Given the prominent position Habermas' philosophy has gained, it is surprising that his method, rational reconstruction, has not caused more debate. This article clarifies what this method consists of, and shows how it is used in two of Habermas' research programs. The method is an interesting, but problematic way of confronting some of the basic epistemological questions in the social sciences. It represents an alternative to both the empirical-analytical and the hermeneutic tradition. On the basis of this methodology, Habermas' work is situated between the transcendental and the empirical approach. A fundamental problem is that it remains unclear how to test the hypothesis put forward through rational reconstruction.
Alford, F.C.1985. Is Jürgen Habermas' reconstructive science really science ? Theory and Society14:321-40.
2.
Apel, K.O.2002. Regarding the relationship of morality, law and democracy. On Habermas' philosophy of law from a transcendental-pragmatic point of view . In Habermas and pragmatism, edited by M. Aboulafia, M. Bookman, and C. Kemp.London: Routledge.
3.
Baynes, K.1989. Rational reconstruction and social criticism: Habermas's model of interpretive social science. The Philosophical Forum21:122-45.
4.
Benhabib, S.1996. Toward a deliberative model of democratic legitimacy . In Democracy and difference, edited by S. Benhabib.Princeton, NY: Princeton University Press.
5.
Breinerd, C.1978. Piaget's theory of intelligence. London : Prentice-Hall International.
6.
Fultner, B.2001. Introduction. In Habermas, J.On the pragmatics of social interaction. Preliminary studies in the theory of communicative action. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
7.
Habermas, J.1972. Wahrheitstheorien. In Vorstudien und Ergänzungen zur Theorie des Kommunikativen Handelns. Frankfurt am Main : Suhrkamp Verlag.
8.
---. 1973. A postscript to knowledge and human interests. Philosophy of the Social Sciences3:157-89.
9.
---. 1976. Zur rekonstruktion des Historischen Materialismus. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrakamp.
10.
---. 1977. A review of Gadamer's truth and method. In Understanding and social inquiry, edited by F. R. Dallmayr and T. McCarthy.London: University of Notre Dame Press .
11.
---. 1979. Communication and the evolution of society. London: Heinemann.
12.
---. 1982. A reply to my critics. In Habermas: Critical Debates, edited by D. Held and J. B. Thompson.London: Macmillan Press.
13.
---. 1983. Interpretive social science vs. hermeneuticism. In Social science as moral inquiry, edited by N. Haan, R. N. Bellah, P. Rabinow, and W. M. Sullivan.Columbia, NY: Columbia University Press.
14.
---. 1984. The theory of communicative action. Volume one: Reason and the rationalization of society. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
15.
---. 1990. Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
16.
---. 1996. Between facts and norms. Contributions to a discourse theory on law and democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17.
---. 1998a. On the pragmatics of communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18.
---. 1998b. Reply to symposium participants. In Habermas on law and democracy, edited by M. Rosenfeld and A. Arato.Los Angeles: University of California Press.
19.
---. 2003. Zur Architektonik der Diskursdifferenzierung. Kleine Replik auf eine große Auseinandersetzung. In Reflexion und Verantwortung. Ausseinanderzetzungen mit Karl Otto Apel, edited by D. Böhler, M. Kettner, and G. og Skirbekk.Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
20.
---. 2005. Zwischen Naturalismus und Religion. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
21.
Hesse, M.1982. Science and objectivity. In Habermas' critical debates, edited by D. Held and J. B. Thompson.London: Macmillan Press.
22.
Honneth, A.1995. The fragmented world of the social. Essays in social and political philosophy. Albany: State University of New York Press.
23.
Kelly, T.2001. Sociological not political. Rawls and the reconstructive social sciences. Philosophy and the Social Sciences31:3-19.
24.
McCarthy, T.1978. The critical theory of Jürgen Habermas. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
25.
---. 1982. Rationality and relativism: Habermas' "overcoming" of hermeneutics. In Habermas: Critical debates, edited by D. Held and J. B. Thompson.London: Macmillan Press.
26.
Olson. K.2003. Do rights have a formal basis? Habermas' legal theory and the normative foundation of the law. The Journal of Political Philosophy11:273-94.
---. 2002. Between reason and history. Habermas and the idea of progress . Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
29.
Pedersen, J.2006. Rasjonell rekonstruksjon som metodisk innstilling. En undersøkelse av Jürgen Habermas' metode. Hovedfagsoppgave ved Filosofisk institutt, Universitetet i Bergen. Publisert som SVT Arbeidsnotat nr 1 2006. (Rational reconstruction as a methodical attitude. An examination of the method of Jürgen Habermas. Master thesis delivered at the philosophical institute, The University of Bergen. Published as SVT working paper nr 1 2006).
30.
---. 2007. Habermas og statsvitenskapen: rasjonell rekonstruksjon som metode (Habermas and the political sciences: On the relationship between theory and practice). Tidsskrift for Samfunnsforskning48:469-500. This article is currently being translated.
31.
Peters, B.1994. On reconstructive legal and political theory. Philosophy & Social Criticism20:101-34.
32.
Power, M.K.1993. Habermas and transcendental arguments. A reappraisal . Philosophy of the Social Sciences23:26-49.
33.
---. 1998. Habermas and the counterfactual argumentation. In Habermas on law and democracy, edited by M. Rosenfeld and A. Arato.Berkeley: University of California Press .
34.
Rorty, R.2000. Response to Jürgen Habermas. In Rorty and his critics, edited by R. B. Brandom.Malden, MA: Blackwell.
35.
Skirbekk, G.2002. Rasjonalitet-universell og pluralistisk? In Undringa, edited by G. Skirbekk.Oslo: Universitetsforlaget .
36.
Stern, R.2000. Transcendental arguments and scepticism. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
