定性研究体育的认识论:伦理与情色?

G. Mcfee
{"title":"定性研究体育的认识论:伦理与情色?","authors":"G. Mcfee","doi":"10.1080/19398440903192357","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The paper urges that researches into the social scientific aspects of sport centrally depend on distinctive epistemological assumptions, ignored at researchers’ peril. Given the ‘question‐and‐answer’ (i.e. erotetic) relation between research questions and research methods in sport, ‘qualitative research’ into sport is best recognised as research dealing with persons viewed as persons. But such interpersonal conceptions automatically import an ethical dimension; and much of this research will involve a degree of covertness. How can such research designs be accommodated, given the scientism prevalent in sports studies? As an epistemological argument, the presentation is largely given abstractly. One part of that argument lies in recognising just how pervasive such scientism is: even an explicit rejection of scientism (fuelled by postmodernism, perhaps) can still take its bearings from a scientistic account of truth – that is what is being denied! Further, such denial can seem to be a rejection of the concept of truth. But the search for truth is fundamental to any research worth the name. So a second part articulates a conception of human truth. Such a conception can be given a philosophical underpinning by a particularist contextualism, although this is merely sketched in the paper. A third consideration lays out the distinctiveness of this account of truth, highlighting its appropriateness to social research, given its congruence with the picture of ‘research into persons’ from which the paper began.","PeriodicalId":92578,"journal":{"name":"Qualitative research in sport and exercise","volume":"26 1","pages":"297 - 311"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"17","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The epistemology of qualitative research into sport: ethical and erotetic?\",\"authors\":\"G. Mcfee\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/19398440903192357\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The paper urges that researches into the social scientific aspects of sport centrally depend on distinctive epistemological assumptions, ignored at researchers’ peril. Given the ‘question‐and‐answer’ (i.e. erotetic) relation between research questions and research methods in sport, ‘qualitative research’ into sport is best recognised as research dealing with persons viewed as persons. But such interpersonal conceptions automatically import an ethical dimension; and much of this research will involve a degree of covertness. How can such research designs be accommodated, given the scientism prevalent in sports studies? As an epistemological argument, the presentation is largely given abstractly. One part of that argument lies in recognising just how pervasive such scientism is: even an explicit rejection of scientism (fuelled by postmodernism, perhaps) can still take its bearings from a scientistic account of truth – that is what is being denied! Further, such denial can seem to be a rejection of the concept of truth. But the search for truth is fundamental to any research worth the name. So a second part articulates a conception of human truth. Such a conception can be given a philosophical underpinning by a particularist contextualism, although this is merely sketched in the paper. A third consideration lays out the distinctiveness of this account of truth, highlighting its appropriateness to social research, given its congruence with the picture of ‘research into persons’ from which the paper began.\",\"PeriodicalId\":92578,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Qualitative research in sport and exercise\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"297 - 311\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2009-09-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"17\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Qualitative research in sport and exercise\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/19398440903192357\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Qualitative research in sport and exercise","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19398440903192357","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

摘要

本文敦促,对体育社会科学方面的研究主要依赖于独特的认识论假设,忽视这些假设对研究人员来说是危险的。考虑到研究问题和体育研究方法之间的“问题与答案”(即色情)关系,对体育的“定性研究”最好被认为是处理被视为人的人的研究。但这种人际概念自动引入了伦理维度;而且这类研究的大部分都涉及一定程度的隐蔽性。考虑到体育研究中普遍存在的科学主义,这样的研究设计是如何适应的?作为一种认识论的论证,本报告在很大程度上是抽象的。这个论点的一部分在于认识到这种科学主义是多么普遍:即使是对科学主义的明确拒绝(也许是由后现代主义推动的)仍然可以从科学主义对真理的描述中找到它的定位——这就是被否认的东西!此外,这种否认似乎是对真理概念的拒绝。但对真理的探索是任何名副其实的研究的基础。第二部分阐明了人类真理的概念。这样一个概念可以被赋予一个特殊的语境主义的哲学基础,尽管这只是概述在论文中。第三个考虑因素列出了这种真理的独特性,突出了它对社会研究的适当性,因为它与论文开始的“对人的研究”的图片一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The epistemology of qualitative research into sport: ethical and erotetic?
The paper urges that researches into the social scientific aspects of sport centrally depend on distinctive epistemological assumptions, ignored at researchers’ peril. Given the ‘question‐and‐answer’ (i.e. erotetic) relation between research questions and research methods in sport, ‘qualitative research’ into sport is best recognised as research dealing with persons viewed as persons. But such interpersonal conceptions automatically import an ethical dimension; and much of this research will involve a degree of covertness. How can such research designs be accommodated, given the scientism prevalent in sports studies? As an epistemological argument, the presentation is largely given abstractly. One part of that argument lies in recognising just how pervasive such scientism is: even an explicit rejection of scientism (fuelled by postmodernism, perhaps) can still take its bearings from a scientistic account of truth – that is what is being denied! Further, such denial can seem to be a rejection of the concept of truth. But the search for truth is fundamental to any research worth the name. So a second part articulates a conception of human truth. Such a conception can be given a philosophical underpinning by a particularist contextualism, although this is merely sketched in the paper. A third consideration lays out the distinctiveness of this account of truth, highlighting its appropriateness to social research, given its congruence with the picture of ‘research into persons’ from which the paper began.
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