Fly Strikes Back
I thought it would helpful to start the discussion on Flyvjberg (Fly) by outlining some of the main concepts of Making Social Science Matter while Avi examines Fly’s interactions with his philosophical allies such as Foucault.
Bent Flyvbjerg: Professor, Aalborg University in Denmark
Main Argument: Argues for a new, non-natural science based social science paradigm. Recommends narrative case study method as a valid form of social science because of its particular focus on situation and context and because it brings in the preferences of the affected communities under study.
Philosophical allies: Aristotle (phronesis), Foucault (power dynamics), Nietzsche (incorporating knowledge to level of instinct)
The Contenders: Natural sciences (explanatory predictive theory) versus Social sciences (reflexive, discussion of values and interests)
“Science Wars”: Sokal’s Hoax and The Return of the NORC.
· Uses two incidents (debate ensued over the US National Opinion Research Center study’s claim on a monopoly over understanding sexual practices in the US through survey data and a professor who opined over philosophical implications in recent physics studies and their effects on culture) to illustrate tension between natural sciences and social sciences
· Natural sciences are critical of the methods and value of contemporary social-science research. Social sciences have been held to the standard of the natural sciences, which is the discovery of knowledge that is universal, context-independent, and cumulative. By this standard, the social sciences at best are viewed as weak imitators of the natural sciences.
Flyvbjerg Strikes Back: Book seeks to reestablish an older, more realistic standard by which to redirect the social sciences and to bolster their credibility. He uses the Dreyfus Model of Learning to indicate how research should be conducted at the level of context-dependent intuition in which knowledge it internalized and not bound by a set of rules or procedures. Fly calls upon Foucault’s view of power and his genealogical methods in order to update phronesis to include ways of examining power in the social sciences.
Bring In The Greeks: 3 intellectual virtues
1) Episteme: universal, invariable, context-independent scientific knowledge (Socrates and Plato.)
2) Techne: practical, instrumental knowledge (technical)
3) Phronesis: a deliberative kind of value-centered, action-oriented knowledge without contemporary equivalent which Fly argues would provide a better framework for the study of social interactions because human behavior does deal in universal, predictable outcomes but rather context-specific situations. (Aristotle)
Fly presents the Aristolean concept of phronesis, or context-dependent research based on praxis as a way to free social science from the epistemological baggage of the natural sciences. I’d argue that a major strength of this approach is that it relies heavily on learning or discovering through experience, as indicated in the Dreyfus model. However, a potentially troubling aspect of this approach is its foundation in the aspect of phronesis which calls for the researcher to make normative judgments on the “good” or “bad”. Fly states “Phronesis thus concerns the analysis of values—‘the things that are good or bad for man’-as a point of departure for action (57). Specifically, on the case of Aalborg, Fly asks if the direction of democracy in Aalborg (who gains, who loses with the mechanisms of power) is desirable and what should be done (145). This sounds like what policy analyst would do but not a scholar (specifically in the realm of participatory action research). What implications does the phronetic approach have on scholarship?
Bent Flyvbjerg: Professor, Aalborg University in Denmark
Main Argument: Argues for a new, non-natural science based social science paradigm. Recommends narrative case study method as a valid form of social science because of its particular focus on situation and context and because it brings in the preferences of the affected communities under study.
Philosophical allies: Aristotle (phronesis), Foucault (power dynamics), Nietzsche (incorporating knowledge to level of instinct)
The Contenders: Natural sciences (explanatory predictive theory) versus Social sciences (reflexive, discussion of values and interests)
“Science Wars”: Sokal’s Hoax and The Return of the NORC.
· Uses two incidents (debate ensued over the US National Opinion Research Center study’s claim on a monopoly over understanding sexual practices in the US through survey data and a professor who opined over philosophical implications in recent physics studies and their effects on culture) to illustrate tension between natural sciences and social sciences
· Natural sciences are critical of the methods and value of contemporary social-science research. Social sciences have been held to the standard of the natural sciences, which is the discovery of knowledge that is universal, context-independent, and cumulative. By this standard, the social sciences at best are viewed as weak imitators of the natural sciences.
Flyvbjerg Strikes Back: Book seeks to reestablish an older, more realistic standard by which to redirect the social sciences and to bolster their credibility. He uses the Dreyfus Model of Learning to indicate how research should be conducted at the level of context-dependent intuition in which knowledge it internalized and not bound by a set of rules or procedures. Fly calls upon Foucault’s view of power and his genealogical methods in order to update phronesis to include ways of examining power in the social sciences.
Bring In The Greeks: 3 intellectual virtues
1) Episteme: universal, invariable, context-independent scientific knowledge (Socrates and Plato.)
2) Techne: practical, instrumental knowledge (technical)
3) Phronesis: a deliberative kind of value-centered, action-oriented knowledge without contemporary equivalent which Fly argues would provide a better framework for the study of social interactions because human behavior does deal in universal, predictable outcomes but rather context-specific situations. (Aristotle)
Fly presents the Aristolean concept of phronesis, or context-dependent research based on praxis as a way to free social science from the epistemological baggage of the natural sciences. I’d argue that a major strength of this approach is that it relies heavily on learning or discovering through experience, as indicated in the Dreyfus model. However, a potentially troubling aspect of this approach is its foundation in the aspect of phronesis which calls for the researcher to make normative judgments on the “good” or “bad”. Fly states “Phronesis thus concerns the analysis of values—‘the things that are good or bad for man’-as a point of departure for action (57). Specifically, on the case of Aalborg, Fly asks if the direction of democracy in Aalborg (who gains, who loses with the mechanisms of power) is desirable and what should be done (145). This sounds like what policy analyst would do but not a scholar (specifically in the realm of participatory action research). What implications does the phronetic approach have on scholarship?
posted by Anonymous at 10:12 PM
3 Comments:
Let my start by saying that the Danish language is very, very strange indeed, but I’m pretty sure his name is pronounced something like “Fluv-bierre,” not “Fleischberg,” which to a Swede sounds an awful lot like calling somebody “Porky.”
Anyways, I’ll stick with Fly, since you seem to be comfortable with that. I agree with Julie in that the Dane doesn’t necessarily speak more to policymakers than academics, and so what if it does? Indeed, in some instances scholars become policymakers for a period of time (not least in this “Capital of the World” in which we currently reside…), only to later return to academia or think tanks in order to perform “objective” research on the subjects of their expertise, in effect blurring the borders between the policy making and intellectual communities.
As a Swede, I’m always a proponent of the “Middle Road,” and it seems to me Flyvbjerg isn’t calling for any extremes, merely “fair and balanced” coverage… What’s wrong with scholars asking ethical questions?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Let my start by saying that the Danish language is very, very strange indeed, but I’m pretty sure his name is pronounced something like “Fluv-bierre,” not “Fleischberg,” which to a Swede sounds an awful lot like calling somebody “Porky.”
Anyways, I’ll stick with Fly, since you seem to be comfortable with that. I agree with Julie in that the Dane doesn’t necessarily speak more to policymakers than academics, and so what if it does? Indeed, in some instances scholars become policymakers for a period of time (not least in this “Capital of the World” in which we currently reside…), only to later return to academia or think tanks in order to perform “objective” research on the subjects of their expertise, in effect blurring the borders between the policy making and intellectual communities.
As a Swede, I’m always a proponent of the “Middle Road,” and it seems to me Flyvbjerg isn’t calling for any extremes, merely “fair and balanced” coverage… What’s wrong with scholars asking ethical questions?
Post a Comment
<< Home