Positivsm vs Interpretivism: You Opinions

[DarthFishy]

ICT = Information and Communications Technology.

Interpretivism - in Cultural Anthropology, the view that cultures can be understood by studying what people think about, their ideas, and the meanings that are important to them.
Interpretivism - in Ontology, the view that all knowledge is a matter of interpretation.
-(From Wikipedia). Are we talking definition 1, or 2?

Defintion 1. Always gives me a chuckle when I think that you could consider me an Anthropologist, but instead of a lost African tribe, my research field is that of the Computer geek

I'd say there's little here worth researching. Changing tools is only worth doing if the improved output with the new tools creates increased profit that outweighs the costs of retooling. That some of those costs are psychological simply makes them harder to measure. Any manager will tell you the decisions he hates most are those involving personal stress in his employees, whether it's a girl in tears because she was dumped at the weekend or a bitter man who has been passed over for promotion. Viewed objectively, these stresses may seem trivial. Viewed subjectively by the person involved, they are shattering.

And it would seem obvious that these stresses, as they seem to be quite shattering, would have an effect on that person and possibly on their whole department. I agree though that measuring these "costs" objectively are very difficult. Hence why I suggest subjective measurements as a possible solution.

PM may not be always woo, but the greatest exponents of it- artists, "social scientists" and writers-have convinced "asocial scientists", engineers and many others that it is, by adopting a pretentiously ornate writing style which too often seems designed to conceal a lack of evidence or rigorous argument. Where are the supporting data?

Two points on this:
(1) I agree entirely that without supporting data its not proper research of any kind. (i.e. woo)
(2) I suspect that there might be different standards for what constitutes valid data between the two "schools" of thought.

As you show no sign of that and seem to have your head the right way up, you may be it's best hope yet on this forum. The field is yours...

Thank you. Its encouraging to debate opposing viewpoints in such a calm and reasonable manner!

You're not going to get an answer like g=9.8m/s, because that's not the sort of question you're asking, but you'll still get an answer

I think that sums up perfectly what I'm actually trying to say

 

[Soapy Sam]

Double post.

 

[Soapy Sam]

I guess that I was thinking of a different post modernism, mine was more of the words are only idiomatic symbols that gain meaning through reference and there is no ideal and better culture type of postmodernism.

Right. I get you.

ICT = Information and Communications Technology.

Defintion 1. Always gives me a chuckle when I think that you could consider me an Anthropologist, but instead of a lost African tribe, my research field is that of the Computer geek

But are you interested primarily in the geeks or in how they communicate?
The beauty of computers (and of many specialist subjects, such as sport or art, from the culture / communication standpoint, is (IMO) that they create a shared substrate of reference, permitting very clear communication among their devotees, so long as they stick to their common ground.
(The actual content is irrelevant from the communication POV. two football fans will communicate as knowledgably and articulately as two art lovers, in terms of actual data exchange, though the language used may differ due to educational background etc.)
I've watched two programmers talk to each other with elegant clarity for an hour while referring to the code they were jointly writing, only to revert to stumbling semi-literate inarticulacy, when asked to write some straightforward explanatory comments to make what they had just done comprehensible to a reasonably intelligent layman (me). This I found fascinating and so funny they were mightily huffed about it. Precise, shared vocabulary and referents are critical to the shared comprehension of complex information. Reading some OU texts on modern literature a couple of years ago on the other hand, I found myself re-reading entire pages several times and failing to extract a single coherent datum from them. This is the sort of postmodernism I despise. The point of writing is communication. Writing which fails that test is essentially hieroglyphics.

And it would seem obvious that these stresses, as they seem to be quite shattering, would have an effect on that person and possibly on their whole department. I agree though that measuring these "costs" objectively are very difficult. Hence why I suggest subjective measurements as a possible solution.

Agreed. But the critical word is "measurements". Now it may be the best we can do is a range of emotional responses- "Hated it", " Liked it" etc., but those are measurements too. The critical thing is that measurement must be consistent. If one man's "It was OK" is equivalent to another's "It was awful", then we do NOT have measurement, we have anecdote.
This is where the attitude that seems (to me) to dominate PM thinking- the "I'm OK, you're OK. My definition is as good as yours" thing- is hopelessly wrong. The reason I can use a voltmeter and you can use a voltmeter, is because we DO NOT have equally valid, but contextually different definitions of a volt. The reason we can do it is because there is one, and only one such definition. The principle of tolerance is profoundly important to engineers, but the limits of tolerance are themselves clearly defined.
+/- 1 thou. is NOT the same thing as "any size will do".

Two points on this:
(1) I agree entirely that without supporting data its not proper research of any kind. (i.e. woo)
(2) I suspect that there might be different standards for what constitutes valid data between the two "schools" of thought.

Around here we tend to use "woo" for persistent belief in silly things either in the absence of confirming evidence, or despite the clear presence of contradictory evidence. Postmodernism as I have encountered it is less "woo" than simple absence of meaningful content, cloaked in a wrapper of hokum.

Different standards for data can be got around. What matters is that there are standards.

Thank you. Its encouraging to debate opposing viewpoints in such a calm and reasonable manner!

*(Thinks) Little doth he know we be fattening him for the pot...*

Actually, I'd take slight exception to the word "opposing". Viewpoints differ, but can be complementary or supplementary as easily as opposed. There's never harm in looking at any issue from two angles; only if the two views cannot be merged into a meaningful stereoscopic view does a problem arise.

Richard Dawkins has made the point that in the case of two different worldviews , the correct answer may be somewhere in the middle- but it is equally possible one view is simply wrong. It's a comment worth bearing in mind in any debate.

 

[drkitten]

Agreed. But the critical word is "measurements". Now it may be the best we can do is a range of emotional responses- "Hated it", " Liked it" etc., but those are measurements too. The critical thing is that measurement must be consistent. If one man's "It was OK" is equivalent to another's "It was awful", then we do NOT have measurement, we have anecdote.

Actually, even that is workable-with. As long as either we have enough anecdotes that we can use statistics and measures of central tendency (the "average" user experience is that design 1 is preferred to design 2), or we have paired observations that are consistent among pairs (subject #27 doesn't "like" anything, but he thinks design 1 sucks less than design 2), we can still extract measurement from anecdote.

Engineers, after all, have been doing conversions for years, too. If I tell you I need fifteen inches of something that costs $1/cm, how much will I get charged?

This is where the attitude that seems (to me) to dominate PM thinking- the "I'm OK, you're OK. My definition is as good as yours" thing- is hopelessly wrong.

No, the wrong attitude is that "my definition is interchangeable with yours." And in particular, any meaning that I can twist out of a set of data is just as valid as one that is reliably supported (do you remember Alan Sokal's wonderful analysis of the feminist implications of the Axiom of Choice?)

And that's the problem with post-modernism. There's nothing wrong with looking at a data set from a different viewpoint, or even dealing with inconsistent data in a well-supported manner. But any time you adjust your method of dealing with data, you have to pay attention to that in how you draw your conclusions.

 

[DarthFishy]

And that's the problem with post-modernism. There's nothing wrong with looking at a data set from a different viewpoint, or even dealing with inconsistent data in a well-supported manner. But any time you adjust your method of dealing with data, you have to pay attention to that in how you draw your conclusions.

Exactly. I think that sums up the Interpretivist position perfectly.

Actually, I'd take slight exception to the word "opposing". Viewpoints differ, but can be complementary or supplementary as easily as opposed. There's never harm in looking at any issue from two angles; only if the two views cannot be merged into a meaningful stereoscopic view does a problem arise.

Richard Dawkins has made the point that in the case of two different worldviews , the correct answer may be somewhere in the middle- but it is equally possible one view is simply wrong. It's a comment worth bearing in mind in any debate.

Oh yes very much agreed. I think we have very similar conclusions to this debate but with slightly different ways of reaching the conclusions.

 

[Beausoleil]

And that's the problem with post-modernism. There's nothing wrong with looking at a data set from a different viewpoint, or even dealing with inconsistent data in a well-supported manner. But any time you adjust your method of dealing with data, you have to pay attention to that in how you draw your conclusions.

And the postmodernist says "what privileges your view of what one has to do over mine?"

It seems to me this is futile. A postmodern view is that there is no way to decide between different interpretations, our view is that there is. You can't "win" an argument with them because they hold to the princple that there is no way to win the argument. They don't want to convince you of their point of view, they want to prevent you imposing your restrictive worldview on other people, ending the totalitarian dominance of rationalism or some such.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Oh yes very much agreed. I think we have very similar conclusions to this debate but with slightly different ways of reaching the conclusions.

(Altogether) "OH NO WE DON'T!"


Gods, I hate this wifi keyboard.

 

[drkitten]

And the postmodernist says "what privileges your view of what one has to do over mine?"

Shrug. Reality does. Planes designed to my view fly. Computers designed to my view send and receive email. Bridges designed to my worldview stay up, even when heavy trucks drive across them.

As Sokal put it, "anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the windows of my apartment. I live on the twenty-first floor." That's a pretty hefty dose of privilege right there.

 

[Dancing David]

Replication of hypothesized models in observable patterns provides the basis of a non privlidged but universal perspective.

ha take that wrong minded post modernism, i still use th term to denote that all cultures are equqa, that does not obviate the scientific method.