摘要
The differentiation between “emic”and“etic”perspectives in qualitative research and its impact on the “truthfulness”of research findings have always been difficult issues for qualitative researchers.In response to a critique on the author’s research paper“Relationships Between 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”for researchers with different world views.Through illustrations from her own research,the author advocates a constructive approach of merging the “emic”and “etic”horizons in the current postmodern social science research.
The differentiation between “emic”and“etic”perspectives in qualitative research and its impact on the “truthfulness”of research findings have always been difficult issues for qualitative researchers.In response to a critique on the author's research paper“Relationships Between 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”for researchers with different world views.Through illustrations from her own research,the author advocates a constructive approach of merging the “emic”and “etic”horizons in the current postmodern social science research.
出处
《社会学研究》
CSSCI
北大核心
2001年第2期1-11,共11页
Sociological Studies
