Thomas S. Kuhn und das Interview

Heesen, Anke te

doi:10.30965/25890859-04701002

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 2 publications

(3 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…And the translator’s method was developed with the aim ‘to cross over into the affective and symbolic universe of those they wanted to capture’ (Wintroub, 2015). Finally, Kuhn (2012 [1962]: 280) argued that the task of the well-trained historian was ‘to climb into other people’s heads’ (see also te Hessen, 2018). Kuhn modelled his ideal historical method on his personal experience of psychoanalysis – a vision of historical method as psychoanalysis that he held for his entire career (Forrester, 2007: 790).…”

Section: Conclusion: a New Framework For Studying Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The ineffable: A framework for the study of methods through the case of mid-century mind-brain sciences

Stark

Campbell

2018

Soc Stud Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conventionally, the story of modern research methods has been told as the gradual ascendancy of practices that scientists designed to extract evidence out of minds and bodies. These methods, which we call ‘methods of extraction’, have not been the exclusive ways in which experts have generated evidence. In a variety of case studies, scholars in Science and Technology Studies have persuasively documented scientists’ efforts to know the extra-linguistic, internal experiences of other beings – prior to or aside from their efforts to represent those experiences in words and images. We propose a new framework to resolve a seeming contradiction in STS, which stems from the fact that the language of ‘subjectivity’ has been used to refer to two analytically distinct features of scientists’ methods: the epistemological premises of a method, on the one hand, and the evaluation of the method in the moral economy of science, on the other hand. Building on Shapin’s provocation to study the ‘sciences of subjectivity’, we analyze three sites in the epistemic niche of 1950s US Federal mind-brain scientists and find that ‘methods of extraction’ neither replaced nor invariably trumped additional methods that researchers designed to provide evidence of people’s interior experiences. We call these additional approaches ‘methods of ingression’ because researchers purported to generate authoritative evidence by climbing inside the experience of another being, rather than pulling the evidence out. Methods of ingression and methods of extraction coexisted and developed iteratively in dynamic relationship with each other – not in isolation nor in competition, as is commonly assumed. Through this empirical study, we provide a new framework that departs from the binary framework of objectivity-subjectivity to allow scholars in STS to more aptly describe scientists’ epistemic worlds; to discern a greater range of methods at play; and to appreciate the warrants for knowledge used in our own field.

show abstract

Section: Conclusion: a New Framework For Studying Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The ineffable: A framework for the study of methods through the case of mid-century mind-brain sciences

Stark

Campbell

2018

Soc Stud Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is, however, literature discussing the formats of data from number to word or sentence (e.g. Ellwein 1997; Wetzell 2000; Tantner 2007; Török et al 2015; te Heesen 2022) and differences over formalization in the two traditions of statistics: the number loving tradition of political arithmetic and the Göttingen School of Statistics, which was more skeptical of tables (Lazarsfeld 1961; Bödeker 2001). Various social sciences have incorporated experimental elements into their methods or sought to constitute their objects through “observation” (Maas and Morgan 2012).…”

Section: Building On Research From the History Of Data Quantification...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Data at the doorstep

Schlicht,

Ledebur,

Echterhölter

2021

Sci Context

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“… 11 On the history of the press interview, see Ruchatz (2014); on the importance of the interview in the literary world, see Hoffmann and Kaiser (2014), Marschelein et al (2014), Roach (2018) and, in the art world, Diers, Blunck, and Obrist (2013). For an overview of the history of the research interview and its lines of tradition, see te Heesen (2013) and te Heesen (2022). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Interview and interior: Procedures of narrative surveys around 1900

Heesen¹

2021

Sci Context

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Argument In the spring of 1893, the Austrian writer and critic Hermann Bahr began interviewing various people on antisemitism, a subject of heated discussion in the European feuilleton around 1900. “Once again, I am travelling the world sounding out people’s opinions and listening to what they have to say,” he wrote in his introduction to a series of articles on that issue that appeared in the feuilleton of the Deutsche Zeitung between March and September 1893. A year later, the Berlin publishing house S. Fischer turned Bahr’s articles into a book. Bahr conducted a total of thirty-eight interviews with prominent personages, such as August Bebel, Theodor Mommsen, Ernst Haeckel, Henrik Ibsen and Jules Simon. Bahr did not focus on the arguments in favour or against antisemitism. Instead, he set out explicitly to investigate the sentiments, perceptions and opinions on this topic within the cultured classes. Yet, as I will show in this article, Bahr tried to capture not only the “sentiments” [Empfindungen] aired by his interviewees, but also the settings and interiors in which the interviews took place. I argue that these descriptions of physical space served Bahr as authentication, as a three-dimensional certificate for the “facts of opinion” [Meinungstatsachen] he recorded.

show abstract

Thomas S. Kuhn und das Interview

Cited by 3 publications

References 2 publications

The ineffable: A framework for the study of methods through the case of mid-century mind-brain sciences

The ineffable: A framework for the study of methods through the case of mid-century mind-brain sciences

Data at the doorstep

Interview and interior: Procedures of narrative surveys around 1900

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About