I'm not positive but I believe this argument stems from Baudriallard's notion of simulation and simulacra. Baudriallard would suggest that reality exists in terms of various orders of simulation of an original artifact. At an extreme the simulation no longer resembles the original symbol. In that sense reality is constituted by simulation, and this is especially true within capitalist society. Mass production intensifies this idea. So where is the link? Recall is essentially an attempt at simulating a prior experience, which is always subject to difference in interpretation due to the fallible nature of memory and rationality. The same is arguably true when the researcher performs operationalization, even at the point of defining a research question. In the operationalization context the researcher is attempting to simulate reality within a mediated form: language.
Excuse my philosophical meandering.
Hey Mike. I'm not all that familiar with Baudrillard but I think you're right, he is fundamentally interested in phenomenalism (the idea that experiencing subject is divorced in some way from the object of experience). The idea goes all the way back to Plato and beyond -- similar to Baudriallard, Plato proposed that the objects of our experience were simulacra of metaphysical objects that he called the Forms. If you're interested in this idea and you're not familiar with Plato I can recommend some of the dialogues where he discusses this idea -- it's neat stuff.
ReplyDeleteThe contemporary preoccupation with phenomenalism and phenomenology is almost always rooted in the writing of Kant -- not light reading in any sense, it is incredibly dense stuff. The basic idea is that objective reality (the noumena) exists but that we can never have direct access to it because it is always mediated by things like language, prior experience, etc. It's handy to have some understanding of Kant as people tend to throw words like phenomena and noumena around and quite often they're using them in a Kantian sense.
Oh, and I just remembered what I had originally intended to comment on before getting carried away with my own philosophical meandering.
ReplyDeleteI think I understand your point about operationalization being an attempt to simulate reality through language -- though it seems that the same could be said of any language-use -- but the crucial point about operationalizaition is that the object is being articulated in such a way that it can be observed by someone else. It's like the morningstar / venus example. It might be impossible for two people to agree that they are observing the same planet if one of them knows it as the morningstar and one of them knows it as Venus. But if they operationalized the object by providing its coordinates in the sky they would both agree that they are talking about the same object. So in a sense operationalization allows you to side-step some of the potential distortion resulting from interpretation and language-use by allowing you to point to the object in question. Of course some will argue that it's never possible to escape discourse entirely but, nonetheless, operationalization attempts to focus on the signified by minimizing the role of the signifier.
I wrote my peer review on McMillan's Soap Box piece. It was almost completely devoid of critical analysis, and my criticism reflected this. I'm not looking for adbusters, but when did academics become journalists?
ReplyDeleteIs objectivity such a golden principle that it must guide all research? I can understand hard scientists, because they are presenting findings as "fact," being guided by an objective approach, but why is this the case for social scientists, who are tasked with "commenting" and "theorising?" Is it because Baudrillard and the rest of the post-structuralists have been tasked with all the criticism? Nobody else is allowed to?
Why do journalists (see the recent Keith Olbermann
campaign donation scandal) risk getting fired for attaching themselves to specific political philosophies? I don't have a problem with Marxist literary critics, or Chicago School economists, so long as they are clear that this grounding guides their critique.
I can't not weigh in on this. I don't believe that any research project is created without bias or some lack of objectivity on behalf of the researcher. If there wasn't some inherent interest or hypothesis, it would be difficult (if not insane) to devote one's life and work to the study of something they didn't "feel" something about one way or the other. Isn't it just important that the bias (whatever it is) is acknowedged up front and then the reader can critically review the findings? Just like in business where it's "buyer beware", isn't it "reader beware" when it comes to taking research findings and using them as facts? Let's look at the big "egg" research controversy being played out in the media right now. Are eggs bad for you? Good for you? Who knows. I guess it depends if you're the egg farmer or the heart surgeon. And this is why the research engine continues to churn. We argue back and forth because we fundamentally refuse to believe something that we simply don't want to. So we seek out those that have similar biases and look to critique the methods and findings of those that don't.
ReplyDelete