This document discusses the argumentative nature of science and the role of interpretation in scientific work. The three main points are: 1) Science is a process of argumentation aimed at convincing others using evidence. Scientific arguments take a position and use empirical data to support it. 2) Scientific evidence depends on interpretation and the research goals or theories it aims to support. Evidence alone is meaningless without interpretation. 3) Fieldwork is a method used to gather empirical evidence but requires flexibility and adjustment based on what is found, as human subjects are unpredictable. Interpretation and evidence mutually shape each other in scientific work.

1. Method and Fieldwork in a
Hermeneutical Perspective
Espen Suenson
Åbo Akademi
13.2.2012

2. 1 stpoint:
Science is argumentation.
We argue to convince

3. Science is argumentation
• Numbers can’t speak for themselves
• We need to know when planning an
experiment what the numbers are for

4. Science is argumentation
• What is written in the grant proposal has
an influence on the subsequent research

5. Science is argumentation
• Perelman & Olbrecths-Tyteca (1958):
Convincing yourself is a special case of
convincing others

6. Science is argumentation
• Gadamer (1960):
All thought is directed by application
• For a scientist, the application is to
convince other scientists

7. Science is argumentation
• Latour & Woolgar (1979):
empirical demonstration that the natural
sciences are as much about
argumentation as any other

8. 2nd point:
The scientific argument

9. The scientific argument
A point we wish to make + form + evidence

10. The scientific argument
• Example (Heidenberg, Nåls, Porres 2008:
Statechart features and pre-release
maintenance defects, p. 465)
• Quote:
“The understandability points ratio and the
assessed difficulty for changeability are
the two major indicators that ModelA was
easier to understand and change.”

11. “The understandability points ratio and the assessed
difficulty for changeability are the two major indicators
that ModelA was easier to understand and change.”
• Form: enthymeme
• Major premise: understandability points
ratio and assessed difficulty indicate ease
of understanding and changing
• Minor premise: “in Table 4 we can see that
ModelA generated better values for all four
data points.”
• Conclusion: ModelA is easier to
understand and change

12. “The understandability points ratio and the assessed
difficulty for changeability are the two major indicators
that ModelA was easier to understand and change.”
• Point we wish to make: It is easier to
understand models written using a better
design style

13. “The understandability points ratio and the assessed
difficulty for changeability are the two major indicators
that ModelA was easier to understand and change.”
• Evidence:
Paired sample t-test comparing
Model1 – ModelA.

14. The scientific argument
• This kind of rhetorical analysis can be
done with different choices of base unit
size: sentence, paragraph, section, article,
book …

15. 3rd point:
scientific evidence depends on
interpretation

16. Scientific evidence
• Evidence that cannot be understood is
useless

17. Scientific evidence
• We can always get more evidence, hence
interpretation is important, not quantity

18. Scientific evidence
• Evidence and interpretation is linked by
the point that we’re trying to make
• This point is: the research goal

19. 4 thpoint:
What does this have to do with
fieldwork?

20. Fieldwork
• Fieldwork is a method for gathering
evidence

21. Fieldwork
• Basic idea: talk to people, see what they’re
doing

22. Fieldwork
• You have to solve problems and adjust
your method as you go along
• People are unpredictable. If you knew
what they’re going to say there would be
no point in talking to them

23. 5 point:
th
So method is collection of
evidence.
What is theory?

24. Scientific theory
• Gadamer: No understanding can take
place without prejudice
• Prejudice: what we expect to see

25. Scientific theory
• Theory is prejudices written down, so they
can be discussed and checked

26. Scientific theory
• Can we write down all our prejudices, i.e.
all we know?
Of course not. Hence, theory presents a
certain perspective, determined by
application

27. Final point:
Scientific method is a dialogue
with evidence

28. Science as dialogue
• ‘Dialogue’ is a metaphor

29. Science as dialogue
• Why a metaphor?
• Makes is easier to remember, easier to
understand

30. Science as dialogue
• Why is it a good metaphor?
• In science, as in dialogue, it is important to
‘listen’ to the evidence

31. Science as dialogue
• To select a method and stick to it no
matter what the observations show is like
a person that only talks about himself and
asks questions without listening to the
answers

32. Conclusion:
Why is this stuff important?
Because it makes your life
harder if you’re not aware of
what you’re doing.