The design of their work

S. Duchesne, Viviane Le Hay
{"title":"The design of their work","authors":"S. Duchesne, Viviane Le Hay","doi":"10.1177/07591063211019945a","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This is a rather special issue, as we have decided to publish three articles written by invitation by colleagues who are widely recognised in their field. They are, in order of appearance: Christine Musselin, sociologist at Sciences Po Paris and specialist in research on higher education; Erik Neveu, political scientist at Sciences Po Rennes and known for his work on social movements, gender, cultural studies, and journalism, amongst others; and André Blais, political scientist at the University of Montreal and specialist in electoral analysis and the study of public opinion. These three texts belong to the category of articles we have so far called ‘What is at Stake in my Work?’, in which we ask colleagues who have made what we call a fine career to reflect on the role played by methodology at key stages in their work. Until now, we have tended to spread out such contributions: Philippe Cibois’ in the first issue of the new BMS, in 2018; Nonna Mayer’s in the issue that followed (139); Sidney Tarrow’s in 2019 and François Dubet’s a few months ago. We are very grateful to all seven of them for agreeing to offer an article to a modest journal such as ours. It may not seem very strategic to publish three texts by influential authors together: these have every chance of attracting a large number of readers, as those we have published previously have done. With this choice we wanted to highlight the BMS’s appetite for diversity of scientific approaches and our deep commitment to methodological eclecticism. Although they received the same invitation, our three colleagues offered us texts that are wildly dissimilar, starting with their length – more than 12,000 words for Musselin and Neveu, barely over 5,000 for Blais, whose brevity is in fact deliberate. The tone is more or less sharp, the presentation of the methods implemented more or less detailed. Above all, each of them asserts different scientific choices in terms of research methods and techniques. Christine Musselin shows how her research on higher education institutions developed from a sociological approach strongly linked to a method and a research centre, themselves associated with a prestigious researcher – the sociology of organisations and the CSO, founded by Michel Crozier, in much the same vein as François Dubet previously evoked the sociological intervention and Alain Touraine’s team. Erik Neveu reveals methodological choices constructed voluntarily and by affinities, both positive and negative, in which the research methods are superseded by epistemological orientations. André Blais also strongly asserts his scientific convictions, albeit in a very different tone, although he champions the very methods rejected by Erik Neveu. Yet for both, methodological approaches are applied more or less independently from the type of subject covered. These articles thus feature three prestigious careers, three renowned bodies of work, three widely read and quoted researchers who have each in turn trained many colleagues. And yet, their views on the place of methodology within research and their preferences in","PeriodicalId":210053,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique","volume":"76 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/07591063211019945a","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This is a rather special issue, as we have decided to publish three articles written by invitation by colleagues who are widely recognised in their field. They are, in order of appearance: Christine Musselin, sociologist at Sciences Po Paris and specialist in research on higher education; Erik Neveu, political scientist at Sciences Po Rennes and known for his work on social movements, gender, cultural studies, and journalism, amongst others; and André Blais, political scientist at the University of Montreal and specialist in electoral analysis and the study of public opinion. These three texts belong to the category of articles we have so far called ‘What is at Stake in my Work?’, in which we ask colleagues who have made what we call a fine career to reflect on the role played by methodology at key stages in their work. Until now, we have tended to spread out such contributions: Philippe Cibois’ in the first issue of the new BMS, in 2018; Nonna Mayer’s in the issue that followed (139); Sidney Tarrow’s in 2019 and François Dubet’s a few months ago. We are very grateful to all seven of them for agreeing to offer an article to a modest journal such as ours. It may not seem very strategic to publish three texts by influential authors together: these have every chance of attracting a large number of readers, as those we have published previously have done. With this choice we wanted to highlight the BMS’s appetite for diversity of scientific approaches and our deep commitment to methodological eclecticism. Although they received the same invitation, our three colleagues offered us texts that are wildly dissimilar, starting with their length – more than 12,000 words for Musselin and Neveu, barely over 5,000 for Blais, whose brevity is in fact deliberate. The tone is more or less sharp, the presentation of the methods implemented more or less detailed. Above all, each of them asserts different scientific choices in terms of research methods and techniques. Christine Musselin shows how her research on higher education institutions developed from a sociological approach strongly linked to a method and a research centre, themselves associated with a prestigious researcher – the sociology of organisations and the CSO, founded by Michel Crozier, in much the same vein as François Dubet previously evoked the sociological intervention and Alain Touraine’s team. Erik Neveu reveals methodological choices constructed voluntarily and by affinities, both positive and negative, in which the research methods are superseded by epistemological orientations. André Blais also strongly asserts his scientific convictions, albeit in a very different tone, although he champions the very methods rejected by Erik Neveu. Yet for both, methodological approaches are applied more or less independently from the type of subject covered. These articles thus feature three prestigious careers, three renowned bodies of work, three widely read and quoted researchers who have each in turn trained many colleagues. And yet, their views on the place of methodology within research and their preferences in
他们工作的设计
这是一个相当特殊的问题,因为我们决定发表三篇由在各自领域得到广泛认可的同事邀请撰写的文章。按外表排序,他们是:巴黎政治学院(Sciences Po)社会学家、高等教育研究专家克里斯汀•穆斯林(Christine Musselin);Erik Neveu,巴黎政治学院政治学家,以社会运动、性别、文化研究和新闻学等方面的研究而闻名;以及蒙特利尔大学政治学家、选举分析和民意研究专家安德烈·布莱斯。这三篇文章属于我们迄今为止所称的“我的工作中有什么利害关系?”,我们请那些在我们所谓的职业生涯中表现出色的同事反思方法论在他们工作的关键阶段所发挥的作用。到目前为止,我们倾向于分散这样的贡献:菲利普·齐波依斯(Philippe Cibois)在2018年新BMS的第一期上;Nonna Mayer在接下来的那期(139);悉尼·塔罗是2019年的,弗朗索瓦·杜伯特是几个月前的。我们非常感谢他们七个人同意为我们这样一家普通的杂志提供一篇文章。同时出版三篇有影响力的作者的文章似乎不是很有战略意义:它们完全有可能吸引大量读者,就像我们以前出版的那些一样。通过这个选择,我们想突出BMS对科学方法多样性的胃口,以及我们对方法论折衷主义的坚定承诺。虽然他们收到了同样的邀请,但我们的三位同事给我们提供的文本却大不相同,首先是它们的长度——穆塞林和奈夫的文本超过1.2万字,而布莱斯的文本略多于5000字,其简洁实际上是有意为之。语气或多或少尖锐,方法实施的介绍或多或少详细。最重要的是,他们在研究方法和技术方面都主张不同的科学选择。Christine Musselin展示了她对高等教育机构的研究是如何从一种与方法和研究中心密切相关的社会学方法发展而来的,这些方法和研究中心本身与米歇尔·克罗泽(Michel Crozier)创立的组织社会学和公民社会组织(CSO)密切相关,这与弗朗索瓦·杜贝(franois Dubet)之前引发的社会学干预和阿兰·图兰(Alain Touraine)的团队有着很大的相似之处。Erik Neveu揭示了自愿和由积极和消极的亲和力构建的方法论选择,其中研究方法被认识论取向所取代。安德鲁•布莱斯也坚定地坚持自己的科学信念,尽管他的语气非常不同,尽管他支持埃里克•内夫所拒绝的方法。然而,对于这两种方法,方法方法的应用或多或少独立于所涵盖的主题类型。因此,这些文章介绍了三个著名的职业,三个著名的工作机构,三个被广泛阅读和引用的研究人员,他们每个人都培养了许多同事。然而,他们对方法论在研究中的地位的看法以及他们对
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信