Topic outline

• Introduction to social philosophy in the social sciences and humanities

  Prev Next

  Achieving a methodological approach which is consonant with one’s own values and concerns typically involves the longest struggle in research work and the deepest kinds of engagement’ (Salmon, 1992:77).

  • Definitions
  • Introduction
  • What is social philosophy? 
  • Resource aims
    • Social philosophy and research writing
  • Approaches in social philosophy
  • Example activity: Methodological approaches in urban planning research
  • Example activity commentary: Methodological approaches in urban planning research
  • Conclusion
  • References
  • Audio recording

  Definitions

  Methods─'the techniques or procedures used to gather and analyse data related to some research question or hypothesis' (Crotty, 1998:3).

  Methodology─'the strategy, plan of action, process or design lying behind the choice and use of particular methods, and linking the choice and use of methods to the desired outcomes' (Crotty, 1998:3). This includes not only the practical aspects of the research such as method and action plan, but also the philosophical and theoretical perspectives of the researcher.

  Research design─The research plan that is devised to obtain answers to the research questions. The research design can encompass the research aims, hypotheses or questions, the methodology, methods of data collection, and the strategies used to analyse the data. The research design tells the reader what you did, how you did it, and why you did it in this way.

  Theory─general propositions used to explain a class of phenomenon (The Macquarie Dictionary 1991).

  Philosophy─the study of the truths underlying knowledge and being, or reality (The Macquarie Dictionary 1991).

  Epistemology─the branch of philosophy which investigates the origin, nature, methods, and limits of human knowledge (The Macquarie Dictionary 1991).

  Ontology─the branch of metaphysics that investigates the nature of being and of the first principles or categories involved (The Macquarie Dictionary 1991).

  Social philosophy─Conceptual philosophy of society, social action and individual involvement with society. Social philosophy is interdisciplinary informing the social sciences including anthropology, sociology, human geography, literary theory, mass communications, philosophy, economics, history, political philosophy, the philosophy of law, and theology (The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy 1999).

  Modern social philosophy─Social philosophy that emerged from classical nineteenth century social philosophy (Wikipedia).

  Postmodern social philosophy─A complex set of reactions to modern philosophy. There is disagreement within postmodern social philosophy about what constitutes the presuppositions of modern philosophy, and the philosophers that epitomise it. There is agreement in rejection of foundationalism, essentialism and realism (The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy 1999). 

  Foundationalism─the view that knowledge has a two tier structure in which one is non-inferential or foundational and forms the basis of inferential knowledge (The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy 1999).

  Essentialism─a metaphysical theory that objects have essences and that there is a distinction between essential and non-essential or accidental predications (The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy 1999).

  Realism─interest or concern for the actual or real as distinguished from the abstract, speculative, etc (The Macquarie Dictionary 1991).

  Introduction 

  This topic introduces the aims of this series of web resources which are designed to provide a broad overview of the debates, and the similarities and differences between different philosophical perspectives in research in the social sciences and humanities.

  The topics covered in the series are organised around the different ways of answering philosophical questions underpinning research, some of which are introduced in this topic. The topics in the series include realism, logical positivism, pragmatism, phenomenology, constructionism, interpretivism, hermeneutics and Critical theory, feminisms, structuralism, post structuralism, deconstruction and post colonialism.

  We will not cover specific methodologies, or the manifestations of different approaches within your specific field of knowledge in this series of resources. In addition to your own reading and supervision, you should attend Division, Research Centre and School based research forums to assist in better understanding methodological and theoretical applications and debates around social theory within your discipline or subject area.

  The Social philosophy workshops and online resources should be worked through in a systematic manner. This is because each topic builds on the content covered in the last, and it will be difficult to understand a given topic without having engaged with previous topics. Concepts within social philosophy have arisen within a dialogue among social thinkers such that they are intelligible in relation to one another. It is difficult to learn about one approach without learning about the others.

  What is social philosophy?

  Social philosophy is the study of the logic or methods of the social sciences (The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy 1999). Social philosophy can be defined by the questions it asks. These include:

  • What are the criteria of a good social explanation?
  • How (if at all) are the social sciences distinct from the natural sciences?
  • Is there a distinctive method for social research?
  • Through what empirical procedures are social science assertions to be evaluated?
  • Are there irreducible social laws?
  • Are there causal relations among social phenomena?
  • Do social facts and regularities require some form of reduction to facts about individuals?
  • What is the role of theory in social explanation? (the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy 1999).

  Social philosophy, as described in this series of resources, also takes in more general philosophical questions that pertain to research in the social sciences. Hart (1998:86) provides a useful outline of these philosophical questions, the first three of which will be a particular focus in this series of resources.

  What is reality? Ontological issues are concerned with what we believe to exist and what we believe we can investigate. For example, what is the subject-matter of disciplines like psychology, sociology, economics ('society', 'class', 'economy', 'individual', 'mind')? Are there real spatiotemporal objects or essences that exist independently of the concepts and language with which we understand them?

  How do we come to know things? Epistemological issues are concerned with how we come to know about ourselves and our world. For example, can objective knowledge only be gained through the senses via experimentation and an observation of 'facts'. Or, does knowledge ultimately arise in human experience and interaction with the objects in our world?

  What research process will ensure valid knowledge? Methodological issues are concerned with the grounds upon which we wish to claim to have produced 'valid' knowledge. For example, should we validate our knowledge on the basis of observable phenomenon? Is it important that our research participants agree with our research claims? Should we base our research claims on theory, or should we eschew theory?

  What is the role of values and ethics? Axiological issues are concerned with the nature of value and with what kinds of things have value. For example, what is good, beautiful, ethical, moral? What is ultimately worthwhile for its own sake? Are values absolute, subjective or culturally relative?

  What are reliable techniques for collecting data about claims? Data-collection issues are concerned with the techniques used to collect data. For example, should I use a survey questionnaire, in-depth interviews, document analysis or an observational case study? Is quantitative data better than qualitative data because it is more 'objective'?

  What is the language of research? Rhetorical issues are concerned with how we talk about and write up research. For example, is writing in the third person more 'objective' than the first person? Am I offering findings, or offering a series of reflections? 

  Resource aims or 'why do we need to know about this stuff'?

  Researchers produce knowledge, and in doing so, they make assumptions about what can be investigated (ontology) and how we come to know about the world (epistemology). Philosophical assumptions about what it is proper for a researcher to study and where certain knowledge comes from are contested, especially within and across social sciences and humanities disciplines. This means that any one approach can be, and frequently is challenged from other points of view. Understanding the possible range of philosophical assumptions that underpin knowledge making practices helps researchers to articulate their methodological assumptions, as well as to understand the perspectives of those coming from different points of view.

  When we say that there is uncertainty about where knowledge comes from, we mean that social philosophers have posited a number of explanations for how or whether it is possible to obtain essential knowledge about the social world. These different explanations give rise to different aims or foci. For instance, researchers may aim to capture:

  1. neutral observations of phenomena (what we can see, hear, touch);
  2. human interpretations of phenomena constructed through social interaction and culture;
  3. the rational knowledge of enlightened and empowered subjects following reflection upon the cultural, political shaping of knowledge that comes to us as ‘true’;
  4. the structure of language that underpins culture;
  5. observations of the play of historical relations and forces.

  Researchers in the social sciences may, variously, aim to understand:

  1. underlying structures, forces or processes underlying social phenomenon (realism),
  2. observable phenomenon (logical positivism),
  3. cultural interpretation and social constructions (interpretivism),
  4. social structure and ideology that shapes and distorts truth (Critical hermeneutics),
  5. autonomous system of signs which confers meaning or significance (structuralism, deconstruction),
  6. the historical play of institutional and discursive practices within which objects of knowledge emerge, transform and fade (Foucault).

  Depending on the approach, the methodological rationale or aim might be to:

  1. explain and predict real phenomena, both observable and unobservable (realism);
  2. describe the behaviour of phenomena defined against observable data (logical positivism);
  3. provide a rich description of a lived context through the experience of participants (interpretivism),
  4. compare lived experience with theoretical or policy accounts of a life world (interpretivism);
  5. reflect upon the way culture shapes an experience, and distinguish between socially prescribed attitudes and fresher or more authentic experiences (phenomenology, hermeneutics);
  6. reflect upon the meaning of contemporary or past social practices/texts within their social context in order to understand significant cultural influences/trends (hermeneutics);
  7. reflect on critical differences between historical or cultural contexts in order to understand their relative meaning for those who live/d them (hermeneutics);
  8. study power relations within a given context to generalise beyond observed interactions and show how those relations are socially structured (Critical theory);
  9. show how film, television, fashion or advertising images, literary forms, or other cultural product attain and reproduce meaning (semiotics);
  10. explore the historical development of institutional and discursive practices to show how specific meta statements have been attributed truth status (Foucault, genealogy);
  11. identify the semiotic relations and metaphoric devices that give phenomena significance in order to open possibilities for alternative ways of seeing(deconstruction, semiotics).

  In making up your mind about which approach most reflects your own, you will have to decide where you stand in relation to the statements below:

  1. sensory experience corresponds to a ‘real’ world and is a valid basis for generalising about universal and certain knowledge about ‘reality’ (realism);
  2. only knowledge that comes to us through experience can count as valid, this knowledge should constantly be tested against new experiential data (logical positivism);
  3. all meaning, all reality, is interpreted and constructed through culturally grounded consciousness and interaction (interpretivism, constructionism);
  4. social structures exist independent of our knowledge of them, they can be theorised independently of direct experience (critical realism);
  5. knowledge arises within the structure of the mind and of language (French structuralism);
  6. there are no foundational grounds for knowledge, but we can observe the space within which 'serious' meaning emerges and transforms across time (Foucault);
  7. 'meaning' arises only within semiotic oppositions and other figurative device which always 'defer', 'displace' or 'substitute' by some further linguistic or metaphoric reference (Derrida);
  8. the real is comprised of unique instances which exist within specific planes of space and time that always exceed the categories of human thought (Deleuze).

  This series of resources aims to introduce these questions and debates and to support beginning researchers in thinking through and articulating where they stand within them.

  Previous participants have listed the following as outcomes of the series:

  1. a clearer sense of where I stand in relation to questions underpinning knowledge production;
  2. more critical reading and writing practices;
  3. knowing what I have in common with researchers who previously seemed different from myself;
  4. greater tolerance and appreciation of researchers working in unfamiliar paradigms;
  5. more humility about my approach, and awareness of how it might be critiqued by others;
  6. a clearer sense of what is at stake within methodological and social philosophy debates.

  What won’t be covered in the Social philosophy series:

  1. methods
  2. research design
  3. writing about method and methodology (this is covered in the Research proposal and the Thesis writing and publishing series)
  4. the ‘correct’ or ‘right’ way to think.

  Social philosophy and research writing

  The course is not designed to support a specific aspect of research writing, and it is not mandatory that research students write about social philosophy within a separate chapter of the thesis. Many research papers and theses do not refer to philosophy at all, others contain elaborate and complex engagement with philosophy or social theory throughout. For support in writing about methodology and theory see the online resources in the research proposal and the thesis writing and publishing web pages.  

  If you do choose to articulate an approach in your research writing this must involve careful definition of the precise philosophical assumptions associated with your use of philosophical terms. Perhaps more important than naming and defining an approach, is to explain how the philosophical assumptions associated with it will inform your research, and to carry the logic of your approach through the entirety of your research. This series of workshops will assist in developing an understanding of how philosophy or theory conditions the nature of research.   

  Approaches in social philosophy

  A brief overview of some of the main philosophical approaches covered in this series is provided below. Each approach will be considered at greater length in the corresponding web page and audio stream for that topic.

  Realism:

  • the subject matter of scientific research and scientific theory exist independently of our knowledge of them;
  • there are knowable, mind-independent facts, objects, or properties;
  • real structures or mechanisms exist independently of our observations of them. They exist whether we observe them or not.
  • although not always observable in terms of their effects, these structures can generate observable events, or cause manifest phenomenon.  
  • the goal of scientific research is to describe and explain both observable and unobservable aspects of the world.

  Logical positivism/Empiricism:

  • a priori knowledge of reality is impossible─valid knowledge of reality originates only in sensory experience;
  • only knowledge that can be empirically accessed and tested is valid;
  • there is a division between ‘fact’ and ‘value’ in which only empirically verifiable ideas count as knowledge.

  Constructionism:

  • ‘all knowledge, and therefore all meaningful reality as such, is contingent upon human practices, being constructed in and out of interaction between human beings and their world, and developed and transmitted within an essentially social context’ (Crotty, 1998:42);
  • there is a reciprocal and interdependent relationship between objects in the world and consciousness – ‘no object can be adequately described in isolation from the conscious being experiencing it, nor can any experience be adequately described in isolation from its object’ (Crotty, 1998:45);
  • there are multiple interpretations of an object none of which are objectively ‘true’ or ‘valid’.

  Interpretivism:

  • the world, especially its social aspects, cannot be understood simply by observation;
  • our relationship to the world and its meaning is culturally mediated;
  • consciousness plays an active role in acts of knowing;
  • it is important to understand phenomenon as they are experienced or made meaningful by human beings within specific social contexts.

  Hermeneutics:

  • language is central to human life and experience;
  • we can only understand and articulate ourselves as culturally and historically located beings;
  • speech, writing, art, behaviour, law, institutions, and therefore experience itself, are all products of time and place;
  • it is important to gain an understanding of the text that goes beyond the author's understanding or ability to articulate;
  • authors bring implicit meanings and intentions that they do not themselves recognise.

  Critical Theory:

  • all knowledge is socially and culturally produced;
  • there is a distinction between inherited meaning and something more fundamental to experience;
  • it is not true that knowledge can only be gained via sense experience;
  • it is possible to describe and explain unobservable aspects of the world;
  • it is not true that nothing exists beyond interpretation;
  • social structure is real whether we observe it or not, and can be known through the events or phenomena it causes;
  • social processes must be understood within their historical and cultural circumstances.

  Structuralism:

  • it is not true that knowledge of the world and of ourselves relates to an underlying reality, or grows out of individual consciousness;
  • there is no pre-cultural 'rational' or 'authentic' consciousness; everything we perceive is always already given to us by language;
  • knowledge arises within the structure of language;
  • it is important to understand the relationships that exist between sounds and concepts, or signs, within language, and the way that language structures society and culture;
  • language is an autonomous and closed system of arbitrary signs whose meaning arises in contrast or non-identity with other signs within the sign system, and not by anything external to language;
  • it is important to understand society through the study of its linguistic and other communicative structures;
  • society cannot be understood in isolated parts, but in the system of relationships which make up the whole;
  • it is important to have a theory of language and a theory of the formation of subjectivity to explain the human condition.

  Derridean deconstruction:

  • language is an arbitrary system of relationships and differences;
  • however, there is no deep laid and stable meaning, either within the text or the mind of the reader;
  • speech is not more 'immediate' than writing, or closer to the authentic meaning of the speaker;
  • writing is a precondition of language, coming prior to the speech act;
  • there is no essential meaning, meaning is always deferred, displaced or substituted by further reference;
  • oppositional logic is one of many metaphorical devices which gives the illusion of essential meaning,
  • it is important to reveal and subvert these devices, and to undermine the status accorded to privileged terms such as reason, man, writing, science.

  Foucaultian genealogy:

  • systems of thought that shape social reality and experience evolve independently of the beliefs and intentions of individuals;
  • an analysis of systems of thought should include not only theoretically or politically signficant discourses and institutions, but the whole field of practice and discourse, including seemingly unrelated or insignificant causes;
  • rather than uncover 'essential truth', it is important to release human beings from the constraints that apparently certain knowledge entails;
  • this is achieved by showing the historical play of discursive and non-discursive actions and events that give rise to what we hold to be essential knowledge about human beings and society;
  • it is important to enable alternative forms of existence, and progressive intentions that coincide with the real practice of people in the exercise of their freedom.  

  Example

  Below, four extracts from research papers are provided. Each extract takes a different philosophical approach to the same research problem. The topic or problem space that each is concerned with is the role of urban planners in the management of the urban landscape. The extracts are designed to show how different philosophical approaches lead to different questions, research designs, aims, and extrapolations from data on a similar topic.

  When reading the different approaches consider the following questions:

  1. What philosophical assumptions are reflected within the approach?
  2. What do you see are some possible strengths and weaknesses of each approach?

  Research example 1

  Research question: What modelling system can deliver forecasts of factors of interest (eg congestion, road deaths, pollution) over a defined time horizon for strategic urban planning.

  The limitations of existing transport models are widely accepted. A modelling system is needed that can adequately reflect reality and predict future scenarios for use by planners and analysts to understand complex systems and the likely impact of their policies and decisions. This is critical if planning decisions are to be made in an informed, intelligent and structured manner, rather than on the basis of ignorance or any variety of political influences. The Trends Integratiion Procedure (TIP) provides a modelling system that generates future scenarios. TIP is valuable for planners and analysts to gain an understanding of the behaviour of complex systems to obtain insights into the likely future impact of policies and decisions. One valid strategy for isolating a solution to a complex problem would be to test a number of randomly generated inputs to the system under consideration and concentrate further examination upon those inputs that produced the 'better' final solutions. This is the basic approach supplied by the TIP genetic algorithms. Some of the inputs include: population and urban sprawl, road supply and congestion, taxes, fuel prices, public transport availability and fares, decentralised versus centralised workplaces, flexible working hours, road speeds, road deaths, economic climate and cost of living, and the number of cars per household and vehicle usage. The mechanism developed by the genetic algorithm can inform us of: the factors that require manipulation (eg fuel prices); by what degree (eg 23%); and in which direction (eg increased) so as to bring about some defined 'preferred future' (we will not enter into the philosophical question as to who constructs these preferred futures); where desirable levels of given factors have been nominated (eg congestion, road deaths, pollution, etc); for some specified time in the future.

  Adapted from Chamber, L and Taylor, M 1992, ’A new modelling paradigm for strategic planning’, paper presented at the 17th Australian Transport Research Forum.

  Research example 2

  Research question: How do women experience transport? Do women use transport differently from men?

  Strategies to address the problem of increased growth in motor vehicle travel has tended to revolve around technological and structural solutions related to the built environment and transport infrastructure. The research has not given sufficient consideration to the social and cultural determinants of private car use. These determinants include the values society holds about lifestyle, family and work, family and parenting cultures and gender roles. In particular, existing research has failed to recognise that transport use is gendered, and that women (and men) are active participants in the creation of transport choices. Many of the assumptions within the literature are male-biased viewing women as a group for whom the private automobile is relatively unimportant. Women's use of public transport is viewed as a form of ‘disadvantage’. This study conducted open-ended, semi-structured interviews with 10 women. We found that non-work-related trips are more important for women who are more likely to make linked trips (dropping off children, picking up shopping) than men. Women are also more likely than men to travel out of peak hours and to make local, weekend, and intra-suburban trips. While the availability of transport does operate as a constraint, women utilise a diversity of travel options experiencing both the private car and public transport positively. Transport, and in particular the motor vehicle, enables women to meet their expectations of themselves as wives, mothers and workers. It is important that women's use of the motor vehicle and women's mobility is not forgotten or placed in question within planning geared to reduce car use, traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions. What is needed is a combination of more conventional strategies with an understanding of the diverse cultural influences that are brought to bear in making transport choices.

  Adapted from Dowling, R, Gollner, A and O’Dwyer, B 1999, ‘A gender perspective on urban car use: a qualitative case study’, Urban Policy and Research, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 101-110.

  Research example 3

  Research question: What underlying structural mechanisms give rise to the current organisation of urban space, and how can we change existing arrangements to enhance human freedom and well being?

  City planning and the dominance of the private automobile among transport options is neither ‘scientific’, ‘rational’ nor ‘economic’. Capitalist interests ensure that cities are organised in ways that prioritise the transportation of workers from home to work in order to sell their labour power. The dominance of the car within the urban landscape is also caused by pressure upon public agencies by oil and automobile companies. Capitalist ideology also acts to instil the value of private property ownership, rather than the social redistribution of wealth in society. Some solutions, beyond total social revolution and redistribution of social capital, are public provision of public transport to ensure equity, economy, safety, and minimisation of environmental damage. Employers should contribute to the social costs of transporting workers to their place of employment, and workers and consumers need to organise into effective lobby groups.

  Adapted from Frank, H 1986, ‘Mass transport and class struggle’, in Transport sociology: social aspects of transport planning, ed E DeBoer, Pergamon Press, Great Britain.

  Research example 4

  Research question: What historical and discursive relations have shaped 'normal' travel behaviour, and what possibilities for transgression are opened up by denaturalising the travelling subject?

  The dominance of the private automobile cannot be understood simply as the result of economic ‘interests’ prevailing over other public concerns such as health, safety and aesthetics. Nor is the organisation of urban space a neutral outcome of technological progress. It was the result of a political contest about the ‘rational’ and ‘economic’ use of urban space, the best interests of the population, and the ‘freedom of the individual’; a contest in which the values of urban aesthetics, and public health and safety have often been integral. Since the early nineteenth century, the street has gradually transformed from a space of diverse activity (meeting, playing, socialising, promenading, hawking, gambling, trading) to a space of circulation. This was accomplished via the rise of an understanding of travel as optimally an ‘economic use of time’. Within urban planning and engineering discourse ‘transport’ has become dominant. It is a concept that privileges the ‘economic’ journey, or the journey from A to B. The new framing of the city has not brought more freedom to urban travellers who are more disciplined and regulated than ever before. Movement within public space is strictly confined within defined routes and spaces that privilege and normalise the private motor vehicle over other modes of travel and other uses of urban space. Urban planners have not been neutral within this process, but are powerful political actors shaping the field of possible actions via pronouncements about the ‘scientific’ and ‘rational’ ordering of urban space. The answer is not simply better cleaner cars, more efficient traffic regulation and infrastructure, public transport, or employer accountability for the costs of transport. What is needed is a subversion of the ‘economic journey’ to enable a more diverse set of purposes for the travelling subject and the urban environment. We need ways of thinking about travel, our freedom and the city that open possibilities beyond the need to discipline the travelling public to move from A to B in an efficient, clean, safe and speedy manner.

  Adapted from Bonham, J 2002, ‘Safety and speed: ordering the street of transport’, PhD thesis, University of Adelaide and Ferretti, D and Bonham, J 201, ‘Travel blending: wither regulation?’, Australian Geographical Studies, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 302-312.

  Example activity commentary: Methodological approaches in urban planning research

  Below are some methodological assumptions and strengths and weaknesses of each approach that have been conjectured for each perspective in previous workshops on this topic.

  Example 1 Realism

  Philosophical assumptions:

  • observable data can be read to inform us about complex systems,
  • past behaviour is a predictor of future behaviour; it tells us about the likely behaviour of the system under given conditions.

  Strengths and weaknesses?

  The approach offers predictive possibilities based on carefully collected, broad based empirical evidence to assist policy makers and planners in decision making.

  However, it departs from existing conditions, categories and questions without considering alternatives or objections to existing arrangements. The approach does not consider that the question might be approached differently from different cultural perspectives. There is also a tendency to rely upon technologically driven solutions rather than changes to the way transport resources are distributed. The results cannot tell us about the usefulness of alternatives to the private automobile, public transport and centralised transport systems. Nor does it offer an analysis of the political forces that have led to the current organisation of transport, or the kinds of social (non-technological changes) required to improve transport outcomes.

  Example 2 Interpretive

  Methodological assumptions:

  • different groups in society experience transport in different ways,
  • experience is dependent upon perspective and context,
  • different groups within society share unique perspectives and experiences,
  • silenced or marginalised voices should be brought into the mainstream,
  • experience is a sound foundation for knowledge about different perspectives.

  Strengths and weaknesses?

  This approach is sensitive to the voices and perspectives of different groups, but does not consider the cultural preconditions for those experiences. For instance, it recognises that women have different experiences and needs, but generalises about women as a single category of person with a shared experience without considering the way that cultural norms about gender shape women's perceptions. It does not offer an analysis of how economic and political interests shape the urban landscape.

  Example 3 Critical theory

  Methodological assumptions:

  • science is not value neutral,
  • society is comprised of economic interests,
  • individual experience does not necessarily reveal an accurate picture of reality,
  • ideology supports social structure or power relationships,
  • theory about social structure can be used rather than depending solely upon direct empirical evidence,
  • empirical evidence reveals deeper underlying structures,
  • social change can be achieved through organised social action.

  Strengths and weaknesses?

  The approach is sensitive to, and offers explanations and alternatives to unequal social outcomes. The analysis enables questions to be asked about how capital and employers benefit and how the public loses in existing arrangements, but it does not consider the role played by wider social actors, including experts such as planners and the public itself, in determining transport outcomes. The approach is limited to an analysis of what the theory nominates as 'political'.

  Example 4 Foucaultian

  Methodological assumptions:

  • need an historical analysis of the relations between institutional practices and meta meta narrative within a specific context,
  • social outcomes are effects of a range of expert discourse, not reducible purely to capitalist relations,
  • need to subvert taken for granted meta narrative (the view that the city should be designed to support the economic journey) in order to open new possibilities for practice.

  Strengths and weaknesses?

  The approach integrates an analysis of a wider range of political and economic factors than employers and capital, including urban planning expertise and discourse and its effect on the city. The approach enables a critique of assumptions that are taken for granted, such as that the city should be designed primarily with the objective of enabling a speedy or economic journey. This opens ways of thinking about our cities. The approach offers convincing accounts of social outcomes grounded in careful empirical work rather than theory about social structure, but is ultimately delimited by the narratives that inform the critique.

  Conclusion

  This web page has introduced some key philosophical terms, the aims of this series of web resources, and some of the philosophical assumptions that underpin methodological approaches in the social sciences and humanities. It has also provided an example designed to show how different methodological approaches can shape research on a problem space.

  Audio recording

  Discussion 1 - Introduction

  Play the recording in the UniSA Video & Audio Player below or

  (right click this link and choose select Save Target As or Save Link As).

  Note: The UniSA Video & Audio Player requires version 9,0,115,0 or later of the Adobe Flash Player. You can test and update your Adobe Flash Player software at the Adobe Web site.

  References used in the development of this web page

  Crotty, M 1998, The Foundations of Social Research, Allen and Unwin, Sydney.

  Hart, C 1998, Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination, Sage, London.

  This web resource was developed by Wendy Bastalich.

  
  

  Prev Next