CITATION AND COPYRIGHT INFORMATION:
Cite as: Shields, P. (2003, May). Sense-Making political economy: Some thoughts on bridging the metatheory-method divide. Paper presented at a non-divisional workshop held at the meeting of the International Communication Association, San Diego, CA.
© Peter Shields (2003).

OVERVIEW:
Contemporary political economy theory and research can benefit significantly from systematic engagement with Sense-Making Methodology. The fact that variants of critical political economy theory and Sense-Making appear to share some key metatheoretical positions provides the foundation for this engagement. From my perspective, a problem with much contemporary critical political economy is that metatheoretical assumptions do not appear to be carried through at the level of substantive theory and what is usually referred to as method (the protocols and procedures for conducting empirical research, for example). That is, one set of propositions is often assumed at the highest level of abstraction while another set is implemented at the level of substantive theory and method.

This is in part a methodological problem. That is, there appears to be little attention to how metatheoretical assumptions transubstantiate to the domains of substantive theory and the doing of research. Instead what we appear to have is a form of theoretical reductionism. That is, we tend to see research questions already answered quite conclusively at the level of substantive theory; this is accomplished through forms of reductionism (“horizontal” and “vertical” forms of reductionism). Given this perceived state of affairs, it seems there is little room for open-ended inquiry. Empirical research is often used to confirm what is already “known.” There is, therefore, little attention to or debate about appropriate methods for empirical research.

In this brief think piece, I explore how Sense-Making methodology along with other strands of thought might suggest guidelines that can help address the perceived problems outlined above. My understanding of Sense-Making methodology draws primarily from Brenda’s article, On studying information seeking methodologically: The implications of connecting metatheory to method (1999). I offer the following:

• A tentative model that political economists (and perhaps others) can draw on in imagining the relationship of methodology to metatheory, substantive theory, and empirical research.
• An example of a pathway that might help (1) avoid forms of reductionism at the level of substantive theory and (2) push political economy more in the direction of empirically-open-ended inquiry.
• A brief prescription: As political economy research moves in the direction of empirically open-ended inquiry, it must become more reflexive (in the context of its metatheoretical assumptions) about its methods.

Figure 1. Relation of methodology to metatheory, substantive theory, and method: A prescriptive model.

• Three relatively autonomous moments of political economy theory and research; metatheory, substantive theory, and method. Each moment has its own internal logic but it is also constituted/shaped by the other moments.
• These practices—metatheory, substantive theory, and method—do not exist in a vacuum, they are shaped by various material contexts.
• Methodology is the crucial connector/transmission belt that ideally holds these moments in a productive tension. It provides philosophically grounded strategies for bringing metatheoretical assumptions to bear on the practices of theorizing and the doing of empirical research.
• Methodology should also be concerned with strategies of taking theoretical insights and research findings into other realms (e.g., policy, education). This is implied by Sense-Making and Critical Realist axiologies.

Figure 2. Pathway for overcoming horizontal reductionism in critical political economy theory.
A. Horizontal reductionism: Political ECONOMY.

• The interplay between the economic and political (state) spheres is examined in a holistic fashion.
• Political phenomenon usually explained in terms of economic categories.
• The alleged primacy of the economic into the definition of the political.
• This precludes study of the complex and varying relationship between the economy and polity in a theoretically coherent and at the same time empirically open-ended manner.

• Need to strive to conceptualize non-economic institutional spheres (e.g., the political) in a way that does not build into their very definition (and hence excludes from empirical investigation) the type of relationship they are supposed to have with the economy.
• These conceptualizations should allow the distinctive characteristics and dynamics of the non-economic institutional spheres to emerge.
• The issue of the primacy of the economic should not be resolved at the level of substantive theory but should be an empirical question.
• This reconceptualization should occur in a way that retains the holistic approach of critical political economy.

Figure 3. Metatheory-method disconnect (example of structure-agency issue).

Disconnect:

• For example, while Giddens’ metatheory—structuration theory—is widely cited and there have been attempts to incorporate it at the level of substantive theory, his methodological guidelines—institutional analysis and strategic conduct analysis separated by a methodological epoché—has been ignored.
• How can one embrace the metatheoretical notion of the “knowledgeable subject that is capable of doing otherwise” while treating agents as being more or less determined in an a priori fashion by across space-time categories at the level of method.
• Political economists need to be more reflexive about their methods; how can they incorporate their assumptions about structure-agency at the level of method?

OTHER MATERIALS BY THIS AUTHOR ON THIS WEB SITE:
See: http://communication.sbs.ohio-state.edu/sense-making/AAauthors/authorlistshieldsp.html