Why Philosophy

Abstract

The book you are reading is structured so that the philosophy of systemic intervention is discussed first, methodology second, and practice last. In my view, this ordering does not reflect the importance of these subjects: I see philosophy, methodology and practice as mutually supportive areas of study, where a problem in any one might signal the need for revision in either or both of the other two. This contrasts with the approach of some writers (e.g., Fuenmayor, 1991a-c) who believe that there is a strict hierarchy, with philosophy being foundational, methodology following from this, methods being based on the methodology, and practice being the implementation of those methods.²¹ For these writers, getting the philosophy right is an absolute priority, as everything else depends upon it. The idea that encountering a problem in practice may signal a philosophical inadequacy is not conceivable from the point of view of those who believe in this hierarchical relationship.²² However, although I see philosophy, methodology and practice as mutually supportive, it is very difficult to discuss them simultaneously without jum** from argument to argument, causing confusion for the reader—hence they are discussed in separate sections of this book, although regular references will be made from one section to another.²³