Search Results

‘Value Taxonomy’ has two objectives. First, it presents a range of approaches to classifying values. In doing so, it brings to the fore key notions and distinctions that play important roles in value theory in general, but especially in this work, such as intrinsic/final value, final/non-final value, intrinsic/extrinsic value, and relational/non-relational value; derivative and non-derivative value; attributive and predicative use. In value theory, the nature of the value-making features functions as a gateway to how we should understand many of the above distinctions. The chapter considers therefore some advantages and disadvantages of this approach. Second, ‘Value Taxonomy’ introduces some of the key issues in formal and substantive value theory, respectively, for a reader who is not familiar with contemporary value theory.

Part I, ‘Theoretical Perspectives’, which is structured in two chapters (Chapters 1 and 2), develops a new general theory of human rights planning including four sub-theories. The first sub-theory, contextual theory, is presented in Chapter 1. Chapter 2 is dedicated to the other three sub-theories. The first two sections propose the substantive and procedural sub-theories of human rights planning. Whereas the substantive theory of human rights planning provides the knowledge base to inform the content of planning, procedural sub-theory offers procedural principles for the formation, implementation, and assessment of human rights planning. The last section of Chapter 2 builds up a new analytical sub-theory of human rights planning through positive critique of the three major theories of rights, namely the interest theory, the need-based approach, and the capability approach. This analytical theory performs an heuristic role for human rights planning.

‘Good and Good-For’ introduces three views concerning the distinction between final goodness and final goodness-for. These two value notions mark the divide between the impersonally (non-relationally) and personally (relationally) valuable—the value gap which this book is about. Two of the views—‘Mooreanism’ and ‘good-for monism’—deny there is any gap at all. Both reject value dualism, the theory that final goodness and final goodness-for are independent value notions that cannot be fully understood in terms of one another. The book’s discussion of good and good-for depicts these as being about two kinds of property (not necessarily in a realistic sense). According to Mooreanism, either final good-for is an incoherent value notion or, ultimately, at best a disguised reference to what is finally good. Good-for monists reverse this, and insist that either final good is an incoherent value notion or, ultimately, at best one referring to what is finally good for someone or something. Dualism in its turn does not imply that anything that is good-for someone is also good, or vice versa. Intuitively, there could be things that are good for a person which do not carry any impersonal value, or vice versa.

Detailed account of derivation of a grounded theory based on analysis of 100+ research papers. The initial selection of the data from an online university library resource. Open coding based on 20 papers. Details of these codes against the extracts or key points taken from the papers themselves. Extracts from the memos made for the key codes and categories. Later stages of theoretical sampling and derivation of focused codes. Extracts from second stage memos explaining the reasoning that led to these outcomes, and suggested further refinement. Derivation of the core concept of “Methodologizing,” composed of “Tailoring,” “Positioning,” and “Warranting.” Suggestions of further work to be done to enhance and extend the substantive grounded theory.

An example of the initial derivation of a Grounded Theory—based on a workshop of several PhD students describing their work and the process of researching. Discussion of the ways in which the researcher might derive, record, and ponder the data. A description of the codes that were derived and categories that were developed, leading to a core concept – research pitching. Ideas of how the study might be taken further, including moving from a substantive grounded theory to a formal one. Also how the top-level concept relates to two others – modeling and (de)-sensitizing – that offer the basis for further studies in their own right.