Similarities to Field Research:
First, both H-C research and field research recognize that the researcher's point of view is an avoidable
part of research. Both involve interpretation, which introduces the interpreter's location in time, place,
and world-view. H-C research does not try to produce a single, unequivocal set of objective facts.
Rather, it is a confrontation of old with new or different world-views. It recognizes that the researcher's
reading of historical or comparative evidence is influenced by an awareness of the past and by living in
the present. Our present day consciousness of history is fundamentally different from the manner in
which the past appeared to any foregoing people.
Second, both field and H-C research examine a great diversity of data. In both, the researcher becomes
immersed in data to gain an emphatic understanding of events and people. Both capture subjective
feelings and note how everyday, ordinary activities signify important social meaning. The researcher
inquires, selects, and focuses on specific aspects of social life from the vast array of events, actions,
symbols, and words. An H-C researcher organizes data and focuses attention on the basis of evolving
concepts. He or she examines rituals and symbols and dramatize culture and investigates the motives,
reasons, and justifications for behaviors.
Third, both field and H-C researchers often use grounded theory. Theory usually emerges during the
process of data collection. Both examine data without beginning with fixed hypotheses. Instead, they
develop and modify concepts and theory through a dialogue with the data, then apply theory to
reorganize evidence. [Historically grounded theory means that concepts emerge from the analytic
problem of history: ordering the past into structures, conjectures and events. History and theory can
thus be simultaneously constructed.]
Fourthly, both field and H-C research involve a type of translation. The researcher's meaning system
usually differs from that of people he or she studies, but he or she tries to penetrate and understand their
point of view. Once the life, language, an perspective of the people being studied have been mastered,
the researcher "translates" it for others who read his or her report.
Fifth, both field and H-C researchers focus on action, process, and sequence and see time process as
essential. Both say that people construct a sense of social reality through actions that occur over time.
Both see social reality simultaneously as something created and changed by people and as imposing a
restriction on human choice.
Sixth, generalizations and theory are limited in field and H-C research. Historical and cross-cultural
knowledge is incomplete and provisional, based on selective facts and limited questions. Neither
deduces propositions or tests hypotheses in order to uncover fixed laws. Likewise replication is
unrealistic because each researcher has a unique perspective and assembles a unique body of evidence.
Instead, researchers offer plausible accounts and limited generalizations.
MBA 3rd (Finance),
--
We say, "Be one as Pakistani Nation and grow up for Pakistan's Future". Wish you all the best.
Please visit www.vuaskari.com, get registered for old papers, quiz, assignments and GDBs...
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "VU ASKARI" group.
To post to this group, send email to askarivu@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/askarivu?hl=en?hl=en
First, both H-C research and field research recognize that the researcher's point of view is an avoidable
part of research. Both involve interpretation, which introduces the interpreter's location in time, place,
and world-view. H-C research does not try to produce a single, unequivocal set of objective facts.
Rather, it is a confrontation of old with new or different world-views. It recognizes that the researcher's
reading of historical or comparative evidence is influenced by an awareness of the past and by living in
the present. Our present day consciousness of history is fundamentally different from the manner in
which the past appeared to any foregoing people.
Second, both field and H-C research examine a great diversity of data. In both, the researcher becomes
immersed in data to gain an emphatic understanding of events and people. Both capture subjective
feelings and note how everyday, ordinary activities signify important social meaning. The researcher
inquires, selects, and focuses on specific aspects of social life from the vast array of events, actions,
symbols, and words. An H-C researcher organizes data and focuses attention on the basis of evolving
concepts. He or she examines rituals and symbols and dramatize culture and investigates the motives,
reasons, and justifications for behaviors.
Third, both field and H-C researchers often use grounded theory. Theory usually emerges during the
process of data collection. Both examine data without beginning with fixed hypotheses. Instead, they
develop and modify concepts and theory through a dialogue with the data, then apply theory to
reorganize evidence. [Historically grounded theory means that concepts emerge from the analytic
problem of history: ordering the past into structures, conjectures and events. History and theory can
thus be simultaneously constructed.]
Fourthly, both field and H-C research involve a type of translation. The researcher's meaning system
usually differs from that of people he or she studies, but he or she tries to penetrate and understand their
point of view. Once the life, language, an perspective of the people being studied have been mastered,
the researcher "translates" it for others who read his or her report.
Fifth, both field and H-C researchers focus on action, process, and sequence and see time process as
essential. Both say that people construct a sense of social reality through actions that occur over time.
Both see social reality simultaneously as something created and changed by people and as imposing a
restriction on human choice.
Sixth, generalizations and theory are limited in field and H-C research. Historical and cross-cultural
knowledge is incomplete and provisional, based on selective facts and limited questions. Neither
deduces propositions or tests hypotheses in order to uncover fixed laws. Likewise replication is
unrealistic because each researcher has a unique perspective and assembles a unique body of evidence.
Instead, researchers offer plausible accounts and limited generalizations.
-----
Imran Ali,
"The Hardest Part About Losing Love;
IS FINDING YOUR WAY BACK".
Keep Smiling :)
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Asad Munir <mc090402550@gmail.com> wrote:
--
We say, "Be one as Pakistani Nation and grow up for Pakistan's Future". Wish you all the best.
Please visit www.vuaskari.com, get registered for old papers, quiz, assignments and GDBs...
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "VU ASKARI" group.
To post to this group, send email to askarivu@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/askarivu?hl=en?hl=en
--
We say, "Be one as Pakistani Nation and grow up for Pakistan's Future". Wish you all the best.
Please visit www.vuaskari.com, get registered for old papers, quiz, assignments and GDBs...
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "VU ASKARI" group.
To post to this group, send email to askarivu@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/askarivu?hl=en?hl=en
Comments
Post a Comment