I.1. Ontological/Epistemological Priors

Forum rules

To download the working group's draft report, select the "DRAFT REPORT" announcement. Please provide comments or other feedback on the draft via the first topic-thread "Comments on Draft Report ..." You may also continue to view and add to the earlier threads. Please log in first to have your post be attributable to you. Anonymous posts will display only after a delay to allow for administrator review. Contributors agree to the QTD Terms of Use.

Tim Buthe
Duke University
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2016 11:39 pm

Comments on Draft Report of Working Group I.1

PostTue Aug 29, 2017 9:01 am

Please use this thread to share feedback on the draft report:

Post Reply


Guest

Re: Comments on Draft Report of Working Group I.1

PostMon Oct 16, 2017 3:57 pm

[quote="TimButhe"]Please use this thread to share feedback on the draft report:[/quote]

This is an important debate, but the report seems pretty fragmented. Much of it seems to just state some epistemological views, without addressing the question of how different epistemological views actually see practices of transparency or openness.

It might be useful to spell out actual examples that show roughly what "open" and rigorous research would look like within these different epistemologies.

Post Reply


Guest

Re: Comments on Draft Report of Working Group I.1

PostMon Nov 06, 2017 9:22 pm

I agree with the previous post.

Sections I.1 and I.2, especially, provide a rich history of ideas. That's really interesting, even though the report could recognize more explicitly that this is ONE interpretation of that history, rather that the one and only true account. But the report doesn't really come back around to addressing the question what scholarly good/best practices follow for knowledge production and research integrity. Would be especially important since I'm not sure anyone in Political Science really is a "positivist" in the sense of section I.2 anymore. Even the final section on "Interpretivist Traditions and the Critique of Transparency" does not go much beyond the critique.

Post Reply



Return to “I.1. Ontological/Epistemological Priors”