist era has turned and dismissed much of everything around. Is social sciences methodoiogy as such still possible in post-modernist times?
Three theoretical perspectives dominate organization theory (OT): modernism (M), symbolic-interpretivism (SI) and postmodernism (PM). Karl Marx (1867), Émile Durkheim (1893), and Max Weber (1925) introduced a sociological perspective to OT (Hatch, 2006). This school of thought was concerned with issues such as the structure of organizations, the power relationships and effect of organizations upon society, how industrialization affected the nature of work, and the social needs of the workers themselves (Hatch, 2006). Concern about organizational power, the workers’ voice, and points of view emerged from these early classical theorists and in the 1980s and 1990s, new schools of OT thought that came to be known as the symbolic-interpretive (SI) and postmodern (PM) perspectives surfaced (Hatch, 2006).
In contrast to the positivist research methods that characterized classic and modern organization theory, symbolic-interpretivism and postmodernism research employs qualitative methodologies that seek to understand organizations from the perspective of the workers; so, social sciences methodology (i.e., qualitative research methods) are not only still possible in post-modernist times – they are foundational to post-modernism.
Ref.:
Hatch, M. J. (with Cunliffe, A. L.). (2006). Organization theory: Modern, symbolic, and postmodern perspectives (Second edition). NY: Oxford University Press.
I would go for the works on "provincializing the social sciences" something that goes alongside the questioning of the nation or the state as limits for research.
Dear Philipp Altmann,
When You in Your country like in Lithuania will loose in a decade 800 hundred thousand of population because of emigration and Your population will diminish from 3,7 mln. to 2,9 mln., You will begin to think not only about globalization, but about provincialization too. Dear Philipp, it is not our first meeting on ResearchGate - thank You for Your position and I respect it, but my accusations of nationalism and stronger state from Your side a bit resemble the accusations of Russians towards Ukrainians that they are fascists, that is Ukrainian national feelings are fascist. Really universities have much to do at present in explaining the difference between nationalism and fascism, nationalism and extremism, nationalism and populism, etc I am afraid, Western globalists after a while will think like Putin and many Russians now think.
Dear Arvydas Guogis,
if you look for a postmodern foundation of the nation-state, you will have a hard time to find anything. Maybe some of the Carl Schmitt and Heidegger-fans amongst the post-moderns, like Agamben with his coming community. But it will imply a lot of work to "re-nationalize" that. The problem is also that those theories do not have -as far as I know- a connection to methods (because they are developed within philosophy). If you know of methodological attempts to "re-nationalize" method/social science, I would be glad to hear of them.
Dear Philipp,
Well known in Lithuania Lithuanian philosophers and afterwards politicians and societal figures Romualdas Ozolas and Bronislovas Genzelis can do that in my country. I do not know if they have the English versions of their understanding, but what is very important that they can do that in mass media and public gatherings too. To those who want to tisten to them. Of course, they do that now more in the popular manner, but not the populist. And they know what methods and methodology are and what nation state is and what connections can reveal their relations.
Hi... in my understanding "post modernism' includes a huge variety of approaches. interests & more nuanced philosophical assumptions... Together with sheila Mcnamee, I have written a book that sets out a postmodern relational constructionist discourse (as a 'philosophy of science') & worked this out in relation to research and social change... its written with a strong inquiry/practice orientation... might be relevant t your question & curiosities... see:
McNamee, S. & Hosking, D.M. (2012). Research and social change. A relational constructionist approach. New York/Oxford: Routledge.
There are quite a few threads of proto- and current postmodernism throughout sociology. There has been a strong humanist thread from early on. The symbolic interactionist tradition beginnign with G.H. Mead and W.I. Thomas and its offshoots, such as ethnomethodoogy ard social constructionism (e.g., Berger and Luckmann), as well as grounded theory methodology (Strauss and Glazer) are all founded in a critique of objectivist thought. Then there is the rich conflict theory tradition emerging from Marx, which has had many important European offshoots. It is just the empiricists and the tradition emerging out of Comte's positivism (including Parson's strucure-functionalism) and a bunch of quantoid mechanists that are not compatible with postmodernism. I've written on this. I also suggest checking Stephen Pepper's seminal book, World Hypotheses -- he was a U.C. Berkeley philsopher of science who directly addressed issues related to objectivism.
hi
my articles on interface between modernity and postmodern philosophy might provide some reflections.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science