Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 08:27:41 +1000 (EST) From: Ania Lian <ania-AT-lingua.arts.uq.edu.au> Subject: Re: comprendre > >>It seems that Bourdieu's dominant position in the field of intellectual > >>production frees him from writing in painstaking detail (as you find it in > >>the writings of e.g. Glazer/Strauss or Garfinkel) about (his) methodology. > >>But maybe he is simply more interested in "theoretical sensitivity" and > >>concerned about reflexivity as Kent points out than in methodological > >>technicalities when dealing with interview data. While I personally find > >>such a de-emphasizing of techniques of analysis fine (it seems > >>OVER-emphasized, at least in American Universities), it's not very helpful > >>for inexperienced researchers. As a total devotee to Bourdieu :-) (possibly because of lack of sufficiently critical framework of analysis) I will though point out that I hate nothing else but attempts which reduce method to techniques. I think that techniques are a product of a specific framework of thought and hence would have to be continuously re-etablished by the analyst just like the framework. Otherwise, we would again perpetuuate another academic strategy: i.e. telling the world that we use Bourdieuan methods of analysis while in fact all we have done is that we turned his categories into absolute distinctions. This is the French twist to the story .... as I see it, of course ... :-) Ania Lian ********************************************************************** 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