نشریه عیار پژوهش در علوم انسانی
سال سوم شماره 2 (پیاپی 6، پاییز و زمستان 1390)

Is hypothesis, which is an important answer that a well-informed and experienced researcher gives in response to the question of research, necessary for all kind of research? In order to answer this question we have to, first of all, know the features and constituents of a "scientific research". Research methodologists have made some observations and suggestions in several occasions and different discussions to show that a hypothesis is not necessary for all kinds of research, and that it is basically impossible to accept a hypothesis in some cases. Relying on first-hand sources in "research method", the present paper tries to provide evidence for this issue which shows the difference between the various kinds of research. Researchers think that descriptive and exploratory type of research are different from explanatory ones and involve hypothesis only in explanatory researches. They believe that there is no need for a hypothesis in descriptive research and that it is impossible to have a hypothesizing in exploratory research.

In social research, we need to have knowledge and proficiency in scientific methodologies and way of researching in order to identify and then solve the problems. Qualitative and quantitative types of research, which have different paradigmatic bases, determine these ways. In either of the qualitative and quantitative approaches, different tools and methods are required to conduct research. One of these methods is content analysis. Initially, content analysis was mostly used for measuring variables. In the middle of the twentieth century, qualitative approaches in content analysis had developed. Qualitative content analysis can be a kind of research method that contributes to the content interpretation of data. According to Hsieh's and Shanon's theory, the approaches in qualitative content analysis can be divided into three kinds: conventional content analysis, directed content analysis and summative content analysis. Given this, the present paper contrasts these three approaches and investigates the basic principles of this method and how to rely on it.

A qualitative method is one of the main methodological paradigms versus positive paradigm in sociology. Due to the essential features of this method on the one hand and its novelty in Iran's academic and scientific circles on the other hand this method has not gained its proper position in Iran's academic and research circles so far. The dominance of positivistic method has led to considering the activities done through qualitative method to be lacking necessary accuracy and perfection and qualitative methods to be facing different challenges. One of the main challenges is the challenge of quality management, or to put it loosely, the criterion of measuring the validity in qualitative research method. Therefore, the present paper tries to explore ethnography (as the most qualitative method) and grounded theory (as an intermediary method between qualitative and positive methods). It has been proved that in ethnography quality management is a product of a clear conception of the meaning from the view of the actor and in the grounded theory it is the product of exact way of going through theorization stages.

The present paper is mainly concerned with the methodology of Mohammad 'Abid Al-Jabiri, a contemporary Arab thinker and intellectual. Regarding his effect on modern Arabic - Islamic culture in Arab countries, this paper tries to investigate his method and understand the origins of his way of thinking and the prerequisites and indications of his views in different intellectual realms. The research uses a analytical-rational method. The existential backgrounds, theoretical principles, and different aspects of his methodology were explained. The research concludes that Jabiri uses an integrative method in exploring his thoughts and viewpoints and clearly follows a hermeneutic philosophical method in his works. Finally, some of the applications and indications of his methodology are mentioned.

A collaborative work is a type of cooperation among individuals to achieve a certain goal. Regarding the interaction among individuals, a group work requires several important elements including manpower, special method of interaction among them, and having someone to lead individuals. The present paper addresses a case study on Qom Seminary students and investigates the differences between individual's interaction in the collaborative work and reviews the obstacles for developing collaborative cooperation in researching into Islamic sciences. Among the variables which this research discusses are individualism, downgrading of social status by collaborative work, group team lacking of work training programs and lack of the structures which bridge the gap between individuals and scientific associations. The survey is based on field work research and on data gathered from a sample selected and analyzed according to a theoretical socio-psychological framework. An investigation into the sample data shows that there is a direct and positive relationship between group work training and socialization in a collective cooperation atmosphere on one hand and the tendency towards collective cooperation in researching into religious sciences on the other hand.

Every society needs to continuously study and analyze the progress and effects of social plans. This can be attained through evaluation, which constitutes one of the important elements of every model of sound planning. One of the most important questions raised about evaluation is: How far has the plan been successful in achieving the goals? The evaluation of effectiveness provides the answer to this question. However, the evaluation of the effectiveness of social plans faces some challenges which have made it difficult to achieve. Using a descriptive-analytical method, the present paper, pointing out to these challenges, makes explicit the modus operands for conducting it. In brief, the conceptual understanding of effectiveness, way of evaluation and determining the appropriate criteria for it in social plans are considered among the most important fresh challenges. The most appropriate modus operand for testing the effectiveness of such plans is the evaluation of their social effects in immediate environment.