{"title":"有科学的1968年吗?它对行动研究和混合方法的影响","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":"20 1","pages":"436"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2018-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"436\"},\"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}","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}
WAS THERE A SCIENTIFIC ’68? ITS REPERCUSSION ON ACTION RESEARCH AND MIXING METHODS
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.
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.