Fighting or mixing: quantitative and qualitative research

P. Thompson, K. Plummer, N. Demireva
{"title":"Fighting or mixing: quantitative and qualitative research","authors":"P. Thompson, K. Plummer, N. Demireva","doi":"10.1332/policypress/9781447333524.003.0005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter focuses on the age-old debate in the social sciences about the primacy of methods and the relationship of our pioneers to one of the main ideological battles blighting disciplines such as sociology. Every researcher makes a conscious decision to adopt a qualitative or quantitative method in their social enquiry, or sometimes to even mix them both, and it would have been extremely unusual for the pioneers not to engage sometimes with the oppressive responsibility to pick a 'side'. The chapter explores the extremes in this debate, as well as less-entrenched positions that advocate a middle-ground approach.","PeriodicalId":176224,"journal":{"name":"Pioneering Social Research","volume":"355 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pioneering Social Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781447333524.003.0005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This chapter focuses on the age-old debate in the social sciences about the primacy of methods and the relationship of our pioneers to one of the main ideological battles blighting disciplines such as sociology. Every researcher makes a conscious decision to adopt a qualitative or quantitative method in their social enquiry, or sometimes to even mix them both, and it would have been extremely unusual for the pioneers not to engage sometimes with the oppressive responsibility to pick a 'side'. The chapter explores the extremes in this debate, as well as less-entrenched positions that advocate a middle-ground approach.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
斗争或混合:定量和定性研究
本章聚焦于社会科学中由来已久的关于方法的首要地位的争论,以及我们的先驱者与破坏社会学等学科的主要意识形态斗争之一的关系。每个研究人员都会有意识地决定在他们的社会调查中采用定性或定量的方法,有时甚至将两者混合在一起。对于先驱们来说,有时不承担选择“一方”的压迫性责任是极不寻常的。本章探讨了这场辩论中的极端观点,以及主张中间立场的不那么根深蒂固的立场。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Old boundaries, new thoughts Old and new trends Conclusion: Index Life stories:
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1