方法论修辞的社会学力量

IF 6.5 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS
J. Katz
{"title":"方法论修辞的社会学力量","authors":"J. Katz","doi":"10.1177/00491241221140427","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Taking a sociological view, we can investigate the empirical consequences of variations in the rhetoric of sociological methodology. The standards advocated in Qualitative Literacy divide communities of qualitative researchers, as they are not explicitly connected to an understanding of social ontology, unlike previous qualitative methodologies; they continue the long-growing segregation of the rhetorical worlds of qualitative and quantitative research methodology; and they draw attention to the personal competencies of the researcher. I compare a rhetoric of qualitative methodology that: derives evaluation criteria from perspectives on social ontology that have been developing progressively since the early twentieth century; applies the discipline-wide evaluation criteria of reactivity, reliability, representativeness, and replicability; and asks evaluators to focus on the adequacy of the textual depiction of research subjects.","PeriodicalId":21849,"journal":{"name":"Sociological Methods & Research","volume":"52 1","pages":"1086 - 1102"},"PeriodicalIF":6.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Sociological Power of Methodological Rhetoric\",\"authors\":\"J. Katz\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00491241221140427\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Taking a sociological view, we can investigate the empirical consequences of variations in the rhetoric of sociological methodology. The standards advocated in Qualitative Literacy divide communities of qualitative researchers, as they are not explicitly connected to an understanding of social ontology, unlike previous qualitative methodologies; they continue the long-growing segregation of the rhetorical worlds of qualitative and quantitative research methodology; and they draw attention to the personal competencies of the researcher. I compare a rhetoric of qualitative methodology that: derives evaluation criteria from perspectives on social ontology that have been developing progressively since the early twentieth century; applies the discipline-wide evaluation criteria of reactivity, reliability, representativeness, and replicability; and asks evaluators to focus on the adequacy of the textual depiction of research subjects.\",\"PeriodicalId\":21849,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sociological Methods & Research\",\"volume\":\"52 1\",\"pages\":\"1086 - 1102\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sociological Methods & Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00491241221140427\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociological Methods & Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00491241221140427","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

从社会学的角度来看,我们可以研究社会学方法论修辞变化的经验后果。《质性素养》中倡导的标准将质性研究人员划分为不同的群体,因为与以前的质性方法不同,它们与对社会本体论的理解没有明确的联系;它们延续了长期存在的定性和定量研究方法论的修辞世界的分离;它们还会让人们注意到研究人员的个人能力。我比较了一种定性方法论的修辞:从20世纪初以来逐步发展的社会本体论的角度得出评价标准;应用全学科评价标准,包括反应性、可靠性、代表性和可复制性;并要求评价者关注研究对象的文本描述的充分性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Sociological Power of Methodological Rhetoric
Taking a sociological view, we can investigate the empirical consequences of variations in the rhetoric of sociological methodology. The standards advocated in Qualitative Literacy divide communities of qualitative researchers, as they are not explicitly connected to an understanding of social ontology, unlike previous qualitative methodologies; they continue the long-growing segregation of the rhetorical worlds of qualitative and quantitative research methodology; and they draw attention to the personal competencies of the researcher. I compare a rhetoric of qualitative methodology that: derives evaluation criteria from perspectives on social ontology that have been developing progressively since the early twentieth century; applies the discipline-wide evaluation criteria of reactivity, reliability, representativeness, and replicability; and asks evaluators to focus on the adequacy of the textual depiction of research subjects.
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
16.30
自引率
3.20%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: Sociological Methods & Research is a quarterly journal devoted to sociology as a cumulative empirical science. The objectives of SMR are multiple, but emphasis is placed on articles that advance the understanding of the field through systematic presentations that clarify methodological problems and assist in ordering the known facts in an area. Review articles will be published, particularly those that emphasize a critical analysis of the status of the arts, but original presentations that are broadly based and provide new research will also be published. Intrinsically, SMR is viewed as substantive journal but one that is highly focused on the assessment of the scientific status of sociology. The scope is broad and flexible, and authors are invited to correspond with the editors about the appropriateness of their articles.
×
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