From D.Yanow at fsw.vu.nl Wed Feb 4 05:53:40 2009 From: D.Yanow at fsw.vu.nl (Dvora Yanow) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 11:53:40 +0100 Subject: [Interpretationandmethods] Interpretive Methods and The Methods Cafe at WPSA, Vancouver Message-ID: <5286BEEC21FADA47A24AA92D8BC9270E016FDF63@fswmail01.scw.vu.nl> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/pipermail/interpretationandmethods/attachments/20090204/427cd0d2/attachment-0001.html From Hopf.2 at polisci.osu.edu Wed Feb 4 13:21:28 2009 From: Hopf.2 at polisci.osu.edu (Hopf, Theodore (.2)) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 13:21:28 -0500 Subject: [Interpretationandmethods] Ethongraphies of "Power Ministries" Message-ID: <8F8B71D06051AA46ACAC9494EADE6A27010D6226@PSEXCH4.polisci.ohio-state.edu> Colleagues, I was wondering if any of you could direct me to ethnographic work on defense, foreign, and intelligence bureaucracies. The only ones I know of are Hugh Gusterson's Nuclear Rites on Livermore, and Iver Neumann's articles on the Norwegian foreign ministry. Thanx for your help ted -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/pipermail/interpretationandmethods/attachments/20090204/6000e95d/attachment.html From lk180 at columbia.edu Wed Feb 4 16:13:38 2009 From: lk180 at columbia.edu (Laleh Khalili) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 16:13:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Interpretationandmethods] Ethongraphies of "Power Ministries" In-Reply-To: <8F8B71D06051AA46ACAC9494EADE6A27010D6226@PSEXCH4.polisci.ohio-state.edu> References: <8F8B71D06051AA46ACAC9494EADE6A27010D6226@PSEXCH4.polisci.ohio-state.edu> Message-ID: I am also interested in the topic. Ted would you mind sharing the citations you might get in private emails? Laleh On Wed, 4 Feb 2009, Hopf, Theodore (.2) wrote: > Colleagues, I was wondering if any of you could direct me to > ethnographic work on defense, foreign, and intelligence bureaucracies. > The only ones I know of are Hugh Gusterson's Nuclear Rites on Livermore, > and Iver Neumann's articles on the Norwegian foreign ministry. Thanx for > your help > > > > ted > > From patrickthaddeusjackson at gmail.com Wed Feb 4 18:00:37 2009 From: patrickthaddeusjackson at gmail.com (Patrick Thaddeus Jackson) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 18:00:37 -0500 Subject: [Interpretationandmethods] Ethongraphies of "Power Ministries" In-Reply-To: <8F8B71D06051AA46ACAC9494EADE6A27010D6226@PSEXCH4.polisci.ohio-state.edu> References: <8F8B71D06051AA46ACAC9494EADE6A27010D6226@PSEXCH4.polisci.ohio-state.edu> Message-ID: <5F28550B-88D4-4012-B105-4A6ECF50507E@gmail.com> Although not ethnography narrowly construed, I would recommend Lynn Eden's excellent study _Whole World on Fire_, which deals with the organizational production of knowledge related to nuclear detonations. And there's always Carol Cohn's classic, and memorably titled, article "Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals" (which was originally published in the journal _Signs_, I think). PTJ On Feb 4, 2009, at 1:21 PM, Hopf, Theodore (.2) wrote: > Colleagues, I was wondering if any of you could direct me to > ethnographic work on defense, foreign, and intelligence > bureaucracies. The only ones I know of are Hugh Gusterson?s Nuclear > Rites on Livermore, and Iver Neumann?s articles on the Norwegian > foreign ministry. Thanx for your help > > ted > _______________________________________________ > Interpretationandmethods mailing list > Interpretationandmethods at listserv.cddc.vt.edu > http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/interpretationandmethods === Patrick Thaddeus Jackson Director, General Education Program, American University Editor-in-Chief, Journal of International Relations and Development http://profptj.blogspot.com | http://www.kittenboo.com calendar: http://ical.mac.com/onyxdr/Patrick -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/pipermail/interpretationandmethods/attachments/20090204/922decfd/attachment.html From lafujii at gwu.edu Mon Feb 9 08:14:56 2009 From: lafujii at gwu.edu (Lee Ann Fujii) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 08:14:56 -0500 Subject: [Interpretationandmethods] visual analysis Message-ID: Can anyone recommend sources for how to do visual analysis of photos and other visual artifacts? For example, I recently read an article in _Rolling Stone_ about Chucky Taylor, the American son of Liberia's former warlord/war criminal turned president, Charles Taylor. There is a photo of Chucky holding a decaptitated head in his hand as if he were displaying it. And I began to wonder what the photographer must have been thinking/feeling when he was taking those shots and then began to wonder if Chucky was aware of being photographed and whether he was in some ways "posing" or whether he was simply displaying "his work" for an audience off camera. Anyway, any insights on sources for this type of analysis would be most welcome. Lee Ann Fujii George Washington University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/pipermail/interpretationandmethods/attachments/20090209/24fb2280/attachment.html From larchap at earthlink.net Mon Feb 9 09:56:16 2009 From: larchap at earthlink.net (Larry Chappell) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 08:56:16 -0600 (GMT-06:00) Subject: [Interpretationandmethods] visual analysis Message-ID: <1425376.1234191376815.JavaMail.root@elwamui-lapwing.atl.sa.earthlink.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/pipermail/interpretationandmethods/attachments/20090209/5f2a5522/attachment.html From Schlag at soz.uni-frankfurt.de Mon Feb 9 10:12:45 2009 From: Schlag at soz.uni-frankfurt.de (Schlag at soz.uni-frankfurt.de) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 16:12:45 +0100 Subject: [Interpretationandmethods] visual analysis In-Reply-To: <1425376.1234191376815.JavaMail.root@elwamui-lapwing.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <1425376.1234191376815.JavaMail.root@elwamui-lapwing.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <20090209161245.60044msn1qf0zg19@webmail.server.uni-frankfurt.de> susan sontag, on photography there are two special issues of millennium on the aesthetic turn which could be helpful (2001, vol.30, issue 3 and 2006, vol. 34, issue 3) best, gabi Zitat von Larry Chappell : John Berger, "Ways of Seeing" & "About Looking." -----Original Message----- From: Lee Ann Fujii Sent: Feb 9, 2009 7:14 AM To: interpretationandmethods at listserv.cddc.vt.edu Subject: [Interpretationandmethods] visual analysis Can anyone recommend sources for how to do visual analysis of photos and other visual artifacts? For example, I recently read an article in _Rolling Stone_ about Chucky Taylor, the American son of Liberia's former warlord/war criminal turned president, Charles Taylor. There is a photo of Chucky holding a decaptitated head in his hand as if he were displaying it. And I began to wonder what the photographer must have been thinking/feeling when he was taking those shots and then began to wonder if Chucky was aware of being photographed and whether he was in some ways "posing" or whether he was simply displaying "his work" for an audience off camera. Anyway, any insights on sources for this type of analysis would be most welcome. Lee Ann Fujii George Washington University -- Gabi Schlag. M.A. Research Associate and Lecturer Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main Institute for Political Science Department of Social Sciences Robert-Mayer-Strasse 5 60054 Frankfurt am Main Germany Phone: [+49] 069-798-28488 Fax: [+49] 069-798-28460 Email: schlag at soz.uni-frankfurt.de From jhuns at vt.edu Mon Feb 9 10:35:21 2009 From: jhuns at vt.edu (jeremy hunsinger) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 10:35:21 -0500 Subject: [Interpretationandmethods] visual analysis In-Reply-To: <20090209161245.60044msn1qf0zg19@webmail.server.uni-frankfurt.de> References: <1425376.1234191376815.JavaMail.root@elwamui-lapwing.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <20090209161245.60044msn1qf0zg19@webmail.server.uni-frankfurt.de> Message-ID: I recommend checking out amazon for the library for visual culture and interpreting visual culture, as there were last time i checked, several significant books dealing with interpreting visual artifacts. another keyword search that is helpful is 'interpreting visual evidence' On Feb 9, 2009, at 10:12 AM, Schlag at soz.uni-frankfurt.de wrote: > From psshea at csbs.utah.edu Mon Feb 9 11:13:16 2009 From: psshea at csbs.utah.edu (psshea at csbs.utah.edu) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 09:13:16 -0700 Subject: [Interpretationandmethods] (no subject) Message-ID: <20090209091316.5hr2t8j4kgk8o4w8@webmail.csbs.utah.edu> Lee Ann, Also, try Bauer, Martin W., and George D. Gaskell, eds. 2002. Qualitative Researching with Text, Image and Sound. London: Sage. Peri -- Peregrine Schwartz-Shea Professor University of Utah Political Science Department 260 South Central Campus Drive Rm 252 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-9152 (801) 581-6300 phone mail psshea at poli-sci.utah.edu From cxwilkinson at googlemail.com Mon Feb 9 12:25:29 2009 From: cxwilkinson at googlemail.com (Wilkinson, C) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 17:25:29 +0000 Subject: [Interpretationandmethods] visual analysis (Lee Ann Fujii) Message-ID: <66cc571c0902090925w5754384w7a879fecaf58e3fd@mail.gmail.com> I've found Sarah Pink's "Doing Visual Ethnography: Images, Media and Representation in Research" (Sage) a good introduction. Claire -- Claire Wilkinson Teaching Fellow in Russian Centre for Russian & East European Studies University of Birmingham B15 2TT, UK ERI Room 146 (first floor) Tel: +44 (0) 121 414 8242 (direct line work) Skype: cxwilkinson http://www.crees.bham.ac.uk/staff/wilkinson/index.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/pipermail/interpretationandmethods/attachments/20090209/5eb15d4e/attachment.html From auroville1976 at yahoo.co.uk Mon Feb 9 13:12:06 2009 From: auroville1976 at yahoo.co.uk (Aurogeeta Das) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 18:12:06 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Interpretationandmethods] visual analysis Message-ID: <337262.47598.qm@web25217.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Hi, I've been a part of this listserve for over a year and read the posts avidly, though I've never posted before. Lee Ann, apart from Pink and Berger, I've found the following quite useful: Emmison, Michael and Philip Smith, Researching the Visual: Images, Objects, Contexts and Interactions in Social and Cultural Inquiry, SAGE Publications, London, 2000 Green, Nicholas and Frank Mort, "Visual Representation and Cultural Politics", The BLOCK reader in Visual Culture, Routledge, London, 1996 Rose, Gilian, Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to Interpreting Visual Objects, Sage Publications, London, 2001 Hope this helps, Aurogeeta Can anyone recommend sources for how to do visual analysis of photos and other visual artifacts? For example, I recently read an article in _Rolling Stone_ about Chucky Taylor, the American son of Liberia's former warlord/war criminal turned president, Charles Taylor. There is a photo of Chucky holding a decaptitated head in his hand as if he were displaying it. And I began to wonder what the photographer must have been thinking/feeling when he was taking those shots and then began to wonder if Chucky was aware of being photographed and whether he was in some ways "posing" or whether he was simply displaying "his work" for an audience off camera. Anyway, any insights on sources for this type of analysis would be most welcome. Lee Ann Fujii George Washington University From lafujii at gwu.edu Mon Feb 9 13:19:20 2009 From: lafujii at gwu.edu (Lee Ann Fujii) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 13:19:20 -0500 Subject: [Interpretationandmethods] visual analysis In-Reply-To: <337262.47598.qm@web25217.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <337262.47598.qm@web25217.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Thank you, everyone, for these super leads. Really helpful! Best, Lee Ann ----- Original Message ----- From: Aurogeeta Das Date: Monday, February 9, 2009 1:12 pm Subject: [Interpretationandmethods] visual analysis To: interpretationandmethods at listserv.cddc.vt.edu > Hi, > I've been a part of this listserve for over a year and read the posts > avidly, though I've never posted before. Lee Ann, apart from Pink and > Berger, I've found the following quite useful: > > Emmison, Michael and Philip Smith, Researching the Visual: Images, > Objects, Contexts and Interactions in Social and Cultural Inquiry, > SAGE Publications, London, 2000 > > Green, Nicholas and Frank Mort, "Visual Representation and Cultural > Politics", The BLOCK reader in Visual Culture, Routledge, London, 1996 > > Rose, Gilian, Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to Interpreting > Visual Objects, Sage Publications, London, 2001 > > Hope this helps, Aurogeeta > > Can anyone recommend sources for how to do visual analysis of photos > and other visual artifacts? > For example, I recently read an article in _Rolling Stone_ about > Chucky Taylor, the American son of Liberia's former warlord/war > criminal turned president, Charles Taylor. There is a photo of Chucky > holding a decaptitated head in his hand as if he were displaying it. > And I began to wonder what the photographer must have been > thinking/feeling when he was taking those shots and then began to > wonder if Chucky was aware of being photographed and whether he was in > some ways "posing" or whether he was simply displaying "his work" for > an audience off camera. > Anyway, any insights on sources for this type of analysis would be > most welcome. > Lee Ann Fujii > George Washington University > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Interpretationandmethods mailing list > Interpretationandmethods at listserv.cddc.vt.edu > From psshea at csbs.utah.edu Mon Feb 9 15:30:03 2009 From: psshea at csbs.utah.edu (psshea at csbs.utah.edu) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 13:30:03 -0700 Subject: [Interpretationandmethods] one more citation! Message-ID: <20090209133003.0rs1ust88wossc04@webmail.csbs.utah.edu> Harper, Douglas. 2003. ?Reimagining Visual Methods: Galileo to Neuromancer.? In Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials, ed. Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 2nd ed., 176?98. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. -- Peregrine Schwartz-Shea Professor University of Utah Political Science Department 260 South Central Campus Drive Rm 252 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-9152 (801) 581-6300 phone mail psshea at poli-sci.utah.edu From D.Yanow at fsw.vu.nl Tue Feb 10 08:35:17 2009 From: D.Yanow at fsw.vu.nl (Dvora Yanow) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:35:17 +0100 Subject: [Interpretationandmethods] visual analysis In-Reply-To: <337262.47598.qm@web25217.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <337262.47598.qm@web25217.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5286BEEC21FADA47A24AA92D8BC9270E01FBBE9D@fswmail01.scw.vu.nl> There is also a chapter in the book Symbols and ARtifacts, ed. Pasquale Gagliardi -- 'Photograph Analysis,' by Deborah Dougherty and Gideon Kunda. Dvora Yanow From a.cienki at let.vu.nl Tue Feb 10 16:44:17 2009 From: a.cienki at let.vu.nl (Cienki, A.) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 22:44:17 +0100 Subject: [Interpretationandmethods] visual analysis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A rather obscure book chapter, but one perhaps relevant for your interests, is: ?In the eye of the beholder : an exercise in the interpretation of two photographs taken in Cameroon early in this century? by Paul Jenkins, in _West African economic and social history : Studies in memory of Marion Johnson_, edited by David Henige and T.C. McCaskie, 1990. Pages 93-103. A colleague recommended it for a course I taught on research methods, and it turned out to be very useful for discussion. Regards, Alan Cienki ________________________________________ Van: interpretationandmethods-bounces at listserv.cddc.vt.edu [interpretationandmethods-bounces at listserv.cddc.vt.edu] namens Lee Ann Fujii [lafujii at gwu.edu] Verzonden: maandag 9 februari 2009 14:14 Aan: interpretationandmethods at listserv.cddc.vt.edu Onderwerp: [Interpretationandmethods] visual analysis Can anyone recommend sources for how to do visual analysis of photos and other visual artifacts? For example, I recently read an article in _Rolling Stone_ about Chucky Taylor, the American son of Liberia's former warlord/war criminal turned president, Charles Taylor. There is a photo of Chucky holding a decaptitated head in his hand as if he were displaying it. And I began to wonder what the photographer must have been thinking/feeling when he was taking those shots and then began to wonder if Chucky was aware of being photographed and whether he was in some ways "posing" or whether he was simply displaying "his work" for an audience off camera. Anyway, any insights on sources for this type of analysis would be most welcome. Lee Ann Fujii George Washington University From lafujii at gwu.edu Wed Feb 11 12:48:54 2009 From: lafujii at gwu.edu (Lee Ann Fujii) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 12:48:54 -0500 Subject: [Interpretationandmethods] book announcement Message-ID: Hi everyone: Thank you again for all the excellent references to sources on how to do visual analysis. I also wanted to announce the release of my book entitled Killing neighbors, which takes a micro-level look at the Rwandan genocide. There is an entire chapter on my field methods and strategies. Best, Lee Ann http://www.amazon.com/Killing-Neighbors-Webs-Violence-Rwanda/dp/0801447054/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234374236&sr=1-1 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/pipermail/interpretationandmethods/attachments/20090211/2f978740/attachment-0001.html From kamal at uci.edu Wed Feb 11 22:07:04 2009 From: kamal at uci.edu (Kamal) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 19:07:04 -0800 Subject: [Interpretationandmethods] Paper Citizens Message-ID: <200902120307.n1C37lpn008482@smtp1.es.uci.edu> Hi Friends, Some of you may know me from my participation in the various "Methods Cafe's" or an earlier intervention [Kamal Sadiq, "Lost in Translation: The Challenges of State-Generated Data in Developing Countries,? Chapter 13 in Kristin Monroe (ed.) Perestroika!: The Raucous Rebellion in Political Science (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005)]. I write to share news about my just released book from Oxford (see below). Graduate students (and others) intending to undertake extensive fieldwork in developing countries will find the book useful since I begin by analyzing some of the methodological challenges in the path of field-workers. It is not easy to study developing countries, more so if states are unable to both "count" and "control" widespread illicit flows. I welcome your feedback and comments, specially since I am about to start fieldwork on my next book project this summer. Best. kamal -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paper Citizens: How Illegal Immigrants Acquire Citizenship in Developing Countries(New York: Oxford University Press, November 2009) ADVANCE ACCLAIM for Paper Citizens ?In these pages you will find the public policy dilemmas and the human tragedies, the conceptual confusion and the gripping stories that show how urgent it is to think more clearly about how foreigners become citizens. Anyone that cares about immigration must read Kamal Sadiq?s excellent book.? ----?Mois?s Na?m, Editor in Chief, Foreign Policy and author ofIllicit: How Smugglers, Traffickers and Copycats are Hijacking the Global Economy "In Paper Citizens, Kamal Sadiq brings startling new empirical information and theoretical arguments to the mounting scholarly and political debates over citizenship. He shows that in many countries legal citizenship is far more complex and uncertain than commonly recognized, in ways that pose major challenges for how political governance, economic welfare, and national security should be pursued, within and across existing states. A seminal contribution." ?----Rogers M. Smith, Christopher H. Browne Distinguished Professor of Political Science, University of Pennsylvania ?In this impressive work, Sadiq lays bare alignments in the migration experience easily obscured by the analytical categories that dominate explanation in this field of research. He makes visible the extent to which these categories are empirically rooted in the Western experience. When one moves the lens to Asia, we begin to understand the need for a far broader range of categories. But perhaps even more surprising, is that he shows us that Asia?s experience also illuminates features of the west that we have not recognized sufficiently.? ?----Saskia Sassen, Robert Lynd Professor of Sociology, Columbia University and author of Territory, Authority, Rights ?Kamal Sadiq makes a major contribution to Political Science by explaining in Paper Citizens the who, why, and how of documentary citizenship in India, Pakistan and Malaysia. He reveals the subterranean processes by which millions have acquired citizenship. His analysis challenges the claims of states to comprehensive territorial sovereignty and illuminates a neglected globalization process.? ?-----Lloyd Rudolph, Professor of Political Science Emeritus, University of Chicago ------------------------------------- WHEN we think of illegal immigrants, we typically think about people from developing countries?Mexico, El Salvador, Peru, Pakistan, Nigeria?entering developed countries?the US, Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany. According to conventional wisdom, those who make this trek leave weak, poor states in search of a better life in wealthy nations that possess the ability to track and monitor them. Yet as Kamal Sadiq shows in this groundbreaking work, the conventional wisdom about undocumented immigrants is wrong. In fact, most of the world's illegal immigrants are not migrating to the US?they are relocating to countries in the vast developing world. And when they arrive in countries like India and Malaysia?all of which are governed by weak and frequently erratic bureaucracies?they are able to obtain the documents and benefits of citizenship fairly easily. Indeed, institutions in these host countries are often incapable of tracking their ownpeople, many of whom lack citizenship papers, much less immigrants. Once immigrants obtain ?documentary citizenship,? it is a relatively simple matter for, say, an Afghani migrant with Pakistani papers to pass himself off as a Pakistani citizen both in Pakistan and abroad. Across the globe, there are literally tens of millions of such illegal immigrants who have assumed the guise of ?citizens.? Who, then, is really a citizen? And what does citizenship mean for most of the world?s peoples? Rendered in vivid detail, Paper Citizens explores immigration and immigrant communities along the crescent of the developing world stretching from Pakistan to Southeast Asia. But Sadiq not only shows how illegal immigrants acquire citizenship; he considers the consequences this will have for the future of governance and global security in the post 9/11 world. Kamal Sadiq is Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Irvine http://www.amazon.com/Paper-Citizens-Immigrants-Citizenship-Developing/dp/0195371224/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234381360&sr=8-1 --------------------------------------- Kamal Sadiq Assistant Professor Department of Political Science University of California, Irvine 92697-5100 Email: kamal at uci.edu Phone: 949-824-3126 Fax: 949-824-8762 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/pipermail/interpretationandmethods/attachments/20090211/0d872100/attachment.html From cristinadragomir at yahoo.com Thu Feb 19 10:29:24 2009 From: cristinadragomir at yahoo.com (cristina dragomir) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 07:29:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Interpretationandmethods] CFP- Interpreting Politics, History and Society in the 21st Century (please distribute) Message-ID: <216496.3289.qm@web110113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Call for Papers: Interpreting Politics, History and Society in the 21st Century The Department of Politics at the New School for Social Research invites you to present in an upcoming conference on Interpreting Politics, History and Society in the 21st Century, to be held on May 1, 2009. The conference will serve as an intellectual forum for a network of scholars working on interpretive methodology. The conference will be held in the vibrant cosmopolitan heart of New York City, and bring scholars such as Dvora Yanow and Timothy Pachirat together to consider contemporary approaches to qualitative research. Since the middle of the 20th century, social science disciplines such as Political Science have focused their research on using quantitative reasoning and analysis to answer their research questions.. Recently, however, new qualitative methodology has gained increased attention, breaking away from the ?classical? quantitative research paradigm that has dominated Political Science and other social science disciplines since the 1960s. This expansion in research methodology, which includes discourse analysis, textual analysis, ethnography among others ? borrowed from sociology, anthropology, and philosophy, ? has enlarged the scope of research and practice of political analysis. As political questions have grown more complex, scholars have turned to these new forms of research processes to address them. This conference will bring together scholars who have conducted alternative modes of research and seek to explore what can be gained from their particular approaches. Why did these methods need to be utilized to answer academic questions? What particular contributions do interpretive modes of analysis make to the understanding of complex issues? What is the place of methodology in formulating academic projects? The conference will consist of panels as well as a roundtable discussion on the practical research implications of using interpretive methods, bringing together scholars who conduct various forms of research to discuss their work and its applications. Abstracts are due March 1, 2009. Presenters will be notified by March 15, 2009. To submit abstracts please send an email to: interpreting.politics at gmail.com. If you have queries, please contact Cristina Dragomir at dragc200 at newschool.edu From D.Yanow at fsw.vu.nl Thu Feb 19 18:09:51 2009 From: D.Yanow at fsw.vu.nl (Dvora Yanow) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 00:09:51 +0100 Subject: [Interpretationandmethods] CFP Reframing and reconfiguration of agricultural, rural and food policies References: Message-ID: <5286BEEC21FADA47A24AA92D8BC9270E028A38C2@fswmail01.scw.vu.nl> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/pipermail/interpretationandmethods/attachments/20090220/ee85fe33/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CfP_ESRS_WG18.doc Type: application/msword Size: 29184 bytes Desc: CfP_ESRS_WG18.doc Url : http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/pipermail/interpretationandmethods/attachments/20090220/ee85fe33/attachment-0001.doc From navdeep at iimahd.ernet.in Thu Feb 19 21:41:34 2009 From: navdeep at iimahd.ernet.in (Navdeep Mathur) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 08:11:34 +0530 Subject: [Interpretationandmethods] CFP: Women In and Beyond the Global In-Reply-To: <189301e00902190230o6efa3ec0neabd1ad998bb62d4@mail.gmail.com> References: <189301e00902190230o6efa3ec0neabd1ad998bb62d4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <550f31d00902191841h112ffe5ex797c94afe728c141@mail.gmail.com> CALL FOR PAPERS Women In and Beyond the Global Open Access Feminist Journal (WIBG) www.wibgjournal.org WIBG, an open access, peer reviewed, online feminist journal publishes and supports work from around the globe that analyzes and works to change the status and conditions of women in global households, prisons, and cities. We publish interdisciplinary analyses, creative expressions (including film and music), reports from the field, interviews, and artworks that are committed to feminist praxis, understood as analysis and action focusing on the empowerment of women. Our aim to break down barriers between academic and activist knowledge by fueling activist scholarship; encouraging collective reflection on feminist movement-building; and documenting and preserving these activities through digital media?a critical tool in the global struggles for women's equality and the promotion of democracy. Submissions may address, but are not limited to, the following kinds of topics/questions: - Women in the global prison - Domestic work - Urbanization and women - Popular education and women - Feminization of poverty - Feminist movement building - Women and the global food crisis - Survival economies and women - Feminist analysis of global cities, prisons, and households - How globalization changes lives, including sexual lives, of women - Globalization's affective economies - Reproductive labor(s) WIBG accepts submissions on a rolling basis. We invite submissions by July 1 st for our inaugural issue. Send submissions to Dan Moshenberg, dmoshenberg at gmail.com or Cathy Eisenhower cathy.eisenhower at gmail.com. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/pipermail/interpretationandmethods/attachments/20090220/ade725e5/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CALL FOR PAPERS WIBG journal.doc Type: application/msword Size: 44544 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/pipermail/interpretationandmethods/attachments/20090220/ade725e5/attachment-0001.doc From s.stroschein at ucl.ac.uk Mon Feb 23 05:30:08 2009 From: s.stroschein at ucl.ac.uk (Sherrill Stroschein) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:30:08 +0000 Subject: [Interpretationandmethods] book announcement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49A27AB0.30706@ucl.ac.uk> Hello Lee Ann, This looks great! I assigned the Security Studies article to my students this year and they loved it. Sherrill Lee Ann Fujii wrote: > > Hi everyone: > > Thank you again for all the excellent references to sources on how to > do visual analysis. > > I also wanted to announce the release of my book entitled /Killing > neighbors,/ which takes a micro-level look at the Rwandan genocide. > There is an entire chapter on my field methods and strategies. > > Best, > > Lee Ann > > http://www.amazon.com/Killing-Neighbors-Webs-Violence-Rwanda/dp/0801447054/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234374236&sr=1-1 > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Interpretationandmethods mailing list > Interpretationandmethods at listserv.cddc.vt.edu > http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/interpretationandmethods > -- Dr. Sherrill Stroschein Lecturer (Assistant Professor) in Politics Director, MSc in Democracy and Democratization Dept. of Political Science / School of Public Policy University College London s.stroschein at ucl.ac.uk +44 (0) 20 7679 4989 http://www.ucl.ac.uk/spp/people/sherrill-stroschein From lafujii at gwu.edu Mon Feb 23 07:44:00 2009 From: lafujii at gwu.edu (Lee Ann Fujii) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 07:44:00 -0500 Subject: [Interpretationandmethods] book announcement In-Reply-To: <49A27AB0.30706@ucl.ac.uk> References: <49A27AB0.30706@ucl.ac.uk> Message-ID: Thank you so much! I'm so glad your students like that article, too. It's really heartening! Best, LAF ----- Original Message ----- From: Sherrill Stroschein Date: Monday, February 23, 2009 5:30 am Subject: Re: [Interpretationandmethods] book announcement To: interpretation and methods group > Hello Lee Ann, > > This looks great! I assigned the Security Studies article to my > students > this year and they loved it. > > Sherrill > > Lee Ann Fujii wrote: > > > > Hi everyone: > > > > Thank you again for all the excellent references to sources on how > to > > do visual analysis. > > > > I also wanted to announce the release of my book entitled /Killing > > > neighbors,/ which takes a micro-level look at the Rwandan genocide. > > > There is an entire chapter on my field methods and strategies. > > > > Best, > > > > Lee Ann > > > > > > <> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Interpretationandmethods mailing list > > Interpretationandmethods at listserv.cddc.vt.edu > > > > > > -- > Dr. Sherrill Stroschein > Lecturer (Assistant Professor) in Politics > Director, MSc in Democracy and Democratization > Dept. of Political Science / School of Public Policy > University College London > s.stroschein at ucl.ac.uk > +44 (0) 20 7679 4989 > > > _______________________________________________ > Interpretationandmethods mailing list > Interpretationandmethods at listserv.cddc.vt.edu > From lafujii at gwu.edu Mon Feb 23 07:47:59 2009 From: lafujii at gwu.edu (Lee Ann Fujii) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 07:47:59 -0500 Subject: [Interpretationandmethods] book announcement In-Reply-To: References: <49A27AB0.30706@ucl.ac.uk> Message-ID: Ah, apologies for my faux pas. I meant to reply to the sender only. LAF ----- Original Message ----- From: Lee Ann Fujii Date: Monday, February 23, 2009 7:44 am Subject: Re: [Interpretationandmethods] book announcement To: interpretation and methods group > Thank you so much! > > I'm so glad your students like that article, too. It's really heartening! > > Best, > LAF > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Sherrill Stroschein > Date: Monday, February 23, 2009 5:30 am > Subject: Re: [Interpretationandmethods] book announcement > To: interpretation and methods group > > > > Hello Lee Ann, > > > > This looks great! I assigned the Security Studies article to my > > students > > this year and they loved it. > > > > Sherrill > > > > Lee Ann Fujii wrote: > > > > > > Hi everyone: > > > > > > Thank you again for all the excellent references to sources on > how > > to > > > do visual analysis. > > > > > > I also wanted to announce the release of my book entitled > /Killing > > > > > neighbors,/ which takes a micro-level look at the Rwandan > genocide. > > > > > There is an entire chapter on my field methods and strategies. > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Lee Ann > > > > > > > > > <> > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Interpretationandmethods mailing list > > > Interpretationandmethods at listserv.cddc.vt.edu > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Dr. Sherrill Stroschein > > Lecturer (Assistant Professor) in Politics > > Director, MSc in Democracy and Democratization > > Dept. of Political Science / School of Public Policy > > University College London > > s.stroschein at ucl.ac.uk > > +44 (0) 20 7679 4989 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Interpretationandmethods mailing list > > Interpretationandmethods at listserv.cddc.vt.edu > > > _______________________________________________ > Interpretationandmethods mailing list > Interpretationandmethods at listserv.cddc.vt.edu > From manecas_43 at yahoo.co.uk Mon Feb 23 10:20:33 2009 From: manecas_43 at yahoo.co.uk (Fernando Aragon) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 07:20:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Interpretationandmethods] book announcement References: <49A27AB0.30706@ucl.ac.uk> Message-ID: <906913.18662.qm@web24701.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Ne te preocupe pas pour?ton faux pas Fernando ? ________________________________ From: Lee Ann Fujii To: interpretation and methods group Sent: Monday, 23 February, 2009 6:47:59 Subject: Re: [Interpretationandmethods] book announcement Ah, apologies for my faux pas. I meant to reply to the sender only. LAF ----- Original Message ----- From: Lee Ann Fujii Date: Monday, February 23, 2009 7:44 am Subject: Re: [Interpretationandmethods] book announcement To: interpretation and methods group > Thank you so much! >? >? I'm so glad your students like that article, too. It's really heartening! >? >? Best, >? LAF >? >? ----- Original Message ----- >? From: Sherrill Stroschein >? Date: Monday, February 23, 2009 5:30 am >? Subject: Re: [Interpretationandmethods] book announcement >? To: interpretation and methods group >? >? >? > Hello Lee Ann, >? >? >? >? This looks great! I assigned the Security Studies article to my >? > students >? >? this year and they loved it. >? >? >? >? Sherrill >? >? >? >? Lee Ann Fujii wrote: >? >? > >? >? > Hi everyone: >? >? > >? >? > Thank you again for all the excellent references to sources on > how >? > to >? >? > do visual analysis. >? >? > >? >? > I also wanted to announce the release of my book entitled > /Killing >? > >? >? > neighbors,/ which takes a micro-level look at the Rwandan > genocide. >? > >? >? > There is an entire chapter on my field methods and strategies. >? >? > >? >? > Best, >? >? > >? >? > Lee Ann >? >? > >? >? >? >? >? > <> >? >? > >? >? > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >? >? > >? >? > _______________________________________________ >? >? > Interpretationandmethods mailing list >? >? > Interpretationandmethods at listserv.cddc.vt.edu >? >? > >? >? >? >? >? >? >? -- >? >? Dr. Sherrill Stroschein >? >? Lecturer (Assistant Professor) in Politics >? >? Director, MSc in Democracy and Democratization >? >? Dept. of Political Science / School of Public Policy >? >? University College London >? >? s.stroschein at ucl.ac.uk >? >? +44 (0) 20 7679 4989 >? >? >? >? >? >? _______________________________________________ >? >? Interpretationandmethods mailing list >? >? Interpretationandmethods at listserv.cddc.vt.edu >? >? >? _______________________________________________ >? Interpretationandmethods mailing list >? Interpretationandmethods at listserv.cddc.vt.edu >? _______________________________________________ Interpretationandmethods mailing list Interpretationandmethods at listserv.cddc.vt.edu http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/interpretationandmethods -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/pipermail/interpretationandmethods/attachments/20090223/42ecedc2/attachment.html From D.Yanow at fsw.vu.nl Mon Feb 23 11:11:51 2009 From: D.Yanow at fsw.vu.nl (Dvora Yanow) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 17:11:51 +0100 Subject: [Interpretationandmethods] Visiting Scholar position on equality and antidiscrimination-related issues at Sciences Po Paris Message-ID: <5286BEEC21FADA47A24AA92D8BC9270E01FBBEE2@fswmail01.scw.vu.nl> This may be a bit off-topic, but I know several people on this list do related research.... With apologies to others, Dvora Yanow -------- Message original -------- Sujet : Call for applications Date : Wed, 7 May 2008 15:12:11 De : Daniel Sabbagh Pour : sabbagh at ceri-sciences-po.org Copie ? : A call for applications to a Visiting Scholar position on equality and antidiscrimination-related issues at Sciences Po, Paris. Best regards, Dr. Daniel Sabbagh Senior Research Fellow CERI-Sciences Po *"Equality of **Opportunity**" Scholar-in-Residency for an American Scholar* *at Sciences **Po** **Paris*** *Call-for-applications for the 2009-2010 academic year* The French-American Foundation and Sciences Po Paris, one of France's leading graduate schools, are seeking candidates for the position of scholar-in-residence on the theme of "Equality of Opportunity" for six to eight weeks during the 2009-2010 academic year (dates to be determined by the scholar and Sciences Po). This scholar-in-residency will share pioneering American scholarship on pro-equality and anti-discrimination policies, and explore policy implications of the research in a French context. The resident scholar will be asked to: - present several seminars to scholars and students at Sciences Po and other higher learning institutions; speak in conferences designed for a broader audience to include policy-makers, thought-leaders and other key stakeholders in the field of civil rights and anti-discrimination. - write an article, to be translated into French and published in France, on an area of cutting-edge research related to the theme of "equality of opportunity." Ideally, the article would include a review of existing U.S. research on the topic in the selected field and examine potential policy implications of that research within a French/ EU context. Candidates should hold a doctoral degree in a discipline such as law, philosophy, one of the social sciences, management, or public policy - and have a strong research interest in anti-discrimination and/or equality-related issues. No prior knowledge of French is required; however, preference will be given to candidates with an interest in understanding the potential applicability of U.S. research within the French political and legal framework. Applicants should submit a statement of interest, a curriculum vitae and a short biography, as well as a pr?cis of the article they propose to write for publication in France (half a page to a page). *The application deadline is **May 1, 2009**. Applications and questions should be sent to both Marie Mercat-Bruns, Director of Sciences Po's Centre des Am?riques at marie.mercatbruns at sciences-po.fr, and I oanna Kohler, Program Director at the French-American Foundation, at ikohler at frenchamerican.org. For more details, please visit: www.frenchamerican.org/cms/sir-applications* > About Sciences Po Paris > ** > Founded in 1872, Sciences Po Paris is one of the most prestigious > higher education institutions in France and is the training ground for > France's political and business leaders. Sciences Po is a founding > partner of the Alliance program at Columbia University and a member of > several international associations, including the AACSB (American > Association of Collegiate Schools of Business), AMBA (Association of > MBAs), and APSIA (Association of Professional Schools of International > Affairs).Sciences Po was the first prestigious French higher learning > institution to promote diversity in its student body. > > > *About the French-American Foundation > * > Founded in 1976, the French-American Foundation advances the dialogue > between France and the United States by bringing together key > policymakers, academics, business leaders and other prominent > individuals from both countries to exchange ideas and share best > practices. To fulfill its mission, the French-American Foundation > creates multi-year thematic programs, holds conferences, organizes > exchanges and produces publications. Launched in 2006 with major > funding from the Ford Foundation, the French-American Foundation > Equality of Opportunityprogram is designed to promote a high-level > bilateral exchange about antidiscrimination and pro-equality policies > and to foster policy innovation in France and the United States. From D.Yanow at fsw.vu.nl Tue Feb 24 06:52:56 2009 From: D.Yanow at fsw.vu.nl (Dvora Yanow) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:52:56 +0100 Subject: [Interpretationandmethods] FW: Call for papers Message-ID: <5286BEEC21FADA47A24AA92D8BC9270E01FBBF05@fswmail01.scw.vu.nl> fyi: CALL FOR PAPERS Politics and the Unconscious Special Issue of Subjectivity www.palgrave-journals.com/sub Guest Editors Jason Glynos (University of Essex, UK) & Yannis Stavrakakis (Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece) The special issue aims to explore the unconscious dimension in politics, whether in the context of political practice or political theory. Of particular interest is the question of how to conceptualise the relationship between the unconscious and political subjectivity. It is often remarked that in politics much of importance takes place below the radar. ‘Dog whistle politics’, ‘tacit knowledge’, ‘complicity’, and ‘surmise’ are just some of the terms used to capture such silent or unofficial processes which, however, are central to our understanding of official political practices. The concept of the ‘unconscious’ registers this dimension of politics and there are many ways it can be understood, theorised, and operationalised for purposes of empirical analysis. The special issue will include an extended interview with Professor Ernesto Laclau, whose aim is to probe the role that Lacanian psychoanalysis plays in his recent work in political theory. But we strongly encourage the submission of papers which explore the unconscious dimension of politics from alternative psychoanalytic perspectives, as well as social-psychological and other perspectives. Possible themes include: ● the unconscious and its relation to political subjectivity ● the role the unconscious and cognate concepts can or should play in political theory and analysis ● reflection on the historical and/or contemporary use of psychoanalysis in the study of politics ● the unconscious in critical social and political psychology ● the role of stereotypes in relation to the unconscious ● ideological critique ● hegemony and post-hegemony ● theories of freedom and emancipation ● theories of justice and principles of distribution ● the political economy ● processes of policy formulation and implementation ● economic policy, wealth, and happiness ● utopian thought ● theories of democracy and post-democracy ● the politics of consumption ● general methodological and epistemological issues concerning the use of the unconscious (or cognate terms) to political studies, eg., what can or should qualify as evidence of the unconscious in social and political life ● the unconscious at the intersection of media and politics ● the tenability and significance of drawing a distinction between the individual and collective unconscious ● different perspectives on the unconscious and their comparative/contrastive significance for understanding political processes ● the differential implications for political theory and analysis of subscribing to different psychoanalytic frameworks ● the character and modalities of political discourse ● discourse and affect in processes of identification ● fantasy and political subjectivity ● the political constitution of groups and institutions ● social and political identification in organizations We encourage papers which explore any of these or other politically-inflected themes from the point of view of the unconscious or related concepts. Theoretically-informed empirical studies are particularly welcome. Send expressions of interest with short proposal for possible contributions to yanstavr at yahoo.co.uk by 16 March 2009. Once a proposal is accepted authors will be asked to submit full papers by 20 July 2009. Full papers will then go through the standard peer-review process. Author guidelines can be found at http://www.palgrave-journals.com/sub/author_instructions.html The call for papers can also be found at http://www.palgrave-journals.com/sub/call_for_papers.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CALL FOR PAPERS -- Politics and the Unconscious -- final.doc Type: application/msword Size: 38400 bytes Desc: CALL FOR PAPERS -- Politics and the Unconscious -- final.doc Url : http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/pipermail/interpretationandmethods/attachments/20090224/7c53ab4d/attachment-0001.doc From D.Yanow at fsw.vu.nl Tue Feb 24 09:04:57 2009 From: D.Yanow at fsw.vu.nl (Dvora Yanow) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:04:57 +0100 Subject: [Interpretationandmethods] FW: Theory and Philosophy Summer School Message-ID: <5286BEEC21FADA47A24AA92D8BC9270E01FBBF22@fswmail01.scw.vu.nl> fyi... Theory and Philosophy Summer School 4-8 May 2009 Organised by the School of Sociology and Philosophy, University College Cork The Theory and Philosophy Summer School is an intensive course in theories, concepts and methods of inquiry designed for the needs of postgraduate students & researchers, especially doctoral candidates, in the Arts, Humanities, & Social Sciences, from universities throughout Ireland, Europe and North America who are developing theoretical and interpretive paradigms for their research. This year's School will explore notions of value. All researchers import conceptions of value to their work, whether this is in their 'work ethic', in their understanding of what is of value in their field, or in their conceptions of social or other value that motivate their inquiries and analysis. By introducing students to the foundational commitments of research methodologies and paradigms, students of TAPSS will better understand the conceptions of value that are in play in their own research. TAPSS offers a course of study in the methods and theory of 'value' as relevant to all researchers of the human sciences (Arts, Social Sciences, and Humanities). Building on classical and contemporary thought in philosophy and sociology, the TAPSS is strongly interdisciplinary, drawing from theories, methods and perspectives across the entire spectrum of these theoretical disciplines. Detailed programme information can be found at www.tapss.ie Location: Blackwater Castle, Cork Ireland Teaching Staff: School of Philosophy & Sociology, National University of Ireland, Cork (UCC), plus international guests. ECTS: 5 credits (with an option for 10) Fees: 300 Euro The package includes accommodation, breakfast and lunch for 5 days, all lectures, seminars, readings and course materials, and an end of school dinner. Scholarships: Ten bursaries of 300 Euro are available Application deadline: March 31st, 2009 Applicants should send a letter of application by email to the address below indicating their institutional affiliation, research interests, and an outline of how they see TAPSS contributing to their doctoral education. This should be supported by a letter of recommendation from their supervisor. Applications and inquiries to: admin at tapss.ie TAPSS is funded by the Irish Research Council for the Humanities & Social Sciences http://www.irchss.ie/ and is in association with the Irish Social Sciences Platform http://www.issplatform.ie/index.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/pipermail/interpretationandmethods/attachments/20090224/9cecb45f/attachment.html From B.Hendrikx at fm.ru.nl Thu Feb 26 03:03:40 2009 From: B.Hendrikx at fm.ru.nl (Bas Hendrikx) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:03:40 +0100 Subject: [Interpretationandmethods] Workshops & lectures with Jacob Torfing at Nijmegen University, The Netherlands Message-ID: <29bbd09f0902260003s1cf75da5n7ed269087a1e1421@mail.gmail.com> *Apologies for cross-postings *** ANNOUNCEMENT: 17 - 19 March Lectures &^Workshops with Prof Jacob Torfing ** Dear All, *From March 17th until March 19th*, we are happy to welcome *Prof. Jacob Torfing* from Roskilde University as our guest in Nijmegen. Torfing is a specialist on post-structuralist discourse theory, with a strong interest in different forms of governance. In his *Von Humboldt lecture* (Tuesday March 17th, 17:30-19:30, Thomas van Aquinostraat 2.0.13, Nijmegen University campus, the Netherlands), Torfing raises the question of *how to measure and improve the democratic anchorage of governance networks*. Increasingly, governance through hierarchies and markets is supplemented by governance through different kinds of networks that brings together public and private actors. The second generation of governance network research aims to assess the normative and political impact of these networks, and to improve their functioning. A tool provided in this respect is the concept of 'democratic anchorage'. The lecture will explain the notion of democratic anchorage, demonstrate how it can be used in empirical studies, and reflect on how politicians, public managers and other metagovernors can help to improve the democratic quality of interactive modes of networks governance. On Wednesday March 18th (10:00-12:30, Nijmegen University campus), a *PhD seminar* is scheduled. Here, Jacob Torfing shall first give a short presentation on '*Discourse models in policy*'. Afterwards, several PhD students will present their own work upon which Jacob Torfing will reflect. If you want to participate in the seminar (or if you want to give a presentation on your own work) please send an e-mail to k.varro at fm.ru.nl. Finally, on Thursday March 19th (10:45-12:30, Nijmegen University, Nijmegen University campus), there is a Research Seminar on the topic of '*Poststructuralist discourse theory and how to compensate the neglect of method*'. As this has been a recurring issue within our group, we hope for a lively debate after an introductory talk by our guest. Please let us know if you want to participate in this workshop (k.varro at fm.ru.nl). We are still glad to accept registrations for both the PhD and the Research Seminar (please write to k.varro at fm.ru.nl in that case). If you intend to participate in the PhD Seminar, please let us know whether you would like to present a paper (papers should ideally briefly describe the PhD project (2-3 pages) and then raise some methodological questions about how to do discourse analysis (2-3 pages)). For more info on the individual program items, please consult our website http://socgeo.ruhosting.nl/content/currentprogramme.html. or send me an e-mail Again, we are looking forward to your participation. Best, Bas Hendrikx -- Bas Hendrikx PhD Candidate Research program "Governance and Places" dept. Human Geography and Spatial Planning Thomas van Aquinostraat 3.2.14 Radboud University Nijmegen P.O.Box 9108, 6500 HK Nijmegen, The Netherlands Tel. +31-(0)24-3613055 Fax +31-(0)24-3611841 Personal Homepage http://www.ru.nl/fm/hendrikx E-mail address: b.hendrikx at fm.ru.nl -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/pipermail/interpretationandmethods/attachments/20090226/165f60d9/attachment.html From sule.sanchez at gmail.com Thu Feb 26 13:15:09 2009 From: sule.sanchez at gmail.com (Suzanne Levi-Sanchez) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:15:09 -0500 Subject: [Interpretationandmethods] Question about theory... Message-ID: Hi All, I am a PhD candidate at Rutgers. If anybody has any advice about a question I have, I would really appreciate it: What theory is better for prediction and or analysis then game theory? I have my own thoughts but am being trumped by a department that seems to be embracing game theory more and more!! Thank you for your time in advance. susi On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 9:04 AM, Dvora Yanow wrote: > fyi? > > *Theory and Philosophy Summer School* > > *4-8 May 2009* > > *Organised by the School of Sociology and Philosophy, University College > Cork* > > > > The Theory and Philosophy Summer School is an intensive course in theories, > concepts and methods of inquiry designed for the needs of postgraduate > students & researchers, especially doctoral candidates, in the Arts, > Humanities, & Social Sciences, from universities throughout Ireland, Europe > and North America who are developing theoretical and interpretive paradigms > for their research. > > This year's School will explore notions of value. All researchers import > conceptions of value to their work, whether this is in their ?work ethic?, > in their understanding of what is of value in their field, or in their > conceptions of social or other value that motivate their inquiries and > analysis. By introducing students to the foundational commitments of > research methodologies and paradigms, students of TAPSS will better > understand the conceptions of value that are in play in their own research. > TAPSS offers a course of study in the methods and theory of ?value? as > relevant to all researchers of the human sciences (Arts, Social Sciences, > and Humanities). Building on classical and contemporary thought in > philosophy and sociology, the TAPSS is strongly interdisciplinary, drawing > from theories, methods and perspectives across the entire spectrum of these > theoretical disciplines. > > > > Detailed programme information can* *be found at www.tapss.ie > > > > > > *Location: *Blackwater Castle, Cork Ireland > > * * > > *Teaching Staff: *School of Philosophy & Sociology, National University of > Ireland, Cork (UCC), plus international guests. > > > > *ECTS:* 5 credits (with an option for 10) > > > > *Fees:* 300 Euro > > The package includes accommodation, breakfast and lunch for 5 days, all > lectures, seminars, readings and course materials, and an end of school > dinner. > > > > *Scholarships:* Ten bursaries of 300 Euro are available > > > > *Application deadline: March 31st**, **2009* > > * * > > Applicants should send a letter of application by email to the address > below indicating their institutional affiliation, research interests, and an > outline of how they see TAPSS contributing to their doctoral education. > This should be supported by a letter of recommendation from their > supervisor. > > * * > > *Applications and inquiries to: admin at tapss.ie* > > * * > > TAPSS is funded by the Irish Research Council for the Humanities & Social > Sciences http://www.irchss.ie/ and is in association with the Irish Social > Sciences Platform* *http://www.issplatform.ie/index.html > > > > _______________________________________________ > Interpretationandmethods mailing list > Interpretationandmethods at listserv.cddc.vt.edu > http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/interpretationandmethods > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/pipermail/interpretationandmethods/attachments/20090226/1520275d/attachment-0001.html From D.Yanow at fsw.vu.nl Thu Feb 26 13:26:45 2009 From: D.Yanow at fsw.vu.nl (Dvora Yanow) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:26:45 +0100 Subject: [Interpretationandmethods] Question about theory... References: Message-ID: <5286BEEC21FADA47A24AA92D8BC9270E028A3940@fswmail01.scw.vu.nl> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/pipermail/interpretationandmethods/attachments/20090226/6c215644/attachment.html From sule.sanchez at gmail.com Thu Feb 26 13:32:32 2009 From: sule.sanchez at gmail.com (Suzanne Levi-Sanchez) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:32:32 -0500 Subject: [Interpretationandmethods] Question about theory... In-Reply-To: <5286BEEC21FADA47A24AA92D8BC9270E028A3940@fswmail01.scw.vu.nl> References: <5286BEEC21FADA47A24AA92D8BC9270E028A3940@fswmail01.scw.vu.nl> Message-ID: This was an abstract question posed by one of my professors. I, personally, am trying to understand how myths and folktales inform political rhetoric in a two countries. I am looking at how messages are sent, what the messages are, and how they are received. I would use an interpretive methodolgy -- constructivist -- some form of CDA and not use game theory. If I wanted to know how political rhetoric was more symbolically resonant in a particular culture how would my way be more useful than, let's say, the way O'Neill tracks honor in a game theoretic model? Does that clarify a little bit? On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Dvora Yanow wrote: > Oh my. > > Before lots of people rush to answer in the abstract, can you say something > about what it is you want to predict? and why? > > Ditto in re. what you want to analyze. And can you explain why you link > prediction and analysis here? Maybe you just meant it as a general inquiry, > but it would help me think about it if I knew more. > > Best, > Dvora Yanow > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: interpretationandmethods-bounces at malagigi.cddc.vt.edu on behalf of > Suzanne Levi-Sanchez > Sent: Thu 26-Feb-09 19:15 > To: interpretation and methods group > Subject: [Interpretationandmethods] Question about theory... > > Hi All, > > I am a PhD candidate at Rutgers. If anybody has any advice about a > question > I have, I would really appreciate it: > > What theory is better for prediction and or analysis then game theory? I > have my own thoughts but am being trumped by a department that seems to be > embracing game theory more and more!! > > Thank you for your time in advance. > > susi > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 9:04 AM, Dvora Yanow wrote: > > > fyi. > > > > *Theory and Philosophy Summer School* > > > > *4-8 May 2009* > > > > *Organised by the School of Sociology and Philosophy, University College > > Cork* > > > > > > > > The Theory and Philosophy Summer School is an intensive course in > theories, > > concepts and methods of inquiry designed for the needs of postgraduate > > students & researchers, especially doctoral candidates, in the Arts, > > Humanities, & Social Sciences, from universities throughout Ireland, > Europe > > and North America who are developing theoretical and interpretive > paradigms > > for their research. > > > > This year's School will explore notions of value. All researchers import > > conceptions of value to their work, whether this is in their 'work > ethic', > > in their understanding of what is of value in their field, or in their > > conceptions of social or other value that motivate their inquiries and > > analysis. By introducing students to the foundational commitments of > > research methodologies and paradigms, students of TAPSS will better > > understand the conceptions of value that are in play in their own > research. > > TAPSS offers a course of study in the methods and theory of 'value' as > > relevant to all researchers of the human sciences (Arts, Social Sciences, > > and Humanities). Building on classical and contemporary thought in > > philosophy and sociology, the TAPSS is strongly interdisciplinary, > drawing > > from theories, methods and perspectives across the entire spectrum of > these > > theoretical disciplines. > > > > > > > > Detailed programme information can* *be found at www.tapss.ie > > > > > > > > > > > > *Location: *Blackwater Castle, Cork Ireland > > > > * * > > > > *Teaching Staff: *School of Philosophy & Sociology, National University > of > > Ireland, Cork (UCC), plus international guests. > > > > > > > > *ECTS:* 5 credits (with an option for 10) > > > > > > > > *Fees:* 300 Euro > > > > The package includes accommodation, breakfast and lunch for 5 days, all > > lectures, seminars, readings and course materials, and an end of school > > dinner. > > > > > > > > *Scholarships:* Ten bursaries of 300 Euro are available > > > > > > > > *Application deadline: March 31st**, **2009* > > > > * * > > > > Applicants should send a letter of application by email to the address > > below indicating their institutional affiliation, research interests, and > an > > outline of how they see TAPSS contributing to their doctoral education. > > This should be supported by a letter of recommendation from their > > supervisor. > > > > * * > > > > *Applications and inquiries to: admin at tapss.ie* > > > > * * > > > > TAPSS is funded by the Irish Research Council for the Humanities & Social > > Sciences http://www.irchss.ie/ and is in association with the Irish > Social > > Sciences Platform* *http://www.issplatform.ie/index.html > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Interpretationandmethods mailing list > > Interpretationandmethods at listserv.cddc.vt.edu > > http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/interpretationandmethods > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Interpretationandmethods mailing list > Interpretationandmethods at listserv.cddc.vt.edu > http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/interpretationandmethods > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/pipermail/interpretationandmethods/attachments/20090226/eba996a2/attachment.html From vpdrul at essex.ac.uk Thu Feb 26 18:32:43 2009 From: vpdrul at essex.ac.uk (Druliolle, Vincent P) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 23:32:43 -0000 Subject: [Interpretationandmethods] Visual Analysis Message-ID: <7AC902A40BEDD411A3A800D0B7847B661C7F76D7@sernt14.essex.ac.uk> Hi everyone I'm a final year PhD candidate at the University of Essex, Department of Government. My work is on commemorative practices in post-authoritarian Argentina, and that's how I came to be interested in questions of images and the visual and politics. So I felt maybe I could add a few suggestions about some material I am familiar with. The analysis of photographs is highly indebted to Barthes and tends to be a distinct part of visual analysis, whether or not it is a good thing. A pretty influential study is Marianne Hirsch's Family Frames: Photography, Narrative, and Postmemory (Harvard University Press, 1997). I am more familiar with the kind of photos that political research has been interested in, namely photojournalism. A recent study is No Caption Needed. Iconic Photographs, Public Culture, and Liberal Democracy, by Hariman and Lucaites (Uni Chicago, 2007). An excellent introduction to the various theoretical frameworks for the analysis of a range of visual materials has already been mentioned, it is Rose's Visual Methodologies (there is a revised edition, 2007). Another useful text is Moxey (2008), 'Visual Studies and the Iconic Turn', Journal of Visual Culture, Vol. 7, No. 2: pp. 131-46. There is also a special issue of Forum: Qualitative Social Research (2008, Vol. 9, No. 3) on visual studies: http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/issue/view/11 I would actually like to take this opportunity to ask for some advice. I was wondering if you may have any sources to recommend on the study of political cartoons? Any suggestion would be greatly appreciated!! Best VincenT. From sule.sanchez at gmail.com Thu Feb 26 22:24:19 2009 From: sule.sanchez at gmail.com (Suzanne Levi-Sanchez) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 22:24:19 -0500 Subject: [Interpretationandmethods] Question about theory... In-Reply-To: References: <5286BEEC21FADA47A24AA92D8BC9270E028A3940@fswmail01.scw.vu.nl> Message-ID: Perhaps I still didn't make myself clear... What can interpretive methods answer that game theory can't? On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Suzanne Levi-Sanchez < sule.sanchez at gmail.com> wrote: > This was an abstract question posed by one of my professors. I, > personally, am trying to understand how myths and folktales inform political > rhetoric in a two countries. I am looking at how messages are sent, what > the messages are, and how they are received. I would use an interpretive > methodolgy -- constructivist -- some form of CDA and not use game theory. > If I wanted to know how political rhetoric was more symbolically resonant in > a particular culture how would my way be more useful than, let's say, the > way O'Neill tracks honor in a game theoretic model? > > Does that clarify a little bit? > > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Dvora Yanow wrote: > >> Oh my. >> >> Before lots of people rush to answer in the abstract, can you say >> something about what it is you want to predict? and why? >> >> Ditto in re. what you want to analyze. And can you explain why you link >> prediction and analysis here? Maybe you just meant it as a general inquiry, >> but it would help me think about it if I knew more. >> >> Best, >> Dvora Yanow >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: interpretationandmethods-bounces at malagigi.cddc.vt.edu on behalf of >> Suzanne Levi-Sanchez >> Sent: Thu 26-Feb-09 19:15 >> To: interpretation and methods group >> Subject: [Interpretationandmethods] Question about theory... >> >> Hi All, >> >> I am a PhD candidate at Rutgers. If anybody has any advice about a >> question >> I have, I would really appreciate it: >> >> What theory is better for prediction and or analysis then game theory? I >> have my own thoughts but am being trumped by a department that seems to be >> embracing game theory more and more!! >> >> Thank you for your time in advance. >> >> susi >> >> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 9:04 AM, Dvora Yanow wrote: >> >> > fyi. >> > >> > *Theory and Philosophy Summer School* >> > >> > *4-8 May 2009* >> > >> > *Organised by the School of Sociology and Philosophy, University College >> > Cork* >> > >> > >> > >> > The Theory and Philosophy Summer School is an intensive course in >> theories, >> > concepts and methods of inquiry designed for the needs of postgraduate >> > students & researchers, especially doctoral candidates, in the Arts, >> > Humanities, & Social Sciences, from universities throughout Ireland, >> Europe >> > and North America who are developing theoretical and interpretive >> paradigms >> > for their research. >> > >> > This year's School will explore notions of value. All researchers import >> > conceptions of value to their work, whether this is in their 'work >> ethic', >> > in their understanding of what is of value in their field, or in their >> > conceptions of social or other value that motivate their inquiries and >> > analysis. By introducing students to the foundational commitments of >> > research methodologies and paradigms, students of TAPSS will better >> > understand the conceptions of value that are in play in their own >> research. >> > TAPSS offers a course of study in the methods and theory of 'value' as >> > relevant to all researchers of the human sciences (Arts, Social >> Sciences, >> > and Humanities). Building on classical and contemporary thought in >> > philosophy and sociology, the TAPSS is strongly interdisciplinary, >> drawing >> > from theories, methods and perspectives across the entire spectrum of >> these >> > theoretical disciplines. >> > >> > >> > >> > Detailed programme information can* *be found at www.tapss.ie >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > *Location: *Blackwater Castle, Cork Ireland >> > >> > * * >> > >> > *Teaching Staff: *School of Philosophy & Sociology, National University >> of >> > Ireland, Cork (UCC), plus international guests. >> > >> > >> > >> > *ECTS:* 5 credits (with an option for 10) >> > >> > >> > >> > *Fees:* 300 Euro >> > >> > The package includes accommodation, breakfast and lunch for 5 days, all >> > lectures, seminars, readings and course materials, and an end of school >> > dinner. >> > >> > >> > >> > *Scholarships:* Ten bursaries of 300 Euro are available >> > >> > >> > >> > *Application deadline: March 31st**, **2009* >> > >> > * * >> > >> > Applicants should send a letter of application by email to the address >> > below indicating their institutional affiliation, research interests, >> and an >> > outline of how they see TAPSS contributing to their doctoral education. >> > This should be supported by a letter of recommendation from their >> > supervisor. >> > >> > * * >> > >> > *Applications and inquiries to: admin at tapss.ie* >> > >> > * * >> > >> > TAPSS is funded by the Irish Research Council for the Humanities & >> Social >> > Sciences http://www.irchss.ie/ and is in association with the Irish >> Social >> > Sciences Platform* *http://www.issplatform.ie/index.html >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Interpretationandmethods mailing list >> > Interpretationandmethods at listserv.cddc.vt.edu >> > http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/interpretationandmethods >> > >> > >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Interpretationandmethods mailing list >> Interpretationandmethods at listserv.cddc.vt.edu >> http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/interpretationandmethods >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/pipermail/interpretationandmethods/attachments/20090226/63b3bb38/attachment-0001.html From psshea at csbs.utah.edu Fri Feb 27 17:39:41 2009 From: psshea at csbs.utah.edu (psshea at csbs.utah.edu) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:39:41 -0700 Subject: [Interpretationandmethods] game theory Message-ID: <20090227153941.iz2ea17xbc4o8okg@webmail.csbs.utah.edu> Suzanne Levi-Sanchez, "What can interpretive methods answer that game theory can't?" This is a big question. In brief, game theory makes assumptions about motivations and about how people "see" their world. So the game theorist posits that actors are playing a particular game, chicken or some form of the prisoners' dilemma. But how does the game theorist know that actors "see" the game that he or she posits? In contrast, interpretive methodologies ask directly about human meaning making rather than assuming how people see their worlds. I used to do game-theoretic experiments but all my published results ended up showing the ways in which game theory was not particularly useful! So, see, e.g., ?Egoism, Universalism and Parochialism: Experimental Evidence from the Layered Prisoners' Dilemma,? with Randy Simmons, Rationality and Society, 1991, 3 (1), 106-132. And my last piece using game theory: ?Theorizing Gender for Experimental, Game Theory: Experiments with 'Sex Status' and 'Merit Status' in an Asymmetric Game,? Sex Roles, 2002, 47, (7/8), 301-319. Peri S-S -- Peregrine Schwartz-Shea Professor University of Utah Political Science Department 260 South Central Campus Drive Rm 252 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-9152 (801) 581-6300 phone mail psshea at poli-sci.utah.edu From sule.sanchez at gmail.com Fri Feb 27 23:08:48 2009 From: sule.sanchez at gmail.com (Suzanne Levi-Sanchez) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 23:08:48 -0500 Subject: [Interpretationandmethods] game theory In-Reply-To: <20090227153941.iz2ea17xbc4o8okg@webmail.csbs.utah.edu> References: <20090227153941.iz2ea17xbc4o8okg@webmail.csbs.utah.edu> Message-ID: Dear Professor Schwartz-Shea, Thank you!!! I will read the articles. You have written largely what I have tried to argue but not as coherently as you did below! In essence, game theory attempts to clarify intentions while game theory attempts to clarify competing preferences and assumes knowledge of intentions? Again, thank you for taking the time to respond to my rather obnoxiously large question. Kindest of Regards, Susi On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 5:39 PM, wrote: > Suzanne Levi-Sanchez, > > "What can interpretive methods answer that game theory can't?" This > is a big question. > > In brief, game theory makes assumptions about motivations and about > how people "see" their world. So the game theorist posits that actors > are playing a particular game, chicken or some form of the prisoners' > dilemma. But how does the game theorist know that actors "see" the > game that he or she posits? > > In contrast, interpretive methodologies ask directly about human > meaning making rather than assuming how people see their worlds. I > used to do game-theoretic experiments but all my published results > ended up showing the ways in which game theory was not particularly > useful! > > So, see, e.g., > > ?Egoism, Universalism and Parochialism: Experimental Evidence from the > Layered Prisoners' Dilemma,? with Randy Simmons, Rationality and > Society, 1991, 3 (1), 106-132. > > And my last piece using game theory: > ?Theorizing Gender for Experimental, Game Theory: Experiments with > 'Sex Status' and 'Merit Status' in an Asymmetric Game,? Sex Roles, > 2002, 47, (7/8), 301-319. > > Peri S-S > > > -- > Peregrine Schwartz-Shea > Professor > > University of Utah > Political Science Department > 260 South Central Campus Drive Rm 252 > Salt Lake City, UT 84112-9152 > > (801) 581-6300 phone mail > psshea at poli-sci.utah.edu > > > > _______________________________________________ > Interpretationandmethods mailing list > Interpretationandmethods at listserv.cddc.vt.edu > http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/interpretationandmethods > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/pipermail/interpretationandmethods/attachments/20090227/07f53464/attachment.html From patrickthaddeusjackson at gmail.com Sat Feb 28 10:45:01 2009 From: patrickthaddeusjackson at gmail.com (Patrick Thaddeus Jackson) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 10:45:01 -0500 Subject: [Interpretationandmethods] game theory In-Reply-To: References: <20090227153941.iz2ea17xbc4o8okg@webmail.csbs.utah.edu> Message-ID: Susi: Peri has actually given you the lightest, or the tamest, critique of rationalist game theory by interpretive methodologies. (That doesn't make it a bad critique, and I think that Peri is right; on the other hand, Peri's critique does leave room for rationalist game theory to operate more or less unaffected after interpretivists have clarified the meaning of the game for the participants. She lets the rationalist game theorists walk away; I prefer to go more for the jugular.) For something stronger, consider this: properly understood, which is not how most people understand it, rationalist game theory is an interpretive tool, nothing more. "Interpretive" as a methodological category subsumes rationalist game theory as one among many ways of making sense out of a situation. Consider: when one actually generates a rationalist game matrix, what one is doing is imposing a particular hermeneutic filter on a morass of empirical data. There's a "model of man" (as Donald Moon would have put it, using the quaint gendered language of the 1970s) involving rational choice, a fairly delimited series of options, and a discrete value associated with each. Properly understood, this is a highly interpretive process -- we use a spare set of assumptions to make sense of a complicated empirical situation. But this in turn means that a given game-theoretical formalization is not a falsifiable hypothesis any more than an account of a text is a "falsifiable hypothesis" about that text. Instead, both are detailed, well- supported readings. Now, in my opinion this is not a problem, epistemically speaking. It shifts the social-scientific debate between different approaches into two particular avenues. One is about the internal coherence of a particular point of view and the application of a set of conceptual tools to data to create a careful empirical account; by this standard, more internal coherence is preferable to less (but note that by "coherence" here I don't necessarily mean "abstractly formalized after the manner of a mathematical equation"; that's one kind of logical coherence, to be sure, but that certainly doesn't exhaust the category!). The other is about whether the declared values of a researcher or a perspective are adequately developed into operational conceptual tools -- for example, whether a methodological perspective that claims to preserve agency does in fact preserve agency at a methodological level. Again, the debate here is about a perspective's internal coherence; it's just that this time the coherence is between value-orientations and conceptual tools, and not just about the application or enactment of those tools to data. (And parenthetically, the problem with rationalist game theory is that it's actually micro- structuralism even as it purports to preserve choice and agency; in a well-specified rationalist game-theoretic model, actors can't choose otherwise than their preferences compel them to choose, and that to me does *not* look like a robust notion of agency. Selecting between multiple brands of toilet paper in a supermarket does not exhaust the meaning of freedom.) Both of these, I think, are the debates we ought to be having between rationalist game theory and other kinds of interpretive techniques. What is a problem, however, is the fact that most rationalist game theorists in polisci fail to properly understand the epistemic status of their own approach. They jump from "it is is possible to produce a game-theoretic formal model of this set of observed behaviors and outcomes" to "the game-theoretical formal model of this set of observed behaviors and outcomes is the best or only explanation of these data." This is silly, I think, for two reasons. First, just like with a regression analysis, one can always produce *some* kind of coefficient of covariation if one plays with the data creatively enough, so the fact that one can produce a particular kind of account says more about the researcher than it does about the phenomenon. Second, there is a world of difference -- ontological difference -- between the claim that a particular account is an accurate picture of an externally-existing mind-independent world and the claim that a particular account is an internally consistent depiction of the world. Rationalist game theory, I have suggested, is the second rather than the first, and therefore the persistence of rationalist game-theoretic accounts is not about the account having been robustly tested and having survived those tests, but is instead about a commitment to a particular style of analysis. But that commitment can't be explained as a result of the empirical successes of rationalist game-theory vis- a-vis other approaches, because rationalist game theory is no more or no less empirically successful than many other modes of analysis, at least not in terms of its internal coherence; it has to be explained in other ways, and personally I would look to social studies of science to explain that. The ability to re-code events in the language of rationalist game theory is not a vote in favor of rationalist game theory! Hence, I am always baffled by suggestions that one ought to use rationalist game theory because it's such an empirically successful approach. What's odd to me is that rationalist game theory has become, in large parts of American polisci, the baseline against which other approaches have to demonstrate their worth in order to be defensible. I understand that sociologically, but not intellectually or philosophically. The right question philosophically or intellectually, I think, is something like: what are the gains and the losses associated with (e.g.) O'Neill's account of honor -- what does it reveal and what does it obscure? But that doesn't help us discriminate between two ways to proceed: develop a more refined rationalist game- theoretic model, or go off in a different analytical direction. Here's where the issue gets sociological, since the local culture at Rutgers (like in most other places in the US) steers students towards rationalist game theory. My advice: challenge whomever gives you that advice to justify her or his preference for rationalist game theory in terms that don't presume the superiority of rationalist game theory (like mathematical formalization). I'll bet that they can't do it, unless you're talking to someone like Jim Johnson at Rochester -- who is that rare bird among rationalists who actually knows and cares about the underlying philosophy of science issues that are implicated here. And just to end on a note of praise for Peri: in some of her work she's quite convincingly shown the narrowness of methodological education among political scientists in the US, especially the virtually complete absence of philosophy of science in our curriculums. More attention to these fundamental conceptual issues might open more space for an honest discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of different methodological approaches. But in my experience, whenever I try to steer the discussion onto these grounds, people's eyes glaze over, and I suspect that this is because of graduate-school socialization and its reinforcement through the standard career path of political scientists in the US: there's little or no basic knowledge about these ontological issues and their epistemic consequences provided in graduate school, and there's little or no opportunity or encouragement to develop those competencies after getting a PhD. The whole philosophy of science debate in International Relations, for example, basically involves a dozen people, and half of them are pushing a strange (and in most cases internally incoherent) amalgam of Vienna Circle logical positivism, Popperian falsification, and quasi-Lakatosian notions about research programmes. If more people knew about and talked about these issues, maybe we wouldn't end up in these bizarre impasses where we can't have a serious discussion about diverse methodologies because, quite frankly, most of the potential participants don't have enough basic knowledge of the issues and the literature to engage in the discussion in the first place. Okay -- end of sermon. PTJ PS I would also say that there's a difference between rationalist game theory and the more evolutionary/complexity style of analysis when it comes to the coherence between value-orientations and empirical execution, although most people who use evolutionary game theory are similarly confused about the epistemic status of their models. But that's another post, or maybe a book chapter :-) On Feb 27, 2009, at 11:08 PM, Suzanne Levi-Sanchez wrote: > Dear Professor Schwartz-Shea, > > Thank you!!! I will read the articles. You have written largely > what I have tried to argue but not as coherently as you did below! > In essence, game theory attempts to clarify intentions while game > theory attempts to clarify competing preferences and assumes > knowledge of intentions? > > Again, thank you for taking the time to respond to my rather > obnoxiously large question. > > Kindest of Regards, > Susi > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 5:39 PM, wrote: > Suzanne Levi-Sanchez, > > "What can interpretive methods answer that game theory can't?" This > is a big question. > > In brief, game theory makes assumptions about motivations and about > how people "see" their world. So the game theorist posits that actors > are playing a particular game, chicken or some form of the prisoners' > dilemma. But how does the game theorist know that actors "see" the > game that he or she posits? > > In contrast, interpretive methodologies ask directly about human > meaning making rather than assuming how people see their worlds. I > used to do game-theoretic experiments but all my published results > ended up showing the ways in which game theory was not particularly > useful! > > So, see, e.g., > > ?Egoism, Universalism and Parochialism: Experimental Evidence from the > Layered Prisoners' Dilemma,? with Randy Simmons, Rationality and > Society, 1991, 3 (1), 106-132. > > And my last piece using game theory: > ?Theorizing Gender for Experimental, Game Theory: Experiments with > 'Sex Status' and 'Merit Status' in an Asymmetric Game,? Sex Roles, > 2002, 47, (7/8), 301-319. > > Peri S-S > > > -- > Peregrine Schwartz-Shea > Professor > > University of Utah > Political Science Department > 260 South Central Campus Drive Rm 252 > Salt Lake City, UT 84112-9152 > > (801) 581-6300 phone mail > psshea at poli-sci.utah.edu > > > > _______________________________________________ > Interpretationandmethods mailing list > Interpretationandmethods at listserv.cddc.vt.edu > http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/interpretationandmethods > > _______________________________________________ > Interpretationandmethods mailing list > Interpretationandmethods at listserv.cddc.vt.edu > http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/interpretationandmethods === Patrick Thaddeus Jackson Director of General Education, American University Editor-in-Chief, Journal of International Relations and Development http://profptj.blogspot.com | http://www.kittenboo.com calendar: http://ical.mac.com/onyxdr/Patrick -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/pipermail/interpretationandmethods/attachments/20090228/17a9a01e/attachment-0001.html From D.Yanow at fsw.vu.nl Sat Feb 28 13:54:05 2009 From: D.Yanow at fsw.vu.nl (Dvora Yanow) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 19:54:05 +0100 Subject: [Interpretationandmethods] game theory References: <20090227153941.iz2ea17xbc4o8okg@webmail.csbs.utah.edu> Message-ID: <5286BEEC21FADA47A24AA92D8BC9270E028A3967@fswmail01.scw.vu.nl> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/pipermail/interpretationandmethods/attachments/20090228/03a03ee5/attachment.html From patrickthaddeusjackson at gmail.com Sat Feb 28 14:49:48 2009 From: patrickthaddeusjackson at gmail.com (Patrick Thaddeus Jackson) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 14:49:48 -0500 Subject: [Interpretationandmethods] game theory In-Reply-To: <5286BEEC21FADA47A24AA92D8BC9270E028A3967@fswmail01.scw.vu.nl> References: <20090227153941.iz2ea17xbc4o8okg@webmail.csbs.utah.edu> <5286BEEC21FADA47A24AA92D8BC9270E028A3967@fswmail01.scw.vu.nl> Message-ID: <885A9E9F-BC14-4743-99BC-17BFD1515836@gmail.com> Good question. Briefly: I think you are conflating interpretive methods and a broadly interpretive methodology here. Interpretive methods, or what I would be more comfortable referring to as "ethnographic" or "participant-observation" methods, insist that we enter the lifeworld of our informants and see things from their point of view, at least to begin with. Interpretive methodology, or what I would be more comfortable referring to as a monistic philosophical ontology, insists that producers of knowledge are not constitutively separate from their objects of knowledge, but are co-constituted with the through the hermeneutic circle and other kinds of mutual implication of subject and object. Rationalist game theory, properly understood, would be a kind of interpretive methodology, although it would certainly not be an example of interpretive methods. Now, admittedly, few if any rationalist game theorists would accept this, because most of them are unreflective neopositivists who are quite unconcerned about the fact that they both loudly proclaim the value of hypothesis-testing and engage in a process of structured interpretation when building their models, and then shift epistemic standards depending on their audience or the particular critique that they are fielding. (It's all about falsification until one starts to question rational-actor assumptions; then quite suddenly these become ideal-typical or analytical or instrumental, in complete contradiction to what these same theorists were arguing a moment before.) This is a logical problem, since if the truth of a model is about its internal consistency, then any apparent empirical correspondence can be nothing but a epistemological side-show -- and vice versa. But almost one one doing rationalist theory -- Jon Elster is one notable exception here, and Russell Hardin might agree -- gets the fact that rationalist game theory is an interpretive practice. Like you I don't find much of value in rationalist game-theoretic modeling exercises, in part because I don't buy the value-commitment at its core. But that's a question of ethics and morality rather than a question of the epistemic status of the enterprise. The one place where I think that such an analysis has merit is in a relatively closed interaction-system characterized by limited signaling and effectively fixed actors, environments, and rules -- like driving on the highway. But most of social life doesn't look like that to me, and ethically speaking I would strenuously resist the effort to make social life like that by presuming that it already is and building models on that basis. Naturalizing selfishness does not seem like a good way to go as far as I am concerned; many rationalists would disagree with me on ethical grounds, but that's a different kind of argument altogether, one in principle unresolvable with recourse to empirics. Human beings as meaning-makers is, then, an alternative hermeneutic starting-point. I think it's more defensible on ethical grounds than the presumption of individual rationality, which is a large part of why I adhere to it. These are not empirical questions, and it is on that basis that I would argue that rationalist game theory and ethnographic participant-observation are equally "interpretive" -- both posit a starting-point and then advise us to build up our empirical accounts using that starting-point as our master hermeneutic key, and the key is not as such a testable hypothesis. (The opposite of monism would be dualism; the opposite of "interpretive" might be "representational," perhaps?) That may have been a bit too convoluted -- I've just come back from a conference, with a head cold, and I think I have to go take a nap now. PTJ On Feb 28, 2009, at 1:54 PM, Dvora Yanow wrote: > Hi Patrick, thanks -- and to Peri, too -- for engaging this issue. > > I need help, tho, if you don't mind. It seems to me that you and > Peri are tackling 2 different aspects of the problem -- or, at > least, I don't find Peri's point reflected in your response, and > that's where I'm asking for help [tho perhaps it's there and I am > not seeing it; I think you begin to head in that direction in your > 2nd para. but then head off in another direction]. > > It seems to me that there is a fundamental difference between > positing the existence of an 'alternative world' [allow me to > exaggerate a wee bit for purposes of clarity] and stipulating its > rules of engagement [that people act in keeping with the 'rational/ > economic man' model, etc.] -- the game theoretic approach -- versus > sticking to the rules of engagement we "know" [i.e., making the > assumption that as human beings, we share a set of "rules" for > unintentional behaviors and intentional actions, in terms of > 'basic' (?) meaning-making processes]. In the former, we explore > how people behave on this chessboard, stipulating that all > chessboards are alike in their rules of engagement, including the > size of the board, and you can't play off the edges of the board; in > the latter, we stipulate neither the design or size of the board nor > the rules of play -- beyond the assumption that all humans are > meaning-making creatures, and that their language/acts/physical > objects are ways in which they express and communicate those meanings. > > So, I recognize that both approaches make universalistic/ > universalizing assumptions -- altho I do think the 2nd approach > 'tests' these assumptions, albeit not with respect to all forms of > artifact in all research settings, and usually with respect to > specific ones (e.g., does THIS built space artifact do meaning- > communicative work in THIS organizational/political/policy setting? > and if so, what and how?). But I find an approach that does not > tell me ahead of time how the game is to be played, thereby perhaps > constraining me from playing it as I would do, in keeping with my > own [rather than the researcher's] values, much less palatable than > one that seeks to ferret out what those local -- situated, specific > -- rules of engagement are. And the 'interpretive world' that > interpretivists posit is the one we see and experience ourselves > living in. I suppose if I shared game theorists' assumptions about > the rational/economic man [sic], I would be less bothered by that > approach. But, as you say, they are not 'testing' their own > assumptions. > > So, I suppose my question to you is, how/why do you see these as > equivalent at the assumptional level? I.e., g.th. may be an > interpretive tool -- but doesn't that statement define/treat > 'interpretive' in a different way than its use in 'interpretive' > methods/methodologies? What am I missing? > > Dvora [Yanow] > > -----Original Message----- > From: interpretationandmethods-bounces at malagigi.cddc.vt.edu on > behalf of Patrick Thaddeus Jackson > Sent: Sat 28-Feb-09 16:45 > To: interpretation and methods group > Subject: Re: [Interpretationandmethods] game theory > > Susi: > > Peri has actually given you the lightest, or the tamest, critique of > rationalist game theory by interpretive methodologies. (That doesn't > make it a bad critique, and I think that Peri is right; on the other > hand, Peri's critique does leave room for rationalist game theory to > operate more or less unaffected after interpretivists have clarified > the meaning of the game for the participants. She lets the rationalist > game theorists walk away; I prefer to go more for the jugular.) For > something stronger, consider this: properly understood, which is not > how most people understand it, rationalist game theory is an > interpretive tool, nothing more. "Interpretive" as a methodological > category subsumes rationalist game theory as one among many ways of > making sense out of a situation. > > Consider: when one actually generates a rationalist game matrix, what > one is doing is imposing a particular hermeneutic filter on a morass > of empirical data. There's a "model of man" (as Donald Moon would have > put it, using the quaint gendered language of the 1970s) involving > rational choice, a fairly delimited series of options, and a discrete > value associated with each. Properly understood, this is a highly > interpretive process -- we use a spare set of assumptions to make > sense of a complicated empirical situation. But this in turn means > that a given game-theoretical formalization is not a falsifiable > hypothesis any more than an account of a text is a "falsifiable > hypothesis" about that text. Instead, both are detailed, well- > supported readings. > > Now, in my opinion this is not a problem, epistemically speaking. It > shifts the social-scientific debate between different approaches into > two particular avenues. One is about the internal coherence of a > particular point of view and the application of a set of conceptual > tools to data to create a careful empirical account; by this standard, > more internal coherence is preferable to less (but note that by > "coherence" here I don't necessarily mean "abstractly formalized after > the manner of a mathematical equation"; that's one kind of logical > coherence, to be sure, but that certainly doesn't exhaust the > category!). The other is about whether the declared values of a > researcher or a perspective are adequately developed into operational > conceptual tools -- for example, whether a methodological perspective > that claims to preserve agency does in fact preserve agency at a > methodological level. Again, the debate here is about a perspective's > internal coherence; it's just that this time the coherence is between > value-orientations and conceptual tools, and not just about the > application or enactment of those tools to data. (And parenthetically, > the problem with rationalist game theory is that it's actually micro- > structuralism even as it purports to preserve choice and agency; in a > well-specified rationalist game-theoretic model, actors can't choose > otherwise than their preferences compel them to choose, and that to me > does *not* look like a robust notion of agency. Selecting between > multiple brands of toilet paper in a supermarket does not exhaust the > meaning of freedom.) Both of these, I think, are the debates we ought > to be having between rationalist game theory and other kinds of > interpretive techniques. > > What is a problem, however, is the fact that most rationalist game > theorists in polisci fail to properly understand the epistemic status > of their own approach. They jump from "it is is possible to produce a > game-theoretic formal model of this set of observed behaviors and > outcomes" to "the game-theoretical formal model of this set of > observed behaviors and outcomes is the best or only explanation of > these data." This is silly, I think, for two reasons. First, just like > with a regression analysis, one can always produce *some* kind of > coefficient of covariation if one plays with the data creatively > enough, so the fact that one can produce a particular kind of account > says more about the researcher than it does about the phenomenon. > Second, there is a world of difference -- ontological difference -- > between the claim that a particular account is an accurate picture of > an externally-existing mind-independent world and the claim that a > particular account is an internally consistent depiction of the world. > Rationalist game theory, I have suggested, is the second rather than > the first, and therefore the persistence of rationalist game-theoretic > accounts is not about the account having been robustly tested and > having survived those tests, but is instead about a commitment to a > particular style of analysis. But that commitment can't be explained > as a result of the empirical successes of rationalist game-theory vis- > a-vis other approaches, because rationalist game theory is no more or > no less empirically successful than many other modes of analysis, at > least not in terms of its internal coherence; it has to be explained > in other ways, and personally I would look to social studies of > science to explain that. The ability to re-code events in the language > of rationalist game theory is not a vote in favor of rationalist game > theory! > > Hence, I am always baffled by suggestions that one ought to use > rationalist game theory because it's such an empirically successful > approach. What's odd to me is that rationalist game theory has become, > in large parts of American polisci, the baseline against which other > approaches have to demonstrate their worth in order to be defensible. > I understand that sociologically, but not intellectually or > philosophically. The right question philosophically or intellectually, > I think, is something like: what are the gains and the losses > associated with (e.g.) O'Neill's account of honor -- what does it > reveal and what does it obscure? But that doesn't help us discriminate > between two ways to proceed: develop a more refined rationalist game- > theoretic model, or go off in a different analytical direction. Here's > where the issue gets sociological, since the local culture at Rutgers > (like in most other places in the US) steers students towards > rationalist game theory. My advice: challenge whomever gives you that > advice to justify her or his preference for rationalist game theory in > terms that don't presume the superiority of rationalist game theory > (like mathematical formalization). I'll bet that they can't do it, > unless you're talking to someone like Jim Johnson at Rochester -- who > is that rare bird among rationalists who actually knows and cares > about the underlying philosophy of science issues that are implicated > here. > > And just to end on a note of praise for Peri: in some of her work > she's quite convincingly shown the narrowness of methodological > education among political scientists in the US, especially the > virtually complete absence of philosophy of science in our > curriculums. More attention to these fundamental conceptual issues > might open more space for an honest discussion of the strengths and > weaknesses of different methodological approaches. But in my > experience, whenever I try to steer the discussion onto these grounds, > people's eyes glaze over, and I suspect that this is because of > graduate-school socialization and its reinforcement through the > standard career path of political scientists in the US: there's little > or no basic knowledge about these ontological issues and their > epistemic consequences provided in graduate school, and there's little > or no opportunity or encouragement to develop those competencies after > getting a PhD. The whole philosophy of science debate in International > Relations, for example, basically involves a dozen people, and half of > them are pushing a strange (and in most cases internally incoherent) > amalgam of Vienna Circle logical positivism, Popperian falsification, > and quasi-Lakatosian notions about research programmes. If more people > knew about and talked about these issues, maybe we wouldn't end up in > these bizarre impasses where we can't have a serious discussion about > diverse methodologies because, quite frankly, most of the potential > participants don't have enough basic knowledge of the issues and the > literature to engage in the discussion in the first place. > > Okay -- end of sermon. > > PTJ > > PS I would also say that there's a difference between rationalist game > theory and the more evolutionary/complexity style of analysis when it > comes to the coherence between value-orientations and empirical > execution, although most people who use evolutionary game theory are > similarly confused about the epistemic status of their models. But > that's another post, or maybe a book chapter :-) > > On Feb 27, 2009, at 11:08 PM, Suzanne Levi-Sanchez wrote: > > > Dear Professor Schwartz-Shea, > > > > Thank you!!! I will read the articles. You have written largely > > what I have tried to argue but not as coherently as you did below! > > In essence, game theory attempts to clarify intentions while game > > theory attempts to clarify competing preferences and assumes > > knowledge of intentions? > > > > Again, thank you for taking the time to respond to my rather > > obnoxiously large question. > > > > Kindest of Regards, > > Susi > > > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 5:39 PM, wrote: > > Suzanne Levi-Sanchez, > > > > "What can interpretive methods answer that game theory can't?" This > > is a big question. > > > > In brief, game theory makes assumptions about motivations and about > > how people "see" their world. So the game theorist posits that > actors > > are playing a particular game, chicken or some form of the > prisoners' > > dilemma. But how does the game theorist know that actors "see" the > > game that he or she posits? > > > > In contrast, interpretive methodologies ask directly about human > > meaning making rather than assuming how people see their worlds. I > > used to do game-theoretic experiments but all my published results > > ended up showing the ways in which game theory was not particularly > > useful! > > > > So, see, e.g., > > > > ?Egoism, Universalism and Parochialism: Experimental Evidence from > the > > Layered Prisoners' Dilemma,? with Randy Simmons, Rationality and > > Society, 1991, 3 (1), 106-132. > > > > And my last piece using game theory: > > ?Theorizing Gender for Experimental, Game Theory: Experiments with > > 'Sex Status' and 'Merit Status' in an Asymmetric Game,? Sex Roles, > > 2002, 47, (7/8), 301-319. > > > > Peri S-S > > > > > > -- > > Peregrine Schwartz-Shea > > Professor > > > > University of Utah > > Political Science Department > > 260 South Central Campus Drive Rm 252 > > Salt Lake City, UT 84112-9152 > > > > (801) 581-6300 phone mail > > psshea at poli-sci.utah.edu > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Interpretationandmethods mailing list > > Interpretationandmethods at listserv.cddc.vt.edu > > http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/ > interpretationandmethods > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Interpretationandmethods mailing list > > Interpretationandmethods at listserv.cddc.vt.edu > > http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/ > interpretationandmethods > > === > Patrick Thaddeus Jackson > Director of General Education, American University > Editor-in-Chief, Journal of International Relations and Development > http://profptj.blogspot.com | http://www.kittenboo.com > calendar: http://ical.mac.com/onyxdr/Patrick > > > > _______________________________________________ > Interpretationandmethods mailing list > Interpretationandmethods at listserv.cddc.vt.edu > http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/interpretationandmethods === Patrick Thaddeus Jackson Director of General Education, American University Editor-in-Chief, Journal of International Relations and Development http://profptj.blogspot.com | http://www.kittenboo.com calendar: http://ical.mac.com/onyxdr/Patrick -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/pipermail/interpretationandmethods/attachments/20090228/4a7bdf94/attachment-0001.html From WJKELLPRO at aol.com Sat Feb 28 15:16:13 2009 From: WJKELLPRO at aol.com (WJKELLPRO at aol.com) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 15:16:13 EST Subject: [Interpretationandmethods] Interpretation and Game theory Message-ID: Hi All! I would like to toss in my two cents on the ?game theory? discussion. Dvora: So, I suppose my question to you [Patrick] is, how/why do you see these as equivalent at the assumptional level? I.e., g.th. may be an interpretive tool -- but doesn't that statement define/treat 'interpretive' in a different way than its use in 'interpretive' methods/methodologies? What am I missing? [Underline added.] I my opinion, there is substantial philosophical consensus regarding the nature of interpretation. I think the mental processes of interpreting literature, for example, and for interpreting human behavior, are substantially the same. Meaning-making requires: i) a thing, event, concept, etc, which is the object of interpretation; ii) a person who does the interpreting, and, iii) the mental act of that person. That mental act consists in that person synthesizing ?i)? with a presupposed conceptual framework. Conceptual frameworks can be understood as necessary instruments of interpretation. Although often presuppositions, they give order to meaning by setting the framework within which meaning will be created. When a researcher ? applies? the game theory framework, he or she creates meaning within the rules of that set of assumptions. These rules guide the interpretations, or explanations, a social scientist will make. For example, the meanings created within this conceptual scheme must conform to the model of human nature as ?rational,? i.e., self-interested, self-serving, and calculating, rather than, for example, self-giving, altruistic, and capable of acting without regard to serving your own self-interest. The emphasis on ?rationality,? or calculating, draws attention to left brain processes, and distracts attention away form right brain processes. I agree with Patrick that game theory isn?t the best way we social and political scientists can go about our work. Personally, I think game theorists are engaged in mutually reinforcing a self-delusion. They truly believe they are ?explaining behavior.? But their assumptions about human nature seem to me to be a gross distortion of everyday human conduct. Their grotesque twisting of the human mind into that of a self-serving automaton is nowhere near close to the real thing. Therefore, every study they do, and every explanation they propound as ?science,? is necessarily more blinding than it is illuminating. In my humble opinion, the paradigm success of game theory is due more to the political organization and political power of its believers, than to its power to reveal insights to human behavior. I think that political scientists are willfully ignorant of this. I see this situation as the Dark Ages all over again. I think there is hope for interpretationists to capture a substantial amount of the other side?s power, resources, and prestige. But this would require having a unified point of view, to which we are strongly committed, and which can produce richer and intellectually more satisfying explanations than those of the current power elite. Bill Kelleher **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1218822736x1201267884/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26hmpgID %3D62%26bcd%3DfebemailfooterNO62) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/pipermail/interpretationandmethods/attachments/20090228/241c48fc/attachment.html From D.Yanow at fsw.vu.nl Sat Feb 28 15:37:12 2009 From: D.Yanow at fsw.vu.nl (Dvora Yanow) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 21:37:12 +0100 Subject: [Interpretationandmethods] game theory References: <20090227153941.iz2ea17xbc4o8okg@webmail.csbs.utah.edu><5286BEEC21FADA47A24AA92D8BC9270E028A3967@fswmail01.scw.vu.nl> <885A9E9F-BC14-4743-99BC-17BFD1515836@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5286BEEC21FADA47A24AA92D8BC9270E028A3972@fswmail01.scw.vu.nl> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/pipermail/interpretationandmethods/attachments/20090228/fa886deb/attachment-0001.html From WJKELLPRO at aol.com Sat Feb 28 17:24:43 2009 From: WJKELLPRO at aol.com (WJKELLPRO at aol.com) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 17:24:43 EST Subject: [Interpretationandmethods] Game Theory Message-ID: (mailto:interpretationandmethods at listserv.cddc.vt.edu) Hi Again! Here?s my response to Patrick, Dvora, and Suzanne: Get well soon, Patrick! On an emotional level, I agree completely with my brother Patrick?s contempt for the hypocrisy of the game-playing game theorists. I think we are very close conceptually, too. First, I like the poetry of the term ?monistic philosophical ontology.? Secondly, I agree 100% that social science begins with empathy. The positivists are deeply engaged in an appalling conceptual absurdity. In their search for ?objective knowledge,? they try to remove the observer from the act of observation. Good luck! To me it seems obvious that humans observing human behavior is, first of all, a human-to-human relationship. Only because we are of the same sort, can we empathically understand one another. But empathy is not in itself a rational process. It is intuitive, mysterious, and thoroughly personal. Out of this intuitive process, which positivists pretend not to have, comes understanding. Understanding is the basis for verbalized explanations. There is also an ethical dimension embedded in the human-to-human relationship upon which empathy rests. To understand another person empathically requires that you acknowledge their humanity. And that entails an element of respect; unless one is deliberately misanthropic, which may be the case for some positivists. At this point, I disagree with my brother?s separation of epistemology and ethics. To know another person requires that you acknowledge his or her humanity, just as you are human. In this process of knowing, respect is a natural element. It must be dealt with, either by acknowledging it, or denying it like the positivists do. In short, good social science requires clear self-awareness. Of course, it also requires clear terminology, and that is where Dvora?s questions come in. Dvora: do we have a better way of thinking about these than the old dichotomous ones that claim that [we] are "only" interested in understanding, not 'explaining' or 'predicting'? I think I'm asking for a new definition of what it means to predict -- and I'm guessing that this would be a much broader understanding than the one based on experimentation and statistical inference. BILL: These are very important problems. If we can resolve them within our own framework, we will have come a long way towards having a unified system with which to challenge the power elites. For me the question is, what do these three terms ? understanding, explanation, and prediction ? mean in the context of interpretive social science. Words don?t have abstract meanings, like satellites orbiting in space, because meaning is derived from the context involving a user?s intention and a listener ?s interpretation. The meanings the positivists give these words are designed to reinforce their interpretive framework. Therefore, I reject their meanings, and try to fashion meanings that will give more persuasive coherence to our theoretical point of view. Prediction differs from the other two words because of its orientation towards the future. But it also has similarities. Of the three terms, I think that understanding entails both explanation and prediction. An explanation is a systematic exposition of a person?s understanding of a thing, event, concept, etc. Understanding itself can be pre-verbal, but explanation must be given in words. Prediction can be understood as a demonstration of both understanding and explanation. My present understanding, and explanation, of ?A? suggests that event ?B? will occur under X circumstances, at time T. If it all works-out, then my original understanding, and explanation based on it, has been, at least in some measure, confirmed, or validated. In other words, I can continue to hold my original understanding/explanation. If there are conflicts between the actual event and my prediction, then I must re-adjust my understanding. This re-adjustment can entail a slight modification of my understanding, or a complete rejection of it, and move me to search for a new understanding. In this way, the history of science can be interpreted as thoughtful people seeking a more satisfying understanding. This is their primary motivation. Explanation and prediction are secondary steps in the service of that primary motive. Explanation and prediction need not assume a mechanistic theory of causation. A prediction can be successful because the predictor understands a particular process well, and grasps its intentional trajectory. Suppose I predict that about 30% of the eligible electorate will vote in the next congressional elections. If that happens, I sit back and say ?you see, I understand the intentional trajectory of the American voter.? But if there is a 50% turnout, or a 15% turnout, then my head starts spinning, and I have to get to work to try and make sense of the event. The problem for me as a political scientist is to find a satisfactory understanding of events. When I have that, I try to persuade others of my explanation, and they accept it or criticize it. Then we go back and forth until we reach a consensus, or agree to disagree. On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 5:39 PM, <_psshea at csbs.utah.edu_ (mailto:psshea at csbs.utah.edu) > wrote: Suzanne Levi-Sanchez, "What can interpretive methods answer that game theory can't?" This is a big question. In brief, game theory makes assumptions about motivations and about how people "see" their world. So the game theorist posits that actors are playing a particular game, chicken or some form of the prisoners' dilemma. But how does the game theorist know that actors "see" the game that he or she posits? In contrast, interpretive methodologies ask directly about human meaning making rather than assuming how people see their worlds?. BILL: I agree. Game theory does not make the empathic effort to ?know? what actors are experiencing. Instead, these ?gamers? impose their conception of human nature upon the human behavior they purport to ?explain.? To me, their view is a shallow, myopic, unreal, and offensive distortion of me and the people I have known. I see interpretive methods as morally superior to human-denying positivistic methodologies. I think that our moral superiority is our key advantage in winning the fight for academic prominence. Bill Kelleher **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1218822736x1201267884/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26hmpgID %3D62%26bcd%3DfebemailfooterNO62) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/pipermail/interpretationandmethods/attachments/20090228/17d490ea/attachment.html From WJKELLPRO at aol.com Sat Feb 28 18:13:38 2009 From: WJKELLPRO at aol.com (WJKELLPRO at aol.com) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 18:13:38 EST Subject: [Interpretationandmethods] Game Theory Message-ID: Sorry Peri! I think I wrongly attributed your words to Suzanne. Sorry Suzanne! BK In a message dated 2/28/2009 2:25:24 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, WJKELLPRO at aol.com writes: "What can interpretive methods answer that game theory can't?" This is a big question. ... http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/interpretationandmethods **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1218822736x1201267884/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26hmpgID %3D62%26bcd%3DfebemailfooterNO62) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/pipermail/interpretationandmethods/attachments/20090228/0a5738c8/attachment-0001.html From eblancha at usc.edu Sat Feb 28 03:40:03 2009 From: eblancha at usc.edu (Eric Blanchard) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 00:40:03 -0800 Subject: [Interpretationandmethods] Visual Analysis In-Reply-To: <7AC902A40BEDD411A3A800D0B7847B661C7F76D7@sernt14.essex.ac.uk> Message-ID: Thanks for the sources Vincent. Lene Hansen of the University of Copenhagen is doing some interesting work on discourse analysis and images, including political cartoons, within the framework of International Relations. You might contact her to see if she'd share one of her ISA conference papers on the subject or check the ISA paper archive. Best, Eric On 2/26/09 3:32 PM, "Druliolle, Vincent P" wrote: > Hi everyone > > > > > I'm a final year PhD candidate at the University of Essex, Department of > Government. My work is on commemorative practices in post-authoritarian > Argentina, and that's how I came to be interested in questions of images and > the visual and politics. So I felt maybe I could add a few suggestions about > some material I am familiar with. > > The analysis of photographs is highly indebted to Barthes and tends to be a > distinct part of visual analysis, whether or not it is a good thing. A pretty > influential study is Marianne Hirsch's Family Frames: Photography, Narrative, > and Postmemory (Harvard University Press, 1997). > > > > I am more familiar with the kind of photos that political research has been > interested in, namely photojournalism. A recent study is No Caption Needed. > Iconic Photographs, Public Culture, and Liberal Democracy, by Hariman and > Lucaites (Uni Chicago, 2007). > > > > > An excellent introduction to the various theoretical frameworks for the > analysis of a range of visual materials has already been mentioned, it is > Rose's Visual Methodologies (there is a revised edition, 2007). Another useful > text is Moxey (2008), 'Visual Studies and the Iconic Turn', Journal of Visual > Culture, Vol. 7, No. 2: pp. 131-46. There is also a special issue of Forum: > Qualitative Social Research (2008, Vol. 9, No. 3) on visual studies: > http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/issue/view/11 > > > > > I would actually like to take this opportunity to ask for some advice. I was > wondering if you may have any sources to recommend on the study of political > cartoons? Any suggestion would be greatly appreciated!! > > > > > Best > > VincenT. > > _______________________________________________ > Interpretationandmethods mailing list > Interpretationandmethods at listserv.cddc.vt.edu > http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/interpretationandmethods From sule.sanchez at gmail.com Sat Feb 28 18:54:09 2009 From: sule.sanchez at gmail.com (Suzanne Levi-Sanchez) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 18:54:09 -0500 Subject: [Interpretationandmethods] game theory In-Reply-To: <5286BEEC21FADA47A24AA92D8BC9270E028A3972@fswmail01.scw.vu.nl> References: <20090227153941.iz2ea17xbc4o8okg@webmail.csbs.utah.edu> <5286BEEC21FADA47A24AA92D8BC9270E028A3967@fswmail01.scw.vu.nl> <885A9E9F-BC14-4743-99BC-17BFD1515836@gmail.com> <5286BEEC21FADA47A24AA92D8BC9270E028A3972@fswmail01.scw.vu.nl> Message-ID: Wow!! I go out for the day with my family and come back to this amazing discussion!! I am going to think about the debate after the kids are in bed. Thank you all so much for your comments. I feel decidedly junior in this discussion. Patrick -- I hope you feel better and hopefully my question didn't push you over the edge if you weren't feeling well! Susi On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Dvora Yanow wrote: > While Patrick takes his nap and I try to recover from a local event of > "Naturalizing selfishness" -- lots of that going around, I'm afraid, leaving > all sorts of victims in its/their wake -- maybe we can get back to Susi's > original question, in light of this reply, as well as Bill's. > > At the risk of kicking this over into an old formulation -- one that many > disavow -- I found myself wondering if we're back in the terrain of 'game > theory predicts' [or claims to be able to predict] "versus" interpretivists > being more interested in explaining how and why things work the way they do. > > And that discussion, I fear, not only creates a false dichotomy, but risks > sliding into [old] arguments about causality. > > So, to pursue her project, does Susi need to go deeper than these 'surface' > differences and query the underlying presumptions about prediction and > explanation? and do we have a better way of thinking about these than the > old dichotomous ones that claim that > phenomenological-hermeneutic-pragmatist, etc.-informed empirical research > [note: not the philosophies, but their 'application' to polit. and social > scientific questions] are "only" interested in understanding, not > 'explaining' or 'predicting'? I think I'm asking for a new definition of > what it means to predict -- and I'm guessing that this would be a much > broader understanding than the one based on experimentation and statistical > inference. > > Dvora Yanow, who thinks she disagrees with Patrick's distinction between > interpretive methods and methodologies, at least as formulated here; but > needs to cogitate on this more. > > -----Original Message----- > From: interpretationandmethods-bounces at malagigi.cddc.vt.edu on behalf of > Patrick Thaddeus Jackson > Sent: Sat 28-Feb-09 20:49 > To: interpretation and methods group > Subject: Re: [Interpretationandmethods] game theory > > Good question. Briefly: I think you are conflating interpretive > methods and a broadly interpretive methodology here. Interpretive > methods, or what I would be more comfortable referring to as > "ethnographic" or "participant-observation" methods, insist that we > enter the lifeworld of our informants and see things from their point > of view, at least to begin with. Interpretive methodology, or what I > would be more comfortable referring to as a monistic philosophical > ontology, insists that producers of knowledge are not constitutively > separate from their objects of knowledge, but are co-constituted with > the through the hermeneutic circle and other kinds of mutual > implication of subject and object. Rationalist game theory, properly > understood, would be a kind of interpretive methodology, although it > would certainly not be an example of interpretive methods. > > Now, admittedly, few if any rationalist game theorists would accept > this, because most of them are unreflective neopositivists who are > quite unconcerned about the fact that they both loudly proclaim the > value of hypothesis-testing and engage in a process of structured > interpretation when building their models, and then shift epistemic > standards depending on their audience or the particular critique that > they are fielding. (It's all about falsification until one starts to > question rational-actor assumptions; then quite suddenly these become > ideal-typical or analytical or instrumental, in complete contradiction > to what these same theorists were arguing a moment before.) This is a > logical problem, since if the truth of a model is about its internal > consistency, then any apparent empirical correspondence can be nothing > but a epistemological side-show -- and vice versa. But almost one one > doing rationalist theory -- Jon Elster is one notable exception here, > and Russell Hardin might agree -- gets the fact that rationalist game > theory is an interpretive practice. > > Like you I don't find much of value in rationalist game-theoretic > modeling exercises, in part because I don't buy the value-commitment > at its core. But that's a question of ethics and morality rather than > a question of the epistemic status of the enterprise. The one place > where I think that such an analysis has merit is in a relatively > closed interaction-system characterized by limited signaling and > effectively fixed actors, environments, and rules -- like driving on > the highway. But most of social life doesn't look like that to me, and > ethically speaking I would strenuously resist the effort to make > social life like that by presuming that it already is and building > models on that basis. Naturalizing selfishness does not seem like a > good way to go as far as I am concerned; many rationalists would > disagree with me on ethical grounds, but that's a different kind of > argument altogether, one in principle unresolvable with recourse to > empirics. > > Human beings as meaning-makers is, then, an alternative hermeneutic > starting-point. I think it's more defensible on ethical grounds than > the presumption of individual rationality, which is a large part of > why I adhere to it. These are not empirical questions, and it is on > that basis that I would argue that rationalist game theory and > ethnographic participant-observation are equally "interpretive" -- > both posit a starting-point and then advise us to build up our > empirical accounts using that starting-point as our master hermeneutic > key, and the key is not as such a testable hypothesis. (The opposite > of monism would be dualism; the opposite of "interpretive" might be > "representational," perhaps?) > > That may have been a bit too convoluted -- I've just come back from a > conference, with a head cold, and I think I have to go take a nap now. > > PTJ > > On Feb 28, 2009, at 1:54 PM, Dvora Yanow wrote: > > > Hi Patrick, thanks -- and to Peri, too -- for engaging this issue. > > > > I need help, tho, if you don't mind. It seems to me that you and > > Peri are tackling 2 different aspects of the problem -- or, at > > least, I don't find Peri's point reflected in your response, and > > that's where I'm asking for help [tho perhaps it's there and I am > > not seeing it; I think you begin to head in that direction in your > > 2nd para. but then head off in another direction]. > > > > It seems to me that there is a fundamental difference between > > positing the existence of an 'alternative world' [allow me to > > exaggerate a wee bit for purposes of clarity] and stipulating its > > rules of engagement [that people act in keeping with the 'rational/ > > economic man' model, etc.] -- the game theoretic approach -- versus > > sticking to the rules of engagement we "know" [i.e., making the > > assumption that as human beings, we share a set of "rules" for > > unintentional behaviors and intentional actions, in terms of > > 'basic' (?) meaning-making processes]. In the former, we explore > > how people behave on this chessboard, stipulating that all > > chessboards are alike in their rules of engagement, including the > > size of the board, and you can't play off the edges of the board; in > > the latter, we stipulate neither the design or size of the board nor > > the rules of play -- beyond the assumption that all humans are > > meaning-making creatures, and that their language/acts/physical > > objects are ways in which they express and communicate those meanings. > > > > So, I recognize that both approaches make universalistic/ > > universalizing assumptions -- altho I do think the 2nd approach > > 'tests' these assumptions, albeit not with respect to all forms of > > artifact in all research settings, and usually with respect to > > specific ones (e.g., does THIS built space artifact do meaning- > > communicative work in THIS organizational/political/policy setting? > > and if so, what and how?). But I find an approach that does not > > tell me ahead of time how the game is to be played, thereby perhaps > > constraining me from playing it as I would do, in keeping with my > > own [rather than the researcher's] values, much less palatable than > > one that seeks to ferret out what those local -- situated, specific > > -- rules of engagement are. And the 'interpretive world' that > > interpretivists posit is the one we see and experience ourselves > > living in. I suppose if I shared game theorists' assumptions about > > the rational/economic man [sic], I would be less bothered by that > > approach. But, as you say, they are not 'testing' their own > > assumptions. > > > > So, I suppose my question to you is, how/why do you see these as > > equivalent at the assumptional level? I.e., g.th. may be an > > interpretive tool -- but doesn't that statement define/treat > > 'interpretive' in a different way than its use in 'interpretive' > > methods/methodologies? What am I missing? > > > > Dvora [Yanow] > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: interpretationandmethods-bounces at malagigi.cddc.vt.edu on > > behalf of Patrick Thaddeus Jackson > > Sent: Sat 28-Feb-09 16:45 > > To: interpretation and methods group > > Subject: Re: [Interpretationandmethods] game theory > > > > Susi: > > > > Peri has actually given you the lightest, or the tamest, critique of > > rationalist game theory by interpretive methodologies. (That doesn't > > make it a bad critique, and I think that Peri is right; on the other > > hand, Peri's critique does leave room for rationalist game theory to > > operate more or less unaffected after interpretivists have clarified > > the meaning of the game for the participants. She lets the rationalist > > game theorists walk away; I prefer to go more for the jugular.) For > > something stronger, consider this: properly understood, which is not > > how most people understand it, rationalist game theory is an > > interpretive tool, nothing more. "Interpretive" as a methodological > > category subsumes rationalist game theory as one among many ways of > > making sense out of a situation. > > > > Consider: when one actually generates a rationalist game matrix, what > > one is doing is imposing a particular hermeneutic filter on a morass > > of empirical data. There's a "model of man" (as Donald Moon would have > > put it, using the quaint gendered language of the 1970s) involving > > rational choice, a fairly delimited series of options, and a discrete > > value associated with each. Properly understood, this is a highly > > interpretive process -- we use a spare set of assumptions to make > > sense of a complicated empirical situation. But this in turn means > > that a given game-theoretical formalization is not a falsifiable > > hypothesis any more than an account of a text is a "falsifiable > > hypothesis" about that text. Instead, both are detailed, well- > > supported readings. > > > > Now, in my opinion this is not a problem, epistemically speaking. It > > shifts the social-scientific debate between different approaches into > > two particular avenues. One is about the internal coherence of a > > particular point of view and the application of a set of conceptual > > tools to data to create a careful empirical account; by this standard, > > more internal coherence is preferable to less (but note that by > > "coherence" here I don't necessarily mean "abstractly formalized after > > the manner of a mathematical equation"; that's one kind of logical > > coherence, to be sure, but that certainly doesn't exhaust the > > category!). The other is about whether the declared values of a > > researcher or a perspective are adequately developed into operational > > conceptual tools -- for example, whether a methodological perspective > > that claims to preserve agency does in fact preserve agency at a > > methodological level. Again, the debate here is about a perspective's > > internal coherence; it's just that this time the coherence is between > > value-orientations and conceptual tools, and not just about the > > application or enactment of those tools to data. (And parenthetically, > > the problem with rationalist game theory is that it's actually micro- > > structuralism even as it purports to preserve choice and agency; in a > > well-specified rationalist game-theoretic model, actors can't choose > > otherwise than their preferences compel them to choose, and that to me > > does *not* look like a robust notion of agency. Selecting between > > multiple brands of toilet paper in a supermarket does not exhaust the > > meaning of freedom.) Both of these, I think, are the debates we ought > > to be having between rationalist game theory and other kinds of > > interpretive techniques. > > > > What is a problem, however, is the fact that most rationalist game > > theorists in polisci fail to properly understand the epistemic status > > of their own approach. They jump from "it is is possible to produce a > > game-theoretic formal model of this set of observed behaviors and > > outcomes" to "the game-theoretical formal model of this set of > > observed behaviors and outcomes is the best or only explanation of > > these data." This is silly, I think, for two reasons. First, just like > > with a regression analysis, one can always produce *some* kind of > > coefficient of covariation if one plays with the data creatively > > enough, so the fact that one can produce a particular kind of account > > says more about the researcher than it does about the phenomenon. > > Second, there is a world of difference -- ontological difference -- > > between the claim that a particular account is an accurate picture of > > an externally-existing mind-independent world and the claim that a > > particular account is an internally consistent depiction of the world. > > Rationalist game theory, I have suggested, is the second rather than > > the first, and therefore the persistence of rationalist game-theoretic > > accounts is not about the account having been robustly tested and > > having survived those tests, but is instead about a commitment to a > > particular style of analysis. But that commitment can't be explained > > as a result of the empirical successes of rationalist game-theory vis- > > a-vis other approaches, because rationalist game theory is no more or > > no less empirically successful than many other modes of analysis, at > > least not in terms of its internal coherence; it has to be explained > > in other ways, and personally I would look to social studies of > > science to explain that. The ability to re-code events in the language > > of rationalist game theory is not a vote in favor of rationalist game > > theory! > > > > Hence, I am always baffled by suggestions that one ought to use > > rationalist game theory because it's such an empirically successful > > approach. What's odd to me is that rationalist game theory has become, > > in large parts of American polisci, the baseline against which other > > approaches have to demonstrate their worth in order to be defensible. > > I understand that sociologically, but not intellectually or > > philosophically. The right question philosophically or intellectually, > > I think, is something like: what are the gains and the losses > > associated with (e.g.) O'Neill's account of honor -- what does it > > reveal and what does it obscure? But that doesn't help us discriminate > > between two ways to proceed: develop a more refined rationalist game- > > theoretic model, or go off in a different analytical direction. Here's > > where the issue gets sociological, since the local culture at Rutgers > > (like in most other places in the US) steers students towards > > rationalist game theory. My advice: challenge whomever gives you that > > advice to justify her or his preference for rationalist game theory in > > terms that don't presume the superiority of rationalist game theory > > (like mathematical formalization). I'll bet that they can't do it, > > unless you're talking to someone like Jim Johnson at Rochester -- who > > is that rare bird among rationalists who actually knows and cares > > about the underlying philosophy of science issues that are implicated > > here. > > > > And just to end on a note of praise for Peri: in some of her work > > she's quite convincingly shown the narrowness of methodological > > education among political scientists in the US, especially the > > virtually complete absence of philosophy of science in our > > curriculums. More attention to these fundamental conceptual issues > > might open more space for an honest discussion of the strengths and > > weaknesses of different methodological approaches. But in my > > experience, whenever I try to steer the discussion onto these grounds, > > people's eyes glaze over, and I suspect that this is because of > > graduate-school socialization and its reinforcement through the > > standard career path of political scientists in the US: there's little > > or no basic knowledge about these ontological issues and their > > epistemic consequences provided in graduate school, and there's little > > or no opportunity or encouragement to develop those competencies after > > getting a PhD. The whole philosophy of science debate in International > > Relations, for example, basically involves a dozen people, and half of > > them are pushing a strange (and in most cases internally incoherent) > > amalgam of Vienna Circle logical positivism, Popperian falsification, > > and quasi-Lakatosian notions about research programmes. If more people > > knew about and talked about these issues, maybe we wouldn't end up in > > these bizarre impasses where we can't have a serious discussion about > > diverse methodologies because, quite frankly, most of the potential > > participants don't have enough basic knowledge of the issues and the > > literature to engage in the discussion in the first place. > > > > Okay -- end of sermon. > > > > PTJ > > > > PS I would also say that there's a difference between rationalist game > > theory and the more evolutionary/complexity style of analysis when it > > comes to the coherence between value-orientations and empirical > > execution, although most people who use evolutionary game theory are > > similarly confused about the epistemic status of their models. But > > that's another post, or maybe a book chapter :-) > > > > On Feb 27, 2009, at 11:08 PM, Suzanne Levi-Sanchez wrote: > > > > > Dear Professor Schwartz-Shea, > > > > > > Thank you!!! I will read the articles. You have written largely > > > what I have tried to argue but not as coherently as you did below! > > > In essence, game theory attempts to clarify intentions while game > > > theory attempts to clarify competing preferences and assumes > > > knowledge of intentions? > > > > > > Again, thank you for taking the time to respond to my rather > > > obnoxiously large question. > > > > > > Kindest of Regards, > > > Susi > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 5:39 PM, wrote: > > > Suzanne Levi-Sanchez, > > > > > > "What can interpretive methods answer that game theory can't?" This > > > is a big question. > > > > > > In brief, game theory makes assumptions about motivations and about > > > how people "see" their world. So the game theorist posits that > > actors > > > are playing a particular game, chicken or some form of the > > prisoners' > > > dilemma. But how does the game theorist know that actors "see" the > > > game that he or she posits? > > > > > > In contrast, interpretive methodologies ask directly about human > > > meaning making rather than assuming how people see their worlds. I > > > used to do game-theoretic experiments but all my published results > > > ended up showing the ways in which game theory was not particularly > > > useful! > > > > > > So, see, e.g., > > > > > > ?Egoism, Universalism and Parochialism: Experimental Evidence from > > the > > > Layered Prisoners' Dilemma,? with Randy Simmons, Rationality and > > > Society, 1991, 3 (1), 106-132. > > > > > > And my last piece using game theory: > > > ?Theorizing Gender for Experimental, Game Theory: Experiments with > > > 'Sex Status' and 'Merit Status' in an Asymmetric Game,? Sex Roles, > > > 2002, 47, (7/8), 301-319. > > > > > > Peri S-S > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Peregrine Schwartz-Shea > > > Professor > > > > > > University of Utah > > > Political Science Department > > > 260 South Central Campus Drive Rm 252 > > > Salt Lake City, UT 84112-9152 > > > > > > (801) 581-6300 phone mail > > > psshea at poli-sci.utah.edu > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Interpretationandmethods mailing list > > > Interpretationandmethods at listserv.cddc.vt.edu > > > http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/ > > interpretationandmethods > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Interpretationandmethods mailing list > > > Interpretationandmethods at listserv.cddc.vt.edu > > > http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/ > > interpretationandmethods > > > > === > > Patrick Thaddeus Jackson > > Director of General Education, American University > > Editor-in-Chief, Journal of International Relations and Development > > http://profptj.blogspot.com | http://www.kittenboo.com > > calendar: http://ical.mac.com/onyxdr/Patrick > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Interpretationandmethods mailing list > > Interpretationandmethods at listserv.cddc.vt.edu > > http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/interpretationandmethods > > === > Patrick Thaddeus Jackson > Director of General Education, American University > Editor-in-Chief, Journal of International Relations and Development > http://profptj.blogspot.com | http://www.kittenboo.com > calendar: http://ical.mac.com/onyxdr/Patrick > > > > _______________________________________________ > Interpretationandmethods mailing list > Interpretationandmethods at listserv.cddc.vt.edu > http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/interpretationandmethods > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/pipermail/interpretationandmethods/attachments/20090228/fb286854/attachment-0001.html From D.Yanow at fsw.vu.nl Sat Feb 28 20:12:15 2009 From: D.Yanow at fsw.vu.nl (Dvora Yanow) Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 02:12:15 +0100 Subject: [Interpretationandmethods] game theory References: <20090227153941.iz2ea17xbc4o8okg@webmail.csbs.utah.edu><5286BEEC21FADA47A24AA92D8BC9270E028A3967@fswmail01.scw.vu.nl><885A9E9F-BC14-4743-99BC-17BFD1515836@gmail.com><5286BEEC21FADA47A24AA92D8BC9270E028A3972@fswmail01.scw.vu.nl> Message-ID: <5286BEEC21FADA47A24AA92D8BC9270E028A3975@fswmail01.scw.vu.nl> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/pipermail/interpretationandmethods/attachments/20090301/5aeec8be/attachment.html From patrickthaddeusjackson at gmail.com Sat Feb 28 23:03:42 2009 From: patrickthaddeusjackson at gmail.com (Patrick Thaddeus Jackson) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 23:03:42 -0500 Subject: [Interpretationandmethods] game theory In-Reply-To: <5286BEEC21FADA47A24AA92D8BC9270E028A3975@fswmail01.scw.vu.nl> References: <20090227153941.iz2ea17xbc4o8okg@webmail.csbs.utah.edu><5286BEEC21FADA47A24AA92D8BC9270E028A3967@fswmail01.scw.vu.nl><885A9E9F-BC14-4743-99BC-17BFD1515836@gmail.com><5286BEEC21FADA47A24AA92D8BC9270E028A3972@fswmail01.scw.vu.nl> <5286BEEC21FADA47A24AA92D8BC9270E028A3975@fswmail01.scw.vu.nl> Message-ID: <58C9262B-5506-4545-81EA-C864E334E5E6@gmail.com> Completely agree with what Dvora said about "temporal" seniority. That's what I tell my students in my classes, too -- although for my undergraduates I can truthfully say things like "I've been thinking about this for longer than you've been alive," which makes me feel old. Anyway: game theory and prediction. Hmm. Three quick (I promise, quick!) thoughts. 1) I am unaware of a successful prediction using rationalist game theory that wasn't simultaneously predicted by a bunch of other approaches because the outcome was so overdetermined. And this makes sense because of the high evidentiary demands that rationalist game theory imposes -- we need a lot of information about people's preferences and how they are interrelated before we can take a guess at how a game might turn out, and even then we usually run into the problem of multiple equilibria. 2) most of the better uses of rationalist game theory I can think of are explanatory rather than predictive, such as when a distribution of votes is "retrodicted" (predicted in retrospect) from data about preferences. Alternatively, one could do what Margaret Levi et. al. did in the book _Analytical Narratives_, where they tried to construct rationalist game-theoretical accounts of historical events; to their surprise, but not to mine, they discovered that the game formalizations had all of these "off-the-path equilibria" (stable solutions that weren't realized historically) and they had to use the narrative and the historical facts to explain why those other equilibria did not occur. But that's precisely what one does with an ideal-type: lay it down on empirics in order to highlight the distinctive and unusual aspects of the case, and to explain why what we might have expected based purely on the formalization did not in fact occur. And since I think rationalist game theory is an ideal-type interpretive lens, this makes perfect sense to me, methodologically speaking. 3) I am not a big fan of explaining vs. understanding. Weber demonstrated long ago that one could have explanatory understandings and understanding explanations, which makes e-vs.-u a false dichotomy in my book. That said, "prediction" doesn't show up there unless one buys the logical positivist equation of explanation and prediction, which virtually no philosopher of science since Carl Hempel actually has. In fact, I'd venture to say that "prediction" is something of a red herring, for three reasons. First, as Wittgenstein once commented, when we say that we're going to move our arms and then move our arms, we've in a sense "predicted" that movement, but do we understand or can we explain the movement any better? Second, human beings are lousy predictors (our best rate is about 20% accuracy), and even the most sophisticated number-cruncher models only get things right about 47% of the time -- and those models are basically just gigantic data- mining operations looking for correlations. (Figures from Philip Tetlock's intriguing if IMHO deeply flawed -- but Grawemeyer Award- winning! -- book _Expert Political Judgment_.) Third, as Gramsci pointed out, a prediction offered into a social group is more often than not an impetus to action, so even if the predicted outcome happens it's still not clear that the speaker has "predicted" it -- she or he may very well have _caused_ it. So I think we ought to ditch prediction as a feasible goal for any science, social or otherwise, and toss out the outmoded "covering-law" model of explanation/ prediction that it is linked to. Instead, we ought to focus on generating explanations in terms of causal mechanisms, processes, and configurations -- more contingent, and inherently unpredictable, but more likely to tell us something worth knowing. At some point I want to reply to Dvora about methods/methodology, but that will probably have to wait until I get this grading done. PTJ On Feb 28, 2009, at 8:12 PM, Dvora Yanow wrote: > Hi. If you'll all allow a sermonette, which Susi's parting comment > gives me the excuse for but which I do not mean for Susi alone -- > we're all both teachers and learners on this list; that's its > intention, in any event. The only 'seniority' that's operative is > temporal -- some among list members have been dwelling with these > questions for longer and/or in greater 'depth' than others. > > We created the list so we could learn from each other and provide a > place for this community of inquiry and its questions. I know there > are a lot of 'lurkers' on this list, and I hope no one feels that a > question is too 'stupid' to ask -- the spirit of the list is > precisely the opposite. [btw, I also know that at least one person > has found much of use in the list's archives. It's a sporadically- > active list, but when it gets going, it zooms -- and there's a lot > of interesting stuff there.] > > Yours, > Dvora [Yanow] > > P.S. On list etiquette, so to speak: please keep in mind that your > response goes to the whole list; it's not set up to enable direct > response to post-ers. > > -----Original Message----- > From: interpretationandmethods-bounces at malagigi.cddc.vt.edu on > behalf of Suzanne Levi-Sanchez > Sent: Sun 01-Mar-09 00:54 > To: interpretation and methods group > Subject: Re: [Interpretationandmethods] game theory > > Wow!! I go out for the day with my family and come back to this > amazing > discussion!! I am going to think about the debate after the kids > are in > bed. Thank you all so much for your comments. I feel decidedly > junior in > this discussion. > > Patrick -- I hope you feel better and hopefully my question didn't > push you > over the edge if you weren't feeling well! > > Susi > > > _______________________________________________ > Interpretationandmethods mailing list > Interpretationandmethods at listserv.cddc.vt.edu > http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/interpretationandmethods === Patrick Thaddeus Jackson Director of General Education, American University Editor-in-Chief, Journal of International Relations and Development http://profptj.blogspot.com | http://www.kittenboo.com calendar: http://ical.mac.com/onyxdr/Patrick -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/pipermail/interpretationandmethods/attachments/20090228/d7e12bfa/attachment.html