Ex-ante hypothesen in der qualitativen sozialforschung: Zwischen "fehl am Platz" und "unverzichtbar"

5Citations
Citations of this article
22Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The use of hypotheses in social research is controversial. While quantitative methodology considers them crucial for theory-oriented research, qualitative methodologists reject them because of the danger of imposing preset theoretical meaning on an area of investigation. With this fundamental rejection - which may be explained historically - qualitative methodology blocks itself in the systematic critical analysis of the preconceptions which precede all research (and runs the risk of losing contact with epistemological discussion). Furthermore, undesirable consequences emerge in the development of the qualitative position. The article pleads for the use of hypotheses in qualitative social research, taking into account the goal of not presupposing the meaning of the actor as well as the necessity of a systematic inclusion of the researcher's knowledge. This position suits the theoretical and methodological foundations of interpretative sociology even better than does a general rejection of hypotheses, and it meets the prerequisites of practical research.

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Criteria for qualitative research. A stimulus for discussion

96Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The acceptability of land pools for the sustainable revalorisation of wetland meadows in the Spreewald Region, Germany

13Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Categories as an expression of an identified observer perspective? A constructive proposal for a more qualitative qualitative content analysis

9Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Meinefeld, W. (1997). Ex-ante hypothesen in der qualitativen sozialforschung: Zwischen “fehl am Platz” und “unverzichtbar.” Zeitschrift Fur Soziologie, 26(1), 22–34. https://doi.org/10.1515/zfsoz-1997-0102

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 13

81%

Researcher 2

13%

Lecturer / Post doc 1

6%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Business, Management and Accounting 7

41%

Social Sciences 5

29%

Computer Science 3

18%

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2

12%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free