В одной лодке? Дебаты о методе в меняющемся эмпирическом поле
Научная статья
Для цитирования
Колотовкина А. С. В одной лодке? Дебаты о методе в меняющемся эмпирическом поле // Интеракция. Интервью. Интерпретация. 2023. Том 15. № 4. С. 11-32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19181/inter.2023.15.4.1 EDN: UXGCDQ
Аннотация
Статья посвящена анализу современных методологических дебатов. Это классический спор, который, однако, не следует упрощать: методы, парадигмы и исследовательские стратегии образуют системы, выходящие за пределы дихотомии «качественный vs количественный». Дебаты находятся в центре внимания, поскольку, во-первых, эмпирические тексты сегодня пишут, читают и цитируют чаще теоретических, во-вторых, появляются новые данные и способы их анализа, в-третьих, одновременно возникают общие места и углубляются методологические противоречия.Одно из ключевых различий между сторонниками качественных и количественных методов — парадигмы, лежащие в основе их работы. Однако соответствия между парадигмой и методом не всегда универсальны: в качественной методологии может наблюдаться как интерпретативное, так и постпозитивистское течение, а некоторым количественным исследователям оказываются близки идеи авторской рефлексии и стэндпойнта.Инструменты, в основе которых лежит искусственный интеллект, могут упрощать работу исследователя, решая часть рутинных задач, доступность больших данных позволяет выйти за пределы опросных и статистических баз данных и анализировать новые поля. Тем не менее развитие новых инструментов приводит к ряду проблем. Это вопросы, связанные с цифровой грамотностью и неравенством навыков, этикой и непрозрачностью производства данных. Совместная методологическая работа, возможно, сможет сгладить трудности такого рода и усилит позиции социологии в эпоху меняющихся данных и конкурирующих подходов.
Ключевые слова:
качественные методы, количественные методы, большие данные, парадигмы, посткачественный поворот
Литература
Батыгин Г.С., Девятко И.Ф. Миф о «качественной социологии» // Социологический журнал. 1994. № 2. C. 28—42. EDN: TZKHOJ
Воронков В. Этот безумный, безумный, безумный количественный мир // Неприкосновенный запас: дебаты о политике и культуре. 2004. № 3. C. 23—26. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15388/SlavViln.2018.63.11855
Новое время, новое поле: меняющийся мир качественных исследований и новые технологии / Под ред. О. Звонаревой, А. Контаревой, Е. Поповой. СПб.: Алетейя, 2021. EDN: SPWISJ
Страусс А., Корбин Д. Основы качественного исследования: обоснованная теория, процедуры и техники / Пер. с англ. Т.С. Васильевой. М.: Эдиториал УРСС, 2001.
Abell P. Methodological Achievements in Sociology Over the Past Few Decades with Special Reference to the Interplay of Quantitative and Qualitative methods // What Has Sociology Achieved? P. 94—116. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1990.
Baškarada S., Koronios A. A Philosophical Discussion of Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Research in Social Science // Qualitative Research Journal. 2018. Vol. 18. № 1. P. 2—21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-D-17-00042
Bennett J. A Vitalist Stopover on the Way to a New Materialism // New Materialisms: Ontology, Agency, and Politics. 2010. Vol. 91. № 1. P. 47—69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9780822392996-003
Bourdieu P. The Market of Symbolic Goods // Poetics. 1985. Vol. 14. № 1—2. P. 13—44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(85)90003-8
Boyd D., Crawford K. Critical Questions for Big Data: Provocations for a Cultural, Technological, and Scholarly Phenomenon // Information, Communication & Society. 2012. Vol. 15. № 5. P. 662—679. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.678878
Busch D., Franco E. New Methodologies—New Interculturalities? The Visionary Discourse of Post-Qualitative Research on the Intercultural // Language and Intercultural Communication. 2022. Vol. 23. № 1. P. 23—25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14708477.2022.2133136
Capogna S. Sociology Between Big Data and Research Frontiers, a Challenge for Educational Policies and Skills // Quality & Quantity. 2023. Vol. 57. № 1. P. 193—212. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11135-022-01351-7
Creswell J.W. Research Designs: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/nha3.20258
Crotty M.J. The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process. London; Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1998.
Denzin N.K. Triangulation 2.0 // Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 2012. Vol. 6. № 2. P. 80—88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689812437186
Didier E. Free from Numbers? The Politics of Qualitative Sociology in the US Since 1945 // The New Politics of Numbers: Utopia, Evidence and Democracy. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2022. P. 417—463.
Flick U. Mantras and Myths: The Disenchantment of Mixed-Methods Research and Revisiting Triangulation as a Perspective // Qualitative Inquiry. 2017. Vol. 23. № 1. P. 46—57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800416655827
Flick U. The Concepts of Qualitative Data: Challenges in Neoliberal Times for Qualitative Inquiry // Qualitative Inquiry. 2019. Vol. 25. № 8. P. 713—720. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800418809132
Franzosi R. What’s in a Text? Bridging the Gap Between Quality and Quantity in the Digital Era // Quality & Quantity. 2021. Vol. 55. № 4. P. 1513—1540. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-020-01067-6
Gerrard J., Rudolph S., Sriprakash A. The Politics of Post-Qualitative Inquiry: History and Power // Qualitative Inquiry. 2017. Vol. 23. № 5. P. 384—394. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.6831
Greene J.C., Caracelli V.J., Graham W.F. Toward a Conceptual Framework for Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs // Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 1989. Vol. 11. № 3. P. 255—274. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737011003255
Hall J.R. History of Qualitative Methods // International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Davis: University of California, 2015. P. 676—681. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.44044-4
Hammersley M. Deconstructing the Qualitative-Quantitative Divide 1 // Mixing Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Research. London: Routledge, 2017. P. 39—55. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315248813-2
Hannigan T.R. et al. Topic Modeling in Management Research: Rendering New Theory from Textual Data // Academy of Management Annals. 2019. Vol. 13. № 2. P. 586—632. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2017.0099
Hirsch M., Smith V. Feminism and Cultural Memory: An Introduction // Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society. 2002. Vol. 28. № 1. P. 1—19. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/340890
Jamali H.R. Does Research Using Qualitative Methods (Grounded Theory, Ethnography, and Phenomenology) Have More Impact? // Library & Information Science Research. 2018. Vol. 40. № 3—4. P. 201—207. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2018.09.002
Jewitt C., Price S., Xambo S.A. Conceptualising and Researching the Body in Digital Contexts: Towards New Methodological Conversations Across the Arts and Social Sciences // Qualitative Research. 2017. Vol. 17. № 1. P. 37—53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794116656036
Johnson R.B., McGowan M.W., Turner L.A. Grounded Theory in Practice: Is It Inherently a Mixed Method? // Research in the Schools. 2010. Vol. 17. № 2. P. 65—78.
Knoblauch H. Qualitative Methods at the Crossroads: Recent Developments in Interpretive Social Research // Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 2013. Vol. 14. № 3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-14.3.2063
Lamont M., Molnár V. The Study of Boundaries in the Social Sciences // Annual Review of Sociology. 2002. Vol. 28. № 1. P. 167—195. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.141107
Liu Y. Paradigmatic Compatibility Matters: A Critical Review of Qualitative-Quantitative Debate in Mixed Methods Research // SAGE Open. 2022. Vol. 12. № 1. P. 1—14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221079922
Lupton D., Watson A. Towards More-Than-Human Digital Data Studies: Developing Research-Creation Methods // Qualitative Research. 2021. Vol. 21. № 4. P. 463—480. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794120939235
Mahoney J., Goertz G. A Tale of Two Cultures: Contrasting Quantitative and Qualitative Research // Political Analysis. 2006. Vol. 14. № 3. P. 227—249. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpj017
Merton R.K. The Matthew Effect in Science: The Reward and Communication Systems of Science are Considered // Science. 1968. Vol. 159. № 3810. P. 56—63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56
Moon K. et al. Expanding the Role of Social Science in Conservation Through an Engagement with Philosophy, Methodology, and Methods // Methods in Ecology and Evolution. 2019. Vol. 10. № 3. P. 294—302. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13126
Mottier V. et al. The Interpretive Turn: History, Memory, and Storage in Qualitative Research // Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 2005. Vol. 6. № 2. P. 1—7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-6.2.456
Nelson L.K. Computational Grounded Theory: A Methodological Framework // Sociological Methods & Research. 2020. Vol. 49. № 1. P. 3—42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124117729703
Olson H. Quantitative “Versus” Qualitative Research: The Wrong Question // Proceedings of the Annual Conference of CAIS Actes du congrès annuel de l'ACSI. 1995. P. 1—14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29173/cais414
Peters S.J. The Challenges of Achieving Equity Within Public School Gifted and Talented Programs // Gifted Child Quarterly. 2022. Vol. 66. № 2. P. 82—94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211002535
Pierre E.S. A Brief and Personal History of Post Qualitative Research: Toward “Post Inquiry” // Journal of Curriculum Theorizing. 2014. Vol. 30. № 2. P. 2—19.
Potter J., Shaw C. The Virtues of Naturalistic Data // The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Collection / Ed. by U. Flick. London: SAGE, 2018. P. 182—199. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526416070.n12
Rahman M.S. The Advantages and Disadvantages of Using Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches and Methods in Language “Testing and Assessment” Research: A Literature Review // Journal of Education and Learning. 2016. Vol. 7. № 1. P. 102—112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v6n1p102
Schutt R.K. Quantitative Methods // The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Sociology. 2019. P. 39—56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119429333.ch3
Schwemmer C., Wieczorek O. The Methodological Divide of Sociology: Evidence from Two Decades of Journal Publications // Sociology. 2020. Vol. 54. № 1. P. 3—21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038519853146
St. Pierre E.A. Post Qualitative Research: The Critique and the Coming After // The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. 2011. Vol. 4. P. 611—626.
St. Pierre E.A. Post Qualitative Inquiry, the Refusal of Method, and the Risk of the New // Qualitative Inquiry. 2021. Vol. 27. № 1. P. 3—9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800419863005
Swygart-Hobaugh A.J. A Citation Analysis of the Quantitative/Qualitative Methods Debate's Reflection in Sociology Research: Implications for Library Collection Development // Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services. 2004. Vol. 28. № 2. P. 180—195. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14649055.2004.10765983
Torrance H. Data as Entanglement: New Definitions and Uses of Data in Qualitative Research, Policy, and Neoliberal Governance // Qualitative Inquiry. 2019. Vol. 25. № 8. P. 734—742. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800418807239
Van Dijck J. Datafication, Dataism and Dataveillance: Big Data between Scientific Paradigm and Ideology // Surveillance & Society. 2014. Vol. 12. № 2. P. 197—208. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v12i2.4776
Watson A. et al. Fieldwork at Your Fingertips: Creative Methods for Social Research under Lockdown // Nature. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-00566-2
Westmarland N. The Quantitative/Qualitative Debate and Feminist Research: A Subjective View of Objectivity // Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 2001. Vol. 2. № 1. P. 1—12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-2.1.974
Воронков В. Этот безумный, безумный, безумный количественный мир // Неприкосновенный запас: дебаты о политике и культуре. 2004. № 3. C. 23—26. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15388/SlavViln.2018.63.11855
Новое время, новое поле: меняющийся мир качественных исследований и новые технологии / Под ред. О. Звонаревой, А. Контаревой, Е. Поповой. СПб.: Алетейя, 2021. EDN: SPWISJ
Страусс А., Корбин Д. Основы качественного исследования: обоснованная теория, процедуры и техники / Пер. с англ. Т.С. Васильевой. М.: Эдиториал УРСС, 2001.
Abell P. Methodological Achievements in Sociology Over the Past Few Decades with Special Reference to the Interplay of Quantitative and Qualitative methods // What Has Sociology Achieved? P. 94—116. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1990.
Baškarada S., Koronios A. A Philosophical Discussion of Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Research in Social Science // Qualitative Research Journal. 2018. Vol. 18. № 1. P. 2—21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-D-17-00042
Bennett J. A Vitalist Stopover on the Way to a New Materialism // New Materialisms: Ontology, Agency, and Politics. 2010. Vol. 91. № 1. P. 47—69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9780822392996-003
Bourdieu P. The Market of Symbolic Goods // Poetics. 1985. Vol. 14. № 1—2. P. 13—44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(85)90003-8
Boyd D., Crawford K. Critical Questions for Big Data: Provocations for a Cultural, Technological, and Scholarly Phenomenon // Information, Communication & Society. 2012. Vol. 15. № 5. P. 662—679. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.678878
Busch D., Franco E. New Methodologies—New Interculturalities? The Visionary Discourse of Post-Qualitative Research on the Intercultural // Language and Intercultural Communication. 2022. Vol. 23. № 1. P. 23—25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14708477.2022.2133136
Capogna S. Sociology Between Big Data and Research Frontiers, a Challenge for Educational Policies and Skills // Quality & Quantity. 2023. Vol. 57. № 1. P. 193—212. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11135-022-01351-7
Creswell J.W. Research Designs: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/nha3.20258
Crotty M.J. The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process. London; Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1998.
Denzin N.K. Triangulation 2.0 // Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 2012. Vol. 6. № 2. P. 80—88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689812437186
Didier E. Free from Numbers? The Politics of Qualitative Sociology in the US Since 1945 // The New Politics of Numbers: Utopia, Evidence and Democracy. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2022. P. 417—463.
Flick U. Mantras and Myths: The Disenchantment of Mixed-Methods Research and Revisiting Triangulation as a Perspective // Qualitative Inquiry. 2017. Vol. 23. № 1. P. 46—57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800416655827
Flick U. The Concepts of Qualitative Data: Challenges in Neoliberal Times for Qualitative Inquiry // Qualitative Inquiry. 2019. Vol. 25. № 8. P. 713—720. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800418809132
Franzosi R. What’s in a Text? Bridging the Gap Between Quality and Quantity in the Digital Era // Quality & Quantity. 2021. Vol. 55. № 4. P. 1513—1540. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-020-01067-6
Gerrard J., Rudolph S., Sriprakash A. The Politics of Post-Qualitative Inquiry: History and Power // Qualitative Inquiry. 2017. Vol. 23. № 5. P. 384—394. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.6831
Greene J.C., Caracelli V.J., Graham W.F. Toward a Conceptual Framework for Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs // Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 1989. Vol. 11. № 3. P. 255—274. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737011003255
Hall J.R. History of Qualitative Methods // International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Davis: University of California, 2015. P. 676—681. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.44044-4
Hammersley M. Deconstructing the Qualitative-Quantitative Divide 1 // Mixing Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Research. London: Routledge, 2017. P. 39—55. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315248813-2
Hannigan T.R. et al. Topic Modeling in Management Research: Rendering New Theory from Textual Data // Academy of Management Annals. 2019. Vol. 13. № 2. P. 586—632. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2017.0099
Hirsch M., Smith V. Feminism and Cultural Memory: An Introduction // Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society. 2002. Vol. 28. № 1. P. 1—19. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/340890
Jamali H.R. Does Research Using Qualitative Methods (Grounded Theory, Ethnography, and Phenomenology) Have More Impact? // Library & Information Science Research. 2018. Vol. 40. № 3—4. P. 201—207. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2018.09.002
Jewitt C., Price S., Xambo S.A. Conceptualising and Researching the Body in Digital Contexts: Towards New Methodological Conversations Across the Arts and Social Sciences // Qualitative Research. 2017. Vol. 17. № 1. P. 37—53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794116656036
Johnson R.B., McGowan M.W., Turner L.A. Grounded Theory in Practice: Is It Inherently a Mixed Method? // Research in the Schools. 2010. Vol. 17. № 2. P. 65—78.
Knoblauch H. Qualitative Methods at the Crossroads: Recent Developments in Interpretive Social Research // Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 2013. Vol. 14. № 3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-14.3.2063
Lamont M., Molnár V. The Study of Boundaries in the Social Sciences // Annual Review of Sociology. 2002. Vol. 28. № 1. P. 167—195. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.141107
Liu Y. Paradigmatic Compatibility Matters: A Critical Review of Qualitative-Quantitative Debate in Mixed Methods Research // SAGE Open. 2022. Vol. 12. № 1. P. 1—14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221079922
Lupton D., Watson A. Towards More-Than-Human Digital Data Studies: Developing Research-Creation Methods // Qualitative Research. 2021. Vol. 21. № 4. P. 463—480. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794120939235
Mahoney J., Goertz G. A Tale of Two Cultures: Contrasting Quantitative and Qualitative Research // Political Analysis. 2006. Vol. 14. № 3. P. 227—249. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpj017
Merton R.K. The Matthew Effect in Science: The Reward and Communication Systems of Science are Considered // Science. 1968. Vol. 159. № 3810. P. 56—63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56
Moon K. et al. Expanding the Role of Social Science in Conservation Through an Engagement with Philosophy, Methodology, and Methods // Methods in Ecology and Evolution. 2019. Vol. 10. № 3. P. 294—302. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13126
Mottier V. et al. The Interpretive Turn: History, Memory, and Storage in Qualitative Research // Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 2005. Vol. 6. № 2. P. 1—7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-6.2.456
Nelson L.K. Computational Grounded Theory: A Methodological Framework // Sociological Methods & Research. 2020. Vol. 49. № 1. P. 3—42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124117729703
Olson H. Quantitative “Versus” Qualitative Research: The Wrong Question // Proceedings of the Annual Conference of CAIS Actes du congrès annuel de l'ACSI. 1995. P. 1—14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29173/cais414
Peters S.J. The Challenges of Achieving Equity Within Public School Gifted and Talented Programs // Gifted Child Quarterly. 2022. Vol. 66. № 2. P. 82—94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211002535
Pierre E.S. A Brief and Personal History of Post Qualitative Research: Toward “Post Inquiry” // Journal of Curriculum Theorizing. 2014. Vol. 30. № 2. P. 2—19.
Potter J., Shaw C. The Virtues of Naturalistic Data // The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Collection / Ed. by U. Flick. London: SAGE, 2018. P. 182—199. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526416070.n12
Rahman M.S. The Advantages and Disadvantages of Using Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches and Methods in Language “Testing and Assessment” Research: A Literature Review // Journal of Education and Learning. 2016. Vol. 7. № 1. P. 102—112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v6n1p102
Schutt R.K. Quantitative Methods // The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Sociology. 2019. P. 39—56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119429333.ch3
Schwemmer C., Wieczorek O. The Methodological Divide of Sociology: Evidence from Two Decades of Journal Publications // Sociology. 2020. Vol. 54. № 1. P. 3—21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038519853146
St. Pierre E.A. Post Qualitative Research: The Critique and the Coming After // The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. 2011. Vol. 4. P. 611—626.
St. Pierre E.A. Post Qualitative Inquiry, the Refusal of Method, and the Risk of the New // Qualitative Inquiry. 2021. Vol. 27. № 1. P. 3—9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800419863005
Swygart-Hobaugh A.J. A Citation Analysis of the Quantitative/Qualitative Methods Debate's Reflection in Sociology Research: Implications for Library Collection Development // Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services. 2004. Vol. 28. № 2. P. 180—195. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14649055.2004.10765983
Torrance H. Data as Entanglement: New Definitions and Uses of Data in Qualitative Research, Policy, and Neoliberal Governance // Qualitative Inquiry. 2019. Vol. 25. № 8. P. 734—742. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800418807239
Van Dijck J. Datafication, Dataism and Dataveillance: Big Data between Scientific Paradigm and Ideology // Surveillance & Society. 2014. Vol. 12. № 2. P. 197—208. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v12i2.4776
Watson A. et al. Fieldwork at Your Fingertips: Creative Methods for Social Research under Lockdown // Nature. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-00566-2
Westmarland N. The Quantitative/Qualitative Debate and Feminist Research: A Subjective View of Objectivity // Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 2001. Vol. 2. № 1. P. 1—12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-2.1.974
Статья
Поступила: 18.06.2023
Опубликована: 29.12.2023
Форматы цитирования
Другие форматы цитирования:
APA
Колотовкина, А. С. (2023). В одной лодке? Дебаты о методе в меняющемся эмпирическом поле. Интеракция. Интервью. Интерпретация, 15(4), 11-32. https://doi.org/10.19181/inter.2023.15.4.1
Раздел
Теоретические дискурсы и дискуссии
Это произведение доступно по лицензии Creative Commons «Attribution» («Атрибуция») 4.0 Всемирная.
