![](/Areas/202005130001/Content/ZHYJY/img/niu1.png)
![](/Areas/202005130001/Content/ZHYJY/img/niu2.png)
![](/Areas/202005130001/Content/ZHYJY/img/niu3.png)
![](/Areas/202005130001/Content/ZHYJY/img/niu4.png)
英文标题: | |
摘要: | 无 |
英文摘要: | The differentiation betw een “emic” and“etic” perspectives in qualitative research and its impact on the “truthfulness”of research findings have alw ays been difficult issues for qualitative researchers.In response to a critique on the author' s research paper“Relationships Betw een Student Development and University Curriculum” , this article discusses the relative boundaries of the “emic”perspective , the difinition of “truth” , and ways to search and verify“truth”fo r researchers with different w orld views .Through illustrations from her ow n research , the author advocates a constructive approach of merging the “emic”and “etic”horizons in the current postmodern social science research . |
作者: | 陈向明; |
作者单位: | 北京大学教育学院 副教授; 博士; |
期刊: | 社会学研究 |
年.期:页码 | 2001.2:1-11 |
中图分类号: | |
文章编号: | |
关键词: | 主位; 认知结构; 建构主义观点; 建构理论; 建构主义者; 图式理论; 对话者; 人才素质; 非言语行为; 课程设置; |
英文关键词: | |
项目基金: | |
欢迎阅读《社会学研究》!您是该文第1895位读者! |