Key Concepts in Social Research Methods
Key Concepts in Social Research Methods
复制标题
社会研究方法中的关键概念
DOI：
10.1108/09504120911003276
复制
发表时间：
2009
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
M. Guha
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Guha
我以前没有看过帕尔格雷夫的关键概念系列，所以当提供这本书的审查，我假设这是一个介绍手册或学习技能指南的学生。有几百个这样的。在20世纪70年代中期社会学大规模扩张的令人兴奋的日子里，汇编它们是一项主要的学术产业。我甚至帮助写了一本（萨默菲尔德等人，1982年），尽管如此，为了自卫，我应该强调，它是免费提供给我们所有的学生，如果当时网络已经存在，我们肯定会努力让它免费提供给每个人。另一方面，这也不是统计方法的指南。也有几百个。事实上，相当数量的“研究方法”指南完全是关于统计的。为了就统计术语的定义寻求公正的专业建议，我询问了伦敦国王学院生物统计学名誉教授布赖恩·埃弗里特（Brian Everitt），他会推荐什么。他毫不脸红地指出，最好的单一信息来源是剑桥统计词典（Everitt，2006年）（RR 2007/92），但在压力下勉强批准了《统计词典》和《统计数据汇编》。（厄普顿和库克，2006年）（RR 2007/140）和《牛津统计术语词典》（道奇，2003）从我提供给他的广泛的名单。这是什么，但是，这是一本字典或注释词汇-一套简短的定义，从一行到几页的长度，社会研究工作者使用的术语。因此，它显然是作为人们阅读社会研究结果的指南而设计的，而不是为即将着手自己的研究项目的人们提供的方法手册。这将使它拥有更广泛的受众。许多社会科学学位要求学生进行某种研究项目。学生们需要指导来做这些，所以小型方法手册有一个稳定的市场。我们都是社会研究的消费者。每一份报纸，无论多么垃圾和琐碎，都可能引用研究结果。了解他们是成为一个有效公民的重要组成部分，所以我们都应该知道社会研究人员在谈论什么。这是困难的事实，社会研究词汇是完全不受控制的。自然科学家确实偶尔会重新发明轮子，有时是由于没有正确了解现有文献而意外地重新发明，有时是希望通过称之为“循环运输支持模块”，他们可以声称某种形式的原创性。心理学家特别倾向于做出“发现”，这些发现只不过是旧概念的新术语。然而，社会科学家把所有其他竞争对手都置于阴影之下。这本书必须充满同义词-Gomm声称他发现了22种不同的方式来表达意识是有组织的-更糟糕的是，它必须定义不同研究人员使用的术语，以表示完全不同的东西。
I had not looked at the Palgrave Key Concepts series before, so when offered this book for review I assumed it was an introductory handbook or a study skills guide for students. There are hundreds of these. In the heady days of sociology's major expansion in the mid‐1970s, compiling them was a major academic industry. I even helped write one (Summerfield et al., 1982), although, in self‐defence I should emphasise that it was given free to all our students, and if the web had been in existence at the time we would certainly have tried to make it free to everybody. Nor, on the other hand, is this a guide to statistical methods. There are hundreds of those too. In fact a considerable number of guides to “research methodology” are devoted entirely to statistics. Seeking impartial professional advice on definitions of statistical terms, I asked Brian Everitt, emeritus professor of biometrics at King's College London which he would recommend. He unblushingly suggested that the best single information source available was the Cambridge Dictionary of Statistics (Everitt, 2006)(RR 2007/92) but, under pressure, gave grudging approval to both A Dictionary of Statistics (Upton and Cook, 2006)(RR 2007/140) and The Oxford Dictionary of Statistical Terms (Dodge, 2003) from the extensive list I offered him.What this is however is a dictionary or annotated glossary–a set of brief definitions, ranging from one line to a couple of pages in length, of terms used by social research workers. As such it is clearly designed as a guide for people reading the results of social research, rather than a methodological handbook for people about to embark on research projects of their own. This should give it a much wider audience. Many social science degrees require students to undertake some sort of research project. Students need guidance on doing these, so there is a steady market for small methodological handbooks. We are all, however, consumers of social research. Every newspaper, no matter how trashy and trivial‐minded is likely to quote research results. Understanding them is an important part of being an effective citizen, so it behoves us all to be aware of what social researchers are talking about. This is made difficult by the fact that the social research vocabulary is completely uncontrolled. Natural scientists do, it is true, occasionally re‐invent the wheel, sometimes accidentally by not being properly aware of the existing literature, and sometimes in the hope that by calling it a “circular transportation support module” they can lay claim to some form of originality. Psychologists are particularly prone to making “discoveries” that are little more than new terms for old concepts. Social scientists put all other competitors in the shade however. This book has to be full of synonyms–Gomm claims that he found 22 different ways of saying that consciousness is organized–and, even worse, it has to define terms that have been used by different researchers to mean completely different things.