|
Citation reference: Harvey, L., [1990] 2011, Critical Social Research, available at qualityresearchinternational.com/csr, last updated
8 January, 2024, originally published in London by Unwin Hyman, all rights revert to author.
A novel of twists and surpises
|
|
However, a theoretical analysis that fails to engage the material world through empirical material is itself limited. Such analysis is prone to detachment from historically specific social processes. It fails to bridge the gap between theory and praxis. At worst it is speculative. Since Marx, the tradition of critical sociology has rooted itself firmly in the 'here and now' and addressed details of the material reality directly. Marx was adamant that revealing the real state of affairs was dependent upon a thorough detailed analysis of actual social practices. Empirical analysis together with theoretical conjecture was essential for a dialectical analysis of inner connections.
Critical social research requires that empirical material is collected. It does not matter whether it is statistical material, anecdotes, directly observed behaviour, media content, interview responses, art works or anything else. Whatever provides insights is suitable.
However, empirical material must not be taken at face value. That does not mean that all data used must be subject to conventional 'reliability' or 'validity' checks. Data is meaningful only in relation to its theoretical context; reliability and validity are functions of the context and the epistemological presuppositions that the researcher brings to the enquiry. So for critical social research, data is important in order to ground the enquiry but data must not be treated as independent of their socio-historic context.
The concern of this book, then, is not with the adequacy of theoretical conjecture but with showing how empirical critical social research can be undertaken. The intention is not just to reassert the need for empirical critical enquiry but to show how it can be done without the data swamping the dialectical analysis.
Although this book is about doing critical social research this does not mean that it offers a set of methodic prescriptions. Critical social research is a way of approaching the social world in which critique is central. It is not bounded by a specific set of methods. Any methodic tool is permissible, it is the way the empirical evidence is approached and interpreted, the methodology not the method of data collection per se, that characterises critical social research. Critical social research encourages neither methodic monopoly, nor, more importantly, method-led research. Prescribing in advance how to collect data inhibits the research endeavour (Mills, 1959). Any combination of methods is acceptable to critical social research. Similarly, critical social research is not bounded by a single (grand) theoretical perspective. It is not (a version of) Marxism, or feminism, or anything else, for that matter.
This book, then, is not about what method or what 'ism' should be adopted for critical social research. Nor does it engage in internecine disputes about the 'best' form of critical research. It is not a treatise on critical thinking, nor a theoretical debate about the nature of sociology, nor a critique of other styles of research. The book is about how data has been obtained and how it has been used to critically address a substantive area of study and is organised around the themes of race, gender and class. While not the only basis for structural critique, the issues of class, gender and race have been the principle foci for critical social research.
The illustrative studies provide examples of the different perspectives in practice and show how an epistemological perspective has been fused with an approach to empirical data to provide a methodology designed to engage substantive questions. The illustrative studies are designed to show how the data collection and interpretation are intrinsically linked to epistemological concerns about the nature of oppression and the development of knowledge. It is not the intention of the book to critique the theory or substantive findings of the studies. The intention is to show how different authors have adopted different critical ways of working.
|
|
