If scholars accept that all knowledge is socially constructed, and historically situated, we must also understand social research methodologies as historically produced social formations that circumscribe as well as produce culturally specific forms of knowledge. In this article I examine some of the ways in which an underlying 19th century philosophy of science constrains the ability of contemporary researchers to examine 21st century cultural complexities. In particular, I discuss how the notion of evidence derived from the physical sciences prevents social sciences from examining a range of phenomena such as routine relations of privilege and contemporary media. Taking up the argument that social sciences need social epistemologies, I explore sociological studies of language as one form of epistemic shift that would enable researchers to apprehend the circulation of power as expressed in routine relations of privilege, as well as apprehend the porous social relations introduced through media old and new.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlcoffL. M., (2007), Epistemologies of Ignorance: Three Types, in SullivanS and TuanaN., (eds), Race and Epistemologies of Ignorance, Albany: State University of New York: 39–58.
2.
Bonilla-SilvaE., (2003), Racism without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in the United States, Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
3.
BoothmanD., (1995), Introduction, in BoothmanD., (ed.), Further Selections from the Prison Notebooks, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
4.
BourdieuP., (2003), Language and Symbolic Power, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
5.
ClarkeA., (2005), Situational Analysis: Grounded Theory After the Postmodern Turn, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
6.
CloughP. T., (2000), Autoaffection: Unconscious thought in the age of teletechnology, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
7.
de CerteauM., (1984), The Practice of Everyday Life, RendallS. (trans.), Berkeley: University of California Press.
8.
della PortaD. and KeatingM., (2008), Introduction, in della PortaD. and KeatingM., (eds), Approaches and Methodologies in The Social Sciences: A Pluralist Perspective, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 1–16.
9.
DenzinN., (2003), Cultural Studies, in ReynoldsL. T. and Herman-KinneyN. J., (eds), Handbook of Symbolic Interactionism, New York: AltaMira press: 997–1019.
10.
FlyvbjergB., (2001), Making Social Science Matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11.
FoucaultM., (1977), Discipline and Punish: The birth of the prison, SheridanA., (trans.), New York: Vintage Books.
12.
GordonA., (1997), Ghostly Matters: Haunting and the sociological imagination, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
13.
GramsciA., (1995), Further Selections from the Prison Notebooks, BoothmanD. (trans.), Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
14.
HawkesworthM., (2007), Truth and Truths in Feminist Knowledge Production, in Hesse-BiberS. N., (ed.), Handbook of Feminist Research: Theory and Praxis, Thousand Oaks: Sage: 469–491.
15.
HoaglandS. L., (2007), Denying Relationality: Epistemology and Ethics and Ignorance. in SullivanS. and TuanaN., (eds), Race and Epistemologies of Ignorance, Albany: State University of New York: 95–118.
16.
IvesP., (2004), Language and Hegemony in Gramsci, London: Pluto Press.
17.
JenkinsH., (2008), Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide, New York: New York University Press.
18.
NgK. H., (2009), The Common Law in Two Voices Language, Law, and the Postcolonial Dilemma in Hong Kong, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
19.
PascaleC.-M., (2007), Making Sense of Race, Class, and Gender: Commonsense, Power, and Privilege in the United States, New York: Routledge.
20.
PascaleC. M., (2010), Cartographies of Knowledge: Exploring Qualitative Epistemologies, Thousand Oaks: Sage.
21.
PrasadP., (2005), Crafting Qualitative Research: Working in the Postpositivist Traditions, New York: M.E. Sharpe.
22.
RussellB., (1938), Power: A New Social Analysis, New York: Routledge.
23.
SaukkoP., (2003), Doing Research in Cultural Studies, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
24.
ScottJ. W., (1991), The Evidence of Experience, Critical Inquiry, 17, 4: 773–97.
25.
SmithL. T., (2004), Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples, London: Zed Books Ltd.
26.
SomersM. R. and GibsonG. D., (1996), Reclaiming the Epistemological ‘Other’: Narrative and the Social Constitution of Identity, in CalhounC., (ed.), Social Theory and the Politics of Identity, Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers: 35–99.
27.
SteinbergM., (1999), Fighting Words: Working-Class Formation, Collective Action, and Discourse in Early 19th Century England, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
28.
SteinbergS., (2007), Race Relations: A Critique, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
29.
SullivanS. and TuanaN., (eds), (2007), Race and Epistemologies of Ignorance, Albany: State University of New York.
30.
WilliamsG., (1999), French Discourse Analysis: The method of post-structuralism, New York: Routledge.
31.
ZuberiT., (2001), Thicker Than Blood: How Racial Statistics Lie, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
32.
ZuberiT. and Bonilla-SilvaE., (eds), (2008), White Logic, White Methods: Racism and Methodology, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
