David,
You made the realism / postmodernism / constructionism point with much more
clarity than I did. However critical realism combines elements of natural
realism and constructionism. It accepts the fallibility of any causal
explanation. "Through a glass darkly" is the key phrase. It also accepts that
some explanations that appear to be commensurate with the empirical level may
be far from reflecting the real that lies beneath. Only more data, greater
creativity and critical debate can help to indicate where better explanations
lie. I think that it is far more helpful to accept the temporary and partial
nature of many or indeed most of our explanations, at least in the social
world, rather than to seek the elusive holy grail of complete understanding.
For me simulation is a way of thinking through the "real" deep processes that
give rise to particular events. This complements the rest of my research that
proceeds from the empirical towards the real by way of case studies. The latter
offer a way of "peeling the onion" by always asking why certain events occur
and then collecting more data that would help decide whether the explanation is
consistent with those new data.
Regards
Geoff Easton
Professor Geoff Easton,
Department of Marketing,
Lancaster University Management School,
Lancaster,
Lancs.
Phone 44 (0)1524 593917
Fax 44 (0) 1524 593928
Email [log in to unmask]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Byrne [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 5:33 PM
> To: Scott Moss; simsoc
> Subject: Re: Reality check: What does MABS study?
>
>
> Just a very brief note on the relationship between postmodernist
> perspectives and realism - postmodernists denounce realism of any kind
> because all realist perspectives argue that there is something that can,
> in principle, be known and that some accounts of reality are better than
> others. Realism in other words is primarily an ontological programme
> whereas postmodernism is an epistemological programme and essentially
> relativist. One point which might commend realism even to Scott is that
> it has a coherent account of complex causation which would seem to me to
> be necessary for any discussion of causal processes in relation to
> simulation.
>
> David Byrne
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|