中文体育类核心期刊

中国人文社会科学期刊AMI综合评价(A刊)核心期刊

《中文社会科学引文索引》(CSSCI)来源期刊

美国《剑桥科学文摘》(CSA)收录期刊

中国高校百佳科技期刊

专家组.体育学质性与量化研究:差异、误区与应对[J].上海体育大学学报,2024,48(4):1-12. DOI: 10.16099/j.sus.2023.12.30.0012
引用本文: 专家组.体育学质性与量化研究:差异、误区与应对[J].上海体育大学学报,2024,48(4):1-12. DOI: 10.16099/j.sus.2023.12.30.0012
Expert Panel. Differences, Misunderstandings and Countermeasures: Qualitative and Quantitative Studies in Sports Science[J]. Journal of Shanghai University of Sport, 2024, 48(4): 1-12. DOI: 10.16099/j.sus.2023.12.30.0012
Citation: Expert Panel. Differences, Misunderstandings and Countermeasures: Qualitative and Quantitative Studies in Sports Science[J]. Journal of Shanghai University of Sport, 2024, 48(4): 1-12. DOI: 10.16099/j.sus.2023.12.30.0012

体育学质性与量化研究:差异、误区与应对

Differences, Misunderstandings and Countermeasures: Qualitative and Quantitative Studies in Sports Science

  • 摘要: 为提升体育学研究方法应用的科学性和规范性,助力体育学良性发展,本刊组织国内5名学者对体育学质性与量化研究的差异、应用误区与应对策略进行专题研讨。清华大学胡孝乾认为,质性与量化研究存在直观性、操作性、本质性3个层面的差异,直观性差异是2类研究本质差异的外在显现,操作性差异是判断质性或量化研究的直接标准,本质性差异不仅导致了上述2种差异,而且是社会科学研究者选用哪一种研究方法的根本原因。上海体育大学熊欢认为,在体育学质性研究中存在认识层面、研究设计层面、逻辑推理层面和操作层面等四重误区,在使用或评估具体质性研究时,需要考虑其设计、执行和分析的整体性,以及如何在特定的研究背景中应用其发现。国家体育总局体育科学研究所王富百慧认为,在体育学量化研究能力有待提升的同时,应保持对体育学研究中“量化至上”倾向的警醒,体育学量化研究的逻辑起点是思想与方法的平衡,既要用科学的方法研究问题,更要时刻保持理论反思的态度。上海师范大学李刚认为,当前我国体育学量化研究主要在样本数据、指标设定、计量模型、结果解读等方面存在问题,体育学研究者应树立信心、苦练内功、立足现实、坚持操守。首都体育学院李骁天认为,我国体育社会科学研究方法应用主要存在理论基础薄弱、研究设计缺陷、模型选择偏误等问题,增强问题意识导向及中国体育社会科学理论创新是提升研究质量的首要步骤,同时应加强因果推断方法和数据挖掘的应用以及跨学科方法的融合。

     

    Abstract: For the purpose of improving the scientific and normative research methods applied in sports science to promote its benign development, 5 scholars were invited by the journal to discuss the differences, misunderstandings and countermeasures in the qualitative and quantitative research of sports science. HU Xiaoqian of Tsinghua University holds that there exist differences at intuitive, operational, and essential levels in the qualitative and quantitative research. While intuitive difference is the external manifestation of these two researches, operational difference is the direct standard to judge them, and essential difference not only leads to the two differences above, but is the root cause for social science researchers to choose which research method should be adopted. XIONG Huan from Shanghai University of Sport believes that four misunderstandings appear in the qualitative research of sports science, namely, cognition, research design, logical reasoning and operation. When using or evaluating specific qualitative research, it is necessary to consider the integrity of its design, execution and analysis, as well as the applications of its findings in certain research background. WANG Fubaihui from China Institute of Sport Science insists that we should be alert to the tendency of "quantitative first" in sports science research when the quantitative research ability is expected to be improved. The logical starting point of quantitative research is the balance between thought and methods, hence on one hand we should use scientific methods, and maintain the attitude of theoretical reflection on the other hand. LI Gang from Shanghai Normal University thinks that, at present, the quantitative research of sports science in China mainly has problems in sample data, index setting, measurement model and result interpretation. Therefore, researchers should build up confidence, practice internal skills, base themselves on reality and adhere to ethics. LI Xiaotian from Capital University of Physical Education and Sports holds that there exist such problems in sports science research as weak theoretical foundation, research design defects, model selection bias, etc. Therefore, the first step to improve the quality of research should be to strengthen problem consciousness and innovate Chinese sports science theory. At the same time, it is necessary to improve the causal inference method, the application of data mining and the integration of interdisciplinary methods.

     

/

返回文章
返回