Hegel`s theory of recognition: in order to be a full subject, each needs to be recognized by the other

In Hegel you have essentially two actors encountering one another and each is a subject, but in order to be a full subject, each needs to be recognized by the other. Each affirms the other as a subject in its own right that is simultaneously equal and different from me. If both people can affirm that, then you have a reciprocal egalitarian, symmetrical process of recognition. But, famously, in the master-slave dialectic, they encounter one another on highly asymmetrical, unequal terms, terms of domination or subordination. Then you get non-reciprocal recognition.

Nancy Fraser (2016)

Organic system: between quantum physics and sociology (In Spanish)

Xaquin Pérez-Sindín

Me hago eco de esta reflexión sobre sistemas de Max Neef, economista chileno. Afirma que la física cuántica ya habla del carácter orgánico de todo sistema en tanto que no tiene partes sino participantes, las cuales no son separables. Lo hace en oposición a la concepción mecánica, donde, en efecto, si se distinguen las partes. Me parece interesante esa analogía que hace para explicar el sistema económico. No obstante, no estoy de acuerdo en que esta forma de entender el sistema social haya llegado tarde a las ciencias sociales. Emile Durkheim, ya en el siglo XIX, hacía referencia al carácter orgánico de las sociedades industrializadas, precisamente, en oposición a las mecánicas. Para ello utilizaba los conceptos de solidaridad orgánica y mecánica.

Sobre este punto explicó que “la economía convencional –que es la hija de la economía neoclásica– desde una visión ontológica, se sustenta en una visión mecánica, newtoniana: el humano, la…

View original post 91 more words

Sistemas orgánicos: entre la física cuántica y la sociología

Me hago eco de esta reflexión sobre sistemas de Max Neef, economista chileno. Afirma que la física cuántica ya habla del carácter orgánico de todo sistema en tanto que no tiene partes sino participantes, las cuales no son separables. Lo hace en oposición a la concepción mecánica, donde, en efecto, si se distinguen las partes. Me parece interesante esa analogía que hace para explicar el sistema económico. No obstante, no estoy de acuerdo en que esta forma de entender el sistema social haya llegado tarde a las ciencias sociales. Emile Durkheim, ya en el siglo XIX, hacía referencia al carácter orgánico de las sociedades industrializadas, precisamente, en oposición a las mecánicas. Para ello utilizaba los conceptos de solidaridad orgánica y mecánica.

Sobre este punto explicó que “la economía convencional –que es la hija de la economía neoclásica– desde una visión ontológica, se sustenta en una visión mecánica, newtoniana: el humano, la economía y el mundo son mecánicos. Y en un mundo mecánico tú tienes sistemas que tienen partes. Partes que descompones, analizas y vuelves a armar. Del otro lado, la economía ecológica se sustenta en una visión orgánica. Los sistemas no tienen partes, sino que participantes, los cuales no son separables. Lo cual significa que todo está intrínsecamente unido y relacionado. Esto por lo demás ya es un mensaje que hace más de 90 años nos viene dando la física cuántica, pero ese mensaje ha tardado en llegar a las ciencias sociales”.

Center for Development Research (ZEF) at University of Bonn

The Center for Development Research (ZEF) is an institute of the University of Bonn, Germany. It started its research activities in 1997. ZEF’s researchers aim to find science-based solutions to development-related issues. ZEF’s research departments on Economic and Technological Change, Political and Cultural Change, and Ecology and Natural Resources Management conduct inter- and trans-disciplinary research in, for and with emerging economies and on global issues with its collaborating research partners around the world. ZEF educates doctoral students from all over the world in its Doctoral Studies Program. ZEF is guided by an International Advisory Board. See also our organisational diagram.

“What is Qualitative Interviewing?” by Rosalind and Janet (2013)

What is Qualitative Interviewing? is an accessible and comprehensive ‘what is’ and ‘how to’ methods book. It is distinctive in emphasising the importance of good practice in understanding and undertaking qualitative interviews within the framework of a clear philosophical position. Rosalind Edwards and Janet Holland provide clear and succinct explanations of a range of philosophies and theories of how to know about the social world, and a thorough discussion of how to go about researching it using interviews. A series of short chapters explain and illustrate a range of interview types and practices. Drawing on their own and colleagues’ experiences Holland and Edwards provide real research examples as informative illustrations of qualitative interviewing in practice, and the use of a range of creative interview tools. They discuss the use of new technologies as well as tackling enduring issues around asking and listening and power dynamics in research. Written in a clear and accessible style the book concludes with a useful annotated bibliography of key texts and journals in the field. What is Qualitative Interviewing? provides a vital resource for both new and experienced social science researchers across a range of disciplines.

Estética

El término estética (del griego αἰσθητική [aisthetikê], ‘sensación’, ‘percepción’, y este de αἴσθησις [aísthesis], ‘sensación’, ‘sensibilidad’, e -ικά [-icá], ‘relativo a’) tiene diferentes acepciones. En el lenguaje coloquial denota en general lo bello, y en la filosofía tiene diversas definiciones: por un lado es la rama que tiene por objeto el estudio de la esencia y la percepción de la belleza, por otro lado puede referirse al campo de la teoría del arte, y finalmente puede significar el estudio de la percepción en general, sea sensorial o entendida de manera más amplia. Estos campos de investigación pueden coincidir, pero no es necesario.

En cuanto a la primera acepción, la estética estudia las razones y las emociones estéticas, así como las diferentes formas del arte. La Estética, así definida, es el campo de la filosofía que estudia el arte y sus cualidades, tales como la belleza, lo eminente, lo feo o ladisonancia, desde que en 1750 (en su primera edición) y 1758 (segunda edición publicada) Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten usara la palabra «estética» como ‘ciencia de lo bello, misma a la que se agrega un estudio de la esencia del arte, de las relaciones de ésta con la belleza y los demás valores’. Algunos autores han pretendido sustituirla por otra denominación: calología, que atendiendo a su etimología significa ciencia de lo bello (kalos, ‘bello’).

La estética es la rama filosófica que estudia e investiga el origen del sentimiento puro y su manifestación, que es el arte, según asientaImmanuel Kant en su Crítica del juicio. Se puede decir que es la ciencia cuyo objeto primordial es la reflexión sobre los problemas del arte.

How to write the introduction

The introduction should give a clear idea of the issue addressed in your paper and why you considered worth studying it. As well as the abstract, it should include the research question(s) and research objectives. If your research is based in an organization, it is recomendable to introduce, for instance, the history, size, mission etc. Although you may include more details within the method section. It is also recommendable to briefly summarize the structure of the whole paper, that is, explain in which parts is divided and the main objective of each.

What is an abstract and for what

Abstract is the first part of a paper. For some authors is probably the most important part because it may be the only part that some will read. It is a short summary of the complete content of the paper.  Some universities stipulate a maximun length, often 300-500 words. This enables those who are not sure whether they wish to read the complete report to make an informed decision. For those intend to read the whole report the abstract prepares them for what is to come. It should contain four short paragraphs with the answers to the following questions:

  1. What were my research questions, and why were these important?
  2. How did I go about answering the research question?
  3. What did I find out in response to my research questions?
  4. What conclusions do I draw regarding my research questions?

Reference

Lewis, Philip, Mark NK Saunders, and Adrian Thornhill. Research methods for business students. Pearson, 2009

 

Top tips for writing your research project

  1. “Sit down, write what come into your head about your research without even consulting your notes” (Becker, 2008). Many of us are afraid of showing our efforts publicly and receiving critics. This fear is narrated by the sociologist Howard Becker in his book “Writing for social scientists: How to start and finish your thesis, book, or article”. PhD writers normally have complex and sophisticate written material as the main reference. The literature on our topic is usually the result of writing, re-writing and reviewing process. This process is not visible and makes many people think that the author wrote it directly, without any preliminary process, as if writing were a question of inspiration. What is more, as suggested by Becker, sometimes, the use of complex (see full of sophisticate vocabulary) writing style is not even the result of any process but just the way certain authors try to distinguish themself in order to sound wiser and “classy”. Be it one or another reason, writing reference often discourage and confuse writers without experience. They ofthen tend to imitate and oversttimate their notes and others authors ideas when writing. For this reason, Becker suggests to sit down, write what come into your head about your research without even consult your notes. Then, once your narrative has a logical structure, you can add certain notes, polish your writing style with certain sophisticate words or connectors, re-write certain parts etc. And again, try to write, then re-write and re-write until it sounds clear.
  2. Do not leave writing until the end. Writing your project report is something that should not be left until every other part of your research has been completed. This has clear benefits. Writing is the only time when we really think (Phillips and Pugh, 2010). Many researchers find it helpful to write since the very beginning, when you are formulating the research problem and objectives or review of literature. We humans have 60.000 thoughts a day. Writing is way of select them and organize your mind. The same occurs when coping with a research project. Writing since the beginning will orientate you through the whole process.
  3. Create time for your writing (Saunders, 2011).
  4. Write when your mind is fresh (Op cit.)
  5. Find a regular writing place.(Op cit.)
  6. Do not procrastinate and set your own deadlines.
  7. “Finish the writing session on a high point” (Saunders, 2011). Do not finish a writing session in the middle of a section, especially the most complex ones. It is very difficult to pick up the threads after a few days of having written the first part.
  8. Get friends to read you work. You may find writing as a creative activity, but checking your work is not. It has more to do with rigor and systematic review. Ask your friends to read your project to check out whether it is first of all understandable. The fact we are very familiar with what we write, sometimes, make us lost a little bit the perspective.

Becker, Howard S. Writing for social scientists: How to start and finish your thesis, book, or article. University of Chicago Press, 2008.

Phillips, E., & Pugh, D. (2010). How to get a PhD: A handbook for students and their supervisors. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).

Saunders, M. N. (2011). Research methods for business students, 5/e. Pearson Education India.

El método científico

El invento más grande de la humanidad, después del lenguaje, es elmétodo científico. No hay nada que nos haya permitido avanzar tanto como el simple esquema de observar, proponer hipótesis, testarlas y refinarlas hasta poder construir una teoría. Es una receta simple que ya usaban egipcios, griegos y árabes con más o menos acierto, pero que no llegó a estallar del todo hasta laRevolución Científica, que culminó con las grandes obras deGalileo y Newton.