scholarly journals Interaction of Empirical Sociology and Statistics: Military-Sociological Research

2019 ◽  
pp. 212-220
Author(s):  
Volodymyr Mikhailov ◽  
Valentyna Yefimova
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
Social Research ◽  
Research Field ◽  
Sociological Research ◽  
Social Statistics ◽  
Statistical Surveys ◽  
Empirical Sociology ◽  
Interdisciplinary Interaction ◽  
Key Aspects ◽  
Applied Fields

Currently, sociology and statistics are unique sciences, which is a source of social information and current scientific knowledge. In the process of studying society, sociology and statistics function simultaneously, and during such interaction they «meet» in the field of social research. The subject of sociology is exclusively focused on the study of various aspects and problems of society. In recent years, based on the urgent need to protect the independence of our country and restore its territorial integrity in the context of armed aggression of the Russian Federation, the role and importance of applied military-sociological research has grown significantly. Among the specialists in the field there is a lack of scientific works on the study of problems of interaction, interconnections, complementarity, the issues of the use of similar or transformed similar methodological and practical tools, which are used at the same time in applied military-sociological researches and in the field of social statistics. The purpose of the article is to highlight the key aspects and issues regarding the interdisciplinary interaction of empirical sociology and statistics in particular areas of scientific knowledge of these scientific and applied fields of research, at different levels of generalization, methodological approaches, tools and more. This interaction is considered in this article by sociology, first of all, in the field of applied military-sociological researches, which in recent years are beginning to occupy a proper place in the spectrum of the general research field, in which modern scientists and specialists of Ukraine work fruitfully. Nowadays, at the junction of sociology and statistics, sociological and statistical surveys are introduced, as well as monitoring studies, the result of which, in addition to improving social knowledge in general, is the formation of a new type of information — social and statistical data, which integrates qualitative and quantitative characteristics of sociological and statistical direction. Scientifically based national applied military-sociological researches, which generally develop in unity and complementarity with sociological and statistical methodology and practice, should play their role in solving this pressing problem in their own sphere of application.

scholarly journals Rational choice theory and social research

Sociologija ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 58 (4) ◽  
pp. 598-611 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bojan Krstic ◽  
Milos Krstic
Keyword(s):  
Rational Choice ◽  
Rational Choice Theory ◽  
Choice Theory ◽  
Social Research ◽  
Sociological Research ◽  
Methodological Challenge ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Sociological Approaches ◽  
Applied Fields

The paper is devoted to the analyses of methodological and metatheoretical problems of rational choice theory. The methodological challenge is associated with the questions: whether rational choice theory can be appropriately empirically tested and whether RCT allows researchers to derive interesting hypotheses with regard to substantive fields of application? The answers to these questions have important implications for the rational choice theory?s ambition to be appropriate basis for the implementation of social research. In this paper, allso, we analyse the following metatheoretical problems: how to deal with the apparent counterevidence that stems from applied fields of sociological research: Is it possible to provide explanations of this evidence within RCT by widening its core assumptions and thereby broadening the set of allowed auxiliary assumptions? Or does RCT have to be enriched (and if so, how?) by integrating concepts and mechanisms of other sociological approaches for it to remain a reasonable workhorse and starting point for sociological research?

scholarly journals From Critical Thought to Emancipatory Action: Contradictory Research Goals?

1997 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Humphries
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
Social Research ◽  
Will To Power ◽  
Critical Thought ◽  
Traditional Research ◽  
The Will ◽  
Forms Of Knowledge ◽  
Oriented Research

This article results from reading Lather's Getting Smart (1991) and Hammersley's The Politics of Social Research (1995). The theme is the debates between ‘traditional’ research approaches and ‘emancipatory’ research approaches. It is argued that these debates are based on stereotypical views which obscure important characteristics held in common, and both require to be interrogated. The article examines two of these characteristics, appeals to a metanarrative of emancipation and the will to power, and considers the implications of the privileging of scientific knowledge over other forms of knowledge. It concludes by considering the possibilities for a praxis-oriented research which may lead to possibilities for emancipatory action.

scholarly journals The role of the multidisciplinary approach in the philosophy of history

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 32-36
Author(s):  
Svetlana Yu. Anisimova ◽  
Tatyana V. Borisova
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
Multidisciplinary Approach ◽  
Historical Memory ◽  
Interdisciplinary Approach ◽  
Natural Sciences ◽  
Philosophy Of History ◽  
Research Field ◽  
Methodological Status ◽  
Nature And Society

The article discusses the role of the disciplinary approach in the study of historical memory. In the modern research field, the methodological status of an interdisciplinary approach is becoming more and more popular. It is connected with the problems of the new ontology formation, where the general foundations between nature and society are investigated. Many sciences use the of interdisciplinary methodology to understand the interaction of the natural sciences and the humanities. Today, the organization of interdisciplinarity is actively criticized, which does not take into account the interconnection between natural sciences and humanities. The absence of this relationship is manifested in the problems of historical memory. Therefore, the idea is being advanced to justify the fundamental status of historical memory, it is necessary to change the organization of scientific knowledge.

scholarly journals Developing a Common Language Area in Interdisciplinary Interaction: Reflections on the Experience of Cooperation Between Specialists Working in Exact and Social Sciences, 1990–2010s

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 117-132
Author(s):  
Ivan A. Klimov ◽  
Svetlana G. Klimova ◽  
Maria A. Mikheyenkova
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Qualitative Analysis ◽  
Sociological Research ◽  
Common Language ◽  
Conceptual Systems ◽  
Empirical Verification ◽  
Formal Tool ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Language Area ◽  
Interdisciplinary Interaction

This article considers the subject of interdisciplinary interaction among specialists working in exact and social sciences as a practice of exchanging ideas about social reality; mutual adaptation of these ideas; empirical verification of the universal formal logic rules applied to specific tasks of sociological research. Such formulation of the subject goes beyond the problem of adapting educational programs to “literacy classes” for potential partners. It is maintained that in inter-professional communication it is important to formulate conceptual systems of common use not “in general”, not for all possible cases, but with regard to the problem addressed by consolidated effort. For such conceptual systems we use the term “common language area” according to the ideas of epistemologists (Ilya Kasavin). Elements of these conceptual systems include paradigms, concepts, tools and procedures mobilized for collaborative work. Readers are offered a description of the experience of cooperation between mathematicians and sociologists in 1990 – 2010s in the qualitative analysis of sociological data — which is an area of concern for both sociology and exact methods. To find a cooperative solution, we needed to develop a system of basic propositions regarding the object and purpose of the research; to put together a structure of sociological data suitable for using the proposed formal tool; to carry out empirical verification of the formalized language of logic-mathematical reasoning. This work has made it possible to explicate the opportunities and limitations when it comes to interpreting results. The article draws conclusions about the specifics of communication in a team of specialists, including sociologists and mathematicians, and about the development of a common language area in the field of cooperation that deals with qualitative analysis of sociological data. Our experience of cooperation in using formalized qualitative analysis of sociological data shows that, when it comes to the need to solve a common problem, partner role relations turned out to be the most effective (rather than role pairs such as “teacher-student” or “seller-buyer”).

scholarly journals Prospects for the Development of Sociology in Russia in the XXIst century (discussion with V. Ilyin, K. Clement, I. Olimpieva, E. Zdravomyslova, A. Temkina, A. Kondakov, M. Burawoy, March 24, 2015)

Inter ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (19) ◽  
pp. 7-18
Author(s):  
Svetlana S. Yaroshenko
Keyword(s):  
Social Inequality ◽  
Social Order ◽  
Social Research ◽  
Global Market ◽  
Sociological Research ◽  
Russian Society ◽  
State University ◽  
Social Challenges ◽  
Xxist Century ◽  
European University

The purpose of the discussion is to discuss the prospects for the development of Russian sociology: its possibilities to explain what is happening in Russian society, to respond to social challenges and to represent the interests of those social strata that are crowded out to the periphery along with global market development. Russian sociologists who study social inequality from different perspectives and develop critical discourse in Russian sociology participate in the discussion: Vladimir Ilyin (St. Petersburg State University), Karin Clement (St. Petersburg State University), Irina Olimpieva (Centre for Independent Social Research), Elena Zdravomyslova and Anna Temkina (European University St. Petersburg), Alexander Kondakov (European University St. Petersburg), with closing remarks — Michael Burawoy (University of California, Berkeley). Moderator of the discussion — Svetlana Yaroshenko (St. Petersburg State University). Can sociology be independent of society and the processes occurring in it? What is the relationship between sociologists and society today? What are the prospects of sociology as a science, as a profession and as a vocation? What are the features of social order for sociological research and how does it affect the commercial environment? How relevant is the class approach to today’s social theory? Does today’s Russia need a public sociology and what should it be? What are the most relevant dimensions of social inequality? These and other issues were discussed during the discussion.

Problems Associated with Transnational Sociological Research Collaboration in Cambodia

2001 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 521-549 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Rural Women ◽  
Research Collaboration ◽  
Social Research ◽  
Academic Culture ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Sociological Research ◽  
Participatory Action ◽  
Sociological Study ◽  
Action Research Project ◽  
Factors Affecting

AbstractIn this paper the focus will be the following applied social research projects I have been involved with - (1) role of rural women in the rehabilitation of local irrigation systems; (2) a study of contextual factors affecting risk-related sexual behaviour among young people between the ages of 15 and 25; (3) participatory action research project looking at problems of natural resource management; (4) sociological study of an urban wastewater project in a provincial town still affected by forms of low level insurgency - to illustrate the problems associated not simply with the research process but with the nature of collaborative research itself. However, an underlying purpose of this paper is not to argue against international collaboration on a range of research-based problems, but how we can better communicate the nature of our research and enhance its credibility. Living and working in a society like Cambodia that has yet to develop a critical academic culture of interest, relevance and utility to the international scholarly community, particularly in the field of sociology, is an issue that will be confronted in this paper.

scholarly journals Sobre la observación participante en la Escuela de Chicago: un análisis de las monografías fundacionales

2017 ◽  
pp. 233
Author(s):  
Javier Santos ◽  
Juan Ignacio Piovani ◽  
María Eugenia Rausky
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Methods ◽  
Qualitative Methodology ◽  
Social Research ◽  
Participant Observation ◽  
Field Research ◽  
Chicago School ◽  
Technical Aspect ◽  
Two Dimensions ◽  
Sociological Research ◽  
History Of

ResumenLa idea de una Escuela Sociológica de Chicago en el período de entreguerras ha resultado persistente –en el marco de una interpretación que podríamos considerar clásica– bajo el supuesto lugar privilegiado que ésta tuvo en el desarrollo de los métodos cualitativos de investigación social (en general) y de la observación participante (en particular). Sin embargo, algunos de los autores que han avanzado en la reconstrucción de la historia de los métodos de investigación sociológica han cuestionado que se trate de métodos cualitativos en el sentido actual, presentando así una interpretación revisionista de la Escuela y de sus aportes metodológicos.Teniendo en cuenta esta tensión entre interpretaciones clásicas y revisionistas, en este artículo nos proponemos caracterizar las prácticas de investigación de campo (fieldwork) desplegadas en las monografías chicaguenses (tesis doctorales) que luego serían tomadas como hitos fundacionales de la observación participante sociológica por parte de los mentores de la interpretación clásica.Estas prácticas observacionales aplicadas en la investigación empírica de Chicago son interpretadas a partir de dos dimensiones: por una parte desde el punto de vista instrumental/operativo (técnico), recurriendo a la tipología desarrollada por Gold (1958) en su célebre artículo sobre los roles de observación y participación. Por otra parte, desde el punto de vista teórico-epistemológico, teniendo en cuenta su relación con supuestos objetivistas/cientificistas o interpretativos/cualitativos.Esta doble dimensión del análisis (epistemológico/técnico) permite mediar entre las versiones clásicas y revisionistas de la Escuela de Chicago, destacando la aplicación pionera en este contexto de técnicas análogas (al menos superficialmente) a la moderna observación participante (aspecto técnico), pero fundamentadas en general a partir de postulados objetivistas y cientificistas, y no en el marco de las concepciones interpretativas que en la actualidad dan sustento a la investigación cualitativa (aspecto epistemológico).Palabras clave: Escuela de Chicago, Metodología cualitativa, Obervación ParticipanteAbstractThe idea of a Sociological School of Chicago during the interwar period has been persistent –from a perspective that could be considered classical–, under the assumption that it had a special place in the development of qualitative methods of social research (in general) and of participant observation (in particular). However, some authors that focused on the history of sociological research methods have contested the idea that it developed qualitative methods in the modern sense, presenting a revisionist interpretation of the School and its methodological contributions.Given this tension between traditional and revisionist interpretations, this paper examines the practices of field research (fieldwork) portrayed in the Chicagoans’ monographs (doctoral thesis) that were later taken as foundational landmarks of sociological participant observation by the mentors of the above-mentioned classical interpretation.These observational practices applied in empirical investigations conducted by Chicagoans are analyzed from two dimensions: on one hand from the instrumental/operational (technical) standpoint, using the typology developed by Gold (1958) in his famous article on the roles of observation and participation. On the other hand, from the theoreticalepistemological perspective, taking into account their relationship with objectivist/scientistic or either interpretive/qualitative assumptions.This double dimension of analysis (epistemological/technical) allows to mediate between the classical and revisionist versions of the Chicago School, highlighting its pioneering application of research techniques at least superficially similar to modern participant observation (technical aspect), but based on objectivist and scientistic principles, and not on the kind of interpretative concepts that currently support qualitative methodology (epistemological aspect).Key words: Chicago School, Qualitative Methodology, Participant Observation 

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document