Suchergebnisse

Current writing about culture is still characterized by conceptual slovenliness. Despite the clear thrust of E. B. Tylor's old definition, persons are still often said to be "members" of culture, which is about as justifiable as saying that a religious ritual, for example, is a member of a street corner gang. In current writing about culture there is also discernible a misplaced humanism that makes it unnecessarily difficult to allow a kind of "objective" analysis of culture that focuses away from human beings, temporarily but very usefully. Emic approaches in anthrop have their decided limitations. There are some older notions bearing on culture which have not recently received the attention they might. Autonomization, hierarchization, alienation & cultural alternation are still worth further analysis. Avoiding conceptual slovenliness & misplaced humanism & further developing the older notions indicated are indispensable procedures for enhancing the at present limited & vague utility of the idea of culture in the soc sci's. AA.

Research is defined by the Australian Research Council as "the creation of new knowledge and/or the use of existing knowledge in a new and creative way so as to generate new concepts, methodologies, inventions and understandings". Research is thus the foundation for knowledge. It produces evidence and informs actions that can provide wider benefit to a society. The knowledge that researchers cultivate from a piece of research can be adopted for social and health programs that can improve the health and well-being of the individuals, their communities and the societies in which they live. As we have witnessed in all corners of the globe, research has become an endeavor that most of us in the health and social sciences cannot avoid. This Handbook is conceived to provide the foundation to readers who wish to embark on a research project in order to form knowledge that they need. The Handbook comprises four main sections: Traditional research methods sciences; Innovative research methods; Doing cross-cultural research; and Sensitive research methodology and approach. This Handbook attests to the diversity and richness of research methods in the health and social sciences. It will benefit many readers, particularly students and researchers who undertake research in health and social science areas. It is also valuable for the training needs of postgraduate students who wish to undertake research in cross-cultural settings, with special groups of people, as it provides essential knowledge not only on the methods of data collection but also salient issues that they need to know if they wish to succeed in their research endeavors

Inthe past several decades, the scope of European social history has been widened considerably attention given to the historical experience of inarticulate, common folk. By imaginatievly exploring neglected sources and through the use of quantitative techniques, social science historians on both sides of the Atlantic have attempted to systematically weigh hypothesis and evidence in order to recover the texture of past lives. In recent years, however, social science historians who specialize in German history have been confronted by the challenges ofAlltagsgeschichte—the history of ordinary events. Using a methodology influenced by anthropology, practitioners of "every-day history" have utilized memoirs, letters, old photos, and interviews with participant observers in order to evoke the past social life of select groups. These scholars have often reported their findings in vivid, detailed narratives in order to avoid forcing the multifaceted experience of ordinary folk into what they consider arid statistical tables and reified constructs, dangers that particularly beset the consumers of computer-generated cross-tabulations and regression equations. In addition, advocates of "peoples' history" have attempted to make historical scholarship unambiguously relevant to contemporary issues by setting their research against a backdrop of current social and political controversy and by espousing "populist" social views.

This article compares Michael Oakeshott and Hans-Georg Gadamer, in particular examining the different ways they conceptualise human practices and the relationship between theory and practice. First, I highlight where the two agree. Both are sceptical of causal explanations of human behaviour, and instead advocate understanding human conduct intersubjectively, using Aristotle's concept of 'practical wisdom'. Second, however, I also highlight important areas of disagreement. Oakeshott maintains that non-philosophical but non-practical theoretical disciplines are possible; by contrast, Gadamer stresses the intrinsically practical nature of all understanding. More practically, they also differ over how useful Aristotelian insights are politically. Gadamer claims (like Aristotle) that we can seek an objective common good; Oakeshott rejects this, due to his commitment to pluralism. Finally, I suggest that these divergences are due to different conceptualisations of 'experience' and the Western tradition. First, Oakeshott and Gadamer differ over how authentically we can know human experience, and therefore over how important the right discipline for investigation is. Second, they differ over the degree to which we can interrogate the Western tradition. For Oakeshott, we must accept its pluralist inheritance; for Gadamer a healthy dialogue with it is essential-only thus can we unearth the (Aristotelian) insights vital for us to live well. [Copyright Elsevier Ltd.]