Commenced in January 2007
Frequency: Monthly
Edition: International
Paper Count: 30114
A Critical Approach to Modern Conception in the Context of Objectivity and Quantitative Method

Authors: Sergun Kurtoglu

Abstract:

The struggle between modern and postmodern understanding is also displayed in terms of the superiorities of quantitative and qualitative methods to each other which are evaluated within the scope of these understandings. By way of assuming that the quantitative researches (modern) are able to account for structure while the qualitative researches (postmodern) explain the process, these methods are turned into a means for worldviews specific to a period. In fact, process is not a functioning independent of structure. In addition to this issue, the ability of quantitative methods to provide scientific knowledge is also controversial so long as they exclude the dialectical method. For this reason, the critiques charged against modernism in terms of quantitative methods are, in a sense, legitimate. Nevertheless, the main issue is in which parameters postmodernist critique tries to legitimize its critiques and whether these parameters represent a point of view enabling democratic solutions. In this respect, the scientific knowledge covered in Turkish media as a means through which ordinary people have access to scientific knowledge will be evaluated by means of content analysis within a new objectivity conception.

Keywords: knowledge and objectivity, dialectic method, qualitative and quantitative methods, modernism/postmodernism.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1333402

Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 1105

References:


[1] D. Ergun, Sociology in 100 Questions. Istanbul: K Bookstore, 2003, p.178.
[2] B. Cotuksoken, Understanding Philosophy, Understanding with Philosophy. Istanbul: Inkilap, 2001, p.101.
[3] M. Sanchez, ''Agenda Setting'', zimmer. csufresno.edu/~johnca/spch100/7-4-agenda.htm, Spring, 2002
[4] B. Cotuksoken, Philosophy: Subject-Discourse. Istanbul: Inkilap, 2002, p. 207.
[5] B. Cotuksoken, Philosophy: Subject-Discourse. Istanbul: Inkilap, 2002, p. 207.
[6] O. Hancerlioglu, The Dictonary of Philosophy. 3. Edition. Istanbul: Remzi, 1975, p.97.
[7] S. Hilav, The History of Dialect Thinking. 2. Edition. Istanbul: Sosyal, 2003, p. 231.
[8] A. Denkel, The Principles of Knowledge. 2. Edition. Istanbul: Metis, 1998, p. 13.
[9] O. Hancerlioglu, The Dictonary of Philosophy. 3. Edition. Istanbul: Remzi, 1975, p.100.
[10] O. Hancerlioglu, The Dictonary of Philosophy. 3. Edition. Istanbul: Remzi, 1975, p.110.
[11] E. Mahcupyan, Ideologies and Modernity. Istanbul: Patika, 2000, p. 46.
[12] O. Hancerlioglu, Thinking History. 13. Edition. Istanbul: Remzi, 2007, p.344.
[13] G. Saylan, Postmodernism. Istanbul: Imge, 1999, p. 153-154.
[14] H. Arendth, Between Past and Future. Transl. B.S. Sener, 2. Edition. Istanbul: Iletisim, 2004, p. 313.
[15] D. Ergun, Finding Method. 2. Edition. Ankara: Imge, 2006, p. 134.
[16] B. Kumbetoglu, Qualitative Method and Research in the Field of Sociology and Anthropology. 2. Edition. Istanbul: Baglam, 2008, p. 34.
[17] T. Bas, U. Akturan, Qualitative Research Methods. Ankara: Seckin, 2008, p. 20.
[18] B. Kumbetoglu, Qualitative Method and Research in the Field of Sociology and Anthropology. 2. Edition. Istanbul: Baglam, 2008, p. 34.
[19] R. Altunisik, R. Cockun, S. Bayraktaroglu, E. Yildirim, Research Methodologies in Social Sciences. 3. Edition. Sakarya: Sakarya, 2004, p. 4.
[20] R. Altunisik, R. Coskun, S. Bayraktaroglu, E. Yildirim, Research Methodologies in Social Sciences. 3. Edition. Sakarya: Sakarya, 2004, p. 5.
[21] P. Feyerabend, Against Method. Transl. E. Baser. Istanbul: Ayrinti, 1999, p. 148.
[22] H. Reichenbach, The Rise of Scientific Philoposhy. Transl. C, Yildirim, 3. Edition. Ankara: Bilgi, 2000, p. 126.
[23] N. Hartmann, The Knowledge in the Light of Ontology. Transl. H. Tepe. Ankara: Philosophical Society of Turkey, 1998, p. 30.
[24] G. Saylan, Postmodernism. Istanbul: Imge, 1999, p. 253.
[25] E. Yildizoglu, Long Live Modernist Reflexion. Istanbul: Telos, 1997, p. 175.
[26] E. Yildizoglu, Long Live Modernist Reflexion. Istanbul: Telos, 1997, p. 175.
[27] G. Saylan, Postmodernism. Istanbul: Imge, 1999, p. 261.
[28] G. Saylan, Postmodernism. Istanbul: Imge, 1999, p. 261.
[29] A. Yaraman, Social Change and Personality Characteristics. Istanbul: Baglam, 2003, pp.74-75.