CLICK HERE FOR BLOGGER TEMPLATES AND MYSPACE LAYOUTS »

Friday, 27 February 2009

Tuning in to the zeitgeist or blissful ignorance?

My supervisor sent me a paper the other day (Jones, K The Qualitative Report Volume 9 Number 1 March 2004 95-112 http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR9-1/jones.pdf Mission Drift in Qualitative Research, or Moving Toward a Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies, Moving Back to a More Systematic Narrative Review - which I think it also strayed into how to interpret and analyse too). What follows is an edited version of an email I sent to her about it (done with her permission of course).

I included some of the methods touched on in the paper even in my initial research design (this makes what I did sound quite grand) eg going back to participants with issues and questions that other participants brought up. So although they have never met eachother participants have in fact talked to eachother. Likewise, I also set up conversations between participants and 'the literature' by asking their opinions on specific theories and analyses, particularly around class, and got their takes on those. I am also a great one for'grey literature' (that is stuff that is not written with scholarly intention but from which a great deal can be learned - in my case I look at Aimhigher websites a good deal)).

I'm never sure whether to be glad or disheartened when I read that there are actual labels that can be attached to these methods. Have I had my finger on the pulse of the academic zeitgeist when I come up with these ideas myself? Or have I simply failed to do enough reading? Is this kind of labelling of methods a more fruitful academic enterprise than simply doing and describing what you have done? Is it a useful shorthand? Or is it a throwback to, a remnant of, positivism? In the end I justify my approach by way of the term 'compelling methodology' which is very grand because sometimes my justifications are very practical ones. It was hard enough for example for participants to find space in their lives to see me - trying to get nine of us together at the same time would have proabably been impossible. And sometimes they are fundamental to my approach - it is the person's story that is the beating heart of the analysis - not their view on any particular issue. And so sometimes my decisions are both practical and central to my research philosophy.

So thanks for this - in the end I think the old adage of having the courage of your convictions is probably a useful one.

I went on a course last week which has led to my making 3 short video 'movies' about my research journey. I am hoping to put these on the blog next week.

1 comments:

Anonymous said...

I also struggle with labelling methodologies. Granted, the label is certainly a sort of shorthand that communicates to others in the “academy”. Yet, this same label (in and of itself) is of no consequence to research participants (in my view). In conducting my research and communicating its findings to the academy, I will (hopefully) secure a degree. That’s what I get out of this journey (although it might not be the most important thing I get). But, I also try to keep a central question in mind. “What’s in it for the participants?” Regardless of the methodology I choose and how it is labelled, it is paramount that the participants also get something out of our work together. So, my ambiguity remains fervently in place...and I frequently wonder if meeting the needs of the academy (in essence, my needs) is sometimes in conflict or incongruent with the needs or aspirations of participants who choose to engage with me. Nonetheless, I must try to find this balance, if I am to consider my work ethical in scope and design.