Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 11:17:06 -0500
From: Douglas Porpora <porporad-AT-drexel.edu>
Subject: Re: BHA: nature of main split in CR


Just a quick note from me as I dash from one place to the next.  John 
fairly much represents my own position.  I would say, Phil, that I 
agree that Bhaskar's use of absence is not idealist as is Derrida's. 
I just don't see the need for framing things in terms of absences 
necessarily.  I am not opposed to it, I just don't do it.

doug

>  Phil
>
>Perhaps if two of us have read it that way, that's the way it reads!
>Texts always go beyond their author as I'm sure you realise.
>
>Without going on about who meant what I think the substantive point is
>this.
>In your first post you said :
>
>"It has been my perception, based on my experience of the Critical
>Realist fraternity over
>the last several years, that the main split within Critical Realism is
>between those who see Critical Realism merely as a tool for their
>social
>scientific research, on the one hand, and those who are interested in
>DCR,
>TDCR, or in some way in the philosophical potential of Critical Realism
>on
>the other. "
>
>It seems fairly clear that you are disagreeing with the use of CR as a
>"tool" (whatever you mean by that) for scientific research. Yet I think
>that was precisely Bhaskar's point, at least at the beginning, as I
>think my quotes show.
>
>Again without getting into what Bhaskar really meant, what actually is
>your argument against using CR (or some part of it), in the spirit of
>CR, to help do the research that people want to do?
>
>I often give talks about CR to PhD students and young researchers. They
>are almost always extremely enthusiastic as it gives them a way out of
>being either positivist, or idealist, or indeed attempting to
>uncomfortably straddle the two. It provides a meaningful and creative
>framework for their research and yet has inextricably within it a
>critical dimension(s).
>
>The more that we can pursuade the next generation of researchers into a
>CR perspective the better.  I personally don't think it either desirable
>or feasible that they all have to spend years following the twists and
>turns of DCR, FEW etc. If some of them do want to that's fine, we
>obviously need people to contribute to the development of CR itself as
>well as using it.
>
>What does anyone else think??
>
>John
>
>
>
>
>
>Dr. John Mingers
>Professor of OR and Systems
>  Warwick Business School
>  Warwick University
>  Coventry CV4 7AL UK
>phone: +2476 522475
>fax: +2476 524539
>email: j.mingers-AT-warwick.ac.uk
>
>>>>  phil-AT-pwalden.fsnet.co.uk 25 November 2002 09:07:36 >>>
>John,
>
>If you check my posts you will see that I was careful to avoid saying
>that
>people working within the early CR paradigm were necessarily
>instrumental or
>careerist.  Since I don't know your work, and know very little about
>your
>area of work, I am in no position to pretend to pass judgement on you.
>However, I see no reason not to stand by what I have said in my posts.
>
>Actually, Mervyn has also made the mistake of reading my posts as
>condemning
>people who work within the early-CR paradigm.  But if you read my
>posts,
>that is not what I said.
>
>Phil
>
>
>
>
>      --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>
>      --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

-- 
doug porpora, head
Department of Culture and Communication
Drexel University
Phila PA
(215) 895-2404

porporad-AT-drexel.edu


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