论质化研究兴起的社会科学背景

质化研究是近年来兴起的同量化研究相对的一类社会科学研究方法体系，本文从元科学的视角剖析了质化研究兴起的文化人类学背景、社会学背景、心理学背景，认为质化研究是多学科背景聚焦的产物，它有着广泛而深厚的社会科学思想基础，其中文化人类学、社会学、心理学是这一方法体系孕育的母体学科，对上述科学背景的剖析有利于厘清质化研究方法形成的基本脉络。质化研究的跨学科背景，反映了社会科学在研究方法上共性与个性的统一，体现了社会科学在新时期特有的时代精神，从方法学层面昭示着社会科学新的交叉、融合与整合的趋向。     

心理学研究方法的新趋向——质化研究方法述评

质化研究方法是近年来兴起的一种与量化研究相对的社会科学研究方法,质化研究方法在心理学中主要适用于研究心理的文化性、社会性、意义性等方面。本文评述了国外质化研究的基本内涵,质化研究产生的背景,质化研究的设计、问题选择、资料收集、资料整理分析、成果表达、结果评估等操作方法,并分析了质化研究在心理学中的运用前景。     

心理学研究中定性研究与定量研究的定位问题

在心理学研究中,有定性研究和定量研究之分,或者有质化研究和量化研究之分。定性或质化研究通常被认为是一种人文社会科学的主观研究范式,定量研究或量化研究通常被认为是一种实证自然科学的客观研究范式。在心理学的历史中,有过定性研究占主导的时期,也有过定量研究占主导的时期。出现过定性研究对定量研究的排斥,也出现过定量研究对定性研究的排斥。在心理学的理论中,重要的是寻求定性或质化研究与定量或量化研究的关系定位。在心理学的方法中,重要的是寻求定性或质化研究与定量或量化研究的研究定位。     

教育研究中整合质化研究与量化研究范式探析

质化研究 (qualitative research)与量化研究(quantitative research)是教育研究领域中的两大基本研究范式且各具特色.在教育研究中为了从不同的层面和角度对同一问题进行探讨,提高研究结果的准确性与有效性,需要将质化研究范式与量化研究范式结合起来才能达到.     

儿童情绪调节研究方法初探

儿童情绪调节的研究范式主要有量化研究和质化研究两种。量化范式中的研究方法主要有问卷法、VIPS法、PAM法、HR法、情境法和脑认知成像技术；观察法和访谈法是常用的质化研究方法。这两种方法分别从不同角度对心理现象进行研究，如果能够将二者进行有机结合，把对生理指标的研究、行为的研究和认知的研究成果加以融合，以此掏建一个合理、科学和动态的儿童情绪调节模型，那么此研究领域将有可能取得突破性进展。     

论教育研究中量化研究与质化研究的结合

在教育研究整个发展历程中,存在两种研究范式：量化研究与质化研究。本文结合这两种研究范式的历史发展,在比较它们的差异基础上,探求如何将量化研究与质化研究结合起来,以促进教育研究事业的繁荣。     

女性主义媒介研究初探

女性主义媒介研究这一学科的兴起是一种历史发展过程，也是一个走向多元化的过程。女性主义媒介研究的领域包括了媒介机构、媒介本以及媒介受众。女性主义媒介研究的方法则趋向于量化方法与质化方法可能的融合。     

论教育研究中量化研究与质化研究的结合

在教育研究整个发展历程中,存在两种研究范式:量化研究与质化研究.本文结合这两种研究范式的历史发展,在比较它们的差异基础上,探求如何将量化研究与质化研究结合起来,以促进教育研究事业的繁荣.     

教育研究的两大研究取向初探

在教育领域，研究根据实证和诠释范式发展出两大研究取向：量化研究与质化研究。根据量化研究与质化研究的理念、内涵及其特点，可以把两看成是研究取向上的差异，不是截然分开的，而是相互依存、相互渗透、相互补充的。要建立科学的教育研究就应该尽可能将两种研究方法结合起来，用这两种研究方法开展对远程及成人教育研究，不但可使教学人员在专业上有所发展，也可协助改进学校教学质量，为远程教育提供依据。     

宗教心理学研究方法的分歧与整合

宗教心理学存在着不同方法论取向的分歧.造成分歧的主要原因是,群体取向与个体取向的对立、学科身份的论争和科学主义与人文主义的冲突,,为此,科际整合、量化与质化方法的融合、方法的多元化和本土宗教心理学的开展是实现宗教心理学研究方法整合的主要途径.     

Comparison of Quantitative and Qualitative Research Traditions: epistemological,theoretical, and methodological differences

There has been much discussion about quantitative and qualitative approaches to research in different disciplines. In the behavioural and social sciences, these two paradigms are compared to reveal their relative strengths and weaknesses. But the debate about both traditions has commonly taken place in academic books. It is hard to find an article that deals with the generic issues related to the quantitative and qualitative divide by drawing on distinguished research literature. Interested in addressing this need, this article aims to explain the essential characteristics of quantitative and qualitative research approaches with an emphasis on their underlying epistemological, theoretical, and methodological differences. It elucidates the research design issues and concepts in relation to both research paradigms, from planning research to collecting and analyzing data, and reporting findings. The criteria that are used to evaluate research strategies and findings are also discussed.     

Integration statt Konfrontation! On the methodological discussion about the respective values of quantitative und qualitative research

Zusammenfassung Wenngleich in der sozialwissenschaftlichen Forschungspraxis die gemeinsame Nutzung qualitativer und standardisierter Ans?tze weit verbreitet ist, zeigt sich in methodologischen, wissenschaftstheoretischen und professionspolitischen Debatten weiterhin h?ufig das altbekannte Schisma zwischen den beiden Forschungstraditionen. Dieser Trennung wird hier widersprochen und anhand von Beispielen aufgezeigt, wie gerade eine an Entwicklungsprozessen interessierte Forschung durch die Kombination beider Zugangsweisen gewinnen kann. Unter einer solchen Perspektive ger?t die Frage nach der methodologischen Gründung der verwendeten Techniken in den Blick. Postuliert wird hier der Verzicht auf Sonderwege methodologischer Begründungen qualitativer Verfahren und der Gebrauch der existierenden einheitswissenschaftlicher Methodologie. Ausgehend von der gemeinsamen Erfahrung als empirische Forschungspraktiker werden über Problemstellungen aus dem Bereich der Lebensverlaufs-und Biographieforschung die spezifischen St?rken und Schw?chen der jeweiligen Ans?tze kontrastiert. Unter dem Blickwinkel der Kombination kann gezeigt werden, dass dieses multimethodische Vorgehen einerseits die Absicherung von Erkl?rungen verbessert und andererseits ad?quate Modelle der betrachteten Prozesse entworfen werden k?nnen. Im Falle inkompatibler Ergebnisse zeigt dieses Verfahren eine weitere St?rke: Jetzt k?nnen Modifikationen bestehender Erkl?rungsmodelle empirisch begründet vorgenommen werden.

---

Summary Integration, not confrontation! On the methodological discussion about the respectve values of quantitative und qualitative research Although the combination of qualitative and quantitative methods is widely employed by research practitioners in the social sciences, the well established schism between the two research traditions still frequently emerges in methodological debates. While many authors in the educational sciences pretend that only a standardized and statistically oriented methodology is able to deal with the relevant questions in this field, others propagate qualitative methods as the only appropriate approach to the specific problems of this research field. This article contradicts both views and goes on to show that especially those research programmes centred on developmental processes can benefit from an integration of both perspectives. Associated with this research strategy is the problem of the methodological foundations of the different techniques. Instead of developing alternative methodological deliberations for the qualitative research, a common methodology for scientific research in general is postulated. Starting from practical experiences with biographical and life-course research, the strengths and weaknesses of each approach are contrasted with one another. The benefits of their combination are then considered. A multi-method approach leads to an improvement in the validity of conclusions drawn out of research findings. The utilization of different methods — which are often grounded in different paradigms — sheds light on the problem that research findings often show different phenomena and not the different aspects of one phenomenon. The discussion of the relationship of the findings to one another (congruent, complementary or divergent) shows that another strength of this multi-method approach lies in the empirically induced modification of existing models and theories, as well as in the development of new explanations.

---

---

At best, one can know what has not yet been ruled out as false. (Cook/Campbell 1979, S. 37)     

质的研究范式与特殊教育研究:基于方法论的反思与倡议

社会科学研究正经历着从实证主义向建构主义的范式变迁.特殊教育研究长期以来较好地坚持了科学实证主义的传统,但新的范式的接受和应用较慢.本文从方法论的角度探讨了质的研究范式与特殊教育研究之间的关系,从价值追求、实践和理论发展三个方面提出当今特殊教育的发展需要质的研究方法;认为特殊教育的研究应该走向多元的研究范式,即在坚守实证科学精神的同时,纳入建构与人文主义的情怀,在进一步规范逻辑验证性质的量的研究的过程中,加强对归纳探索性质的质的研究范式的探索与运用.文章最后倡议:特殊教育研究者积极转变研究范式,加强行动研究、叙事研究和个案研究等质的方法的运用,藉此丰富特殊教育的实践,探索丰富多彩的、具有本土化特征的特殊教育理论与模式.     

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and interpretive research in science education

Within the current methodological debate, notions successful in the natural sciences are rallied by social sciences researchers to support their own methodological approaches. However, problems of understanding the physical principles have often clouded the issue. One such notion under discussion is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and the derivative notions of indeterminacy, uncertainty, precision, and observer–observed interaction. This article discusses these notions and their applications to social science research. Implications are drawn for research in science education.     

中国人文社会科学成果评价方法的现状与趋势

哲学社会科学成果评价是社会科学科研管理的重要环节,目前的评价方法可分为三类：定性评价法、定量评价法和定性与定量相结合评价法,其具体表现形式即同行评议法、引文分析法和综合评价法。同行评议的优点在于定性但主观性较强,引文分析的优点在于定量但很难对学术成果的层次进行区分,定性与定量相结合的方法应该是发展的方向。根据定性与定量相结合、学术评价与社会价值评价相结合的原则,设计出同行评议、引文分析、预期需求、现实效益四个维度的综合评价方法。这种方法进一步强调了社会科学和社会经济相结合,从更宽广的研究视角对哲学社会科学成果进行价值影响与效益评估,充分体现了社会科学要“社会化”的时代强音。     

Towards openness and new forms

This article explores some theoretical and methodological problems concerned with scale in education research through a critique of a recent mixed-method project. The project was framed by scale metaphors drawn from the physical and earth sciences and I consider how recent thinking around scale, for example, in ecosystems and human geography might offer helpful points and angles of view on the challenges of thinking spatially in education research. Working between the spatial metaphors of ecology scholars and the critiques of the human geographers, for example, the hypercomplex social space in Lefebvre's political-economic thinking and the fluid, simultaneous, multiple spatialities of Massey's post-structuralism, I problematize space and scale in education research. Interweaving these geographical ideas with Giddens’ structuration and Bourdieu's theory of practice, both of which employed what might be termed scale-bridging to challenge social science's entrenched paradigms, leads me to reconsider what is possible and desirable in the study of education systems. Following the spatial turn in the social sciences generally, there is an outstanding need to theorize multi-scale methodology for education research.     

The Newtonian mechanistic paradigm, special education, and contours of alternatives: an overview

The concept of paradigm as a set of ontological and epistemological benchmarks is the basis for a discussion of the influence the Newtonian mechanistic paradigm has exerted over special education theory, research, and practice. Discussions of "malcontents" with the mechanistic paradigm across the social sciences and within special education are noted. Recent literature in the field of special education is critiqued for renaming theories as paradigms, thereby leaving mechanistic assumptions in place. The contours are then drawn of theoretical reorientations and of the emerging alternative holistic paradigm and its importance for special education. It is concluded that we do not have paradigms or paradigm shifts within the field, but that the field is part of a paradigm that is undergoing change across the sciences and social sciences.     

Creating Self‐Generating Knowledge Sharing Spirals: Improving Motivation in a Knowledge Economy

Many new research advancements have been gained in fields other than the basic social sciences. Some of these advancements come from multidisciplinary studies that merge social sciences with theories from other fields of study. This article takes a multidisciplinary approach, juxtaposing some of the more recent findings from other disciplines to develop a general model for improving performance. The proposed model utilizes social theory from sociology and community studies, knowledge spirals from the knowledge management discipline, motivation theories derived in part from evolutionary biology, and research on engagement from different fields of study within the social sciences. By incorporating a multidisciplinary theory for performance improvement, the authors are adhering to recommendations from researchers calling for alternative paradigms to be utilized, providing a more holistic understanding of the phenomena being studied (Storberg‐Walker, 2007 ; Torraco, 2004 ).     

论复杂范式在儿童发展研究中的必要性

文章指出由于简单范式在认识论、方法论以及研究逻辑上有一定的局限性,因此这一作为传统科学研究所沿用的观察和思考问题的研究方法,虽然在研究中有其一定的适用性和优越性,但也不可避免地使研究存在片面化和理想化的弊端,因此仅仅运用简单范式来研究儿童发展问题是有局限性的。文章认为由于儿童自身、儿童发展道路和儿童知识建构本身具有复杂性,因此研究学前儿童发展问题运用复杂范式是十分必要的。     

A Rationale for Mixed Methods (Integrative) Research Programmes in Education

Recent research shows that research programmes (quantitative, qualitative and mixed) in education are not displaced (as suggested by Kuhn) but rather lead to integration. The objective of this study is to present a rationale for mixed methods (integrative) research programs based on contemporary philosophy of science (Lakatos, Giere, Cartwright, Holton, Laudan). This historical reconstruction of episodes from physical science (spanning a period of almost 300 years, 17^th to 20^th century) does not agree with the positivist image of science. Quantitative data (empirical evidence) by itself, does not facilitate progress (despite widespread belief to the contrary), neither in the physical sciences nor in the social sciences (education) A historical reconstruction shows that both Piaget and Pascual‐Leone's research programs in cognitive psychology, follow the Galilean idealisation quite closely, similar to the research programs of Newton, Mendeleev, Einstein, Thomson, Rutherford, Millikan and Perl in the physical sciences. This relationship does not imply that researchers in education have to emulate research in the physical sciences. A major argument in favor of mixed methods (integrative) research programs is that it provides a rationale for hypotheses, theories, guiding assumptions and presuppositions to compete and provide alternatives. Similar to the physical sciences, this proliferation of hypotheses leads to controversies and rivalries, and thus facilitates the decision making process of the scientific community. It is concluded that mixed methods research programs (not paradigms) in education can facilitate the construction of robust strategies, provided we let the problem situation (as studied by practicing researchers) decide the methodology.