This paper addresses the methodological socialization of qualitative and quantitative empirical social sciences and humanities (SSH) scholars. By the concept of methodological socialization, we refer to the processes by which SSH scholars learn and adopt research methods and methodologies, norms and values that are appropriate and acceptable within their preferred research paradigms and broader disciplines. Despite a number of empirical studies on work in the SSH and research careers, there are few studies on empirical social researchers’ methodological socialization and professional knowledge generation.  Overall, we know little about the body of professional knowledge and competencies that empirical researchers acquire, their role in methodological socialization and how methodological socialization shapes the careers of empirical social researchers.

Some studies addressed methodological socialization’s role in doctoral education (Cilesiz & Greckhamer, 2022; Rhoads et al., 2017). While the doctoral stage is vital for the initiation into research paradigms, we suggest that – like in other professions, where continuous development processes and stages during a professional career can be found (see e.g., Benner, 1982) – methodological socialization extends over the whole research career and deserves closer examination. We are therefore interested in the examination of methodological socialization within different kinds of empirical social research.

We understand methodological socialization in multidimensional terms as (1) professional knowledge, that accumulates with expertise and is bound to specific biographies as well as (2) formal and informal socialization and individual and collective socialization (Van Maanen & Schein, 1977). We draw on differential association theory to conceptualize methodological socialization into specific research paradigms (Johnson, 2020). Differential association theory stresses the importance of small group interaction for being drawn into a particular research paradigm by learning and adopting favorable rationalizations and attitudes. For those reasons, we investigate how researchers became the empirical social scientists they are and how methodological socialization differs between different quantitative and qualitative methods and methodologies.

Specifically, the following three questions arise: what professional knowledge and competencies do they acquire (1), what role does their scientific environment as well as different settings of socialization play in this process (2), and what influence do the respective research paradigm, methodology, and method(s) have (3)?

We assume that question (3) influences questions (1) and (2), and that methodological socialization is shaped by the respective method. However, it is also conceivable that commonalities exist between both quantitative and qualitative methods and methodologies, as well as between different qualitative methods and methodologies. Therefore, this paper explores the extent to which methodological diversity is reflected in different forms of knowledge and contexts of socialization, or whether commonalities across methodologies can be found in methodological biographies, thus to what extent methodological socialization differs between methods and methodologies.

Our research design serves an explorative purpose. With this in mind, we decided on an open-response survey design to elicit responses from various empirical scientists in social sciences and humanities in German speaking countries. The ongoing survey recruits students, doctoral candidates, post-docs and professors in SSH who work with qualitative or quantitative methods and methodologies of empirical social research. As part of the survey, participants are asked about their experiences with empirical social research and relevant agents and discourses in their scientific environment in open-response fields (Singer & Couper, 2017). The survey elicits independent variables such as status group, their respective empirical methods and methodologies, and years of experience with their method as well. The open form of data collection empowers the self-selected participants to engage with the survey to the extent and depth suitable for them. The answers are computer-assisted analyzed inductively using thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The generated inductive categories refer to the three aspects of research interest and address professional knowledge, different forms of socialization, and the relevance of the scientific community of participants for different methods and methodologies. The subsequent analysis of the data will be informed by the concept of theoretical sampling (Strauss & Corbin, 1996, p. 164). In this way, potentially different manifestations of the categories as well as potentially different interrelationships between categories will be worked out for each method and compared between different methods and methodologies. In this way, similarities as well as differences between quantitative and qualitative, as well as between different qualitative methods and methodologies can be elaborated.

We intend to report insights on professional knowledge and competencies acquired in research processes (1), their potential influence on empirical biographical trajectories, as well as the self-reported methodological socialization of the survey participants. We anticipate the data will allow us to report results on different socialization aspects. Furthermore, we expect insights into the role of the scientific environment and other agents and contexts of individual and collective socialization (e.g., peers, supervisors, literature, interpretation group etc.) (2). Finally, potential differences between quantitative and qualitative methods and methodologies and between different qualitative methods and methodologies will be elaborated (3). The research question answered to what extent methodological socialization differs between methods and methodologies.

Benner, P. (1982). From novice to expert. AJN The American Journal of Nursing, 82(3), 402–407. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Cilesiz, S., & Greckhamer, T. (2022). Methodological socialization and identity: A bricolage study of pathways toward qualitative research in doctoral education. Organizational Research Methods, 25(2), 337–370. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120980047 Johnson, D. R. (2020). A differential association theory of socialization to commercialist career paths in science. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 45(3), 381–404. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243919854514 Rhoads, R. A., Zheng, M., & Sun, X. (2017). The methodological socialization of social science doctoral students in China and the USA. Higher Education, 73(2), 335–351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0023-y Singer, E., & Couper, M. P. (2017). Some methodological uses of responses to open questions and other verbatim comments in quantitative surveys. Methods, Data, Analyses, 11(2), 115–134. https://doi.org/10.12758/mda.2017.01 Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1996). Grounded theory. Grundlagen qualitativer Sozialforschung. Beltz. Van Maanen, J. E., & Schein, E. H. (1977). Toward a theory of organizational socialization (No. 960–77; Sloan Working Papers). MIT Alfred P. Sloan School of Management. http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/1934