Methodological Holism

A critique of individualism and defense of holism.

International Journal of Qualitative Methods

In this article, we make a case for achieving comprehensive understanding by using multiple methods in a research program. We argue that used alone, qualitative methods are not holistic, but actively provide segmented perspective on a research problem. We illustrate this concern using three types of data. The limitations of individual methods used alone can be systematically overcome with investigators increasing methodology skill and developing research program.

One issue of dispute between methodological individualists and methodological holists is whether holist explanations are dispensable in the sense that individualist explanations are able to do their explanatory job. Methodological individualists say they are, whereas methodological holists deny this. In the first part of the paper, I discuss Elder-Vass' version of an influential argument in support of methodological holism, the argument from emergence. I argue that methodological individualists should reject it: The argument relies on a distinction between individualist and holist explanations that they find unacceptable and Elder-Vass' reasons in support of his way of drawing this distinction are not good ones. In the second part, I examine what, if anything, would be good reasons in support of a particular way of differentiating between individualist and holist explanations. I propose that a good reason is one which shows, in an acceptable manner, that the distinction, drawn in the same way in all contexts, is useful from the perspective of offering explanations of the social world. I show that if this criterion is adopted, it will result in a fruitful reorientation of the whole debate between methodological individualists and methodological holists.

In: Collin Finn and Julie Zahle (eds.) Rethinking the Individualism-Holism Debate. Essays in the Philosophy of Social Science. Berlin: Springer. (forthcoming)

Starting from the plurality of explanatory strategies in the actual practice of social scientists, I introduce a framework for explanatory pluralism -a normative endorsement of the plurality of forms and levels of explanation used by social scientists. Equipped with this framework, central issues in the individualism/holism debate are revisited, namely emergence, reduction and the idea of microfoundations. Discussing these issues, we notice that in recent contributions the focus has been shifting towards relationism, pluralism and interaction, away from dichotomous individualism/holism thinking and a winner-takes-all approach. Then, the challenge of the debate is no longer to develop the ultimate individualistic approach or defending the holist approach, but rather how to be combine individualism and holism; how can they co-exist, interact, be integrated or develop some division of labour, while making the best out of the strengths and limitations of the respective explanatory strategies of holists and individualists? Thus, the debate shifts to how exactly pluralism should be understood as the next leading question, going beyond the current individualism/holism debate. The paper ends with a discussion and evaluation of different understandings of explanatory pluralism defended in the literature.

Synthese

It is currently common to conceive of the classic methodological individualism-holism debate in level terms. Accordingly, the dispute is taken to concern the proper level of explanations in the social sciences. In this paper, I argue that the debate is not apt to be characterized in level terms. The reason is that widely adopted notions of individualist explanations do not qualify as individual-level explanations because they span multiple levels. I defend this claim relative to supervenience, emergence, and other accounts of the social world as levelled. Moreover, I discuss the consequences of this finding for the ongoing methodological individualism-holism debate.

The Nursing clinics of North America, 2007

Holistic nurses believe that the human being, composed of a mind, body and soul integrated into an inseparable whole that is greater than the sum of the parts, is in constant interaction with the universe and all that it contains. Health and well-being depend on attaining harmony in these relationships. Healing is the journey toward holism. Using presence, intent, unconditional acceptance, love, and compassion, holistic nurses can facilitate growth and healing and help their clients to find meaning in their life experiences, life purpose, and reason for being.

Handbook of philosophy of language, 2006

of an individual statement-especially if it is a statement at all remote from the experiential periphery of the field. (Quine 1951:43) The unit of empirical significance is the whole of science. (Quine 1951:42).

2001

Since an early stage in most of the technical sciences, and during the last few decades in many of the social sciences, reductionistic research has become a mainstream type of empirical research. This research, to be characterised methodologically in this article, has proven to be very successful in building a body of abstract and generalisable theoretical knowledge, for reasons that are made clear in this article. However, does reductionism grasp reality in its full extent, the whole being more than the sum of its parts? In this article arguments and research strategies for holistic empirical research are presented, offering advantages and possibilities for modern social science research.