The experimental method, association method, and other scientific approaches
Abstract
The reflections on this topic that I set forth in this article stem from a critique to the opposition between qualitative and quantitative that is frequently made in the human sciences. This distinction undoubtedly makes sense when referring to the approach one takes to problems. However, I believe the distinction made in relation to the investigative method, the opposition between quality and quantity, is superficial and in appropriate. There are several reasons for this, but in this article I will mention only a few. For now we can commend that although many use these categories, only a small number actually explicitly defend them. It thus appears more justifiable to attempt to deal directly with these brief considerations, in other words, to propose a distinction. The three investigative methods that I will attempt to distinguish herein are not in and of themselves innovative, but I believe it is nevertheless useful to delve into the nature and scope of the differences between them.
This essay was translated from Italian into Spanish by the author, with the collaboration of Nélida Archenti, Romina Deriu, and Juan Ignacio Piovani. This essay was also enriched by the discussions between the author and Nélida Archenti.
References
Cini, M. (1990). Trentatré variazioni su un tema: Soggetti dentro e fuori la scienza. Roma: Editori Riuniti.
Converse, P. E. (1964). The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics. En D. E. Apter (ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 202-61). Glencoe: Free Press.
Converse, P. E. (1970). Attitudes and non attitudes: Continuation of a dialogue. En E. R. Tufte (ed.), The quantitative analysis of social problems. (pp. 168-89). Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Fleck, L. (1935). Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache. Basel: Benno Schwabe.
Knorr-Cetina, K. D., & Cicourel, A. V. (Eds.) (1981). Advances in social theory and methodology: Toward an integration of micro- and macro sociologies. Londres: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Leonardi, F. (1991, septiembre). Contro l’analisi qualitative. Sociologia e Ricerca Sociale, XII(35), 3-29.
Marradi, A. (2000, primavera). Método como arte. Revista Argentina de Economía y Ciencias Sociales, IV(6), 7-25.
Pearson, K. (1892). The grammar of science. Londres: W. Scott.
Radnitzky, G. (1968). Contemporary schools of metascience. Göteborg: Akademiförlaget.
Ravindra, R. (1975-6, invierno). Experiment and experience: A critique of modern scientific knowledge, Dalhousie Review, LV(4), 655-674.
Ricolfi, L. (1995, julio). La ricerca empirica nelle scienze social: una tassonomia. Rassegna Italiana di Sociologia, XXXVI(3), 389-418.
Schutz, A. (1945, junio). On multiple realities. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, V, 533-75.
Vasilachis, I. (2000). Del sujeto cognoscente al sujeto conocido: una propuesta epistemológica y metodológica para el estudio de los pobres y de la pobreza. En Vasilachis (cur.), Pobres, pobreza y exclusión social (pp. 217-245). Buenos Aires: CEIL.
Wittgenstein, L. (1922). Tractatus logico-philosophicus. Londres: Kegan Paul, Trench & Trubner.
Copyright (c) 2013 Alberto Marradi, Ph.D.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Los artículos emplean licencias de acceso abierto distribuido bajo los términos de la licencia de Creative Commons 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), la cual permite su uso,
distribución y reproducción de forma libre siempre y cuando el o los autores reciban el respectivo crédito.