应用区别。定性社会研究的系统建构主义方案

Anahí Urquiza, Marco Billi, T. Leal
{"title":"应用区别。定性社会研究的系统建构主义方案","authors":"Anahí Urquiza, Marco Billi, T. Leal","doi":"10.5354/0719-0527.2017.47269","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"At least since the XVIII century, the ‘problem of induction’, that is, how to justify the abstractions derived from any empirical observation, has been at the core of a fiery debate both within the philosophy of science, and the praxis of social sciences. Refuting the allegation of ‘empirical closure’ raised against Niklas Luhmann’s Social Systems Theory, we claim that it delivers a privileged epistemological and theoretical platform to face such a dilemma, since it highlights the necessary conditions to produce an ‘abductive’ reasoning. By way of discussing, on the one hand, Luhmann’s understanding of knowledge and science, and on the other, diverse attempts to apply empirically the systemic approach and integrate it with other analytical tools, the paper offers a general model to understand the role and relationships of the principles of theoretical plausibility and empirical grounding within social science research. Based on that, the article identifies the criteria of ‘isomorphism’, ‘perspectivism’, transparency’ and ‘iterability’ as indicators of scientific acceptability of a systemic-constructivist research, and offers orientations for the design of such a research.","PeriodicalId":42156,"journal":{"name":"Revista Mad-Revista del Magister en Analisis Sistemico Aplicado a la Sociedad","volume":"1 1","pages":"21-53"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2017-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Aplicar una distinción. Un programa sistémico-constructivista para la investigación social cualitativa\",\"authors\":\"Anahí Urquiza, Marco Billi, T. Leal\",\"doi\":\"10.5354/0719-0527.2017.47269\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"At least since the XVIII century, the ‘problem of induction’, that is, how to justify the abstractions derived from any empirical observation, has been at the core of a fiery debate both within the philosophy of science, and the praxis of social sciences. Refuting the allegation of ‘empirical closure’ raised against Niklas Luhmann’s Social Systems Theory, we claim that it delivers a privileged epistemological and theoretical platform to face such a dilemma, since it highlights the necessary conditions to produce an ‘abductive’ reasoning. By way of discussing, on the one hand, Luhmann’s understanding of knowledge and science, and on the other, diverse attempts to apply empirically the systemic approach and integrate it with other analytical tools, the paper offers a general model to understand the role and relationships of the principles of theoretical plausibility and empirical grounding within social science research. Based on that, the article identifies the criteria of ‘isomorphism’, ‘perspectivism’, transparency’ and ‘iterability’ as indicators of scientific acceptability of a systemic-constructivist research, and offers orientations for the design of such a research.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42156,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista Mad-Revista del Magister en Analisis Sistemico Aplicado a la Sociedad\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"21-53\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-09-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista Mad-Revista del Magister en Analisis Sistemico Aplicado a la Sociedad\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5354/0719-0527.2017.47269\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Mad-Revista del Magister en Analisis Sistemico Aplicado a la Sociedad","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5354/0719-0527.2017.47269","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

至少自十八世纪以来,“归纳问题”,即如何证明任何实证观察得出的抽象概念的合理性,一直是科学哲学和社会科学实践中激烈辩论的核心。反驳了针对Niklas Luhmann的社会系统理论提出的“经验封闭”的指控,我们声称它提供了一个面对这种困境的特权认识论和理论平台,因为它突出了产生“绑架”推理的必要条件。一方面,通过讨论鲁曼对知识和科学的理解,另一方面,为了从经验上应用系统方法并将其与其他分析工具相结合,本文提供了一个通用的模型来理解理论合理性原则和经验基础原则在社会科学研究中的作用和关系。在此基础上,本文确定了“同构”、“透视主义”、“透明性”和“可迭代性”等标准作为系统建构主义研究的科学可接受性指标,并为系统建构主义的研究设计提供了方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Aplicar una distinción. Un programa sistémico-constructivista para la investigación social cualitativa
At least since the XVIII century, the ‘problem of induction’, that is, how to justify the abstractions derived from any empirical observation, has been at the core of a fiery debate both within the philosophy of science, and the praxis of social sciences. Refuting the allegation of ‘empirical closure’ raised against Niklas Luhmann’s Social Systems Theory, we claim that it delivers a privileged epistemological and theoretical platform to face such a dilemma, since it highlights the necessary conditions to produce an ‘abductive’ reasoning. By way of discussing, on the one hand, Luhmann’s understanding of knowledge and science, and on the other, diverse attempts to apply empirically the systemic approach and integrate it with other analytical tools, the paper offers a general model to understand the role and relationships of the principles of theoretical plausibility and empirical grounding within social science research. Based on that, the article identifies the criteria of ‘isomorphism’, ‘perspectivism’, transparency’ and ‘iterability’ as indicators of scientific acceptability of a systemic-constructivist research, and offers orientations for the design of such a research.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Journal Revista Mad - Universidad de Chile (www.revistamad.uchile.cl) is a biannual electronic publication sponsored by the Master in Systemic Analysis Applied to Society, belonging to the Faculty of Social Sciences of the University of Chile. The journal Revista Mad publishes original scientific papers in the field of social sciences, research advances, essays, book reviews and translations, in which theoretical perspectives and empirical approaches related to social systems theory and social constructivism, are applied. However, other theoretical perspectives, which contribute to Latin American social sciences, are also accepted.
期刊最新文献
Afterword. A Change Is Gonna Come, Same as It Ever Was Sixteen. The Mad Men in the Attic. Seriality and Identity in the Modern Babylon Four. After the Sex, What? A Feminist Reading of Reproductive History in Mad Men Nine. Against Depth. Looking at Surface through the Kodak Carousel Five. The Writer as Producer; or, The Hip Figure after HBO
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1