The structure of (Social) scientific contradictions: A commentary on the problem of paradigmatic behaviour by social scientists

Qualitative Research in Sport and Exercise

Volumn 1, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 312-321

  Weed, Mike ^a  

^a CANTERBURY CHRIST CHURCH UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Kuhn; Normal science; Research quality; Social science method

Indexed keywords

EID: 77956449381     PISSN: 19398441     EISSN: 1939845X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/19398440903192365     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Bailey, R.P., 2006. Science, normal science and science education: Thomas Kuhn and education. Learning for democracy, 2 (2), 7-20.
2. Brustad, R.J., 2009. Validity in context - qualitative research issues in sport and exercise studies: a response to John Smith. Qualitative research in sport and exercise, 1 (2), 112-115.
3. Evans, J., 2009. In praise of body knowledge and stories we need to tell: a response to John Smith. Qualitative research in sport and exercise, 1 (2), 107-110.
4. Guba, E., 1990. The paradigm dialogue. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
5. King, S., 2009. Sociocultural sport studies and the scientific paradigm: a response to John Smith. Qualitative research in sport and exercise, 1 (2), 101-106.
6. Kuhn, T.S., 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
7. Kuhn, T.S., 1970a. The structure of scientific revolutions. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
8. Kuhn, T.S., 1970b. Reflections on my critics. In: I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave, eds. Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 231-278.
9. McFee, G., 2007. Paradigms and possibilities: or, some concerns for the study of sport from the philosophy of science. Sport, ethics and philosophy, 1 (1), 58-77.
10. McFee, G., this issue. The epistemology of qualitative research into sport: ethical and erotetic? Qualitative research in sport and exercise, 1 (3).
11. Smith, J., 1984. The problem of criteria for judging interpretive inquiry. Educational evaluation and policy analysis, 4, 379-392.
12. Smith, J., 1988. The evaluator/researcher as person versus the person as evaluator/researcher. Educational researcher, 17 (2), 18-23.
13. Smith, J., 2009. Judging research quality: from certainty to contingency. Qualitative research in sport and exercise, 1 (2), 91-100.
14. Sparkes, A.C. and Smith, B.M., 2009. Judging the quality of qualitative inquiry: criteriology and relativism in action. Psychology of sport & exercise, 10 (5), 491-497.
15. Tenenbaum, G., et al, 2009. The judgement of research quality: a response to John Smith. Qualitative research in sport and exercise, 1 (2), 116-124.
16. Weed, M., 2006. Sports tourism research 2000-2004: a systematic review of knowledge and a meta-evaluation of methods. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 11 (1), 5-30.
17. Weed, M., 2009a. Research quality in sport and exercise psychology: introduction to the collection. Psychology of sport & exercise, 10 (5), 489-490.
18. Weed, M., 2009b. Progress in sports tourism research? A meta-review and exploration of futures. Tourism management, 30 (5), 615-628.
19. Whittemore, R., Chase, S.K., & Mandle, C.L., 2001. Validity in qualitative research. Qualitative health research, 11 (4), 522-537.