Logo UAB
2020/2021

Epistemology and Research Methods in Social and Cultural Anthropology

Code: 101264 ECTS Credits: 12
Degree Type Year Semester
2500256 Social and Cultural Anthropology OB 2 2
The proposed teaching and assessment methodology that appear in the guide may be subject to changes as a result of the restrictions to face-to-face class attendance imposed by the health authorities.

Contact

Name:
Dan Rodríguez García
Email:
Dan.Rodriguez@uab.cat

Use of Languages

Principal working language:
spanish (spa)
Some groups entirely in English:
No
Some groups entirely in Catalan:
No
Some groups entirely in Spanish:
No

Teachers

Dan Rodríguez García
Beatriz Ballestin Gonzalez

Prerequisites

In order to be able to correctly study the subject, it is necessary to have to do previously Fieldwork Practicum I in Social and Cultural Anthropology.

Objectives and Contextualisation

It is a subject that is part of a sequence of methodological-technical subjects that constitutes a model at the scale of ethnographic research in Anthropology: Fieldwork Practicum I (exploratory or prospective fieldwork), Epistemology and methods of study research (theoretical design), Research techniques (technical design), Instrumental resources for anthropological research (instrumental competences), Fieldwork Practicum II (to test of the hypotheses according to the previous methodological designs, data collection, analysis and conclusions), and Final Project (model at the scale of ethnographic research in Anthropology).

The subject of Epistemology and methods is part of the main Subject 11, Methods, techniques and instruments of research in Anthropology, and its contents refer to the phase of theoretical design of the research (formulation of the hypotheses, elaboration of the theoretical framework, tests of contrast, etc.) and to the epistemological assumptions underlying the sequence of methodological and technical subjects of the degree.

This subject is linked to Fieldwork Practicum I, and has the following objectives:

1. To understand the historical development of the different proposals of scientific and hermeneutical research methods and the different proposals for the analysis of scientific theories, with special emphasis on structural conception.

2. To make a first approximation to the methodological assumptions underlying the classical and contemporary works of Anthropology.

3. To reach conclusions about the debate on the application of scientific and interpretative methods in Anthropology and the role of hermeneutic structures in this discipline of the pre-understanding on one side and on the other the descriptions, the interpretative procedures and the explanations that account for diverse relationships between socio-cultural phenomena.

4. To reach awareness that anthropological knowledge, and in general, disciplinary knowledge, are cultural products typical of unequal societies, immersed in the shared worldviews and closely related to power relations, especially gender relations, which demands a critique Non-empirical of theories and concepts, which adds to epistemological methodological criticism.

5. To acquire the ability to develop and test an explanatory hypothesis of a sociocultural problem (formulated from an initial phase of fieldwork) taking into account its plausibility, its adequacy to the data and its relation with other alternative hypotheses.

Competences

  • Apprehending cultural diversity through ethnography and critically assessing ethnographic materials as knowledge of local contexts and as a proposal of theoretical models.
  • Demonstrating they know and comprehend the epistemological and methodological debates in Anthropology and the main investigation techniques.
  • Producing cultural diversity materials that could have a critical impact on the common sense conceptions.
  • Respecting the diversity and plurality of ideas, people and situations.
  • Students must be capable of applying their knowledge to their work or vocation in a professional way and they should have building arguments and problem resolution skills within their area of study.
  • Students must be capable of collecting and interpreting relevant data (usually within their area of study) in order to make statements that reflect social, scientific or ethical relevant issues.
  • Students must develop the necessary learning skills to undertake further training with a high degree of autonomy.
  • Using the procedures, techniques and instrumental resources to the fulfilment of ethnographic fieldwork.

Learning Outcomes

  1. Adopting a holistic perspective to the research problem's statement and analysing human institutions within wider cultural configurations.
  2. Analysing a contemporary fact from an anthropological perspective.
  3. Analysing data critically from anthropological investigations and reports.
  4. Applying the current ethical codes to the ethnographic fieldwork.
  5. Applying the knowledge of cultural variability and its genesis to avoid ethnocentric projections.
  6. Assessing critically the explicit and implicit theoretical models in the ethnographic materials.
  7. Carrying out an individual work that specifies the work plan and timing of activities.
  8. Critically assessing ethnographic materials as a proposal for theoretical models.
  9. Engaging in debates about historical and contemporary facts and respecting the other participants' opinions.
  10. Establishing reliable ethnological relationships with subjects that encourage the production and trustworthiness of data.
  11. Explaining the work's results narratively in accordance with the critical standards of discipline and bearing in mind the different target audiences.
  12. Knowing and assessing the difference between the epistemological and the methodological critique of concepts.
  13. Knowing and assessing the methodological debate of social and cultural Anthropology.
  14. Obtaining and recording ethnographic data by applying the different collection and analysis techniques, specially by using qualitative procedures and the practice of the participant observation.
  15. Operationalizing theoretical concepts and testing explanations of the sociocultural phenomena.
  16. Relating elements and factors involved in the development of scientific processes.
  17. Solving problems autonomously.

Content

0. Presentation of the course: structure, content, evaluation.

1. Preliminary definitions and basic assumptions. The “folk” concept of science: supposed objectivity, supposed truths. Historicity of the scientific method proposals. Criticism of traditional dichotomies: natural / social sciences, nomothetic and idiographic disciplines, interpretive anthropology and scientific anthropology.

2. The beginning of the scientific methodology in anthropology: Evolutionism, Tylor and the science of culture; the first approaches to the method: Radcliffe-Brown structural functionalism and the application of inductivism in anthropology: the inductive-verificationist method. Inductive method and deductive method.

3. Falsationism: from certainty to conjecture. The first approaches: Herschel and Duhem ("soft falsationism"). Popper ("hard falsationism") and the hypothetical-deductive-falsationist method: criticism of inductivism; the relativity of the concept "truth"; falsifiability as a demarcation criterion between science and non-science.

4. Logical Probabilism: Carnap, Kaplan and Manners. Explanation and prediction.

5. Hempel, classic methodological concepts: hypothesis, contrasting implication, corroboration / falsation, theoretical support and empirical support, logical probability, nomological-deductive explanation, etc. The limits of falsation and the verification of theories.

6. Sociology and methodology of science. Kuhn and the theory of paradigms: normal science and scientific revolutions.

7. Lakatos' sophisticated falsationism. Research program methodology: negative heuristics and positive heuristics. Development of programs and concept training.

8. Between Feyerabend's radical criticism (methodological anarchism and incommensurability) and Lévi-Strauss's “sagesse”. Irrationality and rationalities in the knowledge processes.

9. Constructive proposals: The structural analysis of scientific theories: Moulines and the emphasis on discussion and criticism of knowledge; Giddens, Theory of structuring and the double hermeneutics of the Social Sciences.

10. Interpretation and explanation (Agar). Perspectivism and power in knowledge processes.

11. Interpretation and explanation in Anthropology. Ethnographies as predicates of structure.

12. Perspectivism and power in knowledge processes. Non-empirical criticism of concepts.

 

Methodology

The course consists of 12 ECTS: 4 of individualized classes and tutorials and 8 of works and readings.

Preliminary understanding of subjects is achieved through classes and compulsory readings.

Deeper understanding is achieved through the theoretical work and essays based on the course mandatory readings and through the development of a tutored practical work that is being developed in several stages as advances in the learning of the theoretical-methodological contents.

The practical component includes several mandatory sessions with the whole class, to explanain of the guides for the development of the Practice.

Activities

Title Hours ECTS Learning Outcomes
Type: Directed      
Preparation of theoretical work and essays 30 1.2 3, 1, 8, 6, 13, 12, 16
Selection of a work hypothesis and application of the theoretical concepts basic to the hypothesis 45 1.8 3, 5, 1, 8, 6, 13, 12, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16
Theoretical classes and discussion of theoretical readings 25 1 2, 4, 15, 17
Type: Supervised      
Carrying out a methodological design and developing an hypotheses 5 0.2 2, 4, 1, 7, 10, 14, 15, 17
Individial Tutorials 45 1.8 2, 4, 15, 17
Type: Autonomous      
Reading and commenting on compulsory readings 75 3 2, 4, 7, 15, 9, 17
Successive and cumulative work developing the hypothesis 75 3 3, 5, 8, 11, 9, 16

Assessment

The follow-up of the course in the Theory part will suppose 50% of the grade of the course, and will be evaluated from reading reviews (20%) and a work of definition of Hempel concepts (30%).

The other 50% corresponds to the Practicum part, which consists in the elaboration, in various submisssions, of a theoretical research design based on an hypothesis.

Deliveries of all evaluative works must be made on the stipulated dates. Regarding the Practicum part, it is necessary to have attended all the follow-up tutorials related to the development of the design.

To pass the course, students must have passed each part (Theory and Practicum) independently, with a minimum grade of 5 out of 10.

In order to be reevaluated, it is necessary to have been evaluated in continuous evaluation and have failed. The minimum average qualification (Theory and Practice) to be reevaluated is 3.5 points

The Theory part will be re-evaluated with an exam, and the Practicum part with a written work.

In the event that tests or exams cannot be taken onsite, they will be adapted to an online format made available through the UAB’s virtual tools (original weighting will be maintained). Homework, activities and class participation will be carried out through forums, wikis and/or discussion on Teams, etc. Lecturers will ensure that students are able to access these virtual tools, or will offer them feasible alternatives.

In the event of a student committing any irregularity that may lead to a significant variation in the grade awarded to an assessment activity, the student will be given a zero for this activity, regardless of any disciplinary process that may take place. In the event of several irregularities in assessment activities of the same subject, the student will be given a zero as the final gradefor this subject.

 

 

Assessment Activities

Title Weighting Hours ECTS Learning Outcomes
Submission of reports drawn from theoretical readings, discussions of submitted essays, and preparation of a work and two essays) 50% 0 0 2, 4, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 9, 17
Supervised development of a methodological desig 50% 0 0 3, 5, 1, 8, 6, 13, 12, 11, 16

Bibliography

MANDATORY BIBLIOGRAPHY  (in reading order)

GONZÁLEZ ECHEVARRIA, A. (2011), “De la certeza a la conjetura. Evolución de las propuestas de método científico”. Adaptado de  “Del utillaje conceptual de la antropología: los usos del términos “inductivismo” y los usos del término “hermeneútica”. Dos propuestas de clarificación”, Revista de Antropología Social, 15: 327-372.

RADCLIFFE-BROWN, A. R. (1975) [1958] “Definición [de Antropología Social]”, en J.R. Llobera, ed. La Antropología como ciencia, Barcelona: Anagrama, 1975: 47-53.

RADCLIFFE-BROWN, A. R. (1974) [1925] “El hermano de la madre en África del sur”, en Estructura y función en la sociedad primitiva, Barcelona: Península, pp. 25-41.

POPPER, K. (1967) [1935] “Panorama de algunos problemas fundamentales”; “Sobre el problema de una teoría del método científico”, Caps. 1 y 2 de La lógica de la investigación científica, Madrid: Tecnos: 27-54.

KAPLAN, David y MANNERS, R.A. (1979) “Antropología: métodos y problemas en la formulación de teorías”; “Algunos temas viejos y nuevas direcciones”, Caps. 1 y 5 de Introducción crítica a la teoría antropológica, Buenos Aires: Nueva Imagen, pp.19-66 y 313-341.

HEMPEL, C. (1979) Filosofía de la ciencia natural. Madrid: Alianza.

KUHN, T. S. (1971) [1962] “Introducción” y “Posdata 1969”, en La estructura de las revoluciones científicas, México: Fondo de Cultura Económica, pp. 20-32 y 268-319.

LAKATOS, I. (1983) [1978] “La falsación y los programas de investigación científica”, en La metodología de los programas de investigación científica, Madrid: Alianza, pp. 17-72.

FEYERABEND, P. K. (1982) [1978] “La ciencia en una sociedad libre”, en La ciencia en una sociedad libre, Madrid: Siglo XXI, 2ª parte, pp. 82-142.

GONZÁLEZ ECHEVARRÍA, A. (2003) “Un Esquema conceptual para el análisis del conocimiento”, en Crítica de la singularidad cultural, Barcelona: Anthropos, pp. 371-381.

MOULINES, C. L. (1980) “Análisis estructural de las teorías”, en Exploraciones metacientíficas, Madrid: Alianza, pp. 74-87, 108-116.

GIDDENS, A. (1987) [1967] “Conclusiones: Algunas nuevas reglas del método sociológico”, en Las nuevas reglas del método sociológico. Crítica positiva de las sociologías interpretativas, Buenos aires: Amorrortu, pp. 159-167.

AGAR, M. [1982] (1992) “Hacia un lenguaje etnográfico”, en Reynoso, C. (comp.) El surgimiento de la antropología postmoderna, Barcelona: Gedisa, pp. 117-137.

 

COMPLEMENTARY SUPPORT BIBLIOGRAPHY

CHALMERS, A. F. (1982) ¿Qué es esa cosa llamada ciencia?, Madrid: S. XXI.

CHALMERS, A. F. (1992) La ciencia y cómo se elabora, Madrid: S. XXI. 

GIDDENS, A.(1967) Las nuevas reglas del método sociológico. Una crítica positiva de la  sociología interpretativa. Buenos Aires. Amorrortu. 

GONZÁLEZ ECHEVARRIA, A. (1987) La Construcción teórica en Antropología, Barcelona, Anthropos.

—  (1989) “Del estatuto científico de la Antropología”, en J. Contreras y otros (dirs.) Antropología de los Pueblos de España. Madrid. Taurus: 177-191.

—  (1990) Etnografía y comparación. La investigación intercultural en Antropología. Barcelona: Servei de Publicacions de la UAB.

— (2003) Crítica de la singulariad cultural, Barcelona/ México,  Anthropos y Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana.

— (2006) “Del utillaje conceptual de la antropología: los usos del términos “inductivismo” y los usos del término “hermeneútica”. Dos propuestas de clarificación”, Revista de Antropología Social, 15: 327-372.

— (2009) La dicotomía emic/etic. Historia de una confusión. Barcelona. Anthropos

SAN ROMÁN ESPINOSA, T. (2006) “Acaso es evitable? El impacto de la Antropología en las relaciones e imágenes sociales” Revista de Antropología social 15: 373-410.

 

GENERAL COMPLEMENTARY BIBLIOGRAPHY

ADORNO, T.W. (1969) La disputa del positivismo en la filosofía alemana. Barcelona. Grijalbo. 1973.

AGAR, M. (1982) “Hacia un lenguaje etnográfico”, en Reynoso, comp. 1992:779-95

ATAL, Y. 1981 “The Call for Indigenization”. International Social Science Journal, vol. 32, I: 189-197.                                                                                                                    

BACHELARD, G.1975b (1938) La formation de l’Esprit Scientifique. Contribution a une Psychanalise de la Connaissance Objective. París. Vrin. .                                

BARNES, B. 1982, T.S. Kuhn and Social Science. Londres. Mac Millan                   

BAUMAN, Z. 1978 Hermeneutics and Social Science. Approach to Understanding. Londres. Hutchinson.                                                                                                       

BERGER, A. T. & LUCKMAN (1966) La construcción social de la realidad. Buenos Aires. Amorrortu.                                               

BOAS, F.  1896 “The Limitations of the Comparative Method in Anthropology” Science, N.S. 4: 901-908, en Boas, 1968: 270-288.

— 1968 (1940) Race, Language and Culture. Canadá. Collier-Macmillan.                                                                                             

BOHANNAN, L.1956 “Miching Mallecho: that means withchcraft”, en J. Morris, ed. From the third Programme: 174-188 Nonesuch Press, Ltd. London, en “The Bobbs-Marrill reprint series in Social Sciences”, A.403.                                                                               

BOURDIEU, P., CAMBORDEON, J.C. y PASSERON,J.C.(1973) El oficio de sociólogo. Madrid, s. XXI.                                                                                                                   

CARNAP, R.1969 Fundamentación lógica de la Física. Buenos Aires. Editorial Sudamericana.                                                                                                                               1974 “Qué es la probabilidad” en D.M. Messick, ed. Matemáticas en las ciencias del comportamiento.  Madrid. Alianza. 39-49. 

CARRITHERS, M. (1990) “Is Anthropology Art or Science?”, Current Anthropology, 131 (3): 263-282 (traducción castellana en Alteridades. Anuario de Antropología, México: UAM).

CICOUREL, A. V.1979 (1973) La sociologie cognitive. París. P.U.F.       

CHALMERS, A. F. (1982) ¿Qué es esa cosa llamadaciencia?, Madrid: S. XXI. 

CHALMERS, A. F. (1992) La ciencia y cómo se elabora, Madrid: S. XXI.       

CLIFFORD, J. (1988) “Sobre la autoridad etnográfica” en Reynoso, comp. 1992: 141-170.          

COLLINGWOOD, R.G. An Essay on Methaphysics. Oxford. Citado por Toulmin,1977.

COULON, A. 1988 (1987) La Etnometodología. Madrid. Cátedra.                       

DAVIDSON, D. 1990 (1984) De la verdad y de la interpretación. Barcelona. Gedisa. 

— 1992, Mente, mundo y acción. Barcelona. ICE/Paidós.

DILTHEY, W.1966 (1883) Introducción a las ciencias del espíritu. Madrid. Revista de Occidente.

DUHEM, P.(1906) The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. Princeton: Princeton U.P.

ESTUPINYÀ, P. (2010) El ladrón de cerebros: Compartiendo el conocimiento científico de las mentes más brillantes. Barcelona: Debate.

EVANS-PRITCHARD, E-E.(1937) Brujería, magia y oráculos entre los Azande. Barcelona. Anagrama. 

FEYERABEND, P.K.  (1974) Contra el método, Barcelona: Ariel.

— 1982 La ciencia en una sociedad libre. Madrid. S. XXI. 

FLECK, L. (1935) La génesis y el desarrollo de un hecho científico. Introducción a la teoría

del estilo de pensamiento y del colectivo de pensamiento. Madrid. Alianza Editorial.

FOUCAULT, M. [1973] (2003) La verdad y las formas jurídicas. Barcelona: Gedisa. 

FOUCAULT, M. [1971] (1993) Microfísica del Poder. Madrid: La Piqueta.

FOUCAULT, M. [1969] (1987) Arqueología del Saber. Madrid: Siglo XXI. 

FOUCAULT, M. [1970] (1992) El orden del discurso. Buenos Aires: Tusquets.

GADAMER, H.G.1993(1960) Verdad y Método I. Salamanca. Sígueme.

— 1994 (1986) Verdad y Método, II. Salamanca. Sígueme. 

GARFINKEL, H., 1990 (1967) Studies in Ethnometodology. Cambridge. Polity Press. 

GEERTZ, C. (1984) “Distinguished Lecture: Anti, Anti, Relativism”, American Anthropologist, vol. 86: 263-278.

— 1987 (1973) La interpretación de las culturas. México. Gedisa. 

— 1988 El antropólogo como autor. Barcelona. Paidós. 

GIDDENS, A. (1967) Las nuevas reglas del método sociológico. Una crítica positiva de la  sociología interpretativa. Buenos Aires. Amorrortu.

GOODENOUGH, W.H. 1970 Description and Comparation in Cultural Anthropology. Cambridge: C.U.P.

HABERMAS, J.1973a (1963) “Teoría analítica de la ciencia y dialéctica. Apéndice a la controversia entre Popper y Adorno”, en Adorno y otros, 1973: 147-180.

— 1982 (1968) Conocimiento e Interés. Madrid. Taurus. 

— 1990 (1970) La lógica de las ciencias sociales. Madrid. Tecnos.

HANSON, N.R. (1958) Patrones de descubrimiento. Observación y explicación. Barcelona. Alianza Editorial.

HARRIS, M.1986 (1976) “Historia y significación de la distinción emic/etic”. Luego, 2,3, 1-17, 1-24.

HEMPEL, C.G. 1965 Aspects of Scientific Explanation. New York. Free Press. 

HOLLIS, M.1979a “The limits of Irrationality”, en Wilson, 1979 (1970): 214-220.

— 1979b “Reason and Ritual”, en Wilson, 1979 (1970): 167-239.

HOLTON, G.1973 Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought. Kepler to Einstein. Cambridge, Masc. Harvard University Press.

— 1979 The Scientific ImaginationCase Studies.

— 1982 La imaginación científica. México. F.C.E.

HORKHEIMER, M. 1974 (1968) Théorie traditionnelle et théorie critique. París. Gallimard. 

— 1974a (1937) “Théorie traditionnelle et théorie critique”, en Horkheimer, 1974: 17-80.

— 1974b (1937) “Appendice”, en Horkheimer, 1974: 80-90.  

JARVIE, I.C.1967 (1964) The Revolution in Anthropology. Londres. Routledge and Kegan Paul. 

— 1981, “Rationalism and Relativism”, en The British Journal of Sociology, 34 : 44-60.

JOHNSON, A.W. (1978), Research Methods in social Anthropology, Stanford University Press. 

KUHN, T.S.1971a (1962) La estructura de las revoluciones cientificas. México. F.C.E.

— 1971b (1969) “Posdata: 1969”, en La estructura de las revoluciones científicas. México. F.C.E.

— 1975 (1969) “Consideraciones en torno a mis críticos”, en I. Lakatos y A. Musgrave, eds. 1975: 391-354.

— 1977 “El cambio de la teoría como cambio de estructura: comentarios sobre el formalismo de Sneed”, Teorema VII (2); pp. 141-165.

— 1979 “Segundas reflexiones acerca de los paradigmas”, en F. Suppe, (ed.), La estructura de las revoluciones científicas, Madrid: Editora Nacional; pp. 529-569.

LAKATOS, I. 1975a “La falsación y la metodología de los programas de investigación científica”, en I. Lakatos y A. Musgrave, eds. 1975: 203-343..

— 1978 “Formación de conceptos”, cap. 8 de Pruebas y Refutaciones. La lógica del descubrimiento matemático, Madrid: Alianza; pp. 103-120. 

— 1981 Matemáticas, ciencia y epistemología. Escritos Filosóficos, 2. Madrid. Alianza.

— 1980 La metodología de los programas de investigación científicos. Madrid. Alianza.

LAKATOS, I. y MUSGRAVE, A., eds.La crítica y el desarrollo del conocimiento. Barcelona. Grijalbo. 

LATOUR, B. y WOOLGAR, S.(1979) La vida en el laboratorio. La construcción de los hechos científicos. Madrid. Alianza. 

— 1989 (1986) Epílogo a la segunda edición de La vida en el laboratorio. Madrid.  Alianza.

LAUDAN, H. Progress and its Problems: Towards a Theory of Scientific Growth. Berkeley. University of California Press.

LLOBERA, J.R. (comp.) (1975) La Antropología como ciencia, Barcelona: Anagrama.

MACINTYRE, A.1979a (1964) “Is understanding religion compatible with believing”, en Wilson, 1979 (1970): 62-77.

MANNHEIM, K.1987 (1936, 1º ed. 1929) Ideología y utopía. Barcelona. Ediciones 62/Diputació de Barcelona.

MARCUS, G.; CUSHMAN, D.E. “Las etnografías como textos”, Annual Review of Anthropology. 2: 25-69.

MARCUS, G.E. “Rethoric and Ethnographic Genre in Anthropological Research”, Current Anthropology. 21, 4: 507-10. 

MARWICK, M.G. 1963 “The sociology of sorcery in a Central African Tribe”. African Studies,22,1:1-21.

— 1965 Sorcery in its social setting. A study of the Northern Rhodesian Cewa. Manchester. Manchester U.P.

MASTERNAM, M. 1975 (1965) “La naturaleza de los paradigmas”, en Lakatos y Musgrave, eds, 159-201.

MERLEAU-PONTY1975 (1945) Fenomenología de la percepción. Barcelona. Península. 

MILLS, .W. 1992 (1959) La imaginació sociològica. Barcelona. Herder. 

MORROW, R.A. y BROWN, D.D. Critical Theory and Methodology. London. Sage Publications.

MOULINES, C.L. 1983 Exploraciones metacientíficas. Madrid. Alianza. 

NAGEL, E.1978 La estructura de la ciencia. Problemas de la lógica de la investigación científica. Buenos Aires. Paidós.

NAROLL, R. y R. COHEN (1973) A Handbook of method in Cultural Anthropology.

NEWTON-SMITH, H.W.The Rationality of Science. USA. Routledge and Kegan Paul.

O’MEARA, J.T. (1989) “Anthropology As Empirical Science”, American Anthropologist, 91: 354-369.

PELTO, P.J. & G.H. PELTO (1978) Anthropological research: the structure of enquiry, CUP.

POPPER, K.R. 1963 Conjetures and Refutations. The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Londres. Routledge and Kegan Paul.

— 1966 (1934) La lógica de la investigación cientifica. Madrid. Tecnos. 

— 1972 Objective Knowledge. An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 

— 1973 (1961) “La lógica de las ciencias sociales”, en Adorno y otros, 1973: 101-119.

— 1973a  (1944-45) La miseria del historicismo. Madrid. Alianza.

— 1975 “La ciencia normal y sus peligros”, en I. Lakatos y A. Musgrave, eds. 1975: 149-158.

— 1976 “A Note on Verosimilitude” The British Journal for Philosophy of Science, 27:147-59.

— 1976 “La racionalidad de las revoluciones científicas” Teorema, XIII (1-2): 109-131.

QUINE, W.V. 1992 La búsqueda de la verdad (versión revisada por Quine de la 1ª edición Harvard U.P. 1990) Barcelona. Crítica.

RADCLIFFE-BROWN, A.R. (1974) “Introducción” (pp. 11-21) y “Los métodos de la etnología y antropología social” (pp. 25-59), en Estructura y función en la sociedad primitiva, Barcelona: Península.

REICHENBACH, H. 1938   Experience and prediction. Chicago: Chicago U.P.

— 1953 “The verificability Theorie of Meaning”, en H.Feigl y M. Brodbech, Readings in the Philosophy of Science, New York, Appeton-Century-Croftal.

REYNOSO, C. (comp.) 1992 El surgimiento de la Antropología Postmoderna. Barcelona. Gedisa. 

RICOEUR, P. Hermeneutis and the Human Sciences. Edición y traducción de J.B. Thompson. Cambridge/París. Cambridge U.P. y Maison des Sciences de L’Homme.

RIGGS, F.W., 1983, “Los conceptos indígenas: un problema para las ciencias sociales y las cienciaa de la información” UNESCO. Revista Internacional de Ciencias Sociales, nº 144: a las teorías de la Antropología Social: 166-169. Barcelona. Anagrama. 172-184.

RIVIERE, P.G. (1987) “Nuevas tendencias en la Antropología Social Británica”, Anales de la Fundación Joaquín Costa, 4: 33-50.

SAN ROMÁN, T. (1984) “Sobre l’objecte i el mètode de l’Antropologia”, Quaderns ICA 5, pp. 122-133.

SANGREN, P.S. 1988 “Rhetoric and Authority of Ethhnography. Postmodernism and the Social Reproduction of Text”. Current Anthropology, 29, 3:405-425.

SAYER, A.1992 (1984) Method in Social Science. A realist approach. London & New York: Routledge

SCHÜTZ, A.1972 (1932) Fenomenología del mundo social. Introducción a la sociología comprensiva. Buenos Aires. Paidós. 

— 1974-I El problema de la realidad social. Buenos Aires. Amorrortu.

— 1974-II Estudios sobre teoría social. Buenos Aires. Amorrortu.

SNEED, J. 1971 The Logical Structure of Mathematical Physics. Dordreath (Holland). Reidel. 

SPERBER, D. 19885“Interpretative Ethnography and Theoretical Anthropology”, en Sperber. On Anthropological Knowledge. Cambridge. Cambridge U.P.: 9-34.

STEGMÜLLER, W. , 1976 (1973) The Structure and Dynamics of Theories. Nueva York.

— 1980 La concepción estructuralista de las teorías. Madrid. Alianza.

SUPPE, F. (ed.) 1979 (1974) La estructura de las teorías científicas. Madrid. Editora Nacional.

SUPPES, S.1962 “Models of Data”, en E. Nagel, F. Suppe y A. Tarsk (ed.) Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science: Proceeding of the 1960 International Congress: 252-261. Stanford (California). Stanford University Press.

— 1964 “What is a Scientific Theory2”, en S. Morgenbesser, ed. Philosophy of Science Today: 55-67. Nueva York. Basis Books.

TAYLOR, C. 1985 Philosophy and the Human SciencesPhilosophical Papers, 2. Cambridge. C.U.P. 

— 1985a (1971) “Interpretation and the sciences of man”, en Taylor, 1985: 15-57.

— 1985b (1981) “Social Theoryas practice”, en Taylor, 1985: 91-115.

— 1985c (1981) “Understanding and ethnocentricity”, en Taylor, 1985: 116-133. 

TOULMIN, S. (1977) La comprensión humana, Madrid: Alianza.

VON WRIGHT, G. H.1887 (1971) Explicación y comprensión. Madrid. Alianza Universidad. 

WALLACE, W.L. 1980 La lógica de la ciencia en la sociología. Madrid. Alianza

WEBER, M. 1922 (1984) La acción social. Ensayos metodológicos. Barcelona. Península. 

WILSON, B.A. 1979 (1970) Rationality. Basil Backwell. Londres. 

WINCH, P. 1976 (1958) The Idea of a Social Science and its Relations to Philosophy. London. Routledge and Kegan Paul.

WITTGENSTEIN, L. (1953) Investigaciones filosóficas. Barcelona/México D.F. Editorial Crítica/Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas UNAM.