فصلنامه روش شناسی علوم انسانی
پیاپی 108 (پاییز 1400)

Entrepreneurship in tourism as an emerging discipline, but with increasing growth, has attracted the attention of scholars of various disciplines through their interdisciplinary background. Research in this area, however, faces the same methodological and research weaknesses, and the results do not pave the way for entrepreneurs and policymakers. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and analyze the methodology of studies in this field using meta-analysis. Statistical population includes all articles published in domestic journals in the field of tourism entrepreneurship. Sampling was done through a whole-body method and 44 articles were selected. The methodology of Sanders et al. introduced and used to evaluate and analyze the articles. The results show that research in this field is mainly conducted in the positivist paradigm, since entrepreneurship in tourism is in the conceptualization and theorizing stage, research in this field requires fundamental orientations with exploratory goals, qualitative and synthetic approaches, grounded theory strategies, and comparative and deductive approaches. Finally, suggestions for future research are presented.

In this paper, the philosophy of post-phenomenology has been discussed. Post-phenomenology is a new approach in the philosophy of technology, which especially emphasizes the role of technology in changing human experiences and perceptions. First, the relationship between post-phenomenology and phenomenology and then the relationship between post-phenomenology and pragmatism is mentioned. It has been stated that post-phenomenology is a philosophy combined with pragmatism and classical phenomenology. Post-phenomenology, while retaining some features of classical phenomenology and setting aside some other features, including the emphasis on opposition to essentialism, has led to the philosophy being called a kind of pragmatic phenomenology. In the following, Post-phenomenological research methods are discussed, in this regard, methods are introduced and discussed, which include methods such as interviewing participants, observing participants, reporting first-person experiences, interviewing objects, and Robert Rosenberger's proposed method. All of these methods ultimately examine the relationship between humans and technologies and the changes that result from these relationships in different ways.

Over the past decade, we have increasingly realized that when we try to replicate the data which are published in influential scientific journals, the initial results are not obtained. In other words, the stated findings of the articles which are published in the experimental sciences, including medicine and psychology, are generally invalid. This phenomenon has led to a crisis in the experimental sciences, known in 2012 as the "replication crisis." In the present article, first, the crisis is introduced and a brief account of the opinions of the scientists about the severity of the crisis is produced. Then, five possible causes for its occurrence are introduced. The claim of the article is that the most important cause for the crisis of reproducibility of scientific results of academic articles should be sought in the wrong policies of the academic institute or funding bodies of putting pressure on scientists to publish articles (publish or perish). In the final section, some solutions, corresponding to the five causes which are identified, to alleviate the crisis are presented . Two of these solutions, namely, expanding the domain of the “open science” and secondly, reducing the role of articles in assessing the competence of researchers and academics are introduced as the main strategies to alleviate the crisis.

The present article seeks to analyze the basic patterns of modern management and to provide a comparative model of Islamic management based on the global foundations of management philosophy. To this end, first the global model of producing management paradigm was explained, then the following Islamic principles were applied to obtain a specific adaptive model of Islamic management. During the research process, the philosophical paradigms of modern management were first extracted and categorized from international sources. The findings of this classification show that the ontological paradigms of ontology and epistemology coexist in most management schools and are the basis for distinguishing different management schools from each other. Also, this systematic classification can lead to the extraction of a comprehensive global model for the production of the management paradigm. The research method in this research is comparative. Comparative study is in fact a method of study that puts phenomena together and analyzes them in order to enumerate the points of difference and similarity. Finally, Islamic ontological and epistemological foundations were comparatively placed in a paradigmatic model and a specific paradigmatic model of Islamic management was extracted. This model is formed based on the creation-divine ontology and the divine-theological epistemology.

Dilthey has sought to turn Kant's "critique of pure reason" into a "critique of historical reason" in the humanities, in order to provide both an independent position for the humanities and a new meaning of objectivity in this field. Gadamer rebuked him with his critiques, claiming that Dilthey had fallen into the trap of scientific objectivity and had unconsciously followed the tradition of Neokantism, which was prevalent in his day; despite his historical thinking, Dilthey has not been faithful to all the tools and results of this thinking in his system of thought. In this article, we show how the foundation of the living world and the dilthey hermeneutic method are laid out in "history". The relation between "history", "erlebnis" and, ultimately, "hermeneutics" is the relation between "appearance and interior", which due to man's infinity, his relation to history and historical self-consciousness have found such a distinction, "history" is the "erlebnis" in unarticulated position and "erlebnis" is the same as "history" in the field of openness; "Hermeneutics" is also the logic of this relation and knowledge that has changed this appearance and interior from the position of "conciseness and presence" to the position of "detail and achievement"; Of course, in the light of such a view, what guarantees the objectivity and objective position of the (human) sciences is neither man, nor the erlebnis, nor history.

One of Searle's most important philosophical endeavors is to resolve the new conflicts that have arisen in the field of philosophy of mind. For this reason, as a philosopher of the mind, he seeks to address the challenges that the findings of biological neuroscience poes to purely philosophical metaphysics. The main purpose of this article is to examine Searle's view on the subject and the author's aim is to show that Searle's ontological explanation is intentionally problematic based on the approach of physicalism, although he uses sound methods and premises. This study has been done in two general axes. First, Searle's view of intentionality is explained and examined, then how he responds to conflicts arising from the naturalistic biological neurology. Examining Searle,s view and paying attention to the criticisms we have made of his view , it is clear that even if there is no challenge between the topics of biological neurology and the metaphysical discussion of intent- which is itself a point of connection- the will does not seem to be Searl's philosophical science is sufficient to solve this challenge.