Interesting New Journal

by Roger Koppl

Michael Barber is editor of a new journal of interest to Austrian economists, namely Schutzian Research: A Yearbook of Mundane Phenomenology and Qualitative Social Science.  The first issue came out on 9 November 2009.

Here is what they say on their website:

Schutzian Research is an annual journal that seeks to continue the tradition of Alfred Schutz. It seeks contributions that are philosophical, cultural-scientific, or multidisciplinary in character. We welcome a broad spectrum of qualitative and interpretive work, comparable with Schutz’s orientation but not necessarily derived from it. The journal is multilingual in character, with abstracts in English. All submissions will be blindly reviewed by at least two experts in the appropriate field.

Presumably, economic research would be “cultural-scientific.”

Michael tells me the journal itself has its own website:

http://www.Schutzian-research.com

In the website you can find an announcement about what is contained in the present volume, how you can order issues, how you can submit articles for review, who the editors are, what recent and future conferences are being held, and what links are available to related organizations.

Should you be interested in submitting a paper for review, Michael asks that you please send it to

barber@schutzian-research.com.

Michael is a prominent and talented Schutz scholar.  His biography of Schutz is terrific and a huge improvement over that of Helmut Wagner.

The masthead of Schutzian Research includes familiar names such as Thomas Luckmann, Lester Embree, George Psathas, and Ilja Srubar.  Luckmann and Embree made separate contributions to volume 1.  Austrian economists should have a look at Embree’s article, “Economics in the Context of Alfred Schutz’s Theory of Science.”

I encourage everyone to have a look at the journal and consider submitting articles to it.

7 thoughts on “Interesting New Journal

  1. I don’t know — I kind of liked the ‘mundane’ bit — phenomenology brought down to the level of everyday life, was how I read it.

  2. I’m with Gene on this one. I think the idea of “mundane” is probably twofold. First, as Gene says, bringing it to earth. Second, I suspect the word “mundane” alludes to an important technical point. Schutzian social science is based on phenomenological psychology, not transcendental phenomenology. The former is just a clear accounting of how phenomena exist in our heads, without regard to what might be “real” or otherwise of elevated philosophical status. The latter tries to ground all knowledge on what Husserl called “Cartesian Meditations.” Social science should probably be based on the mundane ground of phenomenological psychology, not the lofty heights of transcendental phenomenology, which is widely considered a failure anyway.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s