Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1904 02:33:49 +0200 From: kent.lofgren-AT-pedag.umu.se (kent =?iso-8859-1?Q?l=F6fgren?= ) Subject: Phenomenology and Bourdieu Hello! Here, I'll toss out a few scribbled lines. If someone cares to comment, it would be nice. I interpret phenomenology as a broad term for research focussing on individuals' opinions. How individuals comprehend the world and social phenomenon. For the researcher, there are various ways to be "phenomenological" in one's research, e.g. in the analysis of interview texts. Ference Marton, Gothenburg, Sweden, is an example of a reseacher who uses a kind of phenomenological approach in his work (he calls it "a phenomenographical methodology"). Now, when it comes to Bourdieu, it it to me obvious that Bourdieu is inspired by phenomenological ideas. There are some charateristics to Bourdieus phenomenological epistemology: a) he is a firm believer in "relational knowledge". Knowledge about social phenomenon is best obtained through the analysis of observed data in relation to other data. I'll clarify: Individuals notions or opinions about, let's say jogging, can be understood in a better, more adequate way if other data is taken into account, e.g. the individual's notion about physical activities, sport in general etc. The aim of the research is thus to form relational descriptions rather than concrete models. b) Somehow I get the feeling that Bourdieu wants to analyse indivual notions about social phenomenon in relation to external, physical contexts. Bourdieu likes to analyse individuals notions in relation to income, housing, lifestyle etc. Let us look at b): This is an interesting idea. Phenomenology, in general, does not imply that you, as a researcher must do this (Take external "physical facts" into account). This is Bourdieus contribution. To end this message, I'll say something about "the lack of generalization". Bourdieus states that the relational analysis and descriptions of notions are unique for the investigation in question (Do not ask me to find the reference. I am just writing down my blurry thoughts from reading several of his books). The idea is that from the findings, from a study of individuals' notions, we (as readers) can not draw immediate, general conclutions about "eternal" or "stable" notions in populations or larger groups. Is this so, or am I missing something? Lastly, I'd like to confront this last paragraph above with the following: Is it not so, that some approaches, e.g. the phenomenographical approach (Marton), implies that there are stable notions "out there"? Marton and his colleagues, in my interpretation, say that it is the researchers job to look for stable notions concerning social phenomena, and to categorize and analyse these notions. Contrary to Bourdieu's epistemology, as described above. Kent Lofgren student University of Umea Pedagogiska Institutionen S-901 87 Umea Sweden Tel: 46 + (0)90 - 786 64 32 (office) Fax: 46 + (0)90 - 786 66 93 ********************************************************************** Contributions: bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu Commands: majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu Requests: bourdieu-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005