Introduces a four-step procedure that attempts to make methodological assumptions in sociology more explicit: (1) using descriptive variables to characterize individuals in a given population; (2) choosing intelligently from among the individuals who constitute that population; (3) coding or recording the initial data by characterizing each individual in terms of the descriptive variables; & (4) explaining the methods of analysis used to treat & transform the data. Multimethodological analysis that uses this procedure should yield more stable results & should open the lines of communication between various sociological subdisciplines. 2 Photographs, 29 References. Adapted from the source document.
This article discusses developments in the field of qualitative methodology since the publication of King, Keohane, and Verba's (KKV's) Designing Social Inquiry. Three areas of the new methodology are examined: (1) process tracing and causal-process observations; (2) methods using set theory and logic; and (3) strategies for combining qualitative and quantitative research. In each of these areas, the article argues, the new literature encompasses KKV's helpful insights while avoiding their most obvious missteps. Discussion focuses especially on contrasts between the kind of observations that are used in qualitative versus quantitative research, differences between regression-oriented approaches and those based on set theory and logic, and new approaches for bringing out complementarities between qualitative and quantitative research. The article concludes by discussing research frontiers in the field of qualitative methodology.
The possibility of a defined Indigenous Research Methodology is exciting to indigenous and non-indigenous scholars alike, though probably for different reasons. Present assumptions suggest that such a methodology would determine standards for authenticity of indigenous research, and would enable a more effective critique of research dealing explicitly with indigenous reality. The question of who should participate in the development of an indigenous research methodology is critical since every scholar who has any connection with indigenous research topics or indigenous people will feel directly impacted. Responses to the question will indicate the form or quality of interactions between indigenous and non-indigenous scholars grappling with the political, social, and personal issues that assuredly will arise in any discourse of an indigenous research methodology. Such a concept might be perceived as a threat to existing forms or models of knowledge and knowledge creation. While indigenous scholars must be aware of such reactions, they will nonetheless experience themselves as the "active-centre" in the process of any indigenous research which they choose to live through. They are a piece of the heart in the body of growing indigenous knowledge. Indigenous research methodology is and has always been the central structure of support for the creation of indigenous knowledge. There are some principles which underlay most indigenous research - where this is understood to mean research conducted by indigenous people. Moving however to a discourse which includes indigenous and non-indigenous participants in an academic focus on indigenous research methodology might profitaby include a consideration of such principles as (a) the interconnectedness of all living things, (b) the impact of motives and intentions on person and community, (c) the foundation of research as lived indigenous experience, (d) the groundedness of theories in indigenous epistemology, (e) the transformative nature of research, (f) the sacredness and responsibility of maintaining personal and community integrity, and (g) the recognition of languages and cultures as living processes.
The aim of this article is to provide some insight into ways in which action research can contribute to the development of theory about the process of health care delivery. It focuses on a variety of action research that is a methodology for carrying out research into management and organisations, which can lead to deep conceptualisations about what can happen in practice and the reasons for this. The article aims to highlight the considerations that influence the recording of data; raise some issues about the nature of action research intervention settings and their implications for theory building; provide an example method for deriving emergent theory from the data collected; and provide an example of the type of theory that can be generated.
The purpose of the article is to construct an up-to-date research methodology which will allow to examine territories within the context of sustainable development issues. Sustainable development of socio-economic and natural systems in its entirety is impossible without a comprehensive consideration of key factors and conditions that affect the state and prospects for their development, and without a targeted impact on these factors and conditions. The main result of the study is the adaptation of the methodology to the study of sustainable development of territories with different economic specialization and growth potential. A successful solution to this task is impossible without the development and consistent application of the research methodology, adequate to the goals and tasks set, to the current situation and the long-term trends in the development of nature and society. The results of our research suggest the solution of applied socio-economic tasks for the development of territories (subjects of the Russian Federation, small and medium-sized cities) to improve the quality of life and sustainable economic growth.
The purpose of the article is to study the interconnection of applied cultural studies and culture management, develop methodological basis for analysis of efficiency of their integration, define viability of realizing cultural practices in the context of applied cultural studies branch.
The methodology. By analyzing and synthesizing the scientific knowledge, a flexible methodological system is created, which enables analyzing the present and predicting the future, and create, not only in theory, but in practice, the culturecreation technologies, thus setting the vector for culture development. The leading methods of research are analysis of scientific facts, juxtaposition of theoretical positions, generalization and synthesis of methodological basis for defining leading scientific approaches to researching applied cultural studies and culture management.
The results. Utilization of developed methodology enables examination of applied cultural studies as a mechanism of culture creativity, and culture management as a tool of scientifically justified regulation of this process. Thanks to applied cultural studies, management gains deep meanings, and not only rational management and realization of its own functions, and applied cultural studies is manifested in practice and transforms into a technological plane the meanings and concepts of contemporary culture model.
The topicality. It was defined that gnoseological, worldview, logicgnoseological, scientific contentrelated, technological and scientificmethodological levels of methodology allows to create the applied cultural studies and culture management analysis model in a substantial interconnection. Justification was provided for some scientific approaches, which are taken as the baseline of methodological analysis of integrating applied cultural studies branch and management in the sociocultural field.
The practical significance. According to the results of the study, applied cultural studies have a broad social mission, which manifests itself in creation of advantageous environment of interaction in the object field of culture, constructing mechanisms of implementing innovations in the sociocultural field, and developing future cultural practices models, which will eventually promote establishment of its new formats. In order to achieve this task, culture management implements social marketing, innovative and investment varieties of management technologies, branding, purposeful communication and human resource management, etc., which opens new perspectives of diversifying research of culture management in the context of applied cultural studies.
Research interest in the comparison of education systems emerged parallel with the study of social development and the general globalization of social resources. The contemporary context of research discourse puts researchers in a position of necessary collaboration and partnership, with a special emphasis on the comparative analysis of educational phenomena. The aim of this study is the analysis of the theoretical understandings of the role of comparative research in the cognition of pedagogical phenomena as well as the transformation of the comparative methodological apparatus in the contemporary context. The research tasks are aimed at analyzing the historical development of comparative research, epistemology, the function of comparative research in pedagogy, as well as its importance in pedagogy. The importance of developing pluralism in the methodological approach of comparative research is emphasized in order to strengthen research capacities for its future development in pedagogical sciences. The study relies on the historical method and the method of source content analysis.
The regular cycle of conducting research when applied to human services is considered linear and rarely beneficial to all stakeholders involved directly or indirectly in a research project (service users, policy-makers, funders, local authorities, taxpayers). Funders of research, taxpayers, policy-makers and governments are increasingly questioning the linear process of conducting research and are demanding a higher socio-economic and scientific impact. New approaches seeking to re-think the utilisation, appropriation and impact of research outcomes in the health services area in more integrated ways, include the Learning Alliance (LA) methodology. Formally defined, an LA is "a series of connected multi-stakeholder platforms or networks (practitioner, researchers, policy-makers, service users) at different institutional levels (local, national) involved in two basic tasks: knowledge innovation and its scaling up. Methods: The methodological tools in an LA are various and can be used according to the convenience, context, theme and needs of a project. The most common ones are stakeholder analysis, research or action research, process documentation, dissemination and capacity building, among others. By applying the LA, the three projects briefly mentioned here sought to demonstrate that this approach could contribute to increasing their scientific and socio-economic impact while simultaneously generating learning among all stakeholders in more integrated ways. Results: Three projects using the LA have been completed as recently as 2017 and have covered different health themes, services and locations: identification of health needs of Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) groups in the South East of England; perpetration of Intimate Partner Violence by Males in Substance Abuse Treatment in Brazil and England; and Attitudes to Palliative and End of Life Care Services among BME Groups in the South East of England. Overall, the three research experiences in combination with the use of stakeholders' participation and documentation revealed that the role of the LA methodology demonstrates significant issues. First, it contributed to narrowing the dominant gap between research and practice that is so common in health services by bringing together several stakeholders (policy-makers, service users, service providers) who are not involved in research on a daily basis. Through knowledge sharing, all stakeholders benefited from the research projects' outcomes. Second, the documentation of events in the projects become a significant source of additional data in which impact and the know-how got captured. Similarly, documentation and dissemination of preliminary findings in the three cases comprised a tool for promoting changes in attitudes and mindsets that translated faster into adoption of integrated changes in practice. Third, the work undertaken as a network, enabled all stakeholders to understand that the research projects could be more than the traditional linear processes. The research projects' outcomes benefited stakeholders in different ways beyond the traditional research products (academic papers or technologies) to include other social, personal and institutional processes that occur in a project, and demonstrated a better impact. Conclusion: The application of the LA methodology maximised the value of conducting research as a network by including various stakeholders and not only researchers to integrate research, practice, learning and policy issues in health services.
