Publicado oct 16, 2018


Google Scholar
Search GoogleScholar

Emma Williams



Este artículo explora los usos predominantes de la teoría en la investigación en ciencias sociales en relación con el enfoque de la filosofía fenomenológica. Este artículo explora los pensadores claves de la tradición filosófica de la fenomenología para argumentar que esta tradición puede plantear retos para las concepciones predominantes de la investigación y la teorización en las ciencias sociales y para cierta(o)s idea(le)s filosóficos que pueden conectarse a ellas. Se delinea la naturaleza distintiva de la descripción fenomenológica y se esbozan nuevas posibilidades para la investigación cualitativa.


Science, literature, background, phenomenology, Heidegger, foundationalismCiencias, literatura, antecedentes, fenomenología, Heidegger, fundacionalismo

Culler, J. (1997). Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1998). Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry. California: Sage Publications.

Eagleton, T. (2003). After Theory. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Basic Books.

Giorgi, A. (1997). The Theory, Practice, and Evaluation of the Phenomenological Method as a Qualitative Research Procedure. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 28 (2), 235-260.

Glendinning, S. (2007). In the Name of Phenomenology. Oxford: Routledge.

Heidegger, M. (1992 [1925]). History of the Concept of Time. Indiana: Indiana University Press.

Heidegger, M. (2004 [1954]). What is Called Thinking? New York: Harper & Row.

Heidegger, M. (2005 [1927]). Being and Time. Kundli, India: Blackwell Publishing.

Husserl, E. (1983 [1913]). Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy Book One. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Jarvis, M. & Oakley-Brown, L. (2004). Talking after Theory: An Interview with Terry Eagleton. English, 53 (207), 177-190.

Krause, M. (2016). The Meanings of Theorizing. The British Journal of Sociology, 67 (1), 23-29.

Kuhn, T. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press

Mulhall, S. (2001). Inheritance and Originality: Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Kierkegaard. Clarendon Press: Oxford.

Mulhall, S. (2008). The Wounded Animal: J. M. Coetzee and the Difficulty of Reality in Literature and Philosophy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Oxford University Press, OUP (2017). Oxford English Dictionary, OED.

Ryle, G. (2009 [1958]). A Puzzling Element in the Notion of Thinking. In Julia Tanney (ed). Gilbert Ryle Collected Papers, Volume 2, 404-419. Oxford: Routledge.

Sartre, J.-P. (1933). Nausea. London: Penguin.

Standish, P. (1992). Beyond the Self: Wittgenstein, Heidegger and the Limits of Language. London: Ashgate.

Standish, P. (1995). Why We Should Not Speak of an Educational Science. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 14 (2-3), 267-281.

Swedberg, R. (2016). Before Theory Comes Theorizing or How to Make Social Science More Interesting. The British Journal of Sociology, 67 (1), 5-22.

Taylor, C. (1997). Lichtung or Lebensform: Parallels between Heidegger and Wittgenstein. In Charles Taylor. Philosophical Arguments, 61-78. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Taylor, C. (2013). Retrieving Realism. In Joseph K. Schear (ed.). Mind, Reason and Being-in-the-World: The McDowell-Dreyfus Debate, 61-90. Oxford: Routledge.

Williams, E. (2015). In Excess of Epistemology: Siegel, Taylor, Heidegger and the Conditions of Thought. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 49 (1), 142-160.

Williams, E. (2016a). The Ways We Think: From the Straits of Reason to the Possibilities of Thought. London: Wiley-Blackwell.

Williams, E. (2016b). Oakeshott, Bonnett, Derrida and the Possibilities of Thought. In D. Bakhurst & P. Fairfield (eds.). Education and Conversation: Exploring Oakeshott’s Legacy. London: Bloomsbury.

Wood, D. (2002). Thinking after Heidegger. Oxford: Polity Press.
Cómo citar
Williams, E. (2018). Resisting the Drive to Theorise: A Phenomenological Perspective on Social Science Research. Magis, Revista Internacional De Investigación En Educación, 11(22), 43–56.