英语论文网

be “skeletal” theories in social phenomena – the hope for a grand theory, similar to Parsonian thought, is wistful and incorrect quasi-scientific thinking of a highly questionable nature. But this is only one of the areas of difference – the “middle-range” thinking in this article also differs to Merton’s emphasis on methodology (with its desire finally, although maybe not immediately, to adopt highly theoretical methods for investigation) and change (with its purposeful distance from getting involved in any value judgements about what is being investigated) dimensions as well. In sum the following “middle range” is markedly different from Merton’s “middle range” and should not be confused with it. As a start to arguing a case for “middle-range” thinking it is important to appreciate the fundamental nature of this approach in comparison with other perspectives. In this respect Table I provides an overview of the characteristics of “middle-range” thinking in relation to the two approaches from which it differs most and yet also draws most extensively from. These are approaches which occupy the top-left and bottom-right cells of Figure 2. These contain the Comtean approaches and the most subjective of the Kantian/Fichtean alternatives. They are polar opposites and share no common boundaries as Figure 2 indicates. “Middle-range” thinking, however, is linked to both albeit only by corner connections, indicating that it draws from both of these dominant ways of thinking yet is distinct and separate.High/high Medium/medium Low/low a a a low medium low Theory characteristics Ontological Generalizable world “Skeletal” Generalizations belief waiting to be discovered generalizations may not be there possible to be discovered Role of theory Definable theory with “Skeletal” theory Ill-defined theory – hypotheses to test with some broad no prior hypotheses understanding of relationships Methodology characteristics Role of observer Observer independent Observer important Observer important and human and irrelevant and always part of the and always part of nature belief process of discovery the process of discovery Nature of Structured, quantitative Definable approach but Unstructured, method method subject to refinement ill-defined, in actual situations, qualitative approach invariably qualitative Data sought Cross-sectional data Longitudinal, case- Longitudinal, case- used usually at one point study based. Heavily study based. Heavily in time and selectively descriptive but also descriptive gathered tied to analytical hypotheses Conclusions Tight conclusions about Reasonably conclusive Ill-defined and derived findings tied to “skeletal” theory inconclusive and empirical richness conclusions but empirically rich in detail Validity criteria Statistical inference Meanings: Meanings: researchers + researched researched Change characteristics Low Medium Low emphasis on changing emphasis open to emphasis on status quo radical change and changing maintenance of status quo status quo a Theory, methodology and change ordering It is not intended in the following to go through each of the descriptive elements in Table I in detail but rather to describe in broad terms the characteristics of these cells on the diagonal of Figure 2.The high/high/low combination (of theory, methodology and change respectively) is the archetypal model of scientific endeavour assuming a material world, which exists distinct from the perception of users, and which has generalities an