> I have absolutely no problem with the pragmatic suck it and see approach
> you suggest here. We don't validate our research by meta-theoretical
> reasoning before we do it but we should, sometimes, think back to the
> meta-theory and set it against what we are doing, not as a superior set
> of dogmatic rules but as part of the thinking through.
Yes, thinking back on what one has done, reflecting, abstracting, and
reformulating are natural and frequently helpful. They seem to prime
our thoughts ready for when a new but similar situation is encountered.
The trouble with *prior* meta-theory is that it is very difficult not to
be substantially biased by it - theoretical spectacles are difficult to
take off! Better is to delay theory so that we are more influenced by
observations/experience etc. and generalise *from* these.
What is crucial here is precedence! Theory is OK if it helps with
actual examples, bad if it obscures them. The focus should be the
target systems the theory is merely a tool. Scott and I critise the
discussion because the focus is wrong (implying that people have the
precedence wrong).
>From your use of the words 'dogmatic' and 'not as a superior' above I
guess you agree to some extent.
Regards.
--------------------------------------------------
Bruce Edmonds,
Centre for Policy Modelling,
Manchester Metropolitan University, Aytoun Bldg.,
Aytoun St., Manchester, M1 3GH. UK.
Tel: +44 161 247 6479 Fax: +44 161 247 6802
http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/~bruce
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|