Usually the influence of the researcher on the respondents ' answers referred to in conjunction with the interviewing process through the ability to speak, to get in touch with him to motivate him to win. Less attention is paid to the influence that can provide the researcher on the Respondent in the course of conversation. Somehow tacitly accepted that as a sociologist does not directly enter into the context with the interviewee, he has less influence. In fact not the case. We do not even suspect how great was the influence of the researcher on respondents ' answers during a questionnaire survey. It is carried out in two ways. -- General method of research. Whether we like it or not, the questionnaire constructed by the researcher from the beginning to the end, subordinated to the logic of his argument and to some extent the logic of the arguments of the Respondent. For example, closing a question with a set of alternatives, we thus already structuring the consciousness of the Respondent, i.e., outline the scope of the search of the true answer. In fact, we require that the Respondent answer in our system, logical reasoning, and he is forced to obey this system of reasoning, although this does not mean that the truth lies in a given area. So, we ask the Respondent the question about the motives of dismissal and offer him the answers. Respondent, of course, you may finish your option, but more often it is subordinate to the researcher and looking for more or less appropriate answer in the proposed set, i.e. it follows the logic of reasoning of the researcher. Researcher as it tells the Respondent what the main reasons for dismissal in the proposed series of answers. So, offering repondents two different sets of alternatives in explanation of the dismissal, we obtain two independent choice of motives of dismissal. In other words, researchers suggest that the Respondent's search for the truth in some particular area, he is only required to answer the question whether he agrees or disagrees with the given alternatives. But the other way in the cognition of social phenomena, perhaps not. Getting to the study of a particular problem (social phenomena), we already have a preliminary idea about it. Knowing that we know nothing, already have knowledge about this unknown. Formulating the conceptual part of my research, the sociologist would have outlined your knowledge about the studied phenomenon, problem, put forward hypotheses, outlined ways of further promotion in the area of the unknown. This theoretical understanding should be checked, and that makes a sociological study.
1 comment:
Usually the influence of the researcher on the respondents ' answers referred to in conjunction with the interviewing process through the ability to speak, to get in touch with him to motivate him to win. Less attention is paid to the influence that can provide the researcher on the Respondent in the course of conversation. Somehow tacitly accepted that as a sociologist does not directly enter into the context with the interviewee, he has less influence. In fact not the case. We do not even suspect how great was the influence of the researcher on respondents ' answers during a questionnaire survey. It is carried out in two ways.
-- General method of research. Whether we like it or not, the questionnaire constructed by the researcher from the beginning to the end, subordinated to the logic of his argument and to some extent the logic of the arguments of the Respondent. For example, closing a question with a set of alternatives, we thus already structuring the consciousness of the Respondent, i.e., outline the scope of the search of the true answer. In fact, we require that the Respondent answer in our system, logical reasoning, and he is forced to obey this system of reasoning, although this does not mean that the truth lies in a given area. So, we ask the Respondent the question about the motives of dismissal and offer him the answers. Respondent, of course, you may finish your option, but more often it is subordinate to the researcher and looking for more or less appropriate answer in the proposed set, i.e. it follows the logic of reasoning of the researcher. Researcher as it tells the Respondent what the main reasons for dismissal in the proposed series of answers. So, offering repondents two different sets of alternatives in explanation of the dismissal, we obtain two independent choice of motives of dismissal. In other words, researchers suggest that the Respondent's search for the truth in some particular area, he is only required to answer the question whether he agrees or disagrees with the given alternatives.
But the other way in the cognition of social phenomena, perhaps not. Getting to the study of a particular problem (social phenomena), we already have a preliminary idea about it. Knowing that we know nothing, already have knowledge about this unknown. Formulating the conceptual part of my research, the sociologist would have outlined your knowledge about the studied phenomenon, problem, put forward hypotheses, outlined ways of further promotion in the area of the unknown. This theoretical understanding should be checked, and that makes a sociological study.
Post a Comment