Abstract
What rules and approaches do we use when trying to understand and explain observations by help of theory, or when changing the theories as a result of new observations and ideas? The positivist tradition emphasises the alternation between on the one hand observations and the formulation of general theories, also called laws, and on the other hand testing of theories through new observations. The logic of such hypothetical-deductive reasoning, however, is mainly directed at testing theories to find out whether they are valid. It has less to say on the development of new ideas and theories. Other research logics are more focused on how to proceed in order to eliminate rivalling ideas and theories as far as possible. They build on a more pluralistic basis: that there usually are several possible explanations for and interpretations of social patterns and events.
In abductive thinking we go backwards from an observed conclusion and form premises and causal mechanisms of a kind that if they were true, the conclusion would be reasonable. Through abductive thinking we can develop different possible explanations of one and the same phenomenon. Thus, such thinking also opens up for different forms of testing of ideas through practical testing or production of data that are relevant for the testing of connections and relations.
The focus of analysis in hermeneutics is either an utterance in light of a given situation or an utterance in light of the actor who makes the utterance and wants to achieve something. In discourse analysis, we study how a given discourse order produces specific discursive practices and thus the actors’ interpretation of the world, or how subjects are constructing their identity in a given discursive context. These logics also focus on the mutual interaction between phenomenon and context. Strategic actors can change a given situation, and discursive practices can produce new frames of understanding and orders of discourse. We can say that hermeneutics and discourse analysis are concerned with the production of contextualised and situational explanations rather than with abstract generalisations that ignore time and space.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2000). Reflexive methodology. New vistas for qualitative research. London: Sage.
Beach, D. (2016). It’s all about mechanisms – What process-tracing case studies should be tracing. New Political Economy, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2015.1134466
Beach, D., & Pedersen, R. B. (2014). Process-tracing methods: Foundations and guidelines. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Boudon, R. (1991). What Middle-Range Theories Are. [Robert K. Merton: Consensus and Controversy., Jon Clark, Celia Modgil, Sohan Modgil; Puritanism and the Rise of Modern Science: The Merton Thesis., I. Bernard Cohen, K. E. Duffin, Stuart Strickland; “After Merton”: Protestant and Catholic Science in Seventeenth-Century Europe., Rivka Feldhay, Yehuda Elkana; The Focused Interview: A Manual of Procedures., Robert K. Merton, Marjorie Fiske, Patricia L. Kendall; L’Opera di R. K. Merton e la Sociologia Contemporanea., Carlo Mongardini, Simonetta Tabboni]. Contemporary Sociology, 20(4), 519–522.
Campbell, D. T. (1984). Foreword. In R. K. Yin (Ed.), Case study research. Design and methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Cartwright, N. (1983). How the laws of physics lie. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press/Clarendon Press.
Cartwright, N. (2006). Where is the theory in our “theories” of causality? The Journal of Philosophy, 103(2), 55–66.
Dunn, K. C., & Neumann, I. B. (2016). Undertaking discourse analysis for social research. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Gadamer, H.-G. (1997/1960). Sanning och metod: i urval (Orig. Wahrheit und Methode). Göteborg, Sweden: Daidalos.
Gramsci, A. (1973). Politikk og kultur: artikler, opptegnelser og brev fra fengslet (Vol. F255). Oslo, Norway: Gyldendal.
Habermas, J. (1974/1968). Vitenskap som ideologi (Orig. Technik und Wissenschaft als “Ideologie”) (2. oppl. ed.). Oslo, Norway: Gyldendal.
Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action (Vol. 1). Boston: Beacon Press.
Hookway, C. (2016). “Pragmatism”. The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2016 ed., Edward N. Zalta, Ed.). URL =.
Johansson, I., Kalleberg, R., & Liedman, S.-E. (1972). Positivism, marxism, kritisk teori: riktningar inom modern vetenskapsfilosofi (3. uppl. ed.). Stockholm: Pan/Norstedts.
Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (2001). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics. London: Verso.
Lakatos, I. (1978). The methodology of scientific research programmes (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mayntz, R. (2004). Mechanisms in the analysis of social macro-phenomena. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 34(2), 237–259.
Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure (Enl. ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Neumann, I. B. (2001). Mening, materialitet, makt: en innføring i diskursanalyse. Bergen, Norway: Fagbokforl.
Peirce, C. S. (1972). Charles Sanders Peirce. Selected texts by I. Gullvåg. Oslo, Norway: Pax.
Ricoeur, P. (1988a (1986)). Hermeneutik och ideologikritik. In Från text till handling: en antologi om hermeneutik (Orig.: Du texte à l’action, Essais d’hermenutiques) (Vol. 1). Stockholm: Brutus Östlings bokförlag Symposion.
Ricoeur, P. (1988b (1986)). Vad är en text? In Från text till handling: en antologi om hermeneutik (Orig.: Du texte à l’action, Essais d’hermenutiques) (Vol. 1). Stockholm: Brutus Östlings bokförlag Symposion.
Schmidt, V. A. (2008). Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 303–326.
Weber, M. (1971/1922). Makt og byråkrati: essays om politikk og klasse, samfunnsforskning og verdier (Orig. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, part III, ch. 1). Oslo: Gyldendal.
Westlund, I. (2009). Hermeneutik. In A. Fejes & R. Thornberg (Eds.), Handbok i kvalitativ analys (pp. 62–80). Stockholm: Liber.
Winther Jørgensen, M., & Phillips, L. (1999). Diskursanalyse som teori og metode. Frederiksberg, Denmark: Roskilde Universitetsforl. Samfundslitteratur.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bukve, O. (2019). The Logic and Methodological Rules of Reconstruction. In: Designing Social Science Research. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03979-0_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03979-0_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-03978-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-03979-0
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)