Narratives, anchored narratives and the interface between law and psychology: a commentary on Jackson (1996)
Jackson (1996) has used a theory of structural semiotics (based on the work of Greimas) to provide a critique of Wagenaar, van Koppen & Crombag's theory of anchored narrative (and other cognate work). Here, his critique is located within a wider framework of research and theory in psycholog...
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de documento: | Electrónico Artículo |
| Lenguaje: | Inglés |
| Publicado: |
1996
|
| En: |
Legal and criminological psychology
Año: 1996, Volumen: 1, Número: 2, Páginas: 271-286 |
| Acceso en línea: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Journals Online & Print: | Gargar...
|
| Verificar disponibilidad: | HBZ Gateway |
| Sumario: | Jackson (1996) has used a theory of structural semiotics (based on the work of Greimas) to provide a critique of Wagenaar, van Koppen & Crombag's theory of anchored narrative (and other cognate work). Here, his critique is located within a wider framework of research and theory in psychology and philosophy. I conclude that the concept of narrative has been used both to talk about the practices of sense making and to identify those reflective practices which constitute good thinking. I argue that the work of Wagenaar and his colleagues combines these themes in interesting and important ways. I argue that the work of philosophers such as Goldman (1986) provides a satisfactory epistemological foundation for work in this tradition. It is concluded that, whilst Jackson makes a number of important points, he does not succeed in showing that Greimas' semiotic conception of narrative provides a more useful framework for understanding explanation-based decision making. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2044-8333 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/j.2044-8333.1996.tb00325.x |