Methodological Isomorphism as Ivan Franko’s Style of Scholarly Thinking

Abstract

The present paper tries to reconstruct Ivan Franko’s methodological thinking on the basis of his works and aims at synchronizing criteria, procedures and principles of proving and producing scholarly knowledge. The main purpose here is building isomorphic models of thinking and methodological instruction based on some Franko’s constants of the world view and understanding reality.
 Franko as a scholar was interested in various fields: literary studies, ethnography, linguistics, philosophy, social economics, law, political science, history, statistics etc. He intended to create the ground for institutionalization of research work in Ukrainian society. His scholarly universalism allowed using the knowledge from different fields simultaneously in order to study the same subject from different perspectives. This subject was a society which he understood as the people, class, and individual in his activities.
 At every stage of his methodological reflection, Franko adhered to clear determinism both in defining the subject field of research and in constructing his assertions. But the attempt to single out the subject knowledge in its pure form was complicated by the fact that he didn’t think of it separately from the sphere of application, and therefore he was focused on the methods related to the practical use and giving the opportunity of transferring the gained knowledge into the sphere of education.
 In the definitions of scholarly work he used such characteristics as “thoroughness and precision”, “good care and logic of scholarly analysis”, facts, observations, descriptions, comparisons, criticism, analysis (more simple and versatile). These markers form a framework that makes it possible to reconstruct the style of his thinking as a methodologist.
 In general, Franko’s style of scholarly thinking tended to inductivism. This style was determined by detailed description and study of empirical material with accurate statistical method; analogy and comparison through applying different kinds of scholarly languages; conceptual systems, often borrowed from the related spheres of knowledge, in particular notions of general methodology (evolution); interest in general research problems; search for transitional joints of sectorial methods, their conceptualization and approbation.