elanya

See, silly words like 'scientistic', is why I am wary of generally coming out of the pomo closet. I don't know if I want to be associated with people who think that kind of thing is okay ;) They can think what they like... No one said I have to like it or agree, afterall ^-^

I'm not ure where I lie on the question of being expicit in all things. I'm sure you are aware of various relativist/pomo social scientists (or...whatever you'd call them :p) who believe that the best way to get around the possibility of bias in work is to make it uber explicit, and the somewhat ridiculous lenghts that some go to in that regard (I was raised in a single parent family in Newark blah blah blah.... and that is how the death of my family dog has affected my interpretation of Tshimshian feasting traditions!). That's somethign I really need to think about more I guess. I kind of think that the theory you are using should be explicit.... but I tend to see a lot of theory as a tool. It is a way of understanding things. , and as you say it influences the answers one finds.

Hmmm... I understand what you are saying, and take your point. I'm not sure I agree that laying out hypotheses is necessary to see things that should be evident. Not for everyone anyway, but I can see how, in that sense, they are a useful tool. I'm not convinced that they are necessary though, or that you can't do good research without them, which is probably something Dr. Babits would disagree with ;p