Newsgroups: bit.listserv.qualrs-l
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 15:49:53 -0400
Reply-To:     aa248@yfn.ysu.edu
              <QUALRS-L@UGA.BITNET>
From:         Nicholas Sturm <aa248@YFN.YSU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: back to critical theory !!!

>
>Dear Jean:  Bless your heart.  Nobody can make any sense out of it.  But on the
> axes, it goes like this:
>
>                     the sociology of radical change
>
>
>  subjective                                             objective
>
>
>                    the sociology of regulation
>
> This chart will probably not "turn out".  N-S, the sociologies; E-W,
 subjective
>e versus objective.
>
>Left top:  radical humanism (into which Burrell and M. put critical theory)
>Right top:  radical structuralism (into which THEY put conflict theory,
>         contemporary Mediterranean Marxism
>Left bottom quadrant:  interpretive sociology (hermeneutic, phenomenology)
>Right bottom quadrant:  functionalist sociology (interactionism, social action
>theory, social system theory, objectivism *by which I think they mean more trad
>itional positivist forms of inquiry*
>        Oy, vey!  Cannot believe I am now doing 2 x 2 tables on bitnet.  All th
>is fooling around with technology is going to make something happen to me!
>        A comment on this:  This is very sociologically-oriented, and fails to
>take into account other disciplines, hybrids, and political persuasions not ful
>ly developed at the time Burrell and Morgan did their work in this area.  And c
>consequently, the debates about "where" people belong if one uses only this
 conf
>iguration to describe fields of inquiry.  That's why I said last night that thi
>s one representation was a construction, and from the perspective of some inqui
>rers, now an inadequate one.
>        Is THIS any more help?  If you will draw it up, and fill in the blanks
>as I've indicated, you'll see right away why  1)  it is considered interesting
>but perhaps inadequate now, and  2) people are arguing about where others place
> them on the table.       Cheers again,  Yvonna
>
>
Interesting how we get a mind set!!  I've never associated the axes of the
plane field with (right,left;up,down).  Always perceived then as quadrants of
a continuous space.  For a matrix, my association is always with diagonals of
(upper-left, upper-right, lower-left and lower-right).

                                ^
                                |
                      II        |          I
                                |
                                |
          ---------------------------------------------->
                                |
                                |
                      III       |          IV
                                |
                                |

                .                               .
                 +-----------------------------+
                 | .            |            . |
                 |    .         |          .   |
                 |       .      |       .      |
                 |          .   |    .         |
                 |             .| .            |
                  --------------+--------------
                 |            . |  .           |
                 |          .   |    .         |
                 |        .     |      .       |
                 |     .        |         .    |
                 |  .           |            . |
                 +-----------------------------+
               .

When I plot data for a scatter diagram or clustering, it is always on a
quadrant space.  When I set up a statistical test (chi-square, etc.) it
is always perceived as four boxes with the axes through the corners of the
opposite boxes.

Seems strange upon reflecting that perceptions can be so rigid.

--
  * aa248@yfn.ysu.edu *
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU