scholarly journals Concept Mapping in Social Research

1970 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bharat Pokharel

Social scientists conduct research on two distinct but interrelated levels:conceptual-theoretical and observational-empirical. More precisely, social researches involve a constant interplay of two process: theory construction and theory testing. For example, it is a fact that in the last 100 years social mobility has increased. This fact in not merely based on random observation, but is an empirically verified statement about phenomena. This involves both a scientific observation and a predetermined conceptual-theoretical framework by which the observation is guided. In this article, the conceptual theoretical level of social research has been explained with the help of the basic elements such as concept and concept mapping.Key Words: Mapping; Social; ResearchTribhuvan University Journal Vol. XXVI, No. 1, 2009 Page: 1-6

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 101-119
Author(s):  
Emily Hauptmann

ArgumentMost social scientists today think of data sharing as an ethical imperative essential to making social science more transparent, verifiable, and replicable. But what moved the architects of some of the U.S.’s first university-based social scientific research institutions, the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research (ISR), and its spin-off, the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR), to share their data? Relying primarily on archived records, unpublished personal papers, and oral histories, I show that Angus Campbell, Warren Miller, Philip Converse, and others understood sharing data not as an ethical imperative intrinsic to social science but as a useful means to the diverse ends of financial stability, scholarly and institutional autonomy, and epistemological reproduction. I conclude that data sharing must be evaluated not only on the basis of the scientific ideals its supporters affirm, but also on the professional objectives it serves.


2009 ◽  
Vol 57 (3) ◽  
pp. 448-470 ◽  
Author(s):  
Franz Schultheis ◽  
Patricia Holder ◽  
Constantin Wagner

Today Pierre Bourdieu is well known as one of the most important social scientists of the 20th century. One of the outstanding qualities of his work has been his innovative combination of different methods and research strategies as well as his analytical skills in interpreting the obtained data (his ‘sociological gaze’). In this paper, we attempt to retrace the development of an extraordinary way of doing social research and show the benefit of Bourdieu's visual sociology for his empirical fieldwork and sociological theory. The article particularly stresses the significance of his photographic archive, which has long been ignored within the appreciation of Bourdieu's work. Studying Bourdieu's photography gives access to his æuvre in several new ways: not only can we understand how Bourdieu became an unconventional sociologist practicing his craft in the midst of a colonial war. Bourdieu's visual anthropology also offers an insight into the status nascendi of Bourdieu's sociology in all its elementary forms and contents. Through his photography Boudieu demonstrated the concepts of ‘ habitat and habitus’, the material and symbolic living conditions of the Algerian population.


1988 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 149-152 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Nicholson

The Economic and Social Research Council recently published a Report commissioned from a committee chaired by Professor Edwards, a psychiatrist, so that the Council, and the social science community in general, might know what was good and bad in British social sciences, and where the promising future research opportunities lie over the next decade. Boldly called ‘Horizons and Opportunities in the Social Sciences’, the Report condensed the wisdom of social scientists, both British and foreign, and concludes with a broadly but not uncritically favourable picture of the British scene.


2008 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 329-339 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Cecília de Souza Minayo

This paper attempts to analyze the way in which the issue of ethics in social research is dealt by institutional commissions based in biomedicine criteria. This discussion is particularly important for Social Sciences in Health, as our projects must necessarily be presented to Committees for assessment. In actual fact, Resolution Nº 196/1996 issued by the National Health Council establishes this mandatory requirement for all social areas. However, there is a question among researchers working with social issues, arguing that the health sector is moving outside its field when attempting to regulate actions in other fields of investigation. Grounded on philosophical anthropology, this paper is divided into three parts: (1) elements of anthropological foundations of ethics; (2) contributions of Anthropology to thinking about ethics and human rights in health; (3) internal and external questioning about anthropological practice. I conclude that if the ethical issue that involves human beings cannot be reduced to the procedures established by Ethics Committees, discussions in greater depth are required among social scientists on the construction of a practice based on and guided by respect for the intersubjectivity of all the players engaged in a research project.


2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (17) ◽  
pp. 138-144
Author(s):  
Asma Shughail Aqib Al Hashimi ◽  
Adi Anuar Azmin

The historical moments of qualitative research reflect socially constructed quasi-historic conventions that remain crosscut and overlapping till the present. This progressive narrative is well represented and assessed in a historical overview by Denzin & Lincoln (2018) in their book “The Sage handbook of qualitative research” in the introduction “The discipline and practice of qualitative research”. Through a chapter review, this article particularly discusses the fourth moment of Quantitative research coined as “The crisis of representation”, which is believed to be the crossroads where social scientists remain entangled between the science and humanity perspective while conducting social research in order to forward social realities. This period of confusion simultaneously forwarded the multi-paradigm (positivism, postpositivism, and interpretivism), all of which have unique characteristics that are suitable for specific research. Thus, this paper sheds light on the overview of the crisis of representation and further explains the types of crises that occurred during this historical moment, including the crisis of representation, the crisis of legitimation, and a crisis of praxis. It is expected that apart from extending current literature this paper would support social scientists for selecting appropriate methods and paradigms as well as to justify their selection.


2000 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 74-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Hodgkinson

This article is a response to a speech addressed to the Economic and Social Research Council which was made, in February this year, by the UK Secretary of State for Education and Employment, David Blunkett. The speech was entitled ‘Influence or Irrelevance: can social science improve government?’ . Blunkett's programme for engaging social science in the policy process is far from unique and many of the arguments have been heard before. However, the curiosity of the speech lies in the fact that the conception of social science which Blunkett advocates mirrors the approach New Labour itself has to politics and government. This raises some rather interesting difficulties for social scientists. How do we engage in a debate about the role of social scientific research in the policy process when our own conception of the discipline may be radically at odds with that of the government? Furthermore, New Labour's particular conception of the relationship between social and policy-making means that we not only have to contest their notion of what it is we do, but also challenge their conception of the policy process. We cannot ignore this engagement, even if we wanted to. The challenge is to address it and to do so, moreover, in terms which Blunkett might understand. This article is an attempt to start this process.


2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 195-217
Author(s):  
Aaron Ola Ogundiwin, ◽  
Joel N. Nwachukwu

Abstract The paper underscores the place of theories in organizing social science data and experience. It holds that theories are indispensable to social research (The North-South divide notwithstanding), in view of the fact that the framework of knowledge and experience within which theories are established make a meaningful explanation of the world phenomenon reasonably possible. It delineates political philosophy and history of ideas from theory and thus, takes care of common mistake social scientists make differentiating between them. Furthermore, the paper on one hand, takes on the scientific requisites of theory such as assumption, concepts (and their functions), hypothesis (and its characteristics typology), law, models, paradigm and provides lucid conceptual analysis of each with a view to showing their relatedness to theory but not as synonyms to it. On the other hand, we singled out dependency theory in its emanation from knowledge and experience of underdevelopment of Third World countries, as the first and perhaps most relevant theoretic explanation of Africa’s underdevelopment. The paper posits that a good theory that will serve as a rudder for formulation of research questions, problem statement, as well as sustain the data analysis, and findings must parade some, if not all of the following qualities: precision and testability, empirical validity, parsimony, stimulation, and practicability.


1971 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 72-82
Author(s):  
Walter F. Weiker

In a previous article I sought to appraise the field of Turkish studies, for the most part among western (predominantly American) scholars (MESA Bulletin, Vol. 3, No. 3, October 15, 1969). To fill out the picture, it is appropriate to also view the state of social research among the rapidly growing body of Turkish teachers and researchers. This article is not, however, a direct parallel to others in the MESA “State of the Art” series, in that it is not basically bibliographical. Such a review would require far more time, space, and knowledge in depth of several other social science disciplines than is currently available to me, because despite the remarks made below about problems of definition, the quantity and technical sophistication of work by Turkish researchers is quite large and is growing rapidly. Furthermore, since most of the research referred to below is in Turkish, the number of persons to whom a bibliographic review might be useful is quite limited. Instead, I think it would be more interesting to MESA members and other American social scientists to examine the characteristics and problems of what is probably one of the most vigorous social science communities in the “developing” countries, with a view (among other things) to helping facilitate increased cooperation between Turkish and American scholars in our common endeavors of advancing the state of knowledge.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document