{"title":"方法论修辞的社会学力量","authors":"J. Katz","doi":"10.1177/00491241221140427","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Taking a sociological view, we can investigate the empirical consequences of variations in the rhetoric of sociological methodology. The standards advocated in Qualitative Literacy divide communities of qualitative researchers, as they are not explicitly connected to an understanding of social ontology, unlike previous qualitative methodologies; they continue the long-growing segregation of the rhetorical worlds of qualitative and quantitative research methodology; and they draw attention to the personal competencies of the researcher. I compare a rhetoric of qualitative methodology that: derives evaluation criteria from perspectives on social ontology that have been developing progressively since the early twentieth century; applies the discipline-wide evaluation criteria of reactivity, reliability, representativeness, and replicability; and asks evaluators to focus on the adequacy of the textual depiction of research subjects.","PeriodicalId":21849,"journal":{"name":"Sociological Methods & Research","volume":"52 1","pages":"1086 - 1102"},"PeriodicalIF":6.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Sociological Power of Methodological Rhetoric\",\"authors\":\"J. Katz\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00491241221140427\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Taking a sociological view, we can investigate the empirical consequences of variations in the rhetoric of sociological methodology. The standards advocated in Qualitative Literacy divide communities of qualitative researchers, as they are not explicitly connected to an understanding of social ontology, unlike previous qualitative methodologies; they continue the long-growing segregation of the rhetorical worlds of qualitative and quantitative research methodology; and they draw attention to the personal competencies of the researcher. I compare a rhetoric of qualitative methodology that: derives evaluation criteria from perspectives on social ontology that have been developing progressively since the early twentieth century; applies the discipline-wide evaluation criteria of reactivity, reliability, representativeness, and replicability; and asks evaluators to focus on the adequacy of the textual depiction of research subjects.\",\"PeriodicalId\":21849,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sociological Methods & Research\",\"volume\":\"52 1\",\"pages\":\"1086 - 1102\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sociological Methods & Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00491241221140427\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociological Methods & Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00491241221140427","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Taking a sociological view, we can investigate the empirical consequences of variations in the rhetoric of sociological methodology. The standards advocated in Qualitative Literacy divide communities of qualitative researchers, as they are not explicitly connected to an understanding of social ontology, unlike previous qualitative methodologies; they continue the long-growing segregation of the rhetorical worlds of qualitative and quantitative research methodology; and they draw attention to the personal competencies of the researcher. I compare a rhetoric of qualitative methodology that: derives evaluation criteria from perspectives on social ontology that have been developing progressively since the early twentieth century; applies the discipline-wide evaluation criteria of reactivity, reliability, representativeness, and replicability; and asks evaluators to focus on the adequacy of the textual depiction of research subjects.
期刊介绍:
Sociological Methods & Research is a quarterly journal devoted to sociology as a cumulative empirical science. The objectives of SMR are multiple, but emphasis is placed on articles that advance the understanding of the field through systematic presentations that clarify methodological problems and assist in ordering the known facts in an area. Review articles will be published, particularly those that emphasize a critical analysis of the status of the arts, but original presentations that are broadly based and provide new research will also be published. Intrinsically, SMR is viewed as substantive journal but one that is highly focused on the assessment of the scientific status of sociology. The scope is broad and flexible, and authors are invited to correspond with the editors about the appropriateness of their articles.