Professional curiosity engaged in policy sociology

• Authors: Kateřina Ptáčková
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The article focuses on the methodological specifics of qualitative sociological studies commissioned by public administration authorities (“the client”) which aim to provide solutions to specific problems defined by the client. In conducting this kind of study, the researcher is expected not only to describe and understand the existing state of affairs but also to provide a set of recommendations for amending it. The research terrain is not defined by the sociologist herself but basically by the client. This situation reveals a series of methodological and epistemological issues. The article discusses some of them and proposes that the research strategy of heuristic investigation may be an answer to the associated dilemmas. The author argues that the correct use of reflexive methodology can help the researcher to overcome the limits imposed on the research by the client’s presence and even make the apparent disadvantages work for her.

Keywords

EN

methodology; policy sociology; qualitative sociological research; heuristic investigation

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Human Affairs
• Year: 2012
• Volume: 22
• Issue: 4
• Pages: 475-491

Dates

published

2012-10-01

online

2012-09-29

Contributors

author

Kateřina Ptáčková

• Charles University in Prague

References

• [1] Bevir, M. (2010). Democratic Governance. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• [2] Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. (Transl. R. Nice). Volume 16. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• [3] Burawoy, M. (2009). The Public Sociology Wars. In V. Jeffries. Handbook of Public Sociology. Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield.
• [4] Burawoy, M. (2004). Public Sociologies: Contradictions, Dilemmas, and Possibilities. Social Forces 82(4), 1603–1618. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/sof.2004.0064[Crossref]
• [5] Burawoy, M. (2005). 2004 ASA Presidential Address: For Public Sociology. American Sociological Review 70(1), 4–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000312240507000102[Crossref]
• [6] Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2005). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• [7] Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication 43(4), 51–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x[Crossref]
• [8] Finlay, L. (2002). Negotiating the Swamp: The Opportunity and Challenge of Reflexivity in Research Practice. Qualitative Research 2, 209–230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/146879410200200205[Crossref]
• [9] Flick, U. (1993). An Introduction to Qualitative Research. London: Sage.
• [10] Gieryn, T. F. (1999). Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press.
• [11] Gieryn, T. F. (1983). Boundary-work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists. American Sociological Review 48(6), 781–795. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2095325[Crossref]
• [12] Hirt, T. (2008). Výhledy a útrapy aplikované antropologie v ČR: Příspěvek k debatě o výzkumu jedné sporné problematiky (Perspectives and hardships of applied anthropology in the Czech Republic: Contribution to the discussion on research of a controversial issue). Biograf 46, 23 paragraphs. Available at www.biograf.org/clanky/clanek.php?clanek=4603.
• [13] Holmwood, J. (2007). Sociology as Public Discourse and Professional Practice: A Critique of Michael Burawoy. Sociological Theory 25(1). [Crossref]
• [14] Jasanoff, S. (2003). Breaking the Waves in Science Studies: Comment on H. M. Collins and Robert Evans, “The Third Wave of Science Studies”. Social Studies of Science 33, 389–400. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/03063127030333004[Crossref]
• [15] Jasanoff, S. (2004). Ordering Knowledge, Ordering Society. In S. Jasanoff (Ed.). States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order, pp. 13–45. New York.
• [16] Kabele, J. (1999). Metodologie intervenčního heuristického vyšetřování (A Methodology of Interventionist Heuristic Investigation). In J. Kandert (Ed.). Filipov II, pp. 113–136. Prague: Institute of Sciological Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University in Prague.
• [17] Kabele, J. (2010). Heuristická strategie odborného studia společenských záležitostí (A Heuristic Strategy for the Study of Human Affairs). Sociologický časopis/Czech Sociological Review 46(4), 593–618.
• [18] Luker, K. (2008). Salsa Dancing into the Social Sciences. London: Harvard University Press.
• [19] Morávek, J. (2011). Analýza rámců (Frame Analysis). In M. Nekola, H. Geissler, M. Mouralová (Eds.). Současné metodologické otázky veřejné politiky (Contemporary Methodological Questions of Public Policy), pp. 105–135. Praha: Karolinum.
• [20] Morrow, R.A. (2009). Rethinking Burawoy’s Public Sociology: A Post-Empiricist Reconstruction. In V. Jeffries. Handbook of Public Sociology. Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield.
• [21] Richie, J., Spencer, L. (2002). Qualitative Data Analysis for Applied Policy Research. In A. Bryman and G. B. Robert (Eds). Analyzing Qualitative Data, pp. 173–194.
• [22] Růžička, M. (2011). Sociální reprodukce bezdomovectví a meze liberálního individualizmu (Social reproduction of homelessness and the limits of liberal individualism). Biograf 54, 18 paragraphs. Available at www.biograf.org/clanky/clanek.php?clanek=5403.
• [23] Ryšavý, D. (2002). Cizí a/versus domorodý badatel. K metodologii projektu Přerodové procesy (Foreign and/versus Native Scholar: Toward Methodology of Transitional Processes Project). Sociologický časopis/Czech Sociological Review 38(1–2), 117–123.
• [24] Staszek, Z. (2012). Podoby angažovanosti v sociologii: případ vědeckého komunismu [online]. 2012 [cit. 2012-07-10]. Diplomová práce. Masarykova univerzita, Fakulta sociálních studií. Vedoucí práce Michal Vašečka. Dostupné z: 〈http://is.muni.cz/th/219389/fss_m/〉. (Forms of Public Sociology: The Case Of Scientific Communism. MA Thesis. Masaryk University, Faculty of Social Studies. Supervisor: Michal Vašečka.)
• [25] Stöckelová, T., Grygar, J. (2008). Hrátky s čerty? Politické souvislosti a přesahy sociálněvědního výzkumu (Dancing with the Devil? Political Contexts and Implications of Social Science Research). Biograf 46, 43 paragraphs. Available at www.biograf.org/clanky/clanek.php?clanek=4604.
• [26] Tittle, Ch.R. (2004). The Arrogance of Public Sociology. Social Forces 82(4). [Crossref]
• [27] Wacquant, L. (2004). Critical Thought as Solvent of Doxa. Constellations 11(1), 97–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1351-0487.2004.00364.x[Crossref]
• [28] Wallerstein, I. (2007). The Sociologist and the Public Sphere. In D. Clawson et al. (Eds.). Public Sociology: Fifteen Eminent Sociologists Debate Politics and the Profession in The Twenty-First Century. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• [29] Weiss, C. H. (1979). The Many Meanings of Research Utilization. Public Administration Review 39 (5), 426–431. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3109916[Crossref]
• [30] Whyte, W. F. (Ed.). (1991). Participatory Action Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/s13374-012-0039-7