This contribution aims at four points.First we want to argue why we think a reflexive social science is more adequate than the orthodox consensus. In current practice much of the criticism on the orthodox consensus is shared on a theoretical level, without considering the implications and acting upon the consequences on the level of empirical research. We want to avoid that, so our second and third subject will be the practical implications of reflexivity for empirical research as well as for social policy. Our discussion on these subjects is based on the practical experiences in the INPART project, in which we have tried to deal with these consequences. Fourth, and hopefully as a result of the first three aims, we want to argue that a reflexive approach of international, comparative research is not only desirable, but attainable as well. In order to do so, we begin with a short discussion of the main methodological principles of the orthodox consensus and the empirical-analytical research model that is based upon them. In that paragraph we will also argue why this approach apparently gives their adherents little problems in doing international research. Next, we will explore and elaborate on the main issues in the so-called ?reflexive approach? and consider the main consequences of this approach for both social science and social policy. Against this background we will discuss the implications for comparative research and the experiences of the INPART project end up with a few central issues for further debate.
|Titel||Active social policies in the EU|
|Redaktører||Berkel, Rik van (ed.) : Møller, Iver Hornemann (ed.)|
|Status||Udgivet - 2002|