@article{2018,title={A CRITICAL OVERVIEW OF MICHEL FOUCAULT’S SEARCH FOR METHOD},abstractNode={It can be stated that it is quite common to classify and evaluate Michel Foucault’s later works methodologically under the titles of archaeology and genealogy in academic literature and this distinction is maintained by Foucault’s commentators in two different ways. The commentators in the first group who argue for a methodological break thesis indicate a visible methodological difference between his earlier and later works although they observe a thematic continuity between archaeological and genealogical methods. On the other hand, the second group of commentators speak of a completed project instead of a methodological rupture/break while keeping the aforementioned distinction and in this manner, they describe archaeology and genealogy as the two interwoven phases of this completed project. In this paper, we adopt a position closer to the second approach in this line of interpretation but we also support some of the findings of the first position. And rather than the general tendency that the both line of interpretation often follow, we offer a comparative reading starting from the similarities instead of the differences between archaeology and genealogy.},author={Gürhan ÖZPOLAT-- Güney ÇEĞİN},year={2018},journal={The Journal of Academic Social Science}}