Analysis of pluralistic methodology and tools in research papers of FaslnameKetabe Iran from 1385 - 1389

Subject Areas : Journal of Knowledge Studies

Firoozeh  Dokhani ¹ (PHD student of knowledge and Information science in Azad university)
Atefeh  Zarei ² (Faculty of Azad university of Hamadan)
fahimeh  babalhavaeji ³ (Faculty knowledge and Information science in Azad university)

Received: 2013-05-05 Accepted : 2013-08-16 Published : 2014-11-22

Keywords: pluralistic methods, pluralistic tools, research papers, FaslnameKetab Iran,

Abstract :

Purpose: The purpose of this research is analysis of pluralistic methodology and tools in research papers of FaslnameKetabe Iran from 1385 _ 1389. and discussion communication of them to gather and with articles ‘ author. Methodology: This article is performed by using content analysis method and. The population was 161 of articles in FaslnameKetabe. Findings: Among161 research papers only 59 cases (36.46%) have benefited of pluralistic methodology and 12 cases (7.4%) of pluralistic tool.So can be said that in this papers pluralistic method and tool have been used very little. Conclusion : According to the results of Kay square test there is a significant relationship between pluralistic method and tool. While, there isn’t significant relationship between authors’ grade in charge of science and education and selection of used methods and tools in research.

References:

افتخاری، س.؛ چشمه سهرابی، م. (1389). ارزیابی کمی و کیفی نشریه کتابداری و اطلاع رسانی آستان قدس رضوی از بهار 1377 تا بهار 1387. فصل­نامه کتابداری و اطلاع رسانی، (51)

پاول، ر. (1385). روش­های اساسی پژوهش برای کتابداران. مترجم نجلا حریری، تهران: دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد علوم و تحقیقات تهران مرکز انتشارات علمی.

دانائی فرد، ح.؛ مظفری، ز. (1387). ارتقاء روایی و پایایی در پژوهش­های کیفی مدیریتی :تأملی بر استراتژی­های ممیزی پژوهشی. پژوهش‌هایمدیریت. 1(1)،162-131.

فقیهی، ا.؛ بامداد صوفی، ج.(1378). کثرت گرایی روش تحقیق در پژوهش­های سازمانی. فصل­نامه مطالعات مدیریت،  بهار و تابستان( 21و22).

قراملکی، ا. (1383). از کثرت­گرایی تا جهان شمولی معرفت، مقالات و بررسی‌ها، دفتر 76 (2). فلسفه، پاییز و زمستان 83 ، 53 - 67.

لیتل، د. (1373). تبیین در علوم اجتماعی. ترجمه‏ی عبد الکریم سروش. صراط. فصل یازدهم، 399-373.

Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (1994). Introduction:Entering the field of qualitative research. In Denzin, Norman &Linaoln, Yvonna.Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Qaks: Sage, p.6.

Fidel , R. (2008). Are we there yet?: Mixed methods research in library and information science. Library & Information Science Research, 30 , 265–272. Available online 12 October 2008.

Flick, U. (1992).Triangulation revisited: strategy of validation or alternative ?.Journal of the theory of social behavior, 22, 194.

Janesick, V. (1994). The Dance of qualitative research design. InDenzin, Norman &Loincoln, Y vonna.Hanbook of qualitative research. Thousand oaks: sage, p.251.

Jarvelin ,K. ; Vakkari , P . The Evolution Of Library And Information Science 1965  1985 : A Content Analysis of GournalArticles. Information Processing & Management , 29 ( 1) , 129_ 144.

Jazmic ,P. ; Urbanija , J. (2003). Developing research skills in library and information science studies . Library Management . 24 (6/7).

Little , D. ( 1373 ) .Explanation in the Social Science , Translation by SoroushAbd al _ Karimi , Serat , Chapter 11 ,373 _ 399

Mingers, J.( 2001). Combining IS Research Methods: Towards   a Pluralist Methodology. Information Systems Research, 12( 3), 240–259

Morse, J.M. (1999). Myth#93: Reliability and validity and not  relevomt to qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Health Research, 9, 717.

Sechrest, L., &Sidana, S. (1995). Quantitative and qualitative methods: Is there an alternative?.EvaluationandProgram Planning,  18(1) , January–March 1995, 77–87. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/.

Van De Water ;Nancy and others ( 1976 ).  Research in  information science : An assessment information processing and management. 12( 2), 117 _123