Abstract
Margaret Mead was not content to go on doing research the way she was ‘supposed’ to but neither was she maverick in her approach to how to gather data, analyse and interpret it. She was fully aware that her evidence had to be reliable and therefore whatever approach she used would have to withstand scrutiny. Professional doctorates, which encourage innovation in methodological approaches congruent with contexts, hold this tenet of evidence. Mead addressed methodological shortcomings in her own discipline of anthropology and offered insights into the future of research which should not prolong the polarisation between science and the humanities that had taken hold after the Renaissance but rather be harnessed in a complementary relationship that resulted in the common good. In his commentary on a collection of Mead’s works, Beeman (2004, p. xiii) says of her ‘methodological insights’ which she outlined in her essay ‘Towards a Human Science’ (1976) ‘the purpose of the essay is to try to forge a new philosophical statement about a fusion of the methods of science with the application for the good of humanity’.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
My italics
References
Augé, M. (1995). Non-places—An Introduction to the anthropology of supermodernity. (Trans J. Howe). London: Verso.
Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. (Trans C. Emerson and M. Holquist). Austen: University of Texas Press.
Bateson, M. C. (2005). Using and abusing the works of the ancestors: Margaret Mead. Pacific Studies, 28(3/4).
Beeman, W. O. (2004). Introduction in Margaret Mead: Studying contemporary society (Vol. 5). Oxford, New York: Berghahn Books.
Bruns, G. L. (1992). Hemeneutics ancient & modern. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Duarte, J. F., Rosa, A. A., & Seruya, T. (Eds.) (2006). Translation studies at the interface of disciplines. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins Library.
Klein, J. T. (1998). Notes towards a Social Epistemology of Transdisciplinarity, CIRET Bulletin, No 12, February
Mead, M. (1949). Male and female, the study of the sexes in a changing world. Out of Print.
Mead, M. (1954). Some theoretical considerations on the problem of Mother––Child separation, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 24(3), 471–483.
Mead, M. (1956). New lives for old: Cultural transformation––Manus, 1928–1953. New York: Morrow.
Mead, M. (1976). Towards a human science in science magazine, 191(4230).
Mead, M., & Wolfenstein, M. (Eds.). (1955). Childhood in contemporary cultures. University of Chicago Press.
Nicolescu, B. (1993). Towards a transdisciplinary education. Paper presented at a conference on Education of the Future. Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Nicolescu, B. (2000). Transdisciplinarity and complexity: Levels of reality as source of indeterminancy CIRET Bulletin, No 15, May.
Nouss, A. (2005). Translation and metissage. In P. St-Pierre & P. C. Karr (Eds.), TRANSLATION. reflections, refractions, transformations (pp. 286–228). Delhi: Pencraft International.
Russon, C., & Ryback, T. (2003). Margaret Mead’s evaluation of the first salzburg seminar. American Journal of Evaluation, 24(1), 97–114.
Sullivan, S., & Tuana, N. (Eds.) (2007). Race and epistemologies of ignorance. Albany: Suny.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 the Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Maguire, K. (2015). Research, Transdisciplinarity, Translation. In: Margaret Mead. SpringerBriefs in Education(). Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9309-4_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9309-4_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-9308-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-9309-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)