A Critical Approach to Modern Conception in the Context of Objectivity and Quantitative Method
The struggle between modern and postmodern
understanding is also displayed in terms of the superiorities of
quantitative and qualitative methods to each other which are
evaluated within the scope of these understandings. By way of
assuming that the quantitative researches (modern) are able to
account for structure while the qualitative researches (postmodern)
explain the process, these methods are turned into a means for
worldviews specific to a period. In fact, process is not a functioning
independent of structure. In addition to this issue, the ability of
quantitative methods to provide scientific knowledge is also
controversial so long as they exclude the dialectical method. For this
reason, the critiques charged against modernism in terms of
quantitative methods are, in a sense, legitimate. Nevertheless, the
main issue is in which parameters postmodernist critique tries to
legitimize its critiques and whether these parameters represent a point
of view enabling democratic solutions.
In this respect, the scientific knowledge covered in Turkish media
as a means through which ordinary people have access to scientific
knowledge will be evaluated by means of content analysis within a
new objectivity conception.
[1] D. Ergun, Sociology in 100 Questions. Istanbul: K Bookstore, 2003,
p.178.
[2] B. Cotuksoken, Understanding Philosophy, Understanding with
Philosophy. Istanbul: Inkilap, 2001, p.101.
[3] M. Sanchez, ''Agenda Setting'', zimmer.
csufresno.edu/~johnca/spch100/7-4-agenda.htm, Spring, 2002
[4] B. Cotuksoken, Philosophy: Subject-Discourse. Istanbul: Inkilap, 2002,
p. 207.
[5] B. Cotuksoken, Philosophy: Subject-Discourse. Istanbul: Inkilap, 2002,
p. 207.
[6] O. Hancerlioglu, The Dictonary of Philosophy. 3. Edition. Istanbul:
Remzi, 1975, p.97.
[7] S. Hilav, The History of Dialect Thinking. 2. Edition. Istanbul: Sosyal,
2003, p. 231.
[8] A. Denkel, The Principles of Knowledge. 2. Edition. Istanbul: Metis,
1998, p. 13.
[9] O. Hancerlioglu, The Dictonary of Philosophy. 3. Edition. Istanbul:
Remzi, 1975, p.100.
[10] O. Hancerlioglu, The Dictonary of Philosophy. 3. Edition. Istanbul:
Remzi, 1975, p.110.
[11] E. Mahcupyan, Ideologies and Modernity. Istanbul: Patika, 2000, p. 46.
[12] O. Hancerlioglu, Thinking History. 13. Edition. Istanbul: Remzi, 2007,
p.344.
[13] G. Saylan, Postmodernism. Istanbul: Imge, 1999, p. 153-154.
[14] H. Arendth, Between Past and Future. Transl. B.S. Sener, 2. Edition.
Istanbul: Iletisim, 2004, p. 313.
[15] D. Ergun, Finding Method. 2. Edition. Ankara: Imge, 2006, p. 134.
[16] B. Kumbetoglu, Qualitative Method and Research in the Field of
Sociology and Anthropology. 2. Edition. Istanbul: Baglam, 2008, p. 34.
[17] T. Bas, U. Akturan, Qualitative Research Methods. Ankara: Seckin,
2008, p. 20.
[18] B. Kumbetoglu, Qualitative Method and Research in the Field of
Sociology and Anthropology. 2. Edition. Istanbul: Baglam, 2008, p. 34.
[19] R. Altunisik, R. Cockun, S. Bayraktaroglu, E. Yildirim, Research
Methodologies in Social Sciences. 3. Edition. Sakarya: Sakarya, 2004,
p. 4.
[20] R. Altunisik, R. Coskun, S. Bayraktaroglu, E. Yildirim, Research
Methodologies in Social Sciences. 3. Edition. Sakarya: Sakarya, 2004,
p. 5.
[21] P. Feyerabend, Against Method. Transl. E. Baser. Istanbul: Ayrinti,
1999, p. 148.
[22] H. Reichenbach, The Rise of Scientific Philoposhy. Transl. C, Yildirim,
3. Edition. Ankara: Bilgi, 2000, p. 126.
[23] N. Hartmann, The Knowledge in the Light of Ontology. Transl. H.
Tepe. Ankara: Philosophical Society of Turkey, 1998, p. 30.
[24] G. Saylan, Postmodernism. Istanbul: Imge, 1999, p. 253.
[25] E. Yildizoglu, Long Live Modernist Reflexion. Istanbul: Telos, 1997,
p. 175.
[26] E. Yildizoglu, Long Live Modernist Reflexion. Istanbul: Telos, 1997,
p. 175.
[27] G. Saylan, Postmodernism. Istanbul: Imge, 1999, p. 261.
[28] G. Saylan, Postmodernism. Istanbul: Imge, 1999, p. 261.
[29] A. Yaraman, Social Change and Personality Characteristics. Istanbul:
Baglam, 2003, pp.74-75.
[1] D. Ergun, Sociology in 100 Questions. Istanbul: K Bookstore, 2003,
p.178.
[2] B. Cotuksoken, Understanding Philosophy, Understanding with
Philosophy. Istanbul: Inkilap, 2001, p.101.
[3] M. Sanchez, ''Agenda Setting'', zimmer.
csufresno.edu/~johnca/spch100/7-4-agenda.htm, Spring, 2002
[4] B. Cotuksoken, Philosophy: Subject-Discourse. Istanbul: Inkilap, 2002,
p. 207.
[5] B. Cotuksoken, Philosophy: Subject-Discourse. Istanbul: Inkilap, 2002,
p. 207.
[6] O. Hancerlioglu, The Dictonary of Philosophy. 3. Edition. Istanbul:
Remzi, 1975, p.97.
[7] S. Hilav, The History of Dialect Thinking. 2. Edition. Istanbul: Sosyal,
2003, p. 231.
[8] A. Denkel, The Principles of Knowledge. 2. Edition. Istanbul: Metis,
1998, p. 13.
[9] O. Hancerlioglu, The Dictonary of Philosophy. 3. Edition. Istanbul:
Remzi, 1975, p.100.
[10] O. Hancerlioglu, The Dictonary of Philosophy. 3. Edition. Istanbul:
Remzi, 1975, p.110.
[11] E. Mahcupyan, Ideologies and Modernity. Istanbul: Patika, 2000, p. 46.
[12] O. Hancerlioglu, Thinking History. 13. Edition. Istanbul: Remzi, 2007,
p.344.
[13] G. Saylan, Postmodernism. Istanbul: Imge, 1999, p. 153-154.
[14] H. Arendth, Between Past and Future. Transl. B.S. Sener, 2. Edition.
Istanbul: Iletisim, 2004, p. 313.
[15] D. Ergun, Finding Method. 2. Edition. Ankara: Imge, 2006, p. 134.
[16] B. Kumbetoglu, Qualitative Method and Research in the Field of
Sociology and Anthropology. 2. Edition. Istanbul: Baglam, 2008, p. 34.
[17] T. Bas, U. Akturan, Qualitative Research Methods. Ankara: Seckin,
2008, p. 20.
[18] B. Kumbetoglu, Qualitative Method and Research in the Field of
Sociology and Anthropology. 2. Edition. Istanbul: Baglam, 2008, p. 34.
[19] R. Altunisik, R. Cockun, S. Bayraktaroglu, E. Yildirim, Research
Methodologies in Social Sciences. 3. Edition. Sakarya: Sakarya, 2004,
p. 4.
[20] R. Altunisik, R. Coskun, S. Bayraktaroglu, E. Yildirim, Research
Methodologies in Social Sciences. 3. Edition. Sakarya: Sakarya, 2004,
p. 5.
[21] P. Feyerabend, Against Method. Transl. E. Baser. Istanbul: Ayrinti,
1999, p. 148.
[22] H. Reichenbach, The Rise of Scientific Philoposhy. Transl. C, Yildirim,
3. Edition. Ankara: Bilgi, 2000, p. 126.
[23] N. Hartmann, The Knowledge in the Light of Ontology. Transl. H.
Tepe. Ankara: Philosophical Society of Turkey, 1998, p. 30.
[24] G. Saylan, Postmodernism. Istanbul: Imge, 1999, p. 253.
[25] E. Yildizoglu, Long Live Modernist Reflexion. Istanbul: Telos, 1997,
p. 175.
[26] E. Yildizoglu, Long Live Modernist Reflexion. Istanbul: Telos, 1997,
p. 175.
[27] G. Saylan, Postmodernism. Istanbul: Imge, 1999, p. 261.
[28] G. Saylan, Postmodernism. Istanbul: Imge, 1999, p. 261.
[29] A. Yaraman, Social Change and Personality Characteristics. Istanbul:
Baglam, 2003, pp.74-75.
@article{"International Journal of Business, Human and Social Sciences:56299", author = "Sergun Kurtoglu", title = "A Critical Approach to Modern Conception in the Context of Objectivity and Quantitative Method", abstract = "The struggle between modern and postmodern
understanding is also displayed in terms of the superiorities of
quantitative and qualitative methods to each other which are
evaluated within the scope of these understandings. By way of
assuming that the quantitative researches (modern) are able to
account for structure while the qualitative researches (postmodern)
explain the process, these methods are turned into a means for
worldviews specific to a period. In fact, process is not a functioning
independent of structure. In addition to this issue, the ability of
quantitative methods to provide scientific knowledge is also
controversial so long as they exclude the dialectical method. For this
reason, the critiques charged against modernism in terms of
quantitative methods are, in a sense, legitimate. Nevertheless, the
main issue is in which parameters postmodernist critique tries to
legitimize its critiques and whether these parameters represent a point
of view enabling democratic solutions.
In this respect, the scientific knowledge covered in Turkish media
as a means through which ordinary people have access to scientific
knowledge will be evaluated by means of content analysis within a
new objectivity conception.", keywords = "knowledge and objectivity, dialectic method,qualitative and quantitative methods, modernism/postmodernism.", volume = "4", number = "6", pages = "987-9", }