社会人道主义科学的方法论创伤

Yu.I. Yakovenko
{"title":"社会人道主义科学的方法论创伤","authors":"Yu.I. Yakovenko","doi":"10.35774/pis2022.01.127","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article raises the issue of the state of logic and methodology of socio-humanitarian researches in modern Ukraine. It is diversely argued the canonical requirement to return the preparation of scientific research projects and subsequent publication of their results and conclusions to generation in them such a conceptual structure (writing an introduction), which necessarily contains a normative formulation of the scientific problem in the form of a theoretical question concerning cognitive contradictions resulting from the existing practices of obtaining new rational knowledge in accordance with the three types of epistemological matrix of sociological cognition, which determine one of the research positions – to be an observer, interpreter or activist. Emphasis is placed on the tendency of reducing the demands concerning mandatory presentation of the methodological basis of the study in its program, reports, publications on the results obtained, in particular concerning the normative design of articles published in Ukraine’s professional journals in sociology. Examples of violations of this norm are given in articles published during 2015 and 2016 in two leading domestic periodicals of sociological orientation. It is noted that the claims of some authors to the theoretical significance of their publications are not justified in the absence of a scientific problem statement, the formulation of which must include a number of issues of theoretical content. In addition, it is underlined that the current situation in Ukrainian sociology can be explained by the so-called methodological trauma, which is also typical for researchers from other post-Soviet countries. The conclusion is formulated that the development of sociological science in its theoretical and empirical contexts is possible only if the methodological trauma experienced by sociologists, psychologists and other representatives of socionomic research role is overcome.","PeriodicalId":380512,"journal":{"name":"Psihologìâ ì suspìlʹstvo","volume":"163 34 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Methodological trauma in the socio-humanitarian sciences\",\"authors\":\"Yu.I. Yakovenko\",\"doi\":\"10.35774/pis2022.01.127\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The article raises the issue of the state of logic and methodology of socio-humanitarian researches in modern Ukraine. It is diversely argued the canonical requirement to return the preparation of scientific research projects and subsequent publication of their results and conclusions to generation in them such a conceptual structure (writing an introduction), which necessarily contains a normative formulation of the scientific problem in the form of a theoretical question concerning cognitive contradictions resulting from the existing practices of obtaining new rational knowledge in accordance with the three types of epistemological matrix of sociological cognition, which determine one of the research positions – to be an observer, interpreter or activist. Emphasis is placed on the tendency of reducing the demands concerning mandatory presentation of the methodological basis of the study in its program, reports, publications on the results obtained, in particular concerning the normative design of articles published in Ukraine’s professional journals in sociology. Examples of violations of this norm are given in articles published during 2015 and 2016 in two leading domestic periodicals of sociological orientation. It is noted that the claims of some authors to the theoretical significance of their publications are not justified in the absence of a scientific problem statement, the formulation of which must include a number of issues of theoretical content. In addition, it is underlined that the current situation in Ukrainian sociology can be explained by the so-called methodological trauma, which is also typical for researchers from other post-Soviet countries. The conclusion is formulated that the development of sociological science in its theoretical and empirical contexts is possible only if the methodological trauma experienced by sociologists, psychologists and other representatives of socionomic research role is overcome.\",\"PeriodicalId\":380512,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psihologìâ ì suspìlʹstvo\",\"volume\":\"163 34 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psihologìâ ì suspìlʹstvo\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.35774/pis2022.01.127\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psihologìâ ì suspìlʹstvo","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.35774/pis2022.01.127","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

文章提出了现代乌克兰社会人道主义研究的逻辑和方法论现状问题。有不同的观点认为,规范要求将科学研究项目的准备工作和随后发表的结果和结论归结为在其中产生这样一个概念结构(写引言),它必然包含一个科学问题的规范性表述,其形式是一个关于认知矛盾的理论问题,这些矛盾是根据社会学认知的三种认识论矩阵获得新的理性知识的现有实践所产生的,这决定了一个研究立场——观察者、解释者或活动家。重点放在减少在其方案、报告、关于获得的结果的出版物中强制性提出研究方法基础的要求的趋势,特别是关于在乌克兰社会学专业期刊上发表的文章的规范设计。2015年和2016年,国内两家主要社会学期刊上发表的文章给出了违反这一规范的例子。值得注意的是,一些作者对其出版物的理论意义的主张在缺乏科学问题陈述的情况下是不合理的,科学问题陈述的表述必须包括一些理论内容的问题。此外,需要强调的是,乌克兰社会学的现状可以用所谓的方法论创伤来解释,这对其他后苏联国家的研究人员来说也是典型的。结论是,只有克服社会学家、心理学家和其他社会经济学研究角色的代表所经历的方法论创伤,社会科学在其理论和经验背景下的发展才有可能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Methodological trauma in the socio-humanitarian sciences
The article raises the issue of the state of logic and methodology of socio-humanitarian researches in modern Ukraine. It is diversely argued the canonical requirement to return the preparation of scientific research projects and subsequent publication of their results and conclusions to generation in them such a conceptual structure (writing an introduction), which necessarily contains a normative formulation of the scientific problem in the form of a theoretical question concerning cognitive contradictions resulting from the existing practices of obtaining new rational knowledge in accordance with the three types of epistemological matrix of sociological cognition, which determine one of the research positions – to be an observer, interpreter or activist. Emphasis is placed on the tendency of reducing the demands concerning mandatory presentation of the methodological basis of the study in its program, reports, publications on the results obtained, in particular concerning the normative design of articles published in Ukraine’s professional journals in sociology. Examples of violations of this norm are given in articles published during 2015 and 2016 in two leading domestic periodicals of sociological orientation. It is noted that the claims of some authors to the theoretical significance of their publications are not justified in the absence of a scientific problem statement, the formulation of which must include a number of issues of theoretical content. In addition, it is underlined that the current situation in Ukrainian sociology can be explained by the so-called methodological trauma, which is also typical for researchers from other post-Soviet countries. The conclusion is formulated that the development of sociological science in its theoretical and empirical contexts is possible only if the methodological trauma experienced by sociologists, psychologists and other representatives of socionomic research role is overcome.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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