What is qualitative research? If we look for a precise definition of qualitative research, and specifically for one that addresses its distinctive feature of being “qualitative,” the literature is meager. In this article we systematically search, identify and analyze a sample of 89 sources using or attempting to define the term “qualitative.” Then, drawing on ideas we find scattered across existing work, and based on Becker’s classic study of marijuana consumption, we formulate and illustrate a definition that tries to capture its core elements. We define qualitative research as an iterative process in which improved understanding to the scientific community is achieved by making new significant distinctions resulting from getting closer to the phenomenon studied. This formulation is developed as a tool to help improve research designs while stressing that a qualitative dimension is present in quantitative work as well. Additionally, it can facilitate teaching, communication between researchers, diminish the gap between qualitative and quantitative researchers, help to address critiques of qualitative methods, and be used as a standard of evaluation of qualitative research.

No abstract

Collaborative circles theory explains how innovative small groups develop and win acceptance of their creative work but assumes a single type of circle and would benefit from considering how circles are affected by the strategic action fields in which they operate. We do so by synthesizing research on art, science, philosophy, and social movements to identify five field characteristics that influence circles and their creative potentials (i.e., attention space, consensus, social control, resources, and organizational and geographical contexts). We then use primary and secondary data on science circles (the Resilience Alliance and Phage Group), combined with previous research on circles and group creativity, to show how field-level differences explain systematic variations in the structure and dynamics of art and science circles. We close by arguing that there exists of a family of circles operating in different fields, formulating a refined definition of circles, and postulating four propositions informing future research.

Abstract.Creativity is a universal activity, essential in an evolutionary perspective, to adaptation and sustainability. This first part of a three part article on the sociology of creativity has three purposes: (1) to develop the argument that key factors in creative activity are socially based and developed; hence, sociology can contribute significantly to understanding and explaining human creativity; (2) to present a sociological systems approach which enables us to link in a systematic and coherent way the disparate social factors and mechanisms that are involved in creative activity and to describe and explain creativity; and (3) to illustrate a sociological systems theory's conceptualization of multiple interrelated institutional, cultural, and interaction factors and their role in creativity and innovative development in diverse empirical instances.The article introduces and applies a model stressing the social embeddedness of innovative agents and entrepreneurs, either as individuals or groups, as they manipulate symbols, rules, technologies, and materials that are socially derived and developed. Their motivation for doing what they do derives in part from their social roles and positions, in part in response to the incentives and opportunities -many socially constructed -shaping their interaction situations and domains. Their capabilities including their social powers derive from the culturally and institutional frameworks in which they are embedded. In carrying out their actions, agents mobilize resources including technologies through the institutions and networks in which they participate. Following this theoretical part, Parts II and III focus on the concrete conditions and mechanisms characteristic of the "context of innovation" and the "context of receptivity and institutionalization", respectively.Keywords: Creativity, innovative development, system theories, sociology, psychology, agency, rule regime, creativity production function, context of creativity, context of receptivity and selectivity Tom R. Burns (Professor Emeritus of Sociology at Uppsala University, Sweden and Research Associate of the Lisbon University Institute (ISCTE), Portugal) has published internationally more than 15 books and 150 articles in substantive areas of governance and politics, environment and technology, administration and policymaking; also he has contributed to institutional theory, sociological game theory, theories of socio-cultural evolution and social systems.

Highlights A novel semantic analysis offers insight into the diversity of scientific publications. Synthesis center publications are more topically diverse than others. Article diversity is strongly and negatively related to a paper's visibility (measured using citations).

Abstract. This is Part II of a three-part article. The article is predicated on the principle that creativity is a universal activity, essential in an evolutionary perspective, to adaptation and sustainability. This manuscript on the sociology of creativity has three purposes: (1) to develop the argument that key factors in creative activity are socially based and developed; hence, sociology can contribute significantly to understanding and explaining human creativity; (2) to present a systems approach which enables us to link in a systematic and coherent way the disparate social factors and mechanisms that are involved in creative activity and to describe and explain creativity; (3) to illustrate sociological systems theory's (Actor-Systems-Dynamics) conceptualization of multiple interrelated institutional, cultural, and interaction factors and mechanisms and their role in creativity and innovative developments in diverse empirical instances.The preceding segment of this article, Part I, introduced a general model of innovation and creative development stressing the socio-cultural and political embeddedness of agents, either as individuals or groups, in their creative activities and innovative productions.This second part, Part II, investigates the "context of innovation and discovery" considering applications and illustrations ranging from, for instance: (i) "the independent innovator or entrepreneur" who exercises creativity based on absorbing a field of knowledge, concepts, challenges, problems, solution strategies, creativity production functions or programs (and who is likely to be in contact with libraries, relevant journals and may be directly or indirectly in contact with a network of others); (ii) groups in their particular fields operating greenhouse types of organization driving problem-solving and creative activities -both self-organizing groups as well as groups established by external powers (whether a private company, a government, or a non-government organization or movement); (iii) entire societies undergoing transformations and radical development as in the industrial and later revolutions. Part III of this article investigates and analyzes "the context of receptivity, selection, and institutionalization" of novelty.

A glance across ethnographic methods terrain reveals multiple controversies and divisive critiques. When training graduate students, these debates and controversies can be consequential. We offer suggestions for teaching graduate ethnographic methods courses that, first, help students understand some of the common epistemological debates in the field and, second, provide them with hands-on activities to practice working within different knowledge traditions. Our ultimate goal is to offer graduate students a way to think productively about some common differences and controversies in the field. We formulate a metaphor that we call “form and flow,” and we see the first (or “tough-minded,” normal, and traditional approaches) and the latter (or tender-minded and disruptive styles) as patterns or movements within and across ethnographic traditions. Once students can grasp the different claims in these approaches and practice working within these traditions, we argue that they can become better prepared for their place in a diverse discipline.

Game theory can be viewed as an important contribution to multi-agent modeling, with widespread applications in economics and other social sciences. This paper presents two distinct approaches to extending-sociologizing-classical game theory: firstly, a system/institutional approach-social science game theory (SGT), and secondly, Erving Goffman's interactionist approach (I-game theory). The two approaches are presented and compared; they are also contrasted with the classical theory. The article ends by concluding that due to the social science game theory, sociologists and social scientists are no longer forced into the classical straightjacket with its hyper-rationality, anomic players, and the absence of any social fabric (institutional and cultural formations). Moreover, the new game theory offers a reliable toolbox of social science concepts and methods for describing, analyzing, and explaining highly diverse interaction phenomena. We claim that those two approaches have already proved themselves useful for investigating and modeling a variety of interaction processes including cooperation, conflict, and negotiation.