Autobiographies or Portraits? Methodological Differences in Qualitative Social Research

IF 0.3 4区 社会学 Q4 SOCIOLOGY Eastern European Countryside Pub Date : 2018-12-01 DOI:10.2478/eec-2018-0002
C. Giordano
{"title":"Autobiographies or Portraits? Methodological Differences in Qualitative Social Research","authors":"C. Giordano","doi":"10.2478/eec-2018-0002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The author considers methodological differences in the use of autobiographies. However, while doing so, he does not focus on technical differences in the application of the method but asks about cognitive possibilities that come (or not) with certain methodological tools. It is through this perspective (epistemological capacity of theory and empirical knowledge) that the author discusses the difference between two very close and yet so separate methods of research: sociological autobiography and anthropological portrait. He refers to Florian Znaniecki’s methodological guidelines and juxtaposes them with other important sociological works. Analysing Znaniecki’s method, he finds elements that make it seem closer to anthropological portrait. This approach is to encourage the readers to look at the method in a different way – as something secondary to the accurate definition of the socio-cultural context for the studied phenomena.","PeriodicalId":42882,"journal":{"name":"Eastern European Countryside","volume":"24 1","pages":"25 - 42"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Eastern European Countryside","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/eec-2018-0002","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Abstract The author considers methodological differences in the use of autobiographies. However, while doing so, he does not focus on technical differences in the application of the method but asks about cognitive possibilities that come (or not) with certain methodological tools. It is through this perspective (epistemological capacity of theory and empirical knowledge) that the author discusses the difference between two very close and yet so separate methods of research: sociological autobiography and anthropological portrait. He refers to Florian Znaniecki’s methodological guidelines and juxtaposes them with other important sociological works. Analysing Znaniecki’s method, he finds elements that make it seem closer to anthropological portrait. This approach is to encourage the readers to look at the method in a different way – as something secondary to the accurate definition of the socio-cultural context for the studied phenomena.
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
自传还是肖像?质性社会研究的方法论差异
摘要作者考虑了自传体使用方法上的差异。然而,在这样做的同时,他并没有关注方法应用中的技术差异,而是询问某些方法论工具带来的(或不带来的)认知可能性。正是通过这种视角(理论和经验知识的认识论能力),作者讨论了两种非常接近但又如此分离的研究方法之间的区别:社会学自传和人类学肖像。他引用了Florian Znaniecki的方法论指导方针,并将其与其他重要的社会学著作并置。通过分析Znaniecki的方法,他发现了一些元素,使其看起来更接近人类学肖像。这种方法是为了鼓励读者以不同的方式看待这种方法——作为对所研究现象的社会文化背景的准确定义的次要内容。
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
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The importance of local community attitudes for sustainable tourism in protected areas: The case of Tikvara Nature Park, Serbia The rural linguistic landscape of Banat Gentrified countryside and non-gentrified countryside: Spatial dimension of the rural gentrification process The impact of the age structure of active population on agricultural activity rate: The case study of the Timok Krajina region Tourism-based development opportunities for rural areas. Example of an underdeveloped region (Siklós district)
×
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