定性研究中的归纳交叉比较:专业变革团队合作研究的方法论启示

IF 2.4 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIOLOGY
Inge Kryger Pedersen, Anders Blok
{"title":"定性研究中的归纳交叉比较:专业变革团队合作研究的方法论启示","authors":"Inge Kryger Pedersen, Anders Blok","doi":"10.1177/00811750241228597","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The authors argue that hitherto separate methodological conversations about abduction and comparison can be fruitfully brought together to generate novel, well-founded insights and retheorize an object of study in multiple-case qualitative inquiry. The authors call this abductive cross-case comparison and illustrate it by way of a collective study of how professional boundary work is changing under transnational conditions. In this study, the authors faced a common challenge in qualitative-comparative research: what to do when initial observations generate “surprises” that seem to confound the theoretical frameworks undergirding the comparison? To discuss how abductive inferences supported the authors’ response to this challenge, they explicate the acts of discovery and (re)conceptualization involved through various steps in a team-based research process. Building on the existing qualitative comparison literature, the authors suggest that such procedures fill a methodological gap and may hold great promise for overcoming obstacles in designing and implementing comparative research. Overall, the authors explicate and illustrate the method of abductive cross-case comparison, including their work as a research team. The aim of this article is thus to help sociologists implement better qualitative research that leverages a fuller potential of comparative designs to push beyond established knowledge and frameworks.","PeriodicalId":48140,"journal":{"name":"Sociological Methodology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Abductive Cross-Case Comparison in Qualitative Research: Methodological Lessons from the Teamwork Study of Professional Change\",\"authors\":\"Inge Kryger Pedersen, Anders Blok\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00811750241228597\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The authors argue that hitherto separate methodological conversations about abduction and comparison can be fruitfully brought together to generate novel, well-founded insights and retheorize an object of study in multiple-case qualitative inquiry. The authors call this abductive cross-case comparison and illustrate it by way of a collective study of how professional boundary work is changing under transnational conditions. In this study, the authors faced a common challenge in qualitative-comparative research: what to do when initial observations generate “surprises” that seem to confound the theoretical frameworks undergirding the comparison? To discuss how abductive inferences supported the authors’ response to this challenge, they explicate the acts of discovery and (re)conceptualization involved through various steps in a team-based research process. Building on the existing qualitative comparison literature, the authors suggest that such procedures fill a methodological gap and may hold great promise for overcoming obstacles in designing and implementing comparative research. Overall, the authors explicate and illustrate the method of abductive cross-case comparison, including their work as a research team. The aim of this article is thus to help sociologists implement better qualitative research that leverages a fuller potential of comparative designs to push beyond established knowledge and frameworks.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48140,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sociological Methodology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sociological Methodology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00811750241228597\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociological Methodology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00811750241228597","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

作者认为,迄今为止关于归纳和比较的单独方法论对话可以富有成效地结合在一起,以产生新颖、有根据的见解,并重新理论化多案例定性调查的研究对象。作者将此称为归纳式跨案例比较,并通过一项关于跨国条件下专业边界工作如何变化的集体研究加以说明。在这项研究中,作者们面临着定性比较研究中的一个共同挑战:当最初的观察结果产生 "意外",似乎与支持比较的理论框架相悖时,该怎么办?为了讨论归纳推理如何支持作者应对这一挑战,作者阐述了团队研究过程中各个步骤所涉及的发现和(重新)概念化行为。在现有定性比较文献的基础上,作者提出,这种程序填补了方法论上的空白,并有望克服设计和实施比较研究的障碍。总之,作者阐述并说明了归纳式跨案例比较的方法,包括他们作为一个研究团队所做的工作。因此,本文旨在帮助社会学家更好地实施定性研究,利用比较设计的更大潜力,超越既有知识和框架。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Abductive Cross-Case Comparison in Qualitative Research: Methodological Lessons from the Teamwork Study of Professional Change
The authors argue that hitherto separate methodological conversations about abduction and comparison can be fruitfully brought together to generate novel, well-founded insights and retheorize an object of study in multiple-case qualitative inquiry. The authors call this abductive cross-case comparison and illustrate it by way of a collective study of how professional boundary work is changing under transnational conditions. In this study, the authors faced a common challenge in qualitative-comparative research: what to do when initial observations generate “surprises” that seem to confound the theoretical frameworks undergirding the comparison? To discuss how abductive inferences supported the authors’ response to this challenge, they explicate the acts of discovery and (re)conceptualization involved through various steps in a team-based research process. Building on the existing qualitative comparison literature, the authors suggest that such procedures fill a methodological gap and may hold great promise for overcoming obstacles in designing and implementing comparative research. Overall, the authors explicate and illustrate the method of abductive cross-case comparison, including their work as a research team. The aim of this article is thus to help sociologists implement better qualitative research that leverages a fuller potential of comparative designs to push beyond established knowledge and frameworks.
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
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
期刊介绍: Sociological Methodology is a compendium of new and sometimes controversial advances in social science methodology. Contributions come from diverse areas and have something useful -- and often surprising -- to say about a wide range of topics ranging from legal and ethical issues surrounding data collection to the methodology of theory construction. In short, Sociological Methodology holds something of value -- and an interesting mix of lively controversy, too -- for nearly everyone who participates in the enterprise of sociological research.
×
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