Reflections on methodology VII: In social science (Hirzel, 2011)

Reflections on Methodology VII

In Social Sciences

Tabea Hirzel, 2014

Doctoral Candidate: Tabea Hirzel

Program: Doctorate of Diplomacy/ Political Economy

University: SMC University, Zug, Switzerland

Date: 12.30.2011

Theoretical framework

Philosophy ofscience

• First principle

• Apriorism

Action Theory

• Misean Praxeology

Information Theory

• Ontological turn

• Information society (Hayek / Machlup)

Theory ofagency

• Theory of mind

• Theory of liberty

• Theory of identity

Learning theory

• Theory ofnarration

• Game theory

19/11/2017 2© Tabea Hirzel

Paradigm

methodological

epistemologicalnormative

19/11/2017 3

Relation between theory

and empirics

Conditions for

falsification/verification;

Relation research subject-

object (selfreference)

Research goals (interest);

normative orientation

Kornmesser, 2014, p. 20

© Tabea Hirzel

Normative element (why testing)

• Why should something be kown/tested?

• Make the process of social constitution transparent

• Life/personal identity/liberty is an apriori value

• Purpose of science:

(1) Pragmatic goals

– Control of the world: objectify encounter (phenomena)

– Control of other persons: objectify subjectivity (convert the other in an object)

– Control of self: objectify subjective thought (doubt)

(2) Aims toward «truth» (focus on discrete units)?reductionism?

– Materialization of potentiality: it is the analytical splitting (logical reasoning) that creates the

implied apriori of unity (out of chaos)

– Materialization of other: naming things (love)

– Materialization of self: shape one’s world, take on/reject roles, create a social space, etc.

(3) Ethical goals: motivation to moral goodness (Joseph Daleiden)

(4) Aims toward «liberty» (focus on relations and understanding)? discursive?

(5) Communication / Becoming


Epistemological element (what testing)

• What can be known?

• How can it be known (tool)?

• Why should it be known?

• Social constitution and individual identity as co-constituted (science

as self-transforming pratice)

19/11/2017 5

what is to be observed and scrutinized

the kind of questions that are supposed

to be asked and probed for answers

in relation to this subject

© Tabea Hirzel

Methodological element (how testing)

• How can something be known?

• Theory of mind and mind as subject/measuring instrument

19/11/2017 6

how these questions are to be structured

how the results of scientific investigations should be interpreted

how is an experiment to be conducted, and

what equipment is available to conduct the experiment.

© Tabea Hirzel

Science and meaning

«Science is always an objective context of meaning, and the theme of

all sciences of the social world is to constitute an objective meaning-

context either out of subjective meaning-context generally or out of

some particular subjective meaning-context. The problem of the every

day social science can, therefore, be summarized in the question: How

are sciences of subjective meaning-context possible?» (Schütz, 1932,

p. 223 in Augier, 1999, p. 147)


Knowledge implies orientation

«The term ‘knowledge’ presupposes conduct oriented toward the

others. [And] … [a]ccording to the postulate of investigation of the

meaning intended, the knowledge of the sociologist is based on the

knowledge that the actor has of the ‘subject of orientation’ … The

expression ‘oriented toward’, implicitly already contains ‘knowledge’ of

the other … Acting [upon this knowledge] is measured according too…

the validity of the interpretative scheme of the type of reality is tested by

its purposiveness» (Schütz, 1928, p. 76 in Augier, 1999, p. 151).


Universal validity and objective meaning

“Only a science of objective meaning is capable of forming “laws of

universal validity”. Political economy is a science of objective meaning.

It does not deal with action which is built up phase-by-phase in the

course of consciousness pertaining to the Thou; it deals instead with

the anonymous processes of actions by an impersonal “someone”. Just

this sets off the subject-matter of political economy from that of

understanding sociology (and also that of history)” (Schütz, 1930, p. 86

in Augier, 1999, p. 157).


Meaning constitution

[t]he primary task of ... science is to describe the processes of

meaning-establishment and meaning-interpretation as these are carried

out by individuals living in the social world. This description can be

empirical or eidetic; it can take as its subject matter the individual or the

typical; it can be performed in concrete situations of everyday life or

with a high degree of generality. But, over and above this, interpretive

sociology approaches such cultural objects and seeks to understand

their meaning by applying to them in interpretative schemes thus

obtained” (Schütz, 1932, pp. 248–249 in Augier, 1999, p. 160).


Meaning vs. calculus

• Economics as «study of rational behavior»

• Boundaries to «human computational capacity» in calculating best

choices (Auspitz et. al, 1992, p.26)

• Vs. meaning


Hayek, Schutz, Machlup

• Hayek: division of knowledge

• Schutz: structure and distribution of knowledge

• Machlup:


Requirements

1. Complete

2. Coherent

3. Explanatory power (David Deutsch)

4. Reproducible/ Predictable (empirical verification)

5. Reducible/ Abstractible (comparison)

6. Scalable (Aggregation problem see Auspitz et. al, 1992, chap. 1)


Austrian philosophy and Austrian economiy (Barry Smith in

Auspitz et. al, 1992, p. 259)

19/11/2017 14

Brentano School

Franz Brenano

Alexius von Meinog

Christian von Ehrenfels

Oscar Kraus

Mengerian School

Carl Menger

Friedrich von Wieser

Eugen von Boehm-

Bawerk

Phenomenological

Movement

Edmun Husserl

Adolf Reinach

Roman Ingarden

Alfred Schütz, etc.

Vienna Circle

Moritz Schlick

Otto Neurath

Richard von Mises

Karl Menger, etc.

Mises School

Ludwig von Mises

Friedrich von Hayek

Oskar von

Morgenstern

Fritz Machlup, etc.

Austrian Philosophy

of Science

Mach Kortabinski

Bolzman, Popper,

Polanyi, Wittgenstein,

Fleck, Feyerabend

Austro-

Phenomenological

Social Science

Alfred Schütz

Felix Kaufmann

Neoclassical

mainstream

Chicago school

American Neo-

Austrians

Israel Kirzner

Murray Rothbard

Mario Rizzo

Gerald O’Driscoll, etc.

Hermeneutic of

Economics

Ludwig Lachmann

Don Lavoie

one way influence

mutual influence

informal influence

© Tabea Hirzel

Two approaches in Apriorism (Barry Smith in Auspitz et. al, 1992,

p. 261)

Kant approaches (Epistemological A Priori) Aristotle, Brentano, Husserl, Reinach (Ontological A

Priori)

The a priori is a matter of relations between universal

concepts which enjoy a purely mental existence.

The a priori is a matter of relations between essences or

species of objects in the world, relations which would

obtain even if there were no minds to aprehend them

[1].

The a priori is a matter of non-contingent knowledge. The a priori is in the first place a matter of non-contingent

(universal and necessary) structures in reality;

propositions are a priori in a derivative sense to the extent

that they relate to structures of this sort.

A priori is prior to and therefore independent of

experience. It is in this sense a matter of what is innate

to the human mind.

A priori knowledge is triggered by our familiarity with

corresponding a priori structures in the world.

A priori knowledge is in some sense a contribution of the

knowing subject; it is read into the world.

A priori knowledge is read off the world. It is in a certain

sense the only immediate sort of knowledge.

A priori knowledge is prior to experience; such

knowledge is therefore either empty (analytic), or it is a

result of the fact that we see the world through ‘conceptual

spectacles’ which somehow allow us to make sense of

what would otherwise (as far as our knowledge is

concerned) be chaotic.

A priori knowledge is prior to induction; some structures

in reality are intrinsically intelligible.

The class of a priori propositions is restricted; leaving

aside the case of physics, it amounts to a more or less ad

hoc selection of isolated examples.

There are whole families of a priori propositions

constuting entire disciplines.


Extreme Apriorism (Rothbard) Synthetic Apriorism (Barry Smith)

(a) that the fundamental axioms

and premises of economics are

absolutely true;

(b) that the theorems and

conclusions deduced by the laws of

logic from these postulates are

therefore absolutely true;

(c) that there is consequently no

need for empirical “testing,” either

of the premises or the conclusions;

(d) that the deduced theorems could

not be tested even if it were

desirable.

19/11/2017 16

Rothbard, Murray N. (1956). In defense of extreme apriorism.

Extreme vs. synthetic apriorism

© Tabea Hirzel

Apriorism in Philosophy

Philosophy

Non-empirical

Apriorism

Necessary-contingent

Necessary

Contingent

Analytic-syntheticdistinction

Analytic (strong/extreme apriorism Kant, Rothbard)

(necessarily true seeGettier problem)

Transcendentalism(Kant)

Formalism

Non-empirical & empirical

(rationalism)

Logical positivism (logical

empiricism)

Constructive empiricism

Critical theory (Deconstructionis

m; Post-structuralism)

Antipositivism

Epistemological pluralism

Synthetic apriorism (contingent)

Structuralism

Engaged-Theory

Empirical evidence (Empiricism)

Positivism

Social positivism Reductionism

Theoretical (more general theory)

Methodological (single super-theory)

Ontological (~metaphysics)

Ontological emergence

Dualism

pluralism

Monism

Monism (wholes are anything more than their parts)

Atomist reductionism (wholes are not "really real“)

Critical monism

19/11/2017 17

[2] Truth statements (propositions)

[1] Source of knowledge (truth)

© Tabea Hirzel

Meaning in Science

Science

Meaning (object of science)

External

internal

Epistemology

Rationalism (rule-based; Gettier problem)

Fallibilism

Infallibilism

Indefeasibility

Justified true belief (Timothy Williamson)

Reliabilism

"tracking theory" of knowledge (Nozick)

Appropriate reasons (Simon Blackburn)

Causal Theory of Knowing (Alvin Goldman)

Epistemologicalpluralism

Radical constructivism

Empistemological anarchism

Irrationalism Postmodernims

Scientific evolution

Relativism

Instrumentalism SubjectivismComparative mythology

Goal (why? Science (truth) vs. True beliefe)

Virtue epistemology

epistemic reliabilism

Science asmetanarration(structural)

Foundation of truth (Larry Laudan)

19/11/2017 18

[2] Truth statements (propositions)

[4] Distinction science –

pseudoscience, superstition

© Tabea Hirzel

QUESTIONS FROM BARRY

SMITH

19/11/2017 © Tabea Hirzel 19

19/11/2017 20

Certain pre-empirical synthetic intrinsically plausible propositions thus require

ontological correlates which are their truth-makers. Hence, there are

intelligible structures in the world, which we could also call ‘a priori structures’.

Do we have an infallible knowledge of all the synthetic pre-empirical

propositions which are presupposed by the various sciences in the different

phases of their development?

yes (extreme Cartesians) No [(synthetic apriorism)]

Could these assumptions, which are presupposed by the empirical sciences,be arbitrary?

yes (Feyerabend [= empistemological anarchism]) No [(rationalism)]

The propositions in question must therefore be characterized by a certain

plausibility. Is this plausibility always a contextual affair?

yes (Hermeneutic relativists) [Hugh Lewis?] No [(synthetic apriorism)]

There is therefore something like an intrinsic plausibility. Are the intrinsically plausible

pre-empirical synthetic propositions which play an indispensable role in the sciences

given only individually, so that we have only a few isolated examples thereof between

which no systematic relations would obtain?

yes no

yes (Kantians) No [(Aristotelianism et al.)]

Is it really true , as the Kantians assert, that the intrinsically plausible or intelligible pre-empirical

synthetic propositions here at issue are read into or imposed upon the world by us?

Might the intrinsically plausible pre-empirical synthetic propositions all be false?

Yes [(Aquinas)] No [(Plotinus, St. Anselm, Descartes)]

Do the empirical theories with the help of which we seek to approximate a

good or true picture of reality rest on any non-empirical presuppositions?

yes [(rationalism)] no (extreme empiricists)

[1]

Are the propositions which express these pre-empirical assumptions in every

case analytic (tautological, lacking in content)?

yes (logical positivism) no

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[1] Source of knowledge: only empirical data? (aprioricity)

[2] Scientific propositions are: analytic; ? (analyticity)

[3] Scientific propositions are necessarily true? (necessity)

[4] Science is arbitrary (vs. rule based)

[5] Contextual plausibility, contingence

[6] Synthetic (vs. Analytic)

[7] Epistemological a priori (vs.

Ontological)

[8] Certainity of onotological

a priori

Based on Barry Smith. (1996). In defense of extreme (fallibilistic) apriorism. Additions made in edgy brackets.© Tabea Hirzel

[1] Do the empirical theories with the help of which we seek to

approximate a good or true picture of reality rest on any non-

empirical presuppositions?

No «extreme empiricists»

• Empiricism (Locke, Hume): an epistemological theory that draws knowledge only from observable data

(sensory/material experience) and synthetic deductions; requires testing all theories against evidence

• Radical empiricism (William James, 1890, Principles of Psychology): Experience is "double-barreled": content

(“sense data”) and context (“connections”) Pragmatism (Charles S. Pearce, John Dewey)

Yes Rationalism

• Rationalism:

– regards reason as the chief source and test of knowledge (Encyclopaedia Britannica)

– a theory "in which the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive“ (Burke, Vermon,

1962, Rationalism, p. 263)

• Antique: Socratic inquiry, Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle

• Modern: Descartes, Spinoza, Leibnitz, Kant

• (1) The intuition/deduction thesis

• (2) The innate knowledge thesis

• (3) The innate concept thesis

• (4) The other two theses


[2] Are the propositions which express these pre-empirical

assumptions in every case analytic (tautological, lacking in

content)? • Yes logical positivism

• Positivism (Steven Hawking) -> see also reductionism

– information derived from logical and mathematical treatments and reports of sensory experience is the exclusive

source of all authoritative knowledge;

– valid knowledge (truth) only in this derived knowledge;

– Verified data received from the senses are known as empirical evidence.;

– society, like the physical world, operates according to general laws.

– Introspective and intuitive knowledge is rejected

– True knowledge is scientific (Alan Bullock and Stephen Trombley, [Eds] The Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought,

London: Harper-Collins, 1999, pp. 669–737)

• Social positivism (Auguste Compte, Emily Durkheim):

– circular dependence of theory and observation in science

– Max Weber Georg Simmel, Ferdinand Tönnies, George Herbert Mead, and Charles Cooley

– Neo-Kantianism , Hermeneutics, Phenomenology

– Contemporary American Sociology

• Logical positivism (logical empiricism): combines empiricism with rationalism

– Wittgenstein, Berlin, Reichenbach, Neurath, Carnap


[2] Are the propositions which express these pre-empirical

assumptions in every case analytic (tautological, lacking in

content)? (Continued)• Constructive Empiricism (Hacking, I., 1988, Scientific Revolutions)

– A focus on science as a product, a linguistic or numerical set of statements;

– A concern with axiomatization, that is, with demonstrating the logical structure and coherence of these statements;

– An insistence on at least some of these statements being testable; that is, amenable to being verified, confirmed, or

shown to be false by the empirical observation of reality. Statements that would, by their nature, be regarded as

untestable included the teleological; thus positivism rejects much of classical metaphysics.

– The belief that science is markedly cumulative;

– The belief that science is predominantly transcultural;

– The belief that science rests on specific results that are dissociated from the personality and social position of the

investigator;

– The belief that science contains theories or research traditions that are largely commensurable;

– The belief that science sometimes incorporates new ideas that are discontinuous from old ones;

– The belief that science involves the idea of the unity of science, that there is, underlying the various scientific

disciplines, basically one science about one real world.

– The belief that science is nature and nature is science; and out of this duality, all theories and postulates are created,

interpreted, evolve, and are applied.

• Antipositivism

– Max Weber, Georg Simmel, Werner Heisenberg

• Critical Theory

– Karl Marx, Max Weber Jürgen Habermas

– Karl Marx Vygotsky


[3] Do we have an infallible knowledge of all the synthetic pre-

empirical propositions which are presupposed by the various

sciences in the different phases of their development?

• Yes extreme Cartesians


[4] Could these assumptions, which are presupposed by the

empirical sciences,be arbitrary?

• Yes Feyerabend, Lakatos

• Other: Terence McKenna, Thomas Kuhn, Ian Hacking, Jean Largeault, Alan Watts

• Methodological problem: THE scientific method

• Demarcation problem: Scientific criteria vs. pseudoscience, superstition see Phillips and Huntley’s distinction

of propaganda (Science as metanarration)

• Incommensurability of scientific theories (is commensurable if scientists can discuss them in terms permitting

direct comparison of theories to determine which theory is truer Ludwig Fleck, Thomas Kuhn)

• Language-games: Wittgenstein Lyotard: authority, power and legitimation

• essentially contested concept (Walter B. Gallie) -Problem of Talking past each other:

– Abstract notion,

– Qualitative notion, and

– Evaluative notion

• What is the question: Clark "locate the source of the dispute”

– "essentially contested" : "is to attribute significance to the contest rather than to the concept“(polysemantic

including internal conflict therefore “inherent potential for "generating disputes" Clarke (1979), p. 124)

– "essentially contestable“: "attribute some part of any contest to the concept“

• Value problem

– Virtue epistemology

– Epistemic reliabilism: Linda Zagzebski, Wayne Riggs and Richard Swinburne

– Science as aiming towards a mental state - Knowledge vs. Understanding: Kvanvig, J., The Value of

Knowledge and the Pursuit of Understanding. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Cambridge University Press.

2003


[5] The propositions in question must therefore be characterized

by a certain

plausibility. Is this plausibility always a contextual affair?

• Yes hermeneutic relativists


[6] There is therefore something like an intrinsic plausibility. Are

the intrinsically plausible pre-empirical synthetic propositions

which play an indispensable role in the sciences given only

individually, so that we have only a few isolated examples thereof

between which no systematic relations would obtain?


[7] Is it really true , as the Kantians assert, that the intrinsically

plausible or intelligible pre-empirical synthetic propositions here

at issue are read into or imposed upon the world by us?

• Yes Kantians

• Deontology binding force is reason «categorical imperative»

• John Stuar Mill adds social conventions


[8] Might the intrinsically plausible pre-empirical synthetic propositions

all be false?


[9] Certain pre-empirical synthetic intrinsically plausible propositions

thus require

ontological correlates which are their truth-makers. Hence, there are

intelligible structures in the world, which we could also call ‘a priori

structures’.


Categories of ethcis

• Apriorism:

– Synthetic apriorism

• Philosophical ethics:

– Normative ethics: examines standards for the rightness and wrongness of actions

• Role of reason: moral binding forece vs. Behavioral motivation

– Meta-ethics: studies the meaning of moral language and the metaphysics of moral facts

• Moral realism: empirical investigation of people’s moral beliefs: moral facts are both descriptive and

prescriptive at the same time

– Descriptive ethics

• Normative ethics:

– deontology

– consequentialism

– virtue ethics

– pragmatic ethics

• Deontological ethics:

– (1) Kantianism

– (2) Moral absolutism

– (3) Divine command theory

– (4) Contemporary deontology


Kant vs. Lyotard

Kant

• Knowledge

• Argument

• Justification

Lyotard

• Authority

• Power

• Legitimation


The narrative as meaning

A “master narrative” is "coherent system of interrelated and

sequentially organized stories that share a common rhetorical desire to

resolve a conflict by establishing audience expectations according to

the known trajectories of its literary and rhetorical form.“

(Halverson, Jeffry R., H.L. Goodall Jr. and Steven R. Corman. Master

Narratives of Islamist Extremism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.

p. 14)


Engaged Theory

• Categories• Theory

• Concept• Codes

Empirical analysis (ways of doing)

Conjuncturalanalysis (ways of acting)

Integrationalanalysis (ways of relating)

Categorical analysis (ways of being)

19/11/2017 34

Grounded theory method does not aim for the "truth" but to

conceptualize what is going on by using empirical research.

suggests that empirical data collection is a neutral process that

gives rise to theoretical claims out of that data.. (Wikipedi)

Levels of epistemological

abstraction

Engaged theory is a reflexive analysis

levels of epistemological abstraction

© Tabea Hirzel

Table 10.1. Relationships Among Different Traditions in the Study

of Practice

Perspective The Individual The Social Both: Reflexive–dialectical

view of individual–social

relations and connections

Objective (1) Practice as individual

behavior, seen in terms of

performances, events, and

effects: Behaviorist and most

cognitivist approaches in

psychology

(2) Practice as individual behavior,

seen in terms of performances,

events, and effects: Behaviorist and

most

cognitivist approaches in

psychology

Subjective (3) Practice as intentional

action, shaped by meaning and

values: Psychological

verstehen (empathetic

understanding) and most

constructivist approaches

(4) Practice as socially structured,

shaped by discourses, tradition:

Interpretive, aesthetic-historical

verstehen (empathetic

understanding), and

poststructuralist approaches

Both:

Reflexive–

dialectical

view of

subjective–

Objective relations

and Connections

(5) Practice as socially

and historically constituted and

as reconstituted by human

agency and social action: Critical

methods; dialectical analysis

(multiple methods)

19/11/2017 35

Kemmis & McTaggart: Participatory Action Research, in Denzin & Lincoln, 2007, p. 291

© Tabea Hirzel

Table 10.2. Methods and Techniques Characteristic of Different

Approaches to the Study of Practice

Perspective The Individual The Social Both: Reflexive–dialectical

view of individual–social

relations and connections

Objective (1) Practice as individual

behavior: Quantitative and

correlational–experimental

methods; psychometric and

observational techniques, tests,

and interaction schedules

(2) Practice as social and systems

behavior: Quantitative and

correlational–experimental

methods; observational

techniques, sociometrics, systems

analysis, and social ecology

Subjective (3) Practice as intentional

action: Qualitative and

interpretive methods; clinical

analysis, interview,

questionnaire, diaries, journals,

self-report, and introspection

(4) Practice as socially structured,

shaped by discourses and

tradition: Qualitative, interpretive,

and historical methods; discourse

analysis and document analysis

Both:

Reflexive–

dialectical

view of

subjective–

Objective relations

and Connections

(5) Practice as socially and

historically constituted and as

reconstituted by human agency

and social action: Critical

methods; dialectical analysis

(multiple methods)

19/11/2017 36

Kemmis & McTaggart: Participatory Action Research, in Denzin & Lincoln, 2007, p. 295

© Tabea Hirzel

WK Kellogg Foundation defines CBPR (Community-based

Participatory Research) as a:

“collaborative approach to research that equitably involves all partners

in the research process and recognizes the unique strengths that each

brings. CBPR begins with a research topic of importance to the

community and has the aim of combining knowledge with action and

achieving social change to improve health outcomes and eliminate

health disparities.” (In Frequently Asked Questions about Community-

Engaged Research)


http://oprs.usc.edu/files/2013/01/Frequently_Asked_Questions_about_Community-Engaged_Research.pdf

The continuum of researchTraditional Community-Engaged CBPR

Research

Objective

Based on epidemiologic

data & funding priorities

Community input in

identifying locally relevant

issues

Full participation of

community in identifying

issues of greatest importance

Study Design Design based entirely on

scientific rigor and

feasibility

Researchers work with

community to ensure

study design is culturally

acceptable

Community intimately

involved with study design

Recruitment

& Retention

Based on scientific

issues & “best guesses”

regarding how to best

reach community

members

Researchers consult with

community

representatives on

recruitment & retention

strategies

Community representatives

provide guidance on

recruitment & retention

strategies and aid in

recruitment

Instrument Design Instruments

adopted/adapted from

other studies. Tested

chiefly w/psychometric

analytic methods.

Instruments adopted from

other studies &

tested/adapted to fit local

populations

Instruments developed with

community input and tested in

similar populations

Data Collection Conducted by academic

researchers or

individuals w/no

connection to the

community

Community members

involved in some aspects

of data collection

Conducted by members of the

community, to the extent

possible based on available

skill sets. Focus on capacity

building.

Analysis &

Interpretation

Academic researchers

own the data, conduct

analysis & interpret the

Findings

Academic researchers

share results of analysis

with community members

for comments &

Interpretation

Data is shared; community

members & academic

researchers work together to

interpret results

Dissemination Results published in

peer-reviewed academic journals

Results disseminated in

community venues as well as peer-reviewed

journals

Community members assist

academic researchers to identify appropriate

venues to

disseminate results (public

mtgs, radio, etc.) in a timely

manner & community

members involved in

dissemination. Results also

published in peer-reviewed

journals.


???

A B C

1 Environment Object(ives) Tool ???

2 Speech Language Meta language interaction

3 Expression Argument Logic (rules) narration

4 Ideal type Theory World view reflection

5 Personhood Role (Social) Identity performance

19/11/2017 39

materialization - abstraction

pe

rso

nif

ica

tio

n–

ob

jec

tifi

ca

tio

n(a

no

nym

ity)

Occurs/Reveals through… Plays with.. Institutionalizes…

1 Experience Game Work

2 Discourse Poetry Grammar

3 Rhetoric, music Story Politics, Science

4 Idea Research Mythology

5 (individual) Mind Theatre Society

singularity- complexity

individualization- institutionalization

space

© Tabea Hirzel

Categories of narratives

Not all Games are Stories

Not all Poetries are

Not all Stories are

Not all Research works are games

Not all Theatres are

Arguments Are Self-expression

19/11/2017 40

Not all Games are

Not all Poetries are

Not all Stories are arguments

Not all Research works are

Not all Theatres are

Arguments Are Self-expression

© Tabea Hirzel

Education

Reflections on methodology VII: In social science (Hirzel, 2011)