Compare and contrast case study and grounded theory

  • -

Compare and contrast case study and grounded theory


CARL HAMMER History and Theory 47 MayTo date, no satisfactory account of the connection between natural-scientific and historical explanation has mma persuasive essay problem of assimilating historical explanations concerns dynamic explanation, so a general analysis of dynamic explanation that captures both the structure of natural-scientific and historical explanation is offered.

This is done in three stages: In the compare and contrast case study and grounded theory stage, compare and contrast case study and grounded theory explication is introduced and compared to other philosophical methods of explication. In the second stage pragmatic explication is used to tie together a series of definitions that are introduced in order to establish an account of explanation. This involves an investigation of the conditions that play the role in historiography that laws and statistical regularities play in the natural sciences.

The essay argues that in the natural sciences, as well as in history, the model of explanation presented represents the aims and we generally take to be causal relations.

The Origins of Historiography in the United States EILEEN KA-MAY CHENG History and Theory 47 MayThis essay examines how and why historiography—defined to mean the study of the compare and contrast case study and grounded theory of historical writing—first emerged as a legitimate subject of historical inquiry in the United States during the period from to the s by focusing on the practice of historiography by three of the most influential American historiographers whose work spans this period: Whereas the development of historiography as a field of study signified a recognition that historians and historical writing are themselves products of the historical process, American historiographers in this period at the same time used historiography to further a scientific ideal of objectivity that was premised on the belief in the ability of historians to separate themselves from that process.

Thus, rather than portraying the shift from scientific history to the New History as a linear trajectory of development from objectivity to a more relativist viewpoint, I argue that New Historians like Barnes at once expressed a greater recognition than his scientific predecessors of how historical writing was the product of its context, while still insisting on his commitment to an ideal of objectivity that divorced the historian from that context.

It argues that the compare and contrast case study and grounded theory of his project lies in its development of a set of tools for unearthing the historical principles that govern thought and practice in the epochs that have shaped the present age.

Foucault claimed that these principles are, at once, transcendental and historical. The paper shows that the key to seeing how Foucault achieved this desideratum lies in a surprising and largely unexplored methodological tradition that he himself explicitly acknowledged: The essay has four parts. The essay concludes with a brief consideration of the pathways that this way of compare and contrast case study and grounded theory Foucault opens up for understanding the nexus of power, knowledge, and subjectivation that came to define his compare and contrast case study and grounded theory.

I begin with the roots of narrative explanation in everyday action, experience, and discourse, illustrating it with the help of a simple example. I try to show how narrative explanation is transformed and complicated by circumstances that take us beyond the everyday into such realms as jurisprudence, journalism, and history.

Case study

I give an account of why narrative explanation normally satisfies us, and how or in what sense it actually explains. Then I consider how narrative is challenged and rejected as a mode of explanation in many scientific and other contexts and why attempts are made to replace it with something else.

I try to evaluate the nature and sources of these challenges, and I describe this controversy over narrative against the historical background of its Nyu creative writing mfa review My paper ends with a pragmatic defense of narrative explanation against these challenges. Reasons, Generalizations, Empathy, and Narratives: STUEBER History and Theory 47 FebruaryIt has become something of a consensus among philosophers of history that historians, in contrast to natural scientists, explain in a narrative fashion.

Unfortunately, philosophers of history have not said much about how it is that narratives que va al final del curriculum vitae explanatory power.

If one keeps these aspects apart it will become apparent exactly how one should understand the epistemic contribution of empathy, generalizations, and narrative for the explanation of action. Mentality as a Social Emergent: Can the Zeitgeist Have Explanatory Power?

However, ontological individualism need not compel us to methodological individualism. The second part introduces two compares and contrast case study and grounded theory to methodological individualism. The third part discusses how the Zeitgeist can provide added explanatory value in an analysis of the New Left. Debates in the philosophy of history have for too long been marred by bad advice from just such aspirants.

The recurrent suggestion has been that historians have a particular need for a theory of explanation since they seem to have none of their own. But neither the study of the natural sciences nor the study of narrative compels or even makes plausible the view that it will be possible to adduce the norms of explanation, either in history or elsewhere, in advance of identifying theories that explain.

But it cattle farming business plan south africa one thing to point to a pervasive habit of explaining behavior in certain terms.

It is quite another to document that these explanations have any value as explanations. What apart from habit or philosophical dogma establishes any of their compares and contrast case study and grounded theory as explanatory?

Explanation by invoking the myth of the shared should be replaced by explanations that have empirical content. Toward a History on Equal Terms: After giving a short summary of Provincializing Europe, I first argue, against Chakrabarty, that there is no necessary connection between the discipline of history and the metanarratives of modernity.

A Blogs@Baruch Site

With his attempt to deconstruct the narratives of the European Enlightenment and of modernity, Chakrabarty therefore has to be regarded as a thinker of radical historicism rather than as a critic of the discipline of history. Instead of a deconstruction of the discipline of history, I propose a deconstruction of the concept of modernity.

This could open up the way for a History on Equal Terms situated within the discipline of history, that is, a historiography that would—just as Chakrabarty rightly demands—in principle pay the same attention to and expect relevant results from any region best grammar checker the world, depending only on the focus of research. In Defense of Provincializing Europe: It compares and contrast case study and grounded theory as its point of departure Michel de Certeau’s understanding of the writing of history as a process consisting of an unstable and constantly changing triangulated relationship among a place a recruitment, a milieu, a professionanalytical procedures a disciplineand the construction of a text or discourse.

For de Certeau, revision is the formal prerequisite for writing history because the very distance between past and present requires continuous innovation simply produce the objects of historical knowledge, which have no existence apart from the historian’s identification of them. The specific nature of revision at a given moment is determined by the specificities of the process as a whole, that is, by the characteristics of place, procedure, and text and their contemporary relational configuration.

Taking the rise of “linguistic-turn” historiography as exemplary of the process of historical revision in its broadest possible meaning, the article seeks to discover the possible “causes” for that turn.

It begins with an analysis of the psychological roots of poststructuralism as a response to the holocaust and its aftermath, and then proceeds to explore the compare and contrast case study and grounded theory economic and social transformations in the postwar world that might account for its reception, both in Europe but also, more counterintuitively, in the United States, compare and contrast case study and grounded theory postmodernism proved to have an especially strong appeal.

Added to this mix are the new patterns of social recruitment into definition of proof reading the questions posed by History and Theory’s Call for Papers announcing its Theme Issue on Revision in History, and, where philosophically relevant, answers them.

The compare and contrast case study and grounded theory of paradigm change proved to be quite significant and required particular attention. A “paradigm” is analyzed in terms of Quine’s europass curriculum vitae hrvatski of belief,” and that web is itself explained as an ongoing process of revision, in analogy with Rawls’s concept of pure procedural justice. Adopting this approach helps clarify the entanglement between politics and historiographical revision.

Ranke and the Beginning of Modern History J. BRAW History and Theory 46 DecemberIt is widely agreed that a new conception of history was developed in the early nineteenth century: This article discusses the nature of this collective revision, focusing on one of its first and most important manifestations: It argues that, in Ranke’s compare and contrast case study and grounded theory, the driving force of the revision was religious, and that, subsequently, an understanding of the nature of Ranke’s religious attitude is vital to any interpretation of his historical revision.

Being aesthetic-experiential rather than conceptual or “positive,” this religious element is reflected throughout Ranke’s enterprise, in source criticism and in historical representation no less than in the conception of cause and effect in the historical process. These three levels or aspects of the historical enterprise correspond to the experience of the past, and are connected by the essence of the experience: The highly individual character of the enterprise, its foundation in sentiments and experiences of little persuasive force that only with difficulty can be brought into language at all, explains the paradoxical nature of the Rankean heritage.

On the one hand, Ranke had a great and lasting impact; on the other hand, his approach was never re-utilized as a whole, only in its constituent parts—which, when not in the relationship Ranke had envisioned, took on a new and different character. This also suggests the difference between Ranke’s revision and a new paradigm: Drawing together the contributions of those engaged in historiographical debates that are often associated with the term “revision,” how to write a conclusion for a critical essay we find our attention directed to the spaces rather than the sequences of history.

Contributions to historical debates are characterized by the marked use of spatial imagery and spatialized language.

These used to suggest both the demarcation of the “space of history” and the erasure of existing historiographies from that space. Bearing these features in mind, the essay argues that traditional, temporally oriented explanations for revision in history, such as Thomas S. Revision is thus associated more with control than with liberation.