Pioneer and Complementary Research: The True Research Taxonomy

DOI: 10.4236/oalib.1101130   PDF   HTML   XML   702 Downloads   1,101 Views  

Abstract

This position paper proposes that the terms pioneer and complementary are better suited to the classification of research on grounds that they provide the best answer to the epistemological question: what is the purpose of research? Alternatively it purports that quantitative and qualitative are better used to describe types of data. It is the position of this paper that research lies along a continuum polarized by quantitative (positivistic) at one end and qualitative (constructivist) at the other. Multi-methods including mixed and non-mixed designs lie along this continuum. Also it proposes that pioneer and complementary are more appropriate descriptors of research as they are capable of drawing attention to the major significance of scientific inquiry in social development.

Share and Cite:

Berkeley, B. (2015) Pioneer and Complementary Research: The True Research Taxonomy. Open Access Library Journal, 2, 1-7. doi: 10.4236/oalib.1101130.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1] Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago.
[2] Strauss, A.L. and Corbin, J.M. (2008) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Sage Publications, Los Angles.
[3] Durkheim, E. (1938) The Rules of Sociological Method. The Free Press, New York.
[4] Atkinson, J.M. (1978) Discovering Suicide: Studies in the Social Organization of Sudden Death. Macmillan, London.
[5] Garfinkel, H. (1984) Studies in Ethnomethodology. Polity Press, Cambridge.
[6] Oakley, A. (1974) The Sociology of Housework. Pantheon Books, New York.
[7] Murdock, G.P. (1949) Social Structure. The MacMillan Company, New York.
[8] Bernstein, B. (1971) Class, Codes and Control: Theoretical Studies towards a Sociology of Language. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203014035
[9] Young, M. and Willmott, P. (1973) The Symmetrical Family. Hamondsworth: Penguin.
[10] Popper, K. (2002) Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Routledge, London.
[11] Hill Collins, P. (2000) Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. Routledge, New York.
[12] Lyotard, J.-F. (1979) Introduction: The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Manchester University Press, Manchester.
[13] Becker, H. (1963) Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. The Free Press, New York.
[14] Merton, R.K. (1957) Social Theory and Social Structure. Revised Edition, Free Press, New York.
[15] Cohen, A. (1955) Delinquent Boys. Free Press, New York.
[16] Cloward, R. and Ohlin, L. (1960) Delinquency and Opportunity. Free Press, New York.
[17] Creswell, J. (2003) Research Designs: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage, Thousand Oaks.
[18] Lobban, G. (1974) The Presentation of Sex Roles in British Reading Schemes. Forum, 16, 57-60.
[19] Urry, J. and Keat, R. (1975) Social Theory as Science. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
[20] Berkeley, B. (2009) “New” Directions in Social Science Research: The Development of Complementary Theory. Lambert Academic Publishing, Saarbrücken.
[21] Weber, M., Gerth, H.H. and Mills, C.W., Eds. (1946) From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. Oxford University Press, New York.
[22] Giddens, A. (1986) Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. University of California Press, Oakland.

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2020 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.