К вопросу о применении качественных методов в социологии, или Какой опыт мы изучаем?

The quality methods in sociology are especially efficacious within frameawork of researching the hidden and unpublic side of human life. The paper is devoted to problems of quality methods choice. In this context, the most important problem is to understand the logic of requirements to technique use...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Социология: теория, методы, маркетинг
Date:2008
Main Author: Подшивалкина, В.
Format: Article
Language:Russian
Published: Iнститут соціології НАН України 2008
Subjects:
Online Access:https://nasplib.isofts.kiev.ua/handle/123456789/89966
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Journal Title:Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
Cite this:К вопросу о применении качественных методов в социологии, или Какой опыт мы изучаем? / В. Подшивалкина // Социология: теория, методы, маркетинг. — 2008. — № 4. — С. 197–206. — Бібліогр.: 13 назв. — рос.

Institution

Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
Description
Summary:The quality methods in sociology are especially efficacious within frameawork of researching the hidden and unpublic side of human life. The paper is devoted to problems of quality methods choice. In this context, the most important problem is to understand the logic of requirements to technique used in different methods. The author analyzes the differences of situations of quality methods application. Beginning from description of three methods choice criteria, such as level of the experience prevalence, level of its publicity and level of its reflectiveness, she shows: (1) the differences between the spheres of private, non-private and public life experience; (2) the levels of experience prevalence, i.e. the unique experience, the plural non-standard experience, and the plural standard experience. These features of analyzed situation explain the strategies of methods choice. Hence, the features of situations are determining the differences of research techniques. F.e., the non structured interview is more effective in study of unique private experience, whereas the structured interview – in study of plural standard public experience. The main value of the offered approach to substantiation of interview typology can be resumed in displacing an accent from the peculiarities of procedure to peculiarities of individual or group experience.
ISSN:1563-4426