Framework paper on the methodological tool for reflecting and reviewing empirical findings of ETHOS

Abstract

This 7.2 paper aims to offer a methodological tool for reflecting and reviewing the findings of WP3 to 6 on basis of the interdisciplinary foundations and the building blocks for the analysis of distributive, recognitive and representative justice. The paper elaborates on the “back-andforth” method envisaged in the project – the constant comparison of theoretical frameworks and empirical results that allows (1) the revision of theoretical assumptions in light of (new) empirical findings as well as (2) the re-interpretation of empirical results in light of the changing theoretical frameworks. It also elaborates on how the “back-and-forth” method can be used to compare and possibly reinterpret different empirical findings of various WPs. The paper can be read as an extension of paper 7.1 (Knijn and Lepianka 2018) that outlines the methodological framework of the Weberian ideal type analysis and develops and presents ideal types of each of the specific justice claims used and applied in ETHOS. In addition, paper 7.1 critically discusses the outlines along which the integration of findings may take place, in particular: (1) dimensions of justice that extend beyond Fraser’s tripartite taxonomy; (2) relevant tensions between various claims to justice; (3) mechanisms that (might) impede justice; and (4) fault lines, or boundaries of justice, i.e. dimensions of inclusion and exclusion that delimit the ‘scope of justice’ (see D2.1, van den Brink et al. 2018). This paper adds to this analytical framework a methodological approach inspired by the philosophical method of reflective equilibrium; going ‘back and forth’ between the theoretical, philosophical and empirical research as a way to refine the ideal types of justice that can feed into provisory policy-recommendations. Paper 7.2 concludes with three modest suggestions for bridging the gap between refined ideal types of justice, which provide a heuristic framework to better understand how justice is understood in Europe, and normative approaches to justice and fairness that seek to be action-guiding.