[Interpretationandmethods] non-IR discourse analysis

[Patrick Jackson]

On Dec 5, 2006, at 8:26 AM, Ed Schatz wrote:

> Now we are getting to nitty-gritty issues of pedagogy. As I  
> mentioned, I am on thin ice, since this is my first go with this  
> course. Having said that, here are my instincts:  First, I agree  
> with everything you say (could I ask to see your syllabi?).

As you know I sent them to you off-list; if anyone else wants them  
let me know.

> But (you knew this was coming), what is really the best way to have  
> “earnest philosophical debate about methodological boundaries”? Is  
> it to emphasize the links (some strong, some not) between specific  
> methods and specific methodologies by, for example, keeping  open- 
> ended interviews in the syllabus’s section on interpretivism while  
> keeping structured interviews in the syllabus’s section on  
> positivism? My instinct is to discuss the methodologies side by  
> side during the same week. (Check with me in a month; anything  
> could happen between now and then.)

My preference (no surprise here :-) would be to take the former  
option rather than the latter. Why? Because I really don't think that  
one can have a serious philosophical discussion about methodological  
boundaries before one has some sense of what the differences among  
those methodologies are. (And this stance of mine does depend on the  
prior proposition that there are real, serious, perhaps even  
incommensurable differences between methodologies.) My fear if we  
start off with fuzzy boundaries between methodologies, which is what  
I fear would be produced by teaching them side-by-side and  
disaggregated into various method-oriented units as you propose, then  
we get at the end of the day a lot of confusion rather than anything  
sharp and crisp. And I like "sharp" and "crisp" in my philosophical  
discussions :-)

To put this another way: one can start a dialogue from a perspective  
of fundamental agreement, or from a perspective of fundamental  
disagreement (or fundamental commensurability versus fundamental  
incommensurability). Obviously, this is an ideal-typical distinction,  
but I think it's revealing. Starting off with "these approaches are  
kind of similar" is different than "these approaches are basically  
different." And I'd also posit that a dialogue that begins with the  
first implicit proposition isn't really a dialogue as much as it is a  
Platonic "dialogue" in which the endpoint is foreshadowed at the  
beginning -- and to re-sociologize this for a moment, the endpoint is  
likely to be closer to the dominant set of methodological assumptions  
in the discipline, which are basically statistical-comparative. The  
lowest common denominator in such a discussion is, I fear, likely to  
be the Laitin position, the faux "diversity" of everyone feeding the  
regression equation machine. The best defense, to my mind, is to  
start off with ideal-typical differences, and then move towards  
discussion and dialogue.

Forewarned is forearmed, perhaps -- especially for PhD students?  
Maybe resistance is not futile?

> Second, I agree that some boundaries make more sense than others.  
> My view is that part of what an instructor does is impart knowledge/ 
> wisdom about the difference between philosophically defensible and  
> indefensible boundaries. The other part—and the part that is  
> sometimes in tension with the first—is to create the conditions  
> under which students can explore these questions largely on their  
> own. Yes, I know more than they do about certain things, and yes,  
> my vision of the world is spot-on! (!) But, I frankly do not want  
> students simply to follow in my footsteps (often meandering, as  
> they are) unless they have good reason to do so.

Neither do I :-) But I have found over the years that it is better  
(for me, at any rate) to put forth a clear, perhaps hyper-clear,  
vision of things so that students have something to react to --  
combined, of course, with repeated admonitions for them to argue with  
me. And various incentives and rewards for so doing. Like you, the  
fact that I'm right :-) does make things interesting, but hey --  
maybe they can be right to, and our "right"s can differ, and the  
conversation can get really interesting.

>  On David Laitin, I totally agree. If he’s our example of boundary  
> crossing, we are up a creek.

Indeed. "Diversity" as a cloak (and not a very thick cloak) for  
methodological imperialism. An old story, unfortunately -- and a  
large part of my dissatisfaction with the label "qualitative" in the  
first place.

PTJ
===
Patrick Thaddeus Jackson
American University, SIS
patrickthaddeusjackson at gmail.com
http://profptj.blogspot.com
calendar: http://ical.mac.com/onyxdr/Patrick


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://malagigi.cddc.vt.edu/pipermail/interpretationandmethods/attachments/20061206/6a676359/attachment.html