Date: Thu, 07 Aug 1997 08:14:05 -0400
To: bhaskar-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
Subject: Re: BHA: Non-experimental science (was "What must the ...")


At 07:37 PM 8/6/97, Louis wrote:

[snip]
>and then show them to be superior.  Do you really need to refute Blalock on
>general principles, rather than supplying better accounts?  Probably a
>strategy of both would be best.

Well, yes if we're (a) teaching social research methods or (b) debating
with (pomo and +ist) colleagues, at a relatively abstract level, about
paradigms and methods.

BTW, I just finished the final version of a paper, "Can We Talk?
Interpretive Planning Theory as Comedy."  The paper will be published in
the Summer, 1997 issue of _Planning Theory_ as part of a debate about urban
regime theory, regulation theory, and neo-pragmatism.  Actually, urban
regime theory and regulation theory touched off the debate, but the focus
of this issue really is between interpretive planning theory and
neo-pragmatism on one side and political economy and critical realism on
the other.  If the Editor says it's OK, I could send copies of my paper to
anyone who's interested.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
Marshall Feldman, Associate Professor		                marsh-AT-uriacc.uri.edu
Graduate Curriculum in Community Planning and Area Development	401/874-5953
The University of Rhode Island					401/874-5511 (FAX)
94 West Alumni Avenue, Suite 1; Kingston, RI 02881-0806


     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---