...
首页> 外文期刊>Qualitative Research in Sport and Exercise >The structure of (social) scientific contradictions: a commentary on the problem of paradigmatic behaviour by social scientists
【24h】

The structure of (social) scientific contradictions: a commentary on the problem of paradigmatic behaviour by social scientists

机译:(社会)科学矛盾的结构:社会科学家对范式行为问题的评论

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

In this commentary I discuss the utility of Thomas Kuhn's perspectives on 'paradigms', the conduct of 'normal science' and the nature of scientific progress and debate over time for understanding the conduct of debate in the social sciences (of, in this case, sport). I argue that although the social sciences do not possess the paradigm-relative structure of the natural sciences, this does not prevent social scientists from acting as though they do. Using the debate on judging research quality in sport in QRSE 1(2) as an illustrative example, I argue that paradigmatic behaviour by social scientists, which casts debates in terms of 'us' and 'them' can have two consequences. Firstly, because debates are undertaken with the purpose of fully converting 'them' (the 'other') to 'our' point of view, debates do not benefit from the consideration of the implications of 'others' critiques for one's own position. Secondly, rather than engagement in a genuine argument, paradigmatic behaviour can reduce debates to mere contradiction of the position of the 'other', with the dismissal of 'their' position being justified on the basis that it is derived from an incommensurable paradigm. The implications of such paradigmatic behaviours are that they diminish the quality of debate surrounding difficult issues around the nature of knowledge and science as applied to sport research, and ultimately adversely affect the quality of knowledge that sport research generates.
机译:在这篇评论中,我讨论了托马斯·库恩(Thomas Kuhn)关于“范式”,“正常科学”的行为以及科学进步和辩论性质的观点的效用,以便理解社会科学中的辩论行为(在这种情况下,运动)。我认为,尽管社会科学不具备自然科学的范式相对结构,但这并不能阻止社会科学家像自然科学那样行动。以QRSE 1(2)中有关判断运动研究质量的辩论为例,我认为社会科学家的范式行为对“我们”和“他们”进行了辩论会产生两个结果。首先,因为进行辩论的目的是将“他们”(“其他”)完全转变为“我们”的观点,所以辩论不会从考虑“其他”批评对自己立场的含意中受益。其次,范式行为不是参与真正的论证,而是可以将辩论简化为仅与“他者”的立场相矛盾,而驳回“他们”的立场是有理由的,理由是其观点源自不可估量的范式。这种范式行为的含义是,它们降低了围绕体育研究所应用的围绕知识和科学本质的难题的辩论的质量,并最终不利地影响了体育研究产生的知识的质量。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号