There Is No End of Paradigms War in Social Sciences: A Meta-Analytical Approach

Zbyszko Melosik
{"title":"There Is No End of Paradigms War in Social Sciences: A Meta-Analytical Approach","authors":"Zbyszko Melosik","doi":"10.12775/pbe.2021.011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article is devoted to analyzing the present relevance of paradigms war concept, the most abstract meta-problem in social science. The main problem can be expressed in the following way: is it possible that there is the end of phenomenon called a paradigms war in the situation of common acceptance of pluralist approach to making science and growing importance of “mixed methods research”? To answer this question, the Author confronts the positivist and constructivist paradigms. These are compared with the special emphasis put on the epistemological differences between them and also differences between the nature of their research, quantitative or qualitative. The next analysed context is related to an alternative approach, pragmatism which rejects “the either-or position” and stresses the importance of mixed methods research is examined. To answer the main question, the Author further moves on to study these paradigms as an instrument of power in academia, especially when relating to promoting the younger generation of scholars. Against this background, the concept of epistemic communities, which is based on the idea of intersubjectivity and reciprocity of perspectives, is taken into account. Finally, the author concludes that the idea of academic freedom as a base of paradigmatic pluralism needs to be stressed. The meta-analytical approach to the main problem has been used by the author.","PeriodicalId":33219,"journal":{"name":"Przeglad Badan Edukacyjnych","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Przeglad Badan Edukacyjnych","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12775/pbe.2021.011","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

The article is devoted to analyzing the present relevance of paradigms war concept, the most abstract meta-problem in social science. The main problem can be expressed in the following way: is it possible that there is the end of phenomenon called a paradigms war in the situation of common acceptance of pluralist approach to making science and growing importance of “mixed methods research”? To answer this question, the Author confronts the positivist and constructivist paradigms. These are compared with the special emphasis put on the epistemological differences between them and also differences between the nature of their research, quantitative or qualitative. The next analysed context is related to an alternative approach, pragmatism which rejects “the either-or position” and stresses the importance of mixed methods research is examined. To answer the main question, the Author further moves on to study these paradigms as an instrument of power in academia, especially when relating to promoting the younger generation of scholars. Against this background, the concept of epistemic communities, which is based on the idea of intersubjectivity and reciprocity of perspectives, is taken into account. Finally, the author concludes that the idea of academic freedom as a base of paradigmatic pluralism needs to be stressed. The meta-analytical approach to the main problem has been used by the author.
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
社会科学的范式之战没有尽头:一种元分析方法
本文分析了社会科学中最抽象的元问题——范式战争概念的现实意义。主要问题可以用以下方式来表达:在普遍接受科学研究的多元方法和“混合方法研究”日益重要的情况下,是否有可能结束被称为范式战争的现象?为了回答这个问题,作者面对实证主义和建构主义的范式。我们特别强调了它们之间的认识论差异,以及它们的研究性质(定量或定性)之间的差异。下一个分析的背景是与另一种方法有关,实用主义拒绝“非此即彼的立场”,并强调混合方法研究的重要性。为了回答这个主要问题,作者进一步研究了这些范式作为学术界权力的工具,特别是在促进年轻一代学者的时候。在此背景下,基于主体间性和视角互惠的认知共同体概念被考虑在内。最后,作者得出结论,作为范式多元主义基础的学术自由理念需要得到重视。作者对主要问题采用了元分析方法。
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
12
审稿时长
50 weeks
期刊最新文献
Risk Factors of Gambling Disorder Among Adults – Research Report Emotional and Motivational School Readiness of Six-Year-Old Children and Parental Support in Mothers’ Assessments Work in the Experience of Persons with Intellectual Disabilities. A Focus Group Research Report Basic Aspects of the Erotetic Logic and the Role of Questions in Empirical Cognition in Pedagogical Research Practice The Cognitive Component of Academic Teachers’ Attitudes Towards E-Learning – Research Report
×
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