What's Lost in Translation? Neopositivism and Critical Research Interests. / Sjoberg, Laura.

In: Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 43, No. 3, 01.06.2015, p. 1007-1010.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Published

Standard

What's Lost in Translation? Neopositivism and Critical Research Interests. / Sjoberg, Laura.

In: Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 43, No. 3, 01.06.2015, p. 1007-1010.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

Sjoberg, L 2015, 'What's Lost in Translation? Neopositivism and Critical Research Interests', Millennium: Journal of International Studies, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 1007-1010. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829815581632

APA

Vancouver

Author

Sjoberg, Laura. / What's Lost in Translation? Neopositivism and Critical Research Interests. In: Millennium: Journal of International Studies. 2015 ; Vol. 43, No. 3. pp. 1007-1010.

BibTeX

@article{bdc39a127e4c46d6852833c7d3c86b8b,
title = "What's Lost in Translation?: Neopositivism and Critical Research Interests",
abstract = "Andrew Bennett {\textquoteleft}finds in translation{\textquoteright} potential communication between computer-assisted content analysis (which is usually quantitative and positivist) and discourse analysis (which he suggests is usually qualitative and post-positivist). Bennett is interested in combining these methods despite epistemological differences in the research purposes for which each method is usually deployed. There are a number of propositions made in “found in translation” with which I agree – including but not limited to the utility of both of methods understood as qualitative and methods understood as quantitative and the importance of thinking about the relationship between method and epistemology in complicated ways. Still, my understanding of the possibility (and desirability) of {\textquoteleft}mixed method{\textquoteright} research as Bennett frames it is very different than Bennett{\textquoteright}s. The core of our disagreement can be found in Bennett{\textquoteright}s description in footnote 4 of his article of my work with Barkin. Bennett notes our work as an exception to the trend among scholars to neglect the potential contributions of research on {\textquoteleft}the other{\textquoteright} side of the quantitative/qualitative divide. While I hope that is true, the footnote suggests that our work discusses “opportunities for combining interpretive and quantitative methods.” That is not our intent – instead, we are looking for opportunities to use quantitative methods as interpretive research. That is, we are interested in showing the interpretive utility of methods traditionally understood to be quantitative.",
keywords = "neopositivism, methodology, critical IR, research, epistemology, positivism, post-positivism",
author = "Laura Sjoberg",
year = "2015",
month = jun,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/0305829815581632",
language = "English",
volume = "43",
pages = "1007--1010",
journal = "Millennium: Journal of International Studies",
issn = "0305-8298",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",
number = "3",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - What's Lost in Translation?

T2 - Neopositivism and Critical Research Interests

AU - Sjoberg, Laura

PY - 2015/6/1

Y1 - 2015/6/1

N2 - Andrew Bennett ‘finds in translation’ potential communication between computer-assisted content analysis (which is usually quantitative and positivist) and discourse analysis (which he suggests is usually qualitative and post-positivist). Bennett is interested in combining these methods despite epistemological differences in the research purposes for which each method is usually deployed. There are a number of propositions made in “found in translation” with which I agree – including but not limited to the utility of both of methods understood as qualitative and methods understood as quantitative and the importance of thinking about the relationship between method and epistemology in complicated ways. Still, my understanding of the possibility (and desirability) of ‘mixed method’ research as Bennett frames it is very different than Bennett’s. The core of our disagreement can be found in Bennett’s description in footnote 4 of his article of my work with Barkin. Bennett notes our work as an exception to the trend among scholars to neglect the potential contributions of research on ‘the other’ side of the quantitative/qualitative divide. While I hope that is true, the footnote suggests that our work discusses “opportunities for combining interpretive and quantitative methods.” That is not our intent – instead, we are looking for opportunities to use quantitative methods as interpretive research. That is, we are interested in showing the interpretive utility of methods traditionally understood to be quantitative.

AB - Andrew Bennett ‘finds in translation’ potential communication between computer-assisted content analysis (which is usually quantitative and positivist) and discourse analysis (which he suggests is usually qualitative and post-positivist). Bennett is interested in combining these methods despite epistemological differences in the research purposes for which each method is usually deployed. There are a number of propositions made in “found in translation” with which I agree – including but not limited to the utility of both of methods understood as qualitative and methods understood as quantitative and the importance of thinking about the relationship between method and epistemology in complicated ways. Still, my understanding of the possibility (and desirability) of ‘mixed method’ research as Bennett frames it is very different than Bennett’s. The core of our disagreement can be found in Bennett’s description in footnote 4 of his article of my work with Barkin. Bennett notes our work as an exception to the trend among scholars to neglect the potential contributions of research on ‘the other’ side of the quantitative/qualitative divide. While I hope that is true, the footnote suggests that our work discusses “opportunities for combining interpretive and quantitative methods.” That is not our intent – instead, we are looking for opportunities to use quantitative methods as interpretive research. That is, we are interested in showing the interpretive utility of methods traditionally understood to be quantitative.

KW - neopositivism

KW - methodology

KW - critical IR

KW - research

KW - epistemology

KW - positivism

KW - post-positivism

U2 - 10.1177/0305829815581632

DO - 10.1177/0305829815581632

M3 - Article

VL - 43

SP - 1007

EP - 1010

JO - Millennium: Journal of International Studies

JF - Millennium: Journal of International Studies

SN - 0305-8298

IS - 3

ER -