From Paradigms to Figures of Thought (original) (raw)
Related papers
Critique – Matter of Methods (co-authored with Sara Heinämaa and David Carr)
Phenomenology as Critique – Why Method Matters (Routledge), 2022
Today phenomenological philosophy is employed in tackling several different types of acute problems and sets of problems, philosophical and extra-philosophical. For one thing, phenomenological results serve several forms of social and political critique and figure in many communitarian, neo-pragmatic, and critical-theoretical arguments. Additionally, both psychological and social scientific theorization draws from contemporary phenomenological analyses. Phenomenology is able to evolve and develop in close dialogue with other disciplines and philosophical orientations thanks to its commitment to the study of things themselves. Given these increasing and diversifying exchanges and the rising interest in philosophical phenomenology, the need has arisen to clarify how the transcendental and eidetic methods of classical and existential phenomenology relate to the many critical projects that contemporary phenomenology is called to perform. This is the task of the volume at hand. Drawing on classical Husserlian resources as well as existentialist and hermeneutical approaches, the volume demonstrates that within phenomenological philosophy, critique is largely a methodological matter. What is crucial is not any one selection of themes or topics (knowledge, justice, violence, or embodiment, for example), or any one set of theoretical and practical goals, but the power and range of the methods through which the investigations unfold. Phenomenology does not fall within the limits of any traditional philosophical discipline, such as epistemology or theory of sciences, philosophy of mind or philosophical anthropology; nor does it need to be enriched or strengthened by extra-phenomenological principles, virtue-theoretical or power-analytical. Rather than taking a position among philosophical disciplines or positions, phenomenology aims at renewing them all by its radically critical methods. This insight has both systematic and exegetic-historical dimensions. First, the volume shows that by its very definition, phenomenology is a permanently critical endeavor: its defining tasks-the tasks of explicating the necessary structures of meaning
Complexity, Methodology and Method: Crafting a Critical Process of Research
Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 2013
This paper defines a theoretical framework aiming to support the actions and reflections of researchers looking for a ‘method’ in order to critically conceive the complexity of a scientific process of research. First, it starts with a brief overview of the core assumptions framing Morin’s “paradigm of complexity” and Le Moigne’s “general system theory”. Distinguishing ‘methodology’ and ‘method’, the framework is conceived based on three moments, which represent recurring stages of the spiraling development of research. The first moment focuses on the definition of the research process and its sub-systems (author, system of ideas, object of study and method) understood as a complex form of organization finalized in a specific environment. The second moment introduces a matrix aiming to model the research process and nine core methodological issues, according to a programmatic and critical approach. Using the matrix previously modeled, the third moment suggests conceiving of the research process following a strategic mindset that focuses on contingencies, in order to locate, share and communicate the path followed throughout the inquiry.
COMPLEXITY AND OTHER PARADIGMS – INTRODUCTION TO COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS (Atena Editora)
COMPLEXITY AND OTHER PARADIGMS – INTRODUCTION TO COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS (Atena Editora), 2022
The complexity paradigm was recently developed by Edgar Morin, it is one of the most used in the investigation and understanding of problems that concern the scientific field. Complexity must be considered as a challenge to think in an organizational way, making it possible to program and clarify the facts. The problem of complexity constitutes an effort to conceive an unavoidable challenge launched by the real, respecting the different dimensions of the phenomenon studied. This paradigm forces us to unite notions that are excluded within the scope of the principle of simplification, and contradictory notions are linked to it, which are disorganized or organized as the relationship between the observer and the object develops. The complexity paradigm has differences in relation to other precedent paradigms such as the positivist, in which the researcher places himself in a situation of exemption from reality; the phenomenological, which starts from the perspective that the world and the real are socially constructed, receiving a meaning from the subject himself; the structuralist, who seeks to explain reality at all its levels based on the notion of structure; historical-dialectical materialism, which holds that the world is dialectical and the essence of dialectical materialism cannot be understood apart from its unity with historical materialism. Thus, it will be verified what is the relationship that exists between these different paradigms and the paradigm of complexity. which starts from the perspective that the world and the real are socially constructed, receiving a meaning from the subject himself; the structuralist, who seeks to explain reality at all its levels based on the notion of structure; historical-dialectical materialism, which holds that the world is dialectical and the essence of dialectical materialism cannot be understood apart from its unity with historical materialism. Thus, it will be verified what is the relationship that exists between these different paradigms and the paradigm of complexity. which starts from the perspective that the world and the real are socially constructed, receiving a meaning from the subject himself; the structuralist, who seeks to explain reality at all its levels based on the notion of structure; historical-dialectical materialism, which holds that the world is dialectical and the essence of dialectical materialism cannot be understood apart from its unity with historical materialism. Thus, it will be verified what is the relationship that exists between these different paradigms and the paradigm of complexity. which holds that the world is dialectical and the essence of dialectical materialism cannot be understood apart from its unity with historical materialism. Thus, it will be verified what is the relationship that exists between these different paradigms and the paradigm of complexity. which holds that the world is dialectical and the essence of dialectical materialism cannot be understood apart from its unity with historical materialism. Thus, it will be verified what is the relationship that exists between these different paradigms and the paradigm of complexity.
Method and Complexity in Educational Sciences
Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 2013
This text introduces the special issue of "Complicity" on "Method and Complexity in Educational Sciences" (2013, vol. 10, no 1/2). Starting with a discussion around the etymology of the word 'method', this text briefly discusses the evolution of research methods (from reductionist to 'post-qualitative' methods) and question two recent trends: (1) the on-going challenge of the normative dimension of research methods and the recognition of the contextual and contingent nature of any scientific inquiry; and (2) the increase of ‘disorder’ produced by the multiplication of paradigms, methods and strategies of research available. ‘Disorder’ reentered in the arena of research methods after centuries marked off by systematic attempts to exclude it. In the contemporary context, what is at stake is the capacity to lead an ongoing effort to organize the heterogeneous forms of order and disorder, which are constitutive – in complementary, contradictory and antagonistic ways – of any forms of inquiry, teaching or exposition approach. From this perspective, method is about the capacity to complexify the modalities that define one’s ‘pursuit of knowledge’. This text concludes with a presentation of the contributions featured in this special issue.
TWO EPISTEMOLOGIES IN CONFRONTATION: THE CLASSIC THEORY AND THE THEORY OF THE COMPLEXITY
The aim of this paper is to discuss two dimensions of human knowledge, in terms of the approach about ways of knowing in different fields of scientific activity. At first, we outlined some approaches to knowledge that led to the conception of a classical epistemology; further we pointed out formulations that allow, at present, developing an epistemology of complexity.
In this paper, seven researchers reflect on the journeys their research projects have taken when they engage with and synthesize complex problems. These journeys embody an adaptive approach to tackling problems characterized by their interconnectedness and emergence, and that transcend traditional units of analysis such as ecosystems. In this paper we argue that making such a process deliberate and explicit will help researchers better combine different research paradigms such as expert-driven and participant-directed work, thus resulting in both broad explanations and specific phenomenon; research tensions traditionally defined as oppositional must be approached as complimentary. This paper includes researchers' personal journeys as they dealt with the emergent properties of complex problems and participant involvement. This paper argues that that research journey should be more than accidental but is a methodological necessity and should guide the theoretical and practical approaches to complex problems.
Methodeutic and the order of inquiry
Semiotica
Although C. S. Peirce frequently notes the importance of the branch of logic he designates “rhetoric” or “methodeutic,” he only rarely specifies what this subdivision is meant to involve. This article reassesses the role of methodeutic in Peirce’s classification of the sciences, as well as the methodical significance of this classificatory endeavor itself. The article argues that the classification of sciences is best comprehended as a distinctive phase of methodeutic investigation, which examines actual manifestations of inquiry as well as abstract principles in crafting a normatively guiding conception of the scientific venture. It is further argued that the strict hierarchy on which Peirce bases his classification needs to be tempered to allow for a more flexible ordering, in which so-called “dynamical relationships” between inquiries are considered alongside the top-down perspective of “rational precedence.”