A Rational Solution to the Debate on the Critical Voice in Ethnography of Communication Research

IF 3.9 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Nimrod Shavit
{"title":"A Rational Solution to the Debate on the Critical Voice in Ethnography of Communication Research","authors":"Nimrod Shavit","doi":"10.1177/16094069231166899","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article proposes a way to transcend the debate on the critical voice in Ethnography of Communication (EOC) and qualitative communication research more broadly. First, it demonstrates how EOC’s epistemological paradigm may prevent ethnographers from understanding their subjects fully. Secondly, the article offers a Weberian approach to rational interpretation as a resolution, replacing the concept of “culture” as an a priori explanandum with “practical rationality”. This move demonstrates the feasibility of a unified method in the social sciences capable of dismantling the artificial divide between interpretive and post-positivist philosophies and research designs. Finally, the article provides an illustration of the proposed approach based on some ethnographic data from a volunteer setting of open-source civic software production in Israel.","PeriodicalId":48220,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Qualitative Methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Qualitative Methods","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231166899","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article proposes a way to transcend the debate on the critical voice in Ethnography of Communication (EOC) and qualitative communication research more broadly. First, it demonstrates how EOC’s epistemological paradigm may prevent ethnographers from understanding their subjects fully. Secondly, the article offers a Weberian approach to rational interpretation as a resolution, replacing the concept of “culture” as an a priori explanandum with “practical rationality”. This move demonstrates the feasibility of a unified method in the social sciences capable of dismantling the artificial divide between interpretive and post-positivist philosophies and research designs. Finally, the article provides an illustration of the proposed approach based on some ethnographic data from a volunteer setting of open-source civic software production in Israel.
传播研究民族志批判性声音之争的理性解答
本文提出了一种超越传播民族志(EOC)和定性传播研究中关于批判性声音的争论的方法。首先,它展示了EOC的认识论范式如何阻止民族志学者充分理解他们的主题。其次,本文提出了一种韦伯式的理性解释方法作为解决方案,用“实践理性”取代“文化”作为先验解释的概念。这一举动证明了社会科学中统一方法的可行性,这种方法能够拆除解释和后实证主义哲学和研究设计之间的人为鸿沟。最后,本文以以色列开源公民软件生产志愿者的一些民族志数据为基础,对所提出的方法进行了说明。
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
International Journal of Qualitative Methods
International Journal of Qualitative Methods SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
139
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal Highlights Impact Factor: 5.4 Ranked 5/110 in Social Sciences, Interdisciplinary – SSCI Indexed In: Clarivate Analytics: Social Science Citation Index, the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), and Scopus Launched In: 2002 Publication is subject to payment of an article processing charge (APC) Submit here International Journal of Qualitative Methods (IJQM) is a peer-reviewed open access journal which focuses on methodological advances, innovations, and insights in qualitative or mixed methods studies. Please see the Aims and Scope tab for further information.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信