From: "Marshall Feldman" <marsh-AT-uri.edu> Subject: BHA: RE: Re: Re: Research Methods Texts Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 13:55:07 -0400 Yes, I've seen abduction treated very differently than Danermark et al. do. These uses are mainly like Danermark et al.'s discussion of the logic of abduction. See, for example: Blanco, Hilda. 1994. How to think about social problems : American pragmatism and the idea of planning, Contributions in political science no. 346. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. Blanco treats abduction much more as a sort of Sherlock Holmes activity in which one infers what might have been a cause from empirical clues. I also understood Bhaskar's treatment of retroduction to be somewhat different from Danermark, et al.'s in that it is not just about identifying a structure with certain causal powers but also about corroborating a hypothesized structure with independent experiments or other evidence. In other words, if the structure exists then it should manifest itself in entirely different contexts. Eventually, a science comes to accept a structure like this as real, rather than hypothetical, and uses this knowledge to discover other structures. I wonder. How widespread are abduction and retroduction as terms? Marsh Feldman > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu > [mailto:owner-bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu]On Behalf Of Caroline > New > Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 2:56 PM > To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu > Subject: BHA: Re: Re: Research Methods Texts > > > Jamie, this is a helpful message for me, because I've been trying > to figure > out why abduction is called a mode of inference at all. The term > seems to be > used in very different ways. I can't really see how, in Danermark et al's > book, it works as a mode of inference. It seems to involve > applying a theory > to a set of phenomena, or framing them within a certain model, and thus > reconceptualising them... and Danermark et al seem to recommend a repeated > process of abduction during the first stages of research. But surely > abduction in this sense is just another term for theorising or model > building? In the book Bob Carter and I are currently editing about realist > social theory and empirical research, Wendy Olsen has a chapter on > methodological triangulation, which sounded rather like abduction in > Danermark et al's account, in the sense that it raises the question of how > you judge which description or redescription is better. But when > I suggested > to Wendy she might find Danermark et al's treatment of abduction > useful, she > said the concept as she understood it came from phenomenology and meant > something quite different. I am left confused and unconvinced of > its value. > What do others think? Caroline New > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jamie Morgan <jamie-AT-morganj58.fsnet.co.uk> > To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu> > Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 8:16 AM > Subject: BHA: Re: Research Methods Texts > > > > Since analytical statistical packages dominate research one would expect > > deductive and inductive methods to dominate - on a purely market driven > > basis Peirce's concept of abduction as the inference tot he > best argument > > may not fit easily into systems that go from samples to populations & c. > In > > so far as it entails a far more explicit evaluative role it produces a > > degree of complexity that would be its own textbook - it's > easier just to > > set it aside I guess. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Marshall Feldman" <marsh-AT-uri.edu> > > To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 10:31 PM > > Subject: BHA: Research Methods Texts > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I'm teaching a course on research methods and using two > textbooks. One, > > > _Social Research Methods_ by Lawrence Neuman is fairly > standard although > > far > > > less dogmatic than most that I've seen. The other, > _Explaining Society_ > by > > > Danermark, et al. is explicitly based in CR. At one point we > covered the > > > logic of research. Neuman discusses inductive and deductive reasoning; > > > Danermark discuses both of these as well as abductive and retroductive > > > reasoning. One of the students asked what I thought was a very good > > > question. Why doesn't Neuman cover these other modes of reasoning as > well? > > I > > > explained that Neuman is updating a text (now in its 5th edition) that > > > originally didn't have to deal with CR and there's a certain > > path-dependence > > > for the textbook that makes incorporating such concepts now very > > difficult. > > > In effect, the entire text would have to be reorganized. > > > > > > I'm not entirely satisfied with this answer. Why do you think > this stuff > > > hasn't become more common in methods textbooks? Do you know > of any that > do > > a > > > better job with this? > > > > > > Marsh Feldman > > > > > > > > > > > > --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > > > > > --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005