At the end of this course, the students; 1) develop their ability to draw a mental map of the social science philosophy from a critical perspective, 2) develop their individual skills of evaluating and researching in the area of social science philosophy in a manner to contribute to the field and critically evaluate the existing studies. 3) develop their ability to write an article, which can be evaluated within the parameters of social science philosophy.
MODE OF DELIVERY
Face to face
PRE-REQUISITES OF THE COURSE
No
RECOMMENDED OPTIONAL PROGRAMME COMPONENT
No
COURSE DEFINITION
Paradigm shifts are analysed within the framework of the historical development of sciences. The influence of positivism and scientific truth on social sciences, and their contribution to the field is reviewed. How the basic scientific approaches have developed and how postmodernist, social constructivist critics have shaped the functional structure of social sciences, is explained. The course also discusses how, in this process, social ontology could set on a legitimate foundation.
COURSE CONTENTS
WEEK
TOPICS
1st Week
Introduction: The challenging act of doing science
2nd Week
Comprehension Ability of Scientists
3rd Week
Science Philosophy and Social Sciences
4th Week
Science Philosophy and Social Sciences
5th Week
Science Philosophy and Social Sciences
6th Week
Science Philosophy and Social Sciences
7th Week
Scientific Truth
8th Week
Scientific Truth
9th Week
Positivism - Phenomenology
10th Week
Positivism - Phenomenology
11th Week
Theory of Reason and Consciousness
12th Week
Social Reality
13th Week
Theory Building in the area of organisation and administration
14th Week
Beginning of the End
RECOMENDED OR REQUIRED READING
Azevedo, J. 2002. Updating organizational epistemology. J. A. C. Baum (Der.). The Blackwell Companion to Organizations: 715-732. Oxford: Blackwell. Balashov, Y. ve Rosenberg, A (Der.). 2002. Philosophy of science: Contemporary reading. London: Routledge. Bird, A. 2003. Kuhn, nominalism, and empiricism. Philosophy of Science, 70:690-719. Boyd, R. 1999. On the current status of scientific realism. R. Boyd, P. Gasper ve J. D. Trout(Der.), The philosophy of science: 196-222. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. Boxenbaum, E. ve Rouleau, L. 2011. New knowledge products as bricolage: Metaphors and scripts in organizational theory. Academy of Management Review, 36(2):272-296. Bunge, M. 1993. Realism and antirealism in social sciences. Theory and Decision, 35:207-235. Burrell, G. ve Morgan, G. 1979. Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. New Hampshire: Heineman. s. 1-117. Cruse, P. 2007. Van Fraassen on the nature of empricism. Metaphilosophy, 38(4):489-508. Chakravartty, A. 2004. Structuralism as a form of scientific realism. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 18(2):151-171. Collins, R. 1998. The sociology of philosophies: A global theory of intellectual change. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. DiSalle, R. 2002. Reconsidering Kant, Friedman, logical positivism, and the exact sciences. Philosophy of Science, 69:191-211. Fay, B. 2003. Phenomenology and social inquiry: From consciousness to culture and critique. S. P. Turner ve P. A. Roth (Der.). The Blackwell guide to the philosophy of social sciences: 42-63. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Folger, R. And Turillo, C. J. 1999. Theorizing as the Thickness of Thin Abstraction. Academy of Management Review, 24:605-622. Hacking, I. 1999. The social construction of what? Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Hall, J. R. 1990. Epistemology and sociohistorical inquiry. Annual Review of Sociology, 16:329-351. Hopp, W. 2008. Husserl, phenomenology and foundationalism. Inquiry, 51(2):194-216. Keat, R. ve Urry, J. 1975. Social theory as science. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Keat, R. ve Urry, J. 1975. Structure and structuralism. Social theory as science: 119-140. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Kilduff, M., Mehra, A. ve Dunn, M. B. 2011. From blue sky research to problem solving: A philosophy of science theory of new knowledge production. Academy of Management Review, 36(2):297-317. Kitchener, R. F. 2004. Logical positivism, naturalistic epistemology, and the foundations of psychology. Behavior and philosophy, 32:37-54. Kuhn, T. S. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. s. 1-76. Lieberson, S. ve Lynn, F. B. 2002. Barking up the wrong branch: Scientific alternatives to the current model of sociological science. Annual Review of Sociology, 28:1-19. Mahner, M. ve Bunge, M. 2001. Function and functionalism: A synthetic perspective. Philosophy of Science, 68:75-94. Martin, J. L. 2003. What is field theory? American Journal of Sociology, 109:1-49. Miller, A. I. 2000. Insights of genious: Imagery and creativity in science and art: 1-36. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Moldoveanu, M. C. ve Baum, J. A. 2002. Contemporary debates in organizational epistemology. J. A. C. Baum (Der.). The Blackwell Companion to Organizations: 733-751. Oxford: Blackwell. Psillos, S. 2005. Scientific realism and metaphysics. Ratio, 18(4):385-404.
PLANNED LEARNING ACTIVITIES AND TEACHING METHODS
Lecture,Discussion,Presentation
ASSESSMENT METHODS AND CRITERIA
Quantity
Percentage(%)
Assignment
14
50
Project
1
50
Total(%)
100
Contribution of In-term Studies to Overall Grade(%)
100
Contribution of Final Examination to Overall Grade(%)
0
Total(%)
100
ECTS WORKLOAD
Activities
Number
Hours
Workload
Midterm exam
Preparation for Quiz
Individual or group work
Preparation for Final exam
Course hours
14
3
42
Preparation for Midterm exam
Laboratory (including preparation)
Final exam
Homework
14
10
140
Project
1
120
120
Total Workload
302
Total Workload / 30
10,06
ECTS Credits of the Course
10
LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTION
Turkish
WORK PLACEMENT(S)
No
KEY LEARNING OUTCOMES (KLO) / MATRIX OF LEARNING OUTCOMES (LO)