Submitted by yannick on February 9, 2009 - 4:58pm.
What are the traditional methods for disproof among qualitative researchers? What have been the major upsets (accepted theories later overturned) among researchers using qualitative methods? Who/What was to blame (methodology, researchers themselves, participants...)?
Does qualitative research aim for generalizability? And given the complex nature of the problems and participants, and therefore the complex descriptions required is this even possible? Would it be more 'truthful' to have lots (and lots) of targeted studies that don't try to generalize much at all?
I like the idea of complex descriptions of phenomena involving human beings (given that we are so complex it seems appropriate). Given that, might a useful aim for research (particularly research that is to be 'applied') aim to simplify or abstract the nature of experience? Or should simplifications, abstractions or maybe even conclusions be left to the reader, once all the 'data' is collected by the researcher?
What is the 'natural setting' when examining mediated communication or interaction? Is it through the mediating channel? Is it at the place of interaction with the medium itself (co-located with the participant(s))? A bit of both maybe?
Poggenpoel et al.
"To come to the conclusion that a qualitative strategy is synonymous to inductive reasoning and quantitative strategy is synonymous to inductive reasoning and quantitative strategy is synonymous to deductive reasoning is untrue" (pg 412) - Wasn't the authors entire description of 'Newton's research method' as starting off with qualitative strategies followed by quantitative ones based completely on assuming that those things are in fact synonymous?
- Several of the readings seem to imply that qualitative research is both supported and constrained by cultural perspectives situated in time, and as these perspectives change the qualitative method and resulting interpretations change. This seems to be a big difference between qualitative and quantitative methods.
- Is all quantitative research preceded by qualitative research?
- Is qualitative research just another method to discover and represent knowledge in a useful way for others to learn from, or is it invalidated because of its subjective nature?
- Is qualitative research an art form that requires practice and direct experience rather than a specific defined set of processes?
- Does the subjective nature of qualitative research negate its value scientifically, or does qualitative research represent our subjective experience in a scientific way?
Submitted by wakeupsilver on February 9, 2009 - 4:05pm.
ooooooo STRAUSS ooooooo
Do the axioms have to be stated in ways that are confusing to read and do there have to be so many? Couldn't they be condensed a little? (page 6 and 7)
Why don't more people talk about the mostly irrational nature of actions? (page 7)
"most researchers hope that their work also has some relevance for nonacademic audiences" (page 14)
Which type of researchers are we talking about? (next sentence reveals they may be talking about qualitative researchers)
"...a dream that somehow they will make a difference in the world..." again, which researchers are we talking about? (page 15)
what are the different types of data we're talking about? I can imagine many types, but I'd like a representative list.(page 15)
What is meant by "enlighten, empower and inspire"? (last sentence)
ooooooo CRESWELL ooooooo
does qualitative defy succinct definition? (page 36 and 37)
why do all of these papers about the nature of qualitative research sound so damn sensitive and empathetic (I LOVE IT)?
qual. doesn't send surveys out to people to be completed? (bottom of 37)
wait, only one of the three consider researcher as key instrument to be a characteristic of qualitative research? (page 38 table 3.1) am i missing something?
are the reasers interpretation in "interpretive inquiry" included in the written document somehow? (page 39)
is "holistic account" kind of like doing good journalism? (page 39)
what is meant by data analysis and when we say data does that include "experience of the researcher" (as opposed to only notes the researcher took)? (page 41)
does it have to be lonely (or even is it often lonely?) and do when it's done in teams how are the results synthesized? (page 41)
ooooooo DENZIN ooooooo
this doesn't point back to a part in the text though i was reading the first sentence when i thought it:
what is with the designation "qualitative"? is quantitative so strong that all other research need be prefixed quanitative? aren't there other more important divides or is this really the mammoth king kong of research divides?
if it's dense is it really the book to read? (karen's metacomment about the reading)
ooooooo POGGENPOEL ooooooo
why is everything phrased in terms of "the problem"? (in the introductory statement on page 408)... and why is there so scarce a mention of that which comes before "the problem"? and is the researcher really obliged? ===fascists!=== (anything surrounded in === is to be taken as a joke)
doesn't this whole discussion depend on the subject of the research (i.e. humans as subject vs. particles as subject)?!! or are we assuming humans are the subject in which case let the debate rage on!? (page 409)
is qualitative research the potential first half of a potential quantitative research experiment sometimes? (page 412) (oh snap! ghey kind of say that in the second paragraph!)
but it's not just the problem statement and aims of the reearch that determine the research strategy to be followed but also the intentions and nature of the researcher, no?! (page 412)
Submitted by Stephanie on February 9, 2009 - 11:12am.
Corbin:
Assumption 1 "there is no divide between external or interior world?"
Really?
Assumption 11 "one can't separate emotions from action"
Is the author saying there's a direct correlation between the two? Cause and effect?
Does an emotion always leads to an action that mirrors said emotion?
The two final paragraphs lead me to wonder how many experiences (racial, gender, cultura) must be understood before one
can being research? Is there a magic number or just a sense of 'I've considered several aspects so I'm good to go'?
Is the purpose of quantitative research to produce statistics?
To repeat Ana and Ian: "Is talking to someone research?" What happened to intent (let's even ignore verifiability and consistency)? Is it possible to do research without intending to? How about without meaning to? Are we all doing research in the universal endeavour to understand the universe (or something like that)?
It seems the authors are saying that qualitative research (of whatever definition) is used to define problems for quantitative inquiry in the "hard sciences". What happened to the poststructuralists? Does poststructuralism apply to obvservations of the universe, or would one have to know the entire state of the universe to make such claims?
Even barring the poststructural position, how do social scientists come to theories?
Is a theory a theory if no one else can verify it but you? If such is the case, is qualitative research producing "inspiring documents" or "knowledge about the world" or something else?
How is the term "moral" being used here? Is it "moral" meaning "ethical" as in the colloquial sense, or "normative applied ethics" in the strict sense? Also, ethics requires an "other"... so who's that "other"?
How are these authors not supporting the quantitative folks' argument that "anything goes"? As Corbel notes, is the fear of being dogmatic causing the definition to be lost?
Is positivism not working because of the capability of the researcher? Or is the claim that it could never produce a covering theory across given evidence?
Isn't the point of research across multiple people to slice perspective in a context-sensitive way so that the only context variables are the relevant to the question remain? Is this formulation inherently positivist?
What is the shared underlying construct that allows verification in poststructuralist thinking?
Does positivism posit universal truth given events, or universal truth given perceptions? The latter should be ludicrous even in quantitative circles, shouldn't it?
The interpretive paradigm seems to be a mishmash of background and ideology. Is it changeable, or is one "born into" it?
Is inability to represent the real work an informatics/philosophical/representation/ideological/dogmatic issue? Is it open for change?
Are the different (and still-existant) eras of qualitative research capable of understading each other (in a verifiable/accpetable sense)?
Though it's not explicit, is qualitative research definitionally holistic?
Does it seem from this text as well as Corbin et al. that the philosophical repudiation of the closed-loop/bounded/by-the-book approach is almost a part of the mantra of "how to do qualitative research"? Is it a necessity? Why?
What is the role of practice in the research triangle from Feb. 5, both as the practice embodied in methodology as well as the practice that represents the actualized ground truth of the subjects? Is the latter theory? Is theory about ground truth?
Assumptions 1-3 seem problematic, especially with respect to 6. First, is there external state with interaction (tree-falls-in-forest issue)? Also, since symbolic systems are negotiated, shouldn't there be some discrepancy between internal and sensed external state (given that no negotiation is perfect)? And finally, even if there is not, why should we presume that anyone is willing to actually expose 100% of the internal state?
Are they saying using a lot of words that qualitative research is a personality trait? (I am not opposed to that answer)
Can the form of research they're suggesting be specified as the maximum entropy distribution of causation theories over a data space of observed realities? If this is the case, then is difference between quantitative and qualitiative research merely procedural?
What are the traditional methods for disproof among qualitative researchers? What have been the major upsets (accepted theories later overturned) among researchers using qualitative methods? Who/What was to blame (methodology, researchers themselves, participants...)?
Does qualitative research aim for generalizability? And given the complex nature of the problems and participants, and therefore the complex descriptions required is this even possible? Would it be more 'truthful' to have lots (and lots) of targeted studies that don't try to generalize much at all?
I like the idea of complex descriptions of phenomena involving human beings (given that we are so complex it seems appropriate). Given that, might a useful aim for research (particularly research that is to be 'applied') aim to simplify or abstract the nature of experience? Or should simplifications, abstractions or maybe even conclusions be left to the reader, once all the 'data' is collected by the researcher?
What is the 'natural setting' when examining mediated communication or interaction? Is it through the mediating channel? Is it at the place of interaction with the medium itself (co-located with the participant(s))? A bit of both maybe?
Poggenpoel et al.
"To come to the conclusion that a qualitative strategy is synonymous to inductive reasoning and quantitative strategy is synonymous to inductive reasoning and quantitative strategy is synonymous to deductive reasoning is untrue" (pg 412) - Wasn't the authors entire description of 'Newton's research method' as starting off with qualitative strategies followed by quantitative ones based completely on assuming that those things are in fact synonymous?
- Several of the readings seem to imply that qualitative research is both supported and constrained by cultural perspectives situated in time, and as these perspectives change the qualitative method and resulting interpretations change. This seems to be a big difference between qualitative and quantitative methods.
- Is all quantitative research preceded by qualitative research?
- Is qualitative research just another method to discover and represent knowledge in a useful way for others to learn from, or is it invalidated because of its subjective nature?
- Is qualitative research an art form that requires practice and direct experience rather than a specific defined set of processes?
- Does the subjective nature of qualitative research negate its value scientifically, or does qualitative research represent our subjective experience in a scientific way?
ooooooo STRAUSS ooooooo
Do the axioms have to be stated in ways that are confusing to read and do there have to be so many? Couldn't they be condensed a little? (page 6 and 7)
Why don't more people talk about the mostly irrational nature of actions? (page 7)
"most researchers hope that their work also has some relevance for nonacademic audiences" (page 14)
Which type of researchers are we talking about? (next sentence reveals they may be talking about qualitative researchers)
"...a dream that somehow they will make a difference in the world..." again, which researchers are we talking about? (page 15)
what are the different types of data we're talking about? I can imagine many types, but I'd like a representative list.(page 15)
What is meant by "enlighten, empower and inspire"? (last sentence)
ooooooo CRESWELL ooooooo
does qualitative defy succinct definition? (page 36 and 37)
why do all of these papers about the nature of qualitative research sound so damn sensitive and empathetic (I LOVE IT)?
qual. doesn't send surveys out to people to be completed? (bottom of 37)
wait, only one of the three consider researcher as key instrument to be a characteristic of qualitative research? (page 38 table 3.1) am i missing something?
are the reasers interpretation in "interpretive inquiry" included in the written document somehow? (page 39)
is "holistic account" kind of like doing good journalism? (page 39)
what is meant by data analysis and when we say data does that include "experience of the researcher" (as opposed to only notes the researcher took)? (page 41)
does it have to be lonely (or even is it often lonely?) and do when it's done in teams how are the results synthesized? (page 41)
ooooooo DENZIN ooooooo
this doesn't point back to a part in the text though i was reading the first sentence when i thought it:
what is with the designation "qualitative"? is quantitative so strong that all other research need be prefixed quanitative? aren't there other more important divides or is this really the mammoth king kong of research divides?
if it's dense is it really the book to read? (karen's metacomment about the reading)
ooooooo POGGENPOEL ooooooo
why is everything phrased in terms of "the problem"? (in the introductory statement on page 408)... and why is there so scarce a mention of that which comes before "the problem"? and is the researcher really obliged? ===fascists!=== (anything surrounded in === is to be taken as a joke)
doesn't this whole discussion depend on the subject of the research (i.e. humans as subject vs. particles as subject)?!! or are we assuming humans are the subject in which case let the debate rage on!? (page 409)
is qualitative research the potential first half of a potential quantitative research experiment sometimes? (page 412) (oh snap! ghey kind of say that in the second paragraph!)
but it's not just the problem statement and aims of the reearch that determine the research strategy to be followed but also the intentions and nature of the researcher, no?! (page 412)
there will be no fights? come on. (page 412)
are these folks serious? (whole article)
Creswell:
Interpretive inquiry section
Is having readers make an interpretation of a researcher's report useful? Might it not introduce more bias?
Corbin:
Assumption 1 "there is no divide between external or interior world?"
Really?
Assumption 11 "one can't separate emotions from action"
Is the author saying there's a direct correlation between the two? Cause and effect?
Does an emotion always leads to an action that mirrors said emotion?
The two final paragraphs lead me to wonder how many experiences (racial, gender, cultura) must be understood before one
can being research? Is there a magic number or just a sense of 'I've considered several aspects so I'm good to go'?
Poggenpoel:
Denzin:
Cresswell:
Corbin et al: