The Open UniversitySkip to content
 

Glossing inadequacies: problems with definitions of key concepts in some methodology texts

Hammersley, Martyn (2016). Glossing inadequacies: problems with definitions of key concepts in some methodology texts. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 19(6) pp. 731–737.

DOI (Digital Object Identifier) Link: https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2015.1093373
Google Scholar: Look up in Google Scholar

Abstract

It is argued in this paper that a significant number of definitions of terms provided in currently available methodological texts are inadequate or positively misleading. Some do not cover the main meaning of the term but focus instead on a non-standard one. Others fail to pick out the distinctive features of what is being defined. There are also those that fail to indicate relationships to related terms or those with similar meanings. Finally, there are some definitions that are simply incorrect in significant respects. It is argued that defective definitions are worse than useless and are a disservice to students.

Item Type: Journal Item
Copyright Holders: 2015 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
ISSN: 1464-5300
Keywords: Definitions of key methodological terms: semantic failings of methodology texts
Academic Unit/School: Faculty of Wellbeing, Education and Language Studies (WELS)
Research Group: Centre for Research in Education and Educational Technology (CREET)
Item ID: 48235
Depositing User: Martyn Hammersley
Date Deposited: 20 Jan 2017 14:59
Last Modified: 04 Jun 2018 14:20
URI: http://oro.open.ac.uk/id/eprint/48235
Share this page:

Metrics

Altmetrics from Altmetric

Citations from Dimensions

Actions (login may be required)

Policies | Disclaimer

© The Open University   contact the OU