PRESERVING METHODOLOGICAL CONSISTENCY: A REPLY TO RAFTERY, McGEORGE & WALTERS
نویسنده
چکیده
Raftery et al (1997) criticise Seymour & Rooke (1995) for setting out battle lines in their use of the terms rationalist and interpretive paradigms and argue that such dichotomies lead to a degeneration in research standards. Sharing their concern for research standards, in reply, we argue that Raftery et al’s plea for methodological liberalism will itself undermine standards. Different research methods are required for different research purposes and are to be evaluated according to different criteria. These criteria must be made explicit. We state our own research purposes and make an initial attempt to set out some criteria against which we would wish our own research to be judged.
منابع مشابه
A Computational Approach to the Flow of Walter’s Liquid B′ through Annulus of Coaxial Porous Circular Cylinders for High Suction Parameter (RESEARCH NOTE)
The present investigation studies the behavior of steady flow of visco-elastic liquid between two porous coaxial circular cylinders, where both the cylinders are rotating with different uniform angular velocities about the common axis. In addition, the inner cylinder has uniform velocity along the axis and the visco-elastic fluid, which is a Walters liquid B′, is allowed to flow in the annulus....
متن کاملRescuing the baby from the bathwater : a reply to Carter ( 2013 ) R . F . Oliveira
Carter [1] identifies putative conceptual and methodological flaws in a paper from our laboratory on the effects of the social environment on exploration– avoidance behaviour in a cichlid fish [2]. Although we welcome discussion of methodological issues that fosters the use of more solid experimental designs in personality research and we acknowledge that the experimental design used can be fur...
متن کامل