Abstract: This essay ought to relocate discovery at the centre of the research process and problematizes the prevailing research rationales (quantitative/hypothetico-deductive and inductive/qualitative-exploratory) in order to reveal the limited margins that both approaches offer for the conception and detection of discoveries. Finally, the article proposes a series of logics, strategies and techniques for spotting potential discoveries and problematizes the theoretical and technical constraints for their detection and subsequent scientif evaluation. ; Este artículo trata de resituar el descubrimiento como centro del proceso de investigación y problematiza las lógicas de investigación hoy dominantes (cuantitativa/hipotético-deductiva e inductiva/cualitativa-exploratoria), con el objetivo de revelar el limitado margen que ambas aproximaciones ofrecen para la concepción y detección de descubrimientos. El ensayo propone una serie de lógicas, estrategias y técnicas con las que descifrar potenciales descubrimientos y problematiza los condicionantes teóricos y técnicos para su detección y posterior evaluación por pares. ; This essay attempts to relocate discovery at the centre of the research process and problematizes prevailing research rationales (quantitative/hypothetico-deductive and inductive/qualitative-exploratory) in order to reveal the limited margins that both approaches offer for the conception and detection of discoveries. Finally, the article proposes a series of logics, strategies and techniques for decyphering potential discoveries and problematizes the theoretical and technical constraints for their detection and subsequent scientif evaluation.
Relation: https://revistas.ucm.es/index.php/ESMP/article/view/65297/4564456553768; Alvesson, Mats; Gabriel, Yiannis (2013). “Beyond formulaic research: In praise of greater diversity in organizational research and publications”. Academy of Management Learning & Education, vol. 12, n. 2, pp. 245-263. doi:10.5465/amle.2012.0327 Alvesson, Mats; Sandberg, Jörgen (2013). Constructing research questions. Doing interesting research. Londres: Sage. Alvesson, Mats; Sandberg, Jörgen (2014). “Habitat and habitus: Boxed-in versus box-breaking research”. Orga¬nization Studies, vol. 35, n.º 7, pp. 967-987. doi: 0170840614530916. Benoit, William; Holbert, Lance (2008). “Empirical intersections in communication research: Replication, multiple quantitative methods, and bridging the quantitative–qualitative divide”. Journal of Communication, vol. 58, n. 4, pp. 615-628. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00404.x Bergson, Henri (2014). Time and free will: An essay on the immediate data of consciousness. Londres: Routledge. Boster, Franklin (2002). “On making progress in communication science”. Human Communication Research, vol. 28, n. 4., pp. 473-490. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00818.x Campos, Daniel (2011). “On the distinction beween Peirce’s abduction and Lipton’s inference to the best explanation”. Synthese, vol. 180, n. 3, pp. 419-442. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-009-9709-3 Chalmers, Adam (1992). La ciencia y cómo se elabora. Madrid: Siglo XXI. Donsbach, Wolfgang (2006). “The identity of communication research”. Journal of Communication, vol. 56, n. 3, pp. 437-448. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00294.x Fanelli, Daniele (2013). “Redefine misconduct as distorted reporting”. Nature, vol. 494 n. 7436, pp. 149. Fanelli, Daniele (2011). “Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries”, Scientometrics, vol. 90, n. 3, pp. 891-904. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0494-7 Foucault, Michel (1985). The use of pleasure: History of sexuality. Nueva York: Vintage. Gabriel, Yiannis (2010). “Organization studies: A space for ideas, identities and agonies”, Organization Studies, vol. 31, n. 6, pp. 757-775. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840610372574 Goldberg, Amir (2015). “In defense of forensic social science”. Big Data & Society, vol. 2, n. 2, pp. 1-3. doi:10.1177/2053951715601145 Goyanes, Manuel; Rodríguez-Gómez, Eduardo (2018). “¿Por qué publicamos? Prevalencia, motivaciones y consecuencias de publicar o perecer”. El Profesional de la Información, vol. 27, n. 3, pp. 548-558. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2018.may.08 Goyanes, Manuel; Rodríguez-Gómez, Eduardo; Rosique-Cedillo, Gloria (2018). “Investigación en comunicación en revistas científicas en España (2005–2015). De disquisiciones teóricas a investigación basada en evidencias”. El profesional de la información, vol. 27, n. 5, pp. 1281-1291. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2018.nov.11 Goyanes, Manuel (2018). “Against dullness: on what it means to be interesting in communication research”. Information, Communication & Society, pp. 1-18. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1495248 Goyanes, Manuel (2017). Desafío a la Investigación Estándar en Comunicación: Crítica y Alternativas. Bacelona: Editorial UOC. Halford, Susan; Savage, Mike (2017). “Speaking sociologically with big data: symphonic social science and the future for big data research”. Sociology, vol. 51, n. 6, pp. 1132-1148. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038517698639 Harman, Gilbert (1965). “The inference tho the best explanation”. The Philosophical Review, n. 74, pp. 88-95. Hornsey, Matthew; Gallois, Cindy; Duck, Julie (2008). “The intersection of communication and social psychology: Points of contact and points of difference”. Journal of Communication, vol. 58, n. 4, pp. 749-766. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00412.x Kepes, Sven; McDaniel, Michael (2013). “How trustworthy is the scientific literature in industrial and organizational psychology?”. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, vol. 6, n. 3, pp. 252-268. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/iops.12045 Kerr, Norbert (1998). “HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known”. Personality and Social Psychology Review, vol. 2, n. 3, pp. 196-217. Kitchin, Rob (2014). “Big data, new epistemologies and paradigm shifts”. Big Data & Society, pp. 1-6. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951714528481 Kuhn, Thomas (2006). La estructura de las revoluciones científicas. Madrid: Fondo de Cultura Económica. Latour, Bruno; Woolgar, Steve (1986). Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Lee, Icy (2014). “Publish or perish: The myth and reality of academic publishing”, Language teaching, vol. 47, n. 2, pp. 250-261. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444811000504 McMullin, Ernan (1988). Construction and Constraint the Shaping of Scientific Rationality. Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press Merton, Robert (2002). Teoría y estructura sociales. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica. Peirce, Charles (1992). Reasoning and the logic of things. Massachusetts: Harvard Univeristy Press. Petersen, Jessica (2017). “How innovative are editors? Evidence across journals and disciplines”, Research Evaluation, vol. 26, n. 3, pp. 256-268. doi: 0.1093/reseval/rvx015 Pfau, Michael (2008). “Epistemological and disciplinary intersections”. Journal of Communication, vol. 58, n. 4, pp. 597-602. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00414.x Popper, Karl (2008). La lógica de la investigación científica. Madrid: Editorial Tecnos. Popper, Karls (1981). La miseria del historicismo. Madrid: Taurus. Prado, Emili (2017). “Política científica, publicación e internacionalización en el campo de la comunicación en España”. CECS-Publicações/eBooks, 201-215. Reichenback, Hans (1938). Experience and prediction: an análisis for the foundations and the structure of knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Rosenthal, Robert (1979). “The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results”. Psychological bulletin, vol. 86, n. 3, pp. 638-64. Schickore, Jutta (2018). “Scientific Discovery”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Recuperado de: . Schwab, Andreas; Starbuck, William (2016). “Collegial “nests” can foster critical thinking, innovative ideas, and scientific progress”. Strategic Organization, vol. 14, n. 2, pp. 167-177. Sparks, Colin (2018). “Changing Concepts for a Changing World”. Journal of Communication, vol. 68, n. 2, pp. 390-398. doi:10.1093/joc/jqx026 Walter, Nathan; Cody, Michael; Ball-Rokeach, Sandra (2018). “The Ebb and Flow of Communication Research: Seven Decades of Publication Trends and Research Priorities”. Journal of Communication, vol. 68, n. 2, pp. 424-440. doi:10.1093/joc/jqx015 Wasserman, Herman (2018). “Power, Meaning and Geopolitics: Ethics as an Entry Point for Global Communication Studies”. Journal of Communication, vol. 68, n. 2, pp. 441-451. doi:10.1093/joc/jqy001; https://revistas.ucm.es/index.php/ESMP/article/view/65297
Processing Request
No Comments.