Qualitative research and scientific knowledge: Social science in post-totalitarian academia

• Authors: Juraj Podoba
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The paper presents a critical analysis of the current state of qualitative research approaches in the social sciences and humanities within Slovak academic institutions. The author has been inspired by the metaphor of academic “barbaricum”. This analytical category is based on a model of the relationship between core and periphery, which has no clear function or organisational logic. From the scientific point of view, the core/centre should produce and innovate the theory, whereas the periphery should apply it. In Slovakia-contrary to the situation in Western academia-, the last two decades have seen a growth in the numbers of academic institutions dealing with the humanities (and partly with the social sciences), and stagnation in qualitative social research. The author suggests that if the Slovak social sciences aspire is to becoming part of the so-called European academic space, then this will certainly not be possible without much stronger and extensive support for social research based on qualitative approaches and methods.

Keywords

EN

qualitative research methods; social science; “academic barbaricum”

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Human Affairs
• Year: 2012
• Volume: 22
• Issue: 4
• Pages: 591-602

Dates

published

2012-10-01

online

2012-09-29

Contributors

author

Juraj Podoba

References

• [1] Barnard, A. (1996). Emic and Ethic. In A. Barnard, J. Spencer (Eds.). Encyclopaedia of Social and Cultural Anthropology. London & New York: Routledge, 180–182.
• [2] Bátora, J., Hynek, N. (2009). On the IR barbaricum in Slovakia. Journal of International Relations and Development 12(2), 186–193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/jird.2009.7[Crossref]
• [3] Bloch, M. (2011). Defence of History or a Historian and his Craft (Obrana historie aneb historik a jeho řemeslo). Prague: Argo.
• [4] Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of the Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• [5] Halfpenny, P. (1979). The Analysis of Qualitative Data. Sociological Review 27(4), 799–825. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1979.tb00361.x[Crossref]
• [6] Hammersley, M. (1992). What’s Wrong with Ethnography? Methodological Explorations. London & New York: Routledge.
• [7] Hann, Ch., Sárkány, M., Skalník, P. (Eds.). (2005). Studying Peoples in the People’s Democracies. Socialist Era Anthropology in Central-Eastern Europe. Münster: LIT Verlag.
• [8] Holec, R. (n.d). What History we Have and What we Need (Aké dejiny máme a aké potrebujeme). From http://www.forumhistoriae
• [9] Kanovský, M. (2011). Prologue. The Ways of Living, Architecture and Social Conditions: How to Research Material Culture? (Predslov. Spôsoby bývania, stavebná kultúra a sociálne podmienky: ako skúma? materiálnu kultúru?) In J. Podoba. The Development of Architecture and the Way of Living in the Countryside in th 20th Century. Ethnographic Aspects of Study of Continuative and Discontinuative Processes in the Conditions of Industrialisation of the Country and Socialistic Collectivisation of Agriculture (Vývoj staviteľstva a spôsobu bývania v dedinskom prostredí v 20. storočí. Etnografické aspekty štúdia kontinuitných a diskontinuitných procesov v podmienkach industrializácie krajiny a socialistickej kolektivizácie poľnohospodárstva). Bratislava: Slovak Association of Social Anthropologists, 7–13.
• [10] Kirk, J., Miller, M.L. (1986). Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. Beverly Hills & London & New Delhi: Sage Publications.
• [11] Kolář, P. (2004). Kleió’s Inconspicuous Shackles. Eastern-European Historiography after the Iron Curtain Fall between Scientific Ethos and Lordship Legitimisation. (Nenápadné okovy Kleió. Východoevropské dějepisectví po pádu železné opony mezi vědeckým étosem a legitimizací panství). Soudobé dějiny XI (1–2), 224–230.
• [12] Michela, M. (2011). Lost Time Guards. Discussion on History and Historians in Slovakia. (Strážcovia strateného času. Diskusie o dejinách a historici na Slovensku.) Historický časopis 59(4), 617–637.
• [13] Podoba, J. (2003). The Personality of American Anthropology as an Indicator: among Folkloristic, Essayistic and Social Science. (Osobnos? americkej antropológie ako indikátor: medzi folkloristikou, esejistikou a sociálnou vedou.) Kritika & Kontext 2, 76–80.
• [14] Podoba, J. (2005). On the Periphery of a Periphery: Slovak Anthropology behind the Ideological Veil. In Ch. Hann, M. Sárkány, P. Skalník (Eds.). Studying Peoples in the People’s Democracies. Socialist Era Anthropology in Eastern-Central Europe. Münster: LIT Verlag, 245–255.
• [15] Podoba, J. (2006). Younger Brother as a Guard of Tradition: “white man destiny”, Czech Intellectuals and Slovak Ethnography in the 20th Century (Menší brat strážcom tradície: „úděl bílého muže“, českí intelektuáli a slovenský národopis v 20. storočí). In J. Pospíšilová, J. Nosková (Eds.). Od lidové písně k evropské etnologii. 100 let Etnologického ústavu Akademie věd. Brno: Etnologický ústav AV ČR, 152–164.
• [16] Podoba, J. (2007). Podoba, J. (2007). Social Anthropology in… Intellectual Challenge or Anachronism? (Sociálna antropológia v stredovýchodnej Európe: intelektuálna výzva alebo achronizmus? Sociologický časopis /Czech Sociological Review 43(1), 175–182.
• [17] Podoba, J. (2007). Anthropologisation of Ethnology, i.e. Ethnography in Central-Eastern Europe: a focus on a change, resistance and resignation. (Antropologizácia etnológie, t.j. post-národopisu v stredovýchodnej Európe: medzi orientáciou na zmenu, rezistenciou a rezignáciou.) In I.T. Budil, T. Zíková (Eds.). Anthropologické Sympózium V. Plzeň: Filozofická fakulta Západočeskej univerzity a Dryada, 128–137.
• [18] Silverman, D. (2005). How to Carry out Qualitative Research. (Ako robi? kvalitatívny výskum.) Practical Manual. Bratislava: Ikar.

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/s13374-012-0047-7