Is conceptual vagueness an asset? Resilience research from the perspective of philosophy of science
Research output: Working paper › Working papers
Standard
Lüneburg: Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre der Universität Lüneburg, 2011. (Working paper series in economics; No. 205).
Research output: Working paper › Working papers
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
T1 - Is conceptual vagueness an asset?
T2 - Resilience research from the perspective of philosophy of science
AU - Strunz, Sebastian
PY - 2011
Y1 - 2011
N2 - Is conceptual vagueness an asset or a liability? By weighing arguments from philosophy of science and applying them to the concept of resilience, I address this question. I first sketch the wide spectrum of resilience concepts that ranges from concise concepts to the vague perspective of “resilience thinking”. Subsequently, I set out the methodological arguments in favor and against conceptual vagueness. While traditional philosophy of science emphasizes precision and conceptual clarity as precondition for empirical science, alternative views highlight vagueness as fuel for creative and pragmatic problem-solving. Reviewing this discussion, I argue that a trade-off between vagueness and precision exists, which is to be solved differently depending on the research context. In some contexts research benefits from conceptual vagueness while in others it depends on precision. Assessing the specific example of “resilience thinking” in detail, I propose a restructuring of the conceptual framework which explicitly distinguishes descriptive, evaluative and transformative aspects.
AB - Is conceptual vagueness an asset or a liability? By weighing arguments from philosophy of science and applying them to the concept of resilience, I address this question. I first sketch the wide spectrum of resilience concepts that ranges from concise concepts to the vague perspective of “resilience thinking”. Subsequently, I set out the methodological arguments in favor and against conceptual vagueness. While traditional philosophy of science emphasizes precision and conceptual clarity as precondition for empirical science, alternative views highlight vagueness as fuel for creative and pragmatic problem-solving. Reviewing this discussion, I argue that a trade-off between vagueness and precision exists, which is to be solved differently depending on the research context. In some contexts research benefits from conceptual vagueness while in others it depends on precision. Assessing the specific example of “resilience thinking” in detail, I propose a restructuring of the conceptual framework which explicitly distinguishes descriptive, evaluative and transformative aspects.
KW - Sustainability sciences, Management & Economics
KW - vagueness
KW - philosophy of science
KW - precision
KW - resilience thinking
KW - social-ecological systems
KW - vagueness
KW - philosophy of science
KW - precision
KW - resilience thinking
KW - social-ecological systems
KW - Economics
KW - vagueness
KW - philo
KW - precision
KW - resilience thinking
KW - social-ecological systems
M3 - Working papers
T3 - Working paper series in economics
BT - Is conceptual vagueness an asset?
PB - Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre der Universität Lüneburg
CY - Lüneburg
ER -