压榨干果:混合方法、方法论教条主义和方法论折衷主义

IF 0.3 Q4 SOCIOLOGY
Sociologija Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.2298/soc220602007i
Vladimir Ilic
{"title":"压榨干果:混合方法、方法论教条主义和方法论折衷主义","authors":"Vladimir Ilic","doi":"10.2298/soc220602007i","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper the relations among qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches are considered. Basic evidence for this methodological analysis is consisted by Vladan Vidicki`s and Snezana Stojsin`s article and Zivan Ristic`s book devoted to this topic. Vidicki and Stojsin are critics of methodological dogmatism related to rival approach. Their comprehension is analyzed in the first and second sections of the paper. Third section deals with Ristic`s criticism of methodological eclecticism. Forth part of the paper explores particular issue of relations of quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods approach to different paradigms. In the conclusion is stated that division among qulatitative, quantitative and mixed methods approach is artificial and disadvantageous. It is emphasized that the division embarrasses the development of sociological theory and that its focusing to the role of research objectives is related to social reformism.","PeriodicalId":43515,"journal":{"name":"Sociologija","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Squeezing dried fruits: Mixed methods, methodological dogmatism and methodological eclecticism\",\"authors\":\"Vladimir Ilic\",\"doi\":\"10.2298/soc220602007i\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this paper the relations among qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches are considered. Basic evidence for this methodological analysis is consisted by Vladan Vidicki`s and Snezana Stojsin`s article and Zivan Ristic`s book devoted to this topic. Vidicki and Stojsin are critics of methodological dogmatism related to rival approach. Their comprehension is analyzed in the first and second sections of the paper. Third section deals with Ristic`s criticism of methodological eclecticism. Forth part of the paper explores particular issue of relations of quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods approach to different paradigms. In the conclusion is stated that division among qulatitative, quantitative and mixed methods approach is artificial and disadvantageous. It is emphasized that the division embarrasses the development of sociological theory and that its focusing to the role of research objectives is related to social reformism.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43515,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sociologija\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"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/soc220602007i\",\"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/soc220602007i","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

本文考虑了定性方法、定量方法和混合方法之间的关系。这种方法论分析的基本证据由Vladan Vidicki和Snezana Stojsin的文章和Zivan Ristic专门讨论这个主题的书组成。Vidicki和Stojsin是与竞争方法相关的方法论教条主义的批评者。本文的第一节和第二节分析了他们的理解。第三部分论述了里斯蒂克对方法论折衷主义的批判。第四部分探讨了定量方法、定性方法和混合方法对不同范式的关系问题。在结论中指出定性、定量和混合方法的划分是人为的和不利的。强调这种划分使社会学理论的发展陷入困境,其对研究目标作用的关注与社会改良主义有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Squeezing dried fruits: Mixed methods, methodological dogmatism and methodological eclecticism
In this paper the relations among qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches are considered. Basic evidence for this methodological analysis is consisted by Vladan Vidicki`s and Snezana Stojsin`s article and Zivan Ristic`s book devoted to this topic. Vidicki and Stojsin are critics of methodological dogmatism related to rival approach. Their comprehension is analyzed in the first and second sections of the paper. Third section deals with Ristic`s criticism of methodological eclecticism. Forth part of the paper explores particular issue of relations of quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods approach to different paradigms. In the conclusion is stated that division among qulatitative, quantitative and mixed methods approach is artificial and disadvantageous. It is emphasized that the division embarrasses the development of sociological theory and that its focusing to the role of research objectives is related to social reformism.
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