Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism
- Authors
- Thomas A. Schwandt
In The Last Decade
doi.org/w62271450 →Countries where authors are citing Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism
This map shows the geographic impact of Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism
This network shows the impact of Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism.
About Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism
This paper, published in 2000, received 807 indexed citations . Written by Thomas A. Schwandt. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Sociology and Political Science (278 citations), Education (251 citations) and General Health Professions (109 citations).
Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.
This paper is also available at doi.org/w62271450.