Ebrahim Salehabadi
Abstract
The purpose of writing this article is to provide a critical model for social science book criticism to help the research in social sciences by confronting the main research model. The method of this article is review and criticism. In this article, 25 treatises-books are reviewed in the field ...
Read More
The purpose of writing this article is to provide a critical model for social science book criticism to help the research in social sciences by confronting the main research model. The method of this article is review and criticism. In this article, 25 treatises-books are reviewed in the field of political sociology and political science. The research shows that the most important research harms in Iranian political sociology and political science are as follows: incorrect establishment of causal relationships between variables, not having the problem as a puzzle and confusion between the problem and the question, excessive fascination of the researcher with theories and failure to present causal mechanisms, inappropriate use of establishing Causal relationships in research. The research showed that the time gap between master's and doctorate courses, the gap between published articles and the academic gap between master's degree and doctorate, the type of university and the field of study of researchers have an effect on the disadvantages of research.Research problems can be reduced by using the following solutions:
A- Highlighting inconsistency, inconsistency, contradiction and mystery in the statement of the problem.
B- Recalling and rereading research records in stating the problem, research findings and the whole research.
C- Minimizing theoretical issues, but minimizing research history can make research more fruitful
D- Presenting reasoning, reasoning and presenting causal mechanisms to communicate causality.
E- Criticism and elimination of faulty causal relationships.
Keywords: Disadvantages of research, Political sociology, Critical method, Dissertation-book, Iran.
Introduction and problem statement
The purpose of writing this article is to present a critical model for criticizing social science books, so that by confronting it with the main pattern of research, it can help to research in social sciences. It is certain that our main pattern and criteria for comparison are not clear from criticism. What is important to us is to open the door for critical examination of social science works. Therefore, in this article, we will try to examine the most important damage of the conducted research. It should be noted that the pathological examination of this research does not mean ignoring the positive points of the research; but rather a critical assessment form rather than mere evaluation
Analytical and conceptual framework
Research in different disciplines of science is done in different ways and it is impossible to introduce a specific method that is applicable in all branches of science. However, the general principle of this research is in different disciplines that are more similar than they are together. in any form and in any field that is done; always subject to codified and logical instructions that assist scholars in doing their work Applying these guidelines enables them to evaluate the results and works of other research while gaining more confidence in the accuracy of the results of their work. According to this research, we have examined and criticized the scientific and research texts:
Criticism of the problem statement.
Theories criticism
Review of research background
Criticism of method.
Criticism of the findings.
Criticism of solutions and suggestions.
Formal and procedural criticism
Methodology
The method of this article is a review and attempts to discover the damage done by using review and evaluation of works. The examined sample is 25 theses-books in the field of political sociology and political science, which were previously defended as a doctoral dissertation in Iranian universities. The selection of these cases is due to the fact that it is a doctoral dissertation in the field of Iranian political sociology, which was conducted in Iranian universities as a research and published as a book.
Results
In the descriptive part of the study, it it is shown that% 28 of the produced works (theses-books) have formal problems (spelling, compositional and referential, etc.) in large and very high levels that make them difficult to read and study. Among the 25 investigated works, 16 theses-books lack the problem (%64). Among these works four works had a question; but they had no problem. It is interesting to note that 9 researchers (%36) did not follow up on their problem and question and abandoned it.
Eighteen researchers (%72) did not review the research background and 80% of them did not did not receive help from the background and history of the research in stating the problem. Most of these have methodological problems. %72 of theses-books have problems in establishing a causal relationship, % 76 of them have problems with data and data information, and they have the same amount of credit problem. Among the 25 reviewed works, 13 researches (52 percent) do not answer the problems and questions. The study shows that researchers have sought to confirm their theories rather than disprove them.
In the explanatory part, in the final analysis and analysis, the factors related to scientific problems and issues are as follows:
Discontinuities: Among the discontinuities raised in this article, the distance between the scholars’ educational and academic courses of the researchers, the university where the researcher's master's degree and doctorate studies are not the same, and the discontinuity between the subjects studied by the researcher have an effect on the damage of the research.
Type of university: research shows that the least academic problems and harms are related to studying in foreign universities and the most problems are related to studying in non-governmental universities.
Field of study: The research showed that the researchers of the field of study of political science have more problem statement, method and general problems than sociology.
Discussion
In the intuitive and experimental understanding, it seems that the strength and weakness of the research results from the type of university and the type of study field and the interactive effect of the two. The research shows that the most research problems (methodological problems and statement of the problem) are among the PhD graduates of political science in non-government universities, and the least is related to the PhD in sociology in public universities. From the perspective of research problems, the published works of public universities are less problematic than non-governmental universities, and sociology is less problematic than political science. In the analysis and explanation of this case, it should be said that a student of political science spends 10 credits in research method until obtaining a doctorate; While a student of social sciences takes 24 units of research methods (not including practical work) until getting a doctorate. So; if this analysis is correct, the amount of methodological problems in the field of political science should be higher than in sociology, which confirms their reality.
Conclusion
The author of the article believes that by using the following strategies, it is possible to reduce the research damage and improve the research situation: A. Highlighting inconsistency, inconsistency, contradiction and mystery in the problem statement section. B. Calling and rereading the research record in the statement of the problem, research findings and the whole research. C. Minimizing the theoretical issues, however, minimizing the research history can make the research more fruitful. D. Providing reasoning, argumentation, and providing causal mechanisms to communicate causally. E. Criticism and elimination of faulty causal relationships.
In removing these harms from the research, it can be suggested that the researchers consider their persuasion and the readers of the book, whether the book's audience considers the researcher's claims and the researcher's arguments to be proven and correct or not? And will the reader be convinced by reading the book or not?
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to all those who assisted us in various ways for conducting the research.
