Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T00:48:58.149Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Where Do Research Problems Come From?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Lewis R. Binford
Lewis R. Binford*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Southern Methodist University, P. O. Box 750336, Dallas, TX 75275-0336
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In science, understanding the relationship between data and problems is crucial to successful research. When problems are imposed on the data and its organization-instead of addressing the empirical subject matter of the discipline-a major epistemological difficulty arises. What domains of knowledge can reliably inform about the imposed problem? I suggest that the many claims that all data are "theory dependent" are primarily accurate in those instances when a problem is imposed on a body of data. This is the approach of humanities. When a problem is recognized in the context of pattern recognition studies that are focused on data generated from the study of one"s subject matter, a different relationship exists between data and theory and fruitful theory building becomes possible. The latter is the approach of science. Central to this contrast is the issue of where problems come from.

Résumé

Résumé

En las ciencias la comprensión de la relación entre los datos y los problemas es la clave de la investigación exitosa. Cuando se imponen los problemas en los datos y su organización—en vez de dirigirse a la materia empírica de la disciplina—surge una dificultad epistemológica mayor, ¿Cuáles son los dominios del conocimiento que pueden informarnos en una forma confiable acerca del problema impuesto? Yo sugiero que la afirmación muy común de que todos los datos “dependen de la teoría” es generalmente correcta en esos casos en los cuales se impone un problema en un grupo de datos. Esta es la manera de acercarse al asunto que caracteriza a las humanidades. Pero cuando se reconoce un problema dentro del contexto de los estudios de reconocimiento de patrones, que se enfocan en los datos producidos por el estudio de la materia de la disciplina, entonces existe una relación bastante distinta entre los datos y la teoría y, al mismo tiempo, se hace posible la construcción de la teoría. Esta última es la manera de acercarse al asunto que caracteriza a las ciencias. La clave para entender este contraste se ubica en la cuestión de dónde surgen los problemas.

Information

Type
Special Section: Sources of Archaeological Research Questions
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 66 , Issue 4 , October 2001 , pp. 669 - 678
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

References Cited

Binford, L. R. 1968 Archaeological Perspectives. In New Perspectives in Archeology, edited by Binford, S. R. and Binford, L.R. pp. 5–32. Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1973 Interassemblage Variability: The Mousterian and the ‘Functional Argument.’ In The Explanation of Culture Change: Models in Prehistory, edited by Renfrew, C., pp. 227–254. Duckworth, London.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1978 Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1979 Organization and Formation Processes: Looking at Curated Technologies. Journal of Anthropological Research 35: 172–197.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs’ Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45: 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1981a Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1981b Behavioral Archaeology and the “Pompeii Premise.” Journal of Anthropological Research 37: 195–208.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1983 Working at Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1987 Researching Ambiguity: Frames of Reference and Site Structure. In Method and Theory for Activity Area Research: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach, edited by Kent, S., pp. 449–512. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1989 Debating Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1999 Time as a Clue to Cause. Proceedings of the British Academy, 101: 1–35. The British Academy, London.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 2001 Constructing Frames of Reference: An Analytical Method for Archaeological Theory Building Using Ethnographic and Environmental Data Sets. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R., and Binford, S. R. 1966 A Preliminary Analysis of Functional Variability in the Mousterian of Levallois Facies. American Anthropologist 68: 238–295.Google Scholar
Clark, G. A. (editor) 1991 Perspectives on the Past: Theoretical Biases in Mediterranean Hunter-Gatherer Research. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Gamble, C. 1999 The Palaeolithic societies of Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Gero, J. M., and Conkey, M. W. (editors) 1991 Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Hawkes, C. 1954 Archeological Theory and Methods: Some Suggestions from the Old World. American Anthropologist 56: 155–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayden, B. 1975 Curation: Old and New. In Primitive Art and Technology, edited by Raymond, J. S., Loveseth, B., Arnold, C., and Reardon, G., pp. 47–59. University of Calgary, Alberta.Google Scholar
Jelinek, A. J. 1976 Form, Function, and Style in Lithic Analysis. In Cultural Change and Continuity: Essays in Honor of James Bennett Griffin, edited by Cleland, E., pp. 19–33. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. 1964 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Merton, R. K. 1968 Social Theory and Social Structure. Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
Miller, D. W. 1985 Popper Selections. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
Nash, S. E. 1996 Is Curation a Useful Heuristic? In Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory, edited by Odell, G. H., pp. 81–89. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
O’Brien, M. J., and Holland, T. D. 1990 Variation, Selection, and the Archaeological Record. In Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 2, edited by Schiffer, M. B., pp. 31–79. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
O’Brien, M. J., and Lyman, R. L. 2000 Applying Evolutionary Archaeology: A Systematic Approach. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
O’Connell, J. F. 1995 Ethnoarchaeology Needs a General Theory of Behavior. Journal of Archaeological Research 3: 205–255.Google Scholar
Odell, G. H. 1981 The Morphological Express at Function Junction: Searching for Meaning in Lithic Tool Types. Journal of Anthropological Research 37: 319–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odell, G. H. 1993 A North American Perspective on Recent Archaeological Stone Tool Research. Palimpsesto: Revista de Arqueologia 3: 109–122.Google Scholar
Odell, G. H. 1996 Economizing Behavior and the Concept of “Curation.” In Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory, edited by Odell, G. H., pp. 51–80. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odell, G. H. (editor) 1996 Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Preucel, R. W., and Hodder, I. 1996 Communicating Present Pasts. In Contemporary Archaeology in Theory: A Reader, edited by R.W. Preucel and I. Hodder, pp. 3–20. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C., and Bahn, P. 1991 Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice. Thames and Hudson, Inc. New York.Google Scholar
Rogers, A. R. 2000 On Equifinality in Faunal Analysis. American Antiquity 65: 709–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shott, M. J. 1996 Innovation and Selection in Prehistory: A Case Study in the American Bottom. In Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory, edited by Odell, G. H., pp. 279–315. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Spaulding, A. C. 1960 The Dimensions of Archaeology. In Essays in the Science of Culture: In Honor of Leslie A. White, edited by Dole, G. E. and L, R. Carneiro, pp. 437–456. T. Y. Crowell Co., New York.Google Scholar
Taylor, W. W. 1948 A Study of Archaeology. Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association No. 69, Menasha.Google Scholar
Taylor, W. W. 1972 Old Wine and New Skins: A Contemporary Parable. In Contemporary Archaeology, edited by Leone, M., pp. 28–33. University of Southern Illinois Press, Carbondale.Google Scholar
Trigger, B. G. 1989 A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Wylie, A. 1989 The Interpretive Dilemma. In Critical Traditions in Contemporary Archaeology, edited by Pinsky, V. and Wylie, A., pp. 18–27. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar