خلاصة:
The present article, which aims to achieve a clear picture of the methodological perspectives of researchers in the fields of education and psychology in Iran, consists of five sections. First, the history of the methodological turn and the factors affecting it are addressed. Then, the author proceeds to reveal the theoretical framework of the research, which is the result of the present article. This topic begins with a critical observation regarding the distinction between quantitative and qualitative methodologies, followed by an explanation of seventeen propositions that indicate the distinctions between competing methodologists and form the basis for developing research tools. Finally, the author's divisive position regarding the distinction between the methodology of biological sciences and the methodology of human sciences is described. In the next section, the research method and the method of data analysis, which is content analysis and thematic induction, are explained. In this research, two groups of researchers from the fields of educational sciences and psychology have been selected as samples, representing two different generations of researchers (senior and junior). This arrangement provides the basis for comparing the methodological beliefs of these two groups in the data analysis section. The result of this comparison leads to the promising conclusion that over time, not only among the junior generation but also among the senior generation, methodological plurality has become legitimized. As a belief and opinion among researchers in the fields of education and psychology, especially the juniors, the era of methodological monopoly—which implies the legitimacy of only a single scientific and quantitative method in research—is considered to have ended. This issue is discussed in detail in the last section of the article, which includes discussion, comparison, and conclusion.
ملخص الجهاز:
Examples of responses provided in this category include "In qualitative research, it is not only acceptable, but the use of these methods also adds richness to the research findings even in quantitative and mixed research" and "Why should what cannot be observed be excluded from the research field?" The third group, with phrases such as "Which researcher?" or "One cannot pay attention to every researcher's inferences," considered the answer conditional upon the qualifications and competencies of the researcher.
In all other cases, meaning the absolute majority of respondents explicitly opposed the use of logical language as the sole format for presenting research findings and results, whether by referring to quantitative and qualitative methods or in general.
Examples of the provided responses are as follows: "In qualitative research, this issue is established with the result of credibility", "Although not everyone accepts it due to statistization, in the field of humanities, given the becoming-methodological limitation of the application of statistics, a kind of deadlock or reaching a saturation point is observed, and gradually we will witness new methods and ways in establishing validity and reliability.
Co-viewing, Comparison, Discussion and Conclusion In this section, the responses of each of the two groups regarding the set of 17 questions will be generally considered to determine what relationship each has with the methodological beliefs related to the camp of scientific and artistic (quantitative and qualitative) research and what their preferences are?
(
, 
, 
)
