WAS THERE A SCIENTIFIC ’68? ITS REPERCUSSION ON ACTION RESEARCH AND MIXING METHODS

IF 0.5 4区 社会学 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY ARBOR-CIENCIA PENSAMIENTO Y CULTURA Pub Date : 2018-04-16 DOI:10.3989/ARBOR.2018.787N1009
José Andrés-Gallego
{"title":"WAS THERE A SCIENTIFIC ’68? ITS REPERCUSSION ON ACTION RESEARCH AND MIXING METHODS","authors":"José Andrés-Gallego","doi":"10.3989/ARBOR.2018.787N1009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The author asks whether there was a “scientific ‘68”, and focuses on aspects of two specific methodological proposals defined in the 1940s and 50s by the terms “action research” and “mixing methods”, applied particularly to social sciences. In the first, the climate surrounding the events of 1968 contributed to heightening the participative element to be found –by definition– in “action research”; that is: the importance of making the research subjects themselves participants in the design, execution and application of the study of which they are the focus. This approach captured the democratic and anti-authoritarian spirit at the heart of the proposal, which was part of the prevailing climate in those days. The repercussions of 1968 on “mixing methods” focused on studying what had actually occurred, especially between the youth and workers, and therefore, particularly from the point of view of sociology and social psychology, using a “mixed methods” approach. The author explores the proposal of Norman Denzin; but traces the recent origins of both “mixing methods” and “action research” back to the proposals of mainly Kurt Lewin and the Chicago School.","PeriodicalId":45891,"journal":{"name":"ARBOR-CIENCIA PENSAMIENTO Y CULTURA","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2018-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ARBOR-CIENCIA PENSAMIENTO Y CULTURA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3989/ARBOR.2018.787N1009","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The author asks whether there was a “scientific ‘68”, and focuses on aspects of two specific methodological proposals defined in the 1940s and 50s by the terms “action research” and “mixing methods”, applied particularly to social sciences. In the first, the climate surrounding the events of 1968 contributed to heightening the participative element to be found –by definition– in “action research”; that is: the importance of making the research subjects themselves participants in the design, execution and application of the study of which they are the focus. This approach captured the democratic and anti-authoritarian spirit at the heart of the proposal, which was part of the prevailing climate in those days. The repercussions of 1968 on “mixing methods” focused on studying what had actually occurred, especially between the youth and workers, and therefore, particularly from the point of view of sociology and social psychology, using a “mixed methods” approach. The author explores the proposal of Norman Denzin; but traces the recent origins of both “mixing methods” and “action research” back to the proposals of mainly Kurt Lewin and the Chicago School.
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
有科学的1968年吗?它对行动研究和混合方法的影响
作者询问是否存在“科学的68年”,并着重讨论了在20世纪40年代和50年代由“行动研究”和“混合方法”定义的两种具体方法建议的各个方面,这些建议特别适用于社会科学。第一,围绕1968年事件的气氛有助于加强在“行动研究”中发现的——根据定义——参与性因素;那就是:让研究对象自己参与到他们所关注的研究的设计、执行和应用中来的重要性。这种方法抓住了提案核心的民主和反威权精神,这也是当时主流氛围的一部分。1968年对“混合方法”的影响集中在研究实际发生了什么,特别是在青年和工人之间,因此,特别是从社会学和社会心理学的角度来看,使用“混合方法”的方法。作者探讨了诺曼·丹金的建议;但他将“混合方法”和“行动研究”的最近起源追溯到库尔特·勒温和芝加哥学派的建议。
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
ARBOR-CIENCIA PENSAMIENTO Y CULTURA
ARBOR-CIENCIA PENSAMIENTO Y CULTURA HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
审稿时长
48 weeks
期刊介绍: Arbor is a bimonthly Journal publishing original articles on Science, Thought and Culture. By examining different topics with a rigorous scientific approach, Arbor intends to service the Spanish society and scientific community by providing information, updating, reflection and debate on subjects of current interest. Arbor is among the oldest Journals published by CSIC, and is open to researchers and Culture creators and managers, both Spanish and foreign.
期刊最新文献
Tres principios de justicia en la política migratoria Reseña de Graeber, David y David Wengrow (2022). El amanecer de todo. Una nueva historia de la humanidad. Barcelona: Planeta. ISBN 978-84-344-3572-8 Filosofía de la técnica. José Gaos. María Antonia González Valerio y Nicole C. Karafyllis (ed.). México: Herder, 2022. ISBN: 9788425449420 Eva Illouz (2020). El fin del amor: una sociología de las relaciones negativas. Madrid: Katz Editores. Cosmoética y vacunas contra la COVID-19. Más allá de la propuesta cosmopolítica
×
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