Arbor, Vol 194, No 787 (2018)

¿Hubo un 68 científico? Su repercusión en action research y mixing methods

José Andrés-Gallego
Instituto de Historia, CSIC, España


El autor se plantea si hubo un “68 científico” y se centra en dos aspectos que corresponden a dos propuestas metodológicas definidas en los años cuarenta y cincuenta del siglo XX con las expresiones “action research” y “mixing methods”, aplicadas especialmente en las ciencias sociales. En la primera, el clima creado en torno a los sucesos de 1968 contribuyó a acentuar el sentido participativo que tenía, por definición, la “action research”; es decir: la importancia de que las personas investigadas participen en la elaboración, ejecución y aplicación de esa misma investigación que se hace sobre ellas. Se apelaba ante todo al fondo democrático y antiautoritario que latía en esa propuesta y que se había convertido en parte del clima general dominante en aquellos días. La repercusión del propio 68 en “mixing methods” se centró, por su parte, en el estudio de lo ocurrido (el estudio del 68 por tanto), sobre todo desde el punto de vista sociológico y desde el de la psicología social planteada sobre la base de “mixing methods”. El autor se detiene en la propuesta de Norman Denzin; pero, tanto en el caso del “mixing methods” como en el de la “action research”, se remonta a sus respectivos orígenes inmediatos y, por tanto, a las propuestas que partieron principalmente de Kurt Lewin y la escuela de Chicago.

Palabras clave

Mixed methods; action research; mayo del 68; Kurt Lewin; Norman Denzin

Texto completo:



Ali, T. and Watkins, S. (1998). 1968: Marching in the streets. New York: The Free Press.

Back, K. W. (1992). This Business of Topology. Journal of Social Issues, 48 (2), pp. 51-66.

Bargal, D., Gold, M. and Lewin, M. (1992). Introduction: The Heritage of Kurt Lewin. Journal of Social Issues, 48 (2), pp. 3-14.

Barker, J. (2015). Missed encounter Althusser-Mao-Spinoza. Angelaki-Journal of the Theoretical Humanities, 20 (4), pp. 71-89.

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic Interactionism. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Brannick, T. and Coghlan, D. (2007). In defense of being “native”: The case for insider academic research. Organizational Research Methods, 10 (1), pp. 59-74.

Bryman, A. (2004). Social research methods (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Campbell, D. T. and Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56 (2), pp. 81-105.

Campbell, D. T. and Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: R. McNally.

Collier, J. (1945). United States Indian administration as a laboratory of ethnic relations. Social Research, 12 (3), pp. 265-303.

Coplin, W. D. and Kegley, Ch. W. (eds.) (1971). A Multi-method introduction to international politics: Observation, Explanation, and Prescription. Chicago: Markham Publishing Company.

Denzin, N. K. (1970/1989). The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Denzin, N. K. (comp.). (1970a). Sociological Methods: A Sourcebook. Chicago: Aldine Transaction.

Denzin, N. K. (1970b). The Values of Social Science. Chicago: Aldine Pub. Co.

Denzin, N. K. (1971). The Logic of Naturalistic Inquiry. Social Forces, 50 (2), pp. 166-182.

Denzin, N. K. (1992). Symbolic Interactionism and Cultural Studies: The Politics of Interpretation. Oxford: Blackwell.

Denzin, N. K. (2012). Triangulation 2.0. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6 (2), pp. 80-88.

Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. and Smith, L. T. (eds.). (2008) Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Dewey, J. (1934/2005). Art as experience. London: Penguin.

Eikeland, O. (2007). From epistemology to gnoseology – Understanding the knowledge claimed of action research. Management Research News, 30 (5), pp. 344-358.

Eikeland, O. and Nicolini, D. (2011). Turning practically: Broadening the horizon. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24 (2), pp. 164-174.

Einstein, A., Podolsky, B. and Rosen, N. (1935). Can quantum mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Physical Review, 47, pp. 777-780.

Fisher, R. A. (1925). Statistical Methods for Research Workers. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd. Available in http://psychclassics.

Fisher, R. A. (1935). The Design of Experiments. London: Oliver and Boyd.

Fradkin, E. (2011). General Field Theory. Urbana Champaign: University of Illinois.

Fraser, R. (1988). 1968, a student generation in revolt. New York: Pantheon.

Gold, M. (1992). Metatheory and Field Theory in Social Psychology: Relevance or Elegance? Journal of Social Issues, 48 (2), pp. 67-78.

Goldman, L. (2012). Dewey’s Pragmatism from an Anthropological Point of View. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society: A Quarterly Journal in American Philosophy, 48 (1), pp. 1-22.

Heisenberg, W. (1925). Quantum-Theoretical Re-Interpretation of Kinematic and Mechanical Relations. Zeitschrift für Physik, 33, pp. 879-893.

Hopf, E. (1931). On causality, statistics and probability. Journal of Mathematics and Physics, 13 (1-4), pp. 51-102.

Karlsen, J. I. (1991). Action Research as Method: Reflecting from a Program for Developing Methods and Competence. In: Whyte, W. F. (ed.). Participatory Action Research. Newbury Park: Sage, pp. 143-58.

Lee, A. M. (1986). Depression, War, SPSSI, and SSSP. Journal of Social Issues, 42 (4), pp. 61-69.

Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of Topological Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lewin, K. (1946). Action Research and Minority Problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2 (4), pp. 34-46. (Reed. in Lewin, G. W. (ed.) (1973). Resolving Social Conflicts. London: Souvenir Press).

Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in Group Dynamics: Concept, Method, and Reality in Social Science: Social Equilibria and Social Change. Human Relations, 1 (1), pp. 5-41.

Louçã, F. (2008). Should The Widest Cleft in Statistics - How and Why Fisher opposed Neyman and Pearson. Lisbon: Instituto Superior de Economia e Gestão.

Maccoby, E. E. (1992). Trends in the Study of Socialization: Is There a Lewinian Heritage? Journal of Social Issues, 48 (2), pp. 171-185.

Maruyama, G. (1992). Lewin’s Impact on Education: Instilling Cooperation and Conflict Management Skills in School Children. Journal of Social Issues, 48 (2), pp. 155-166.

McCall, W. A. (1922). How to measure in education. New York: Macmillan.

McCall, W. A. (1923). How to Experiment in Education. New York: Macmillan.

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, Self and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mead, G. H. (1938). The Philosophy of the Act. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Michael-Matsas, S. (2016). A Utopia of immanence: Revolution in Deleuze and Guattari. Deleuze studies, 10 (3), pp. 289-300.

Miller, J. (1994). Democracy in the streets: From Port Huron to the siege of Chicago. Harvard: Harvard University Press.

Newman, I. and Benz, C. R. (1998). Qualitative-Quantitative Research Methodology: Exploring the Interactive Continuum. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois Press.

Oakley, A. (1998). Experimentation and Social Interventions: A Forgotten but Important History. British Medical Journal, 317 (7167), pp. 1239-1242.

Pedersen, E. L. (2007). Theory is everywhere: A discourse on theory. Clothing & Textiles Research Journal, 25 (1), pp. 106-128.

Porter, D. (2016). French anarchists and the continuing power of May 1968. Modern & Contemporary France, 24 (2), pp. 143- 159.

Rapoport, R. N. (1970). Three dilemmas in action research with special reference to the Tavistock experience. Human Relations, 23 (6), pp. 499-513.

Robcis, C. (2014). May ’68 and the ethical turn of French thought. Moderns Intellectual History, 11 (1), pp. 267-277.

Rosenwein, R. E. and Campbell, D. T. (1992). Mobilization to achieve collective action and democratic majority/plurality amplification. Journal of Social Issues, 48 (2), pp. 125-138.

Ross, K. (2002). May’68 and its Afterlifes. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Roy, S. N. and Gnanadesikan, R. (1959). Some contributions to Anova in one or more dimensions. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 30 (2), pp. 304-317.

Rutherford, E. and Geiger, H. (1910). The probability variations in the distribution of particles: with a Note by H. Bateman. Philosophical Magazine, 20 (118), pp. 698-707.

Sakamoto, H. (1965). Statistical-Theory of Systematic-Sampling and Mixing Methods of Bulk Materials. Bulletin of the International Statistical Institute, 41 (2), pp. 883-884.

Schrödinger, E. (1926). Quantisierung als Eigenwertproblem. Annalen der Physik, 384, pp. 361-376, 489-527.

Seife, Ch. (2005). Do Deeper Principles Underlie Quantum Uncertainty and Nonlality? Science, 309 (5731), p. 98.

Shadish, W. R., Cook, Th. D. and Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and Quasi- Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Shewhart, W. A. (1924). Some applications of statistical methods to the analysis of physical and engineering idea. Bell System Technical Journal, 3 (1), pp. 43-87.

Smith, M. B. (1986). Kurt Lewin Memorial Address, 1986: War, Peace, and Psychology. Journal of Social Issues, 42 (4), pp. 23-38.

Soloski, J. and Daley, P. (1978). Symbolic interactionism and ethnomethodology: A perspective of qualitative research. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 4 (1), pp. 35-60.

Teddlie, C. and Johnson, R. B. (2009). Methodological thought since the 20th century. In: C. Teddlie and A. Tashakkori (eds.). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 62-82.

Thorndike, E. L. (1913): Educational Diagnosis. Science, 37 (943), pp. 133- 142.

Thorndike, E. L., McCall, A. and Chapman, J. C. (1916). Ventilation in relation to mental work. New York: Teachers College (Columbia University).

Villena, L. A. (1975). La revolución cultural (Desafío de una juventud). Barcelona: Editorial Planeta.

White, R. K. (1992). A Personal Assessment of Lewin’s Major Contributions. Journal of Social Issues, 48 (2), pp. 45-50.

Yeasmin, S. and Rahhman, K. F. (2012). ‘Triangulation’ research method as the tool of social science research. BUP Journal, 1 (1), pp. 154-163.

Copyright (c) 2018 Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC)

Licencia de Creative Commons
Esta obra está bajo una licencia de Creative Commons Reconocimiento 4.0 Internacional.

Contacte con la revista

Soporte técnico