The Reproduction Of Questions

This paper is aimed at the discussion of the denotational research method of sociology, questionnaire. It is geared to the needs and exploration of method studies with fully trial and challenge. And, to show this dangerous kind of challenges, we adopt the distinctive angle of utterance to spread out our work. Tied with the theories of those famous Post-Modernists, we try to reveal out that in a social research, a questionnaire is used, and is only used as a kind of implements to reproduct the problems. As the reason of the character of the questionnaire itself, we have made the most dangerous step. we doubt that if we can trust the authenticity and credibility of questionnaires, even if it is the primary method of the investigations of Sociology.Why would the character of a questionnaire make that kind of doubt? Why would a questionnaire be a kind of implements to reproduct the problems? What do the questionnaire transfers about? And how? How can we understand this kind of delivery? This paper answers these questions by the carefully analysis of several questionnaires coming from actual sociology investigations. We discuss and reveal that how the hiding intentions of studies in the questions, in the answers and in the logic of the whole questionnaire, can permeate into the answers which the object of studies give. We also figure out that how the questionnaires could finally lead the persons we do research on imagine that they are the persons we want, and put out the answers we need. We must emphasize that, it is not that kind of questionnaires which are deliberately, or which are superficial designed leading to disclose, for those are sometimes already failed, and a failed one couldn't give any meaningful deliveration and permeation, even any effective conclusions. The deliveration and permeation we really want to figure out is coming from a questionnaire itself. It's never end, as long as questionnaire is still questionnaire itself. For this special kind of characters, researchers don't need any painstakingly deliveration or permeation. Because the intention and the purpose, the hypothesis and the conclusion, they are already in it. Say yes or no, no matter which side they choose, they answer the question, they have played the role we want, if not, they will be a reference. This kind of character finally make the hypothesis the conclusion, conclusion is necessarily directed to the hypothesis, no matter researchers or objectors, hypothesis or conclusions, even our whole research are all the dependency of questionnaire.Just as my words in paper,"The limitation of questionnaire is that it can never provide a conclusion exceeding the hypothesis ever, and also can not provide a hypothesis exceeding the conclusion. The contradiction of questionnaire is the special character that the conclusion conflicting to the hypothesis will never come to the paper."The purpose of this article is to remind our researchers to pay attention to such one kind of current situation, that our research, has evidence in course of moreover indicate be already, quilt this what the technology having occupied research method and quantization governing nature position's controls, we all and our research are moreover sometimes that there is evidence indicated be already, being caught in a whirlpool without any depth, superficial, and even gradually groundless."The evidence is, that the research results are so similar. The structure and the view, the conclusion and the hypothesis, they are all the same. As we are watching a grand banquet of Imitations, their superficial characteristics is so exactly similar, content is so exactly similar, the conclusion is exactly similar, with the same significance, in fact they are without any meaning, they are always enjoying copying mutuality, there are finally no difference between any of them."Face to the disaster consequence that such continues almost cruel technology monopolizes, we cannot grin and bear it, let alone, bearing up inactively so. We want to compose, control , ask effort to compose out breaking through and exceeding active that this controls more not only being to want nature and authority getting a clear understanding of this technology. Some comments from Post-Modernists have already opened a door of hope to dispel this kind of systems of control. But while we facing to this hazy possibility and hope, we must found up an upright position as a researcher of Sociology: We are not, and absolutely not the person who blindly oppose the questionnaire, the quantization, or positivism. What we have to , is to reveal out the character of the questionnaire , faces the defect of the questionnaire. We hope to accelerate the crumble of the system of questionnaire, is not originated from the purpose to oppose positivism. Our abilities and the basis of the available sociology study till now, can not build a new, more consummate method of research, also can not lead us to exceed the control of form and technology. But we are still in hope, maybe, what the collapse brings about, would be a better and more perfect method of research. We must admit that questionnaire and the Quantization technology with it are surely effective in some field such as the analysis of large amount of data. But at the same time, we have to know that it is very different to be a implement of study and to be an authority of technology in a discipline. Absolutely, we are not to oppose the demonstration character of the basis of Sociology. On the contrary, we have to know more about the defect that exists in the technology of questionnaire itself for the preservation and the development of the demonstration of sociology. Press and lead us to the brand-new field of method research by showing the difficult position where is interposed by the defect of questionnaire.