Critical Analysis Method and Power Relationships

Document Type : علمی - پژوهشی

Authors

1 Allameh Tabataba'i

2 Tehran University

Abstract

Positivism and Interpretivism have many applications but in face with power relations they cannot do more things and in this battle they fail. Third paradigm (critical realism approach) is suitable there. It has a powerful potential for influence under power relationships that are complicatedly mixed with social reality. Although critical approach is useful for the purpose, it suffers from something; this paradigm does not have any positive method for doing experimental research in social areas. For this reason, this research is going to define a new method based on critical approach.
In this line, the research is presented "Critical Analysis Method" through exploring, studying more and justifying the perception of the critical approach. The new method is based on protecting three subjects: "Interviewee", "Interviewer" and "Reader". In this method the central point is to emphasize on the being subject of the three. The point helps it to be as a scientific method and as the same time penetrate power relations.

Keywords

References

  1. امیدی، رضا (1393)، تحلیل سیاست‌گذاری اجتماعی در ایران، رساله دکتری دانشکده علوم اجتماعی دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی.
  2. ایمان، محمدتقی و منیژه محمدیان (1387)، «روش‌شناسی نظریۀ بنیادی»، فصلنامه روش‌شناسی علوم انسانی، سال 14، شماره 56، ص31−54.
  3. بنتون، تد و کرایب، یان (1389)، فلسفه علوم اجتماعی: بنیادهای فلسفی تفکر اجتماعی. تهران: نشر آگه.
  4. توانا، محمدعلی (1393)، «پارادایم واقع‌گرایی انتقادی در فراسوی اثبات‌گرایی و هرمنوتیک: به سوی روش‌شناسی میان‌رشته‌ای»، فصلنامه مطالعات میان‌رشته‌ای در علوم انسانی، دوره هفتم، شماره 1، زمستان 1393، ص27−56.
  5. نیومن، ویلیام لاورنس (1392)، شیوه‌های پژوهش اجتماعی: رویکردهای کیفی و کمی، ترجمه حسن دانایی‌فرد و سیدحسین کاظمی، تهران: مهربان نشر.
    1. Balarabe Kura, Sulaiman (2012), “Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches to the Study of Poverty: Taming the Tensions and Appreciating the Complementarities”, The Qualitative Report 2012, Vol. 17, Article 34, 1-19.
    2. Creswel, John (2003), Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches, London: Sage Publications.
    3. Grey, David (2009), Doing Research in the Real World, London: Sage Publications.
    4. Guba, Egon, & Lincoln, Yvonna (1994), “Competing paradigms in qualitative research”, In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

10. Fay, Brian. (1987), Critical social science: Liberation and its limits, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

11. Hammersley, Martyn (2013), What is qualitative research?, London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

12. Sayer, Andrew (2010), Method in Social Science; a realist approach, New York: Taylor & Francis e-Library.

13. Madill, A., Jordan, A. & Shirley, C. (2000), “Objectivity and reliability in qualitative analysis: Realist, contextualist, and radical constructionist epistemologies”, British journal of Psychology, Vol. 91, Issue 1,  PP. 1-20.

14. Mayring, Philipp (2000), Qualitative Content Analysis, Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2). Retrieved March 10, 2016, from http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-00/02-00mayring-e.htm.

15. Neuman, Lawrence (2014), Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, Edinburgh: Pearson.

16. Wai-chung Yeung, Henry (1997), “Critical realism and realist research in human geography: a method or a philosophy in search of a method? ”, Progress in Human Geography, 21,1 (1997) pp. 51-74.

 

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics