Difference between revisions of "Resource: The Archaeology of Knowledge"
From Lyndsey Twining
(Created page with "{{Resource | title = The Archaeology of Knowledge | author1 = Foucault, Michel | author2 = | author3 = | author4 = | year = 1972 | publisher = Tavistock Publications | phot...") |
(→Review) |
||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
==Review== | ==Review== | ||
| + | *Maybe I am too stupid to understand this? His way of writing is so round-about. | ||
| + | *I wanted to include this theory in relation to the ontological framework I would make regarding my choice of how to structure my DB, but maybe it is ''too'' theoretical. | ||
| + | *I feel like this kind of "high-level" theory is necessary for my research to be accepted, but I should think more about exactly how to incorporate it and from what approach to study it. Maybe there is a better theory than Foucault? | ||
[[Category:Resource]] | [[Category:Resource]] | ||
Latest revision as of 12:04, 20 April 2019
| The Archaeology of Knowledge | |
| Title | The Archaeology of Knowledge |
|---|---|
| Author/Editor | Foucault, Michel |
| Year | 1972 |
| Publisher | Tavistock Publications |
Summary
Useful Content
Table of Contents
- Introduction
- The Discursive Regularities
- The unities of discourse
- Discursive formations
- The formation of objects
- The formation of enunciative modalities
- The formation of concepts
- The formation of strategies
- Remarks and consequences
- The Statement and the Archives
- Defining the statement
- The enunciative function
- The description of statements
- Rarity, exteriority, accumulation
- The historical a priori and the archive
- Archaeological Description
- Archaeology and the history of ideas
- The original and the regular
- Contradictions
- The comparative facts
- Change and transformations
- Science and Knowledge
- Conclusion
Review
- Maybe I am too stupid to understand this? His way of writing is so round-about.
- I wanted to include this theory in relation to the ontological framework I would make regarding my choice of how to structure my DB, but maybe it is too theoretical.
- I feel like this kind of "high-level" theory is necessary for my research to be accepted, but I should think more about exactly how to incorporate it and from what approach to study it. Maybe there is a better theory than Foucault?