克服社会科学的方法论教条主义:三角法、多方法和混合方法

IF 0.3 Q4 SOCIOLOGY
Sociologija Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI:10.2298/SOC2101005V
Vladan Vidicki, S. Stojšin
{"title":"克服社会科学的方法论教条主义:三角法、多方法和混合方法","authors":"Vladan Vidicki, S. Stojšin","doi":"10.2298/SOC2101005V","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"For the longest time, quantitative and qualitative methods have been considered opposing and mutually exclusive categories within the methodology of social science. This is best showcased by the conflicts arising between the proponents of these differing approaches - conflicts that are often characterized by an air of methodological dogmatism. The term ?methodological dogmatism? refers to the conviction of researchers in the superiority of their own approach, while delegitimizing any other. The main purpose of this paper is to outline the contemporary theoretical possibities of overcoming said dogmatism, and the three most prevalent approaches (triangulation, multimethod and mixed methods) will be presented accordingly. The goal is to identify the continuity of the ideas referring to the integration of qualitative and quantitative methodology, as well as to highlight the characterstics, advantages and drawbacks of each method. The paper concludes that the choice of method should be based on the nature of the research problem at hand, and that the combining of methods can serve as a useful tool for understanding and encompassing the full complexity of phenomena which are at the heart of social research.","PeriodicalId":43515,"journal":{"name":"Sociologija","volume":"63 1","pages":"5-25"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Overcoming methodological dogmatism in social sciences: Triangulation, multimethod, and mixed methods\",\"authors\":\"Vladan Vidicki, S. Stojšin\",\"doi\":\"10.2298/SOC2101005V\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"For the longest time, quantitative and qualitative methods have been considered opposing and mutually exclusive categories within the methodology of social science. This is best showcased by the conflicts arising between the proponents of these differing approaches - conflicts that are often characterized by an air of methodological dogmatism. The term ?methodological dogmatism? refers to the conviction of researchers in the superiority of their own approach, while delegitimizing any other. The main purpose of this paper is to outline the contemporary theoretical possibities of overcoming said dogmatism, and the three most prevalent approaches (triangulation, multimethod and mixed methods) will be presented accordingly. The goal is to identify the continuity of the ideas referring to the integration of qualitative and quantitative methodology, as well as to highlight the characterstics, advantages and drawbacks of each method. The paper concludes that the choice of method should be based on the nature of the research problem at hand, and that the combining of methods can serve as a useful tool for understanding and encompassing the full complexity of phenomena which are at the heart of social research.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43515,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sociologija\",\"volume\":\"63 1\",\"pages\":\"5-25\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sociologija\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2298/SOC2101005V\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociologija","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2298/SOC2101005V","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

长期以来,定量方法和定性方法一直被认为是社会科学方法论中对立和相互排斥的范畴。这些不同方法的支持者之间产生的冲突是最好的证明,这些冲突通常以方法论教条主义为特征。方法论教条主义?指研究人员坚信自己的方法具有优越性,而否定其他方法的合理性。本文的主要目的是概述克服上述教条主义的当代理论可能性,并相应地提出三种最流行的方法(三角测量,多方法和混合方法)。我们的目标是确定关于定性和定量方法整合的思想的连续性,以及突出每种方法的特点,优点和缺点。本文的结论是,方法的选择应该基于手头研究问题的性质,并且方法的组合可以作为理解和涵盖社会研究核心现象的全部复杂性的有用工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Overcoming methodological dogmatism in social sciences: Triangulation, multimethod, and mixed methods
For the longest time, quantitative and qualitative methods have been considered opposing and mutually exclusive categories within the methodology of social science. This is best showcased by the conflicts arising between the proponents of these differing approaches - conflicts that are often characterized by an air of methodological dogmatism. The term ?methodological dogmatism? refers to the conviction of researchers in the superiority of their own approach, while delegitimizing any other. The main purpose of this paper is to outline the contemporary theoretical possibities of overcoming said dogmatism, and the three most prevalent approaches (triangulation, multimethod and mixed methods) will be presented accordingly. The goal is to identify the continuity of the ideas referring to the integration of qualitative and quantitative methodology, as well as to highlight the characterstics, advantages and drawbacks of each method. The paper concludes that the choice of method should be based on the nature of the research problem at hand, and that the combining of methods can serve as a useful tool for understanding and encompassing the full complexity of phenomena which are at the heart of social research.
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
Sociologija
Sociologija SOCIOLOGY-
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
审稿时长
40 weeks
×
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