Squeezing dried fruits: Mixed methods, methodological dogmatism and methodological eclecticism

IF 0.3 Q4 SOCIOLOGY Sociologija Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.2298/soc220602007i
Vladimir Ilic
{"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}
引用次数: 0

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.
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
压榨干果:混合方法、方法论教条主义和方法论折衷主义
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。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 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
期刊最新文献
Computational thinking in education - epistemology, pedagogy and politics Squeezing dried fruits: Mixed methods, methodological dogmatism and methodological eclecticism Some observations on the methodological approach to biography of the first female members of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts The importance of physical appearance and actual body figure of women in Serbia in the contemporary sociocultural environment The experience of cities during the COVID 19 pandemic: What are we going to do now?
×
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