Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Unit 6 Traditions of Qualitative Inquiry Introduction The aim of this unit is to demonstrate the salience of tradition and good practice in understanding qualitative inquiry. Any attempt at qualitative inquiry is informed by a tradition of inquiry which influences choices made around data collection, analysis, and management and which also influences the way in which a qualitative study is reported and the criteria used for evaluating it. As you will see from your required texts for the Qualitative Research sub-module, there are many qualitative traditions of inquiry. However we will focus on three in this unit. They were chosen to exemplify some major issues and developments in qualitative research and because they are well suited to different aspects of research. The three we have chosen are: ethnography, grounded theory, and discourse analysis. Having completed this unit, you will be expected to appreciate the differences in emphasis as well as the common ground between the traditions and to see how the data collection methods you have covered in the last three units, interviewing, observation, and text analysis, fit with these traditions. As each of the three traditions is described in detail in your text books, we will concentrate on comparative analysis, commentary, and research relevance here. It is imperative that you read the relevant chapters in your texts in order to follow the comparisons and critique that we aim to develop in this unit. It looks like a lot of reading but it will be useful for many other units and there is a certain amount of redundancy in the list. Required Reading The required reading for these units comes from: J.T.E. Richardson (ed.) Handbook of Qualitative Research for Psychology and the Social Sciences. Chapters 6 and 7 discuss the theory and practice of Grounded Theory. Chapters 8 and 9 discuss the theory and practice of Ethnography. Chapters 10 and 11 discuss the theory and practice of Discourse Analysis. We are sure that you will find plenty of relevant material in the above chapters. If you think it is too much, please bear in mind that it is also required reading for Units 7, 8, 9 and 11, and that you will have already looked over some of these chapters when considering data collection in earlier units. Treat this unit as a pivot around which other units and reading revolve. Recommended Reading For completeness sake, the following references are also relevant: Banister, P., Burman, E., Parker, I., Taylor, M., Tindall, C. (1994). Qualitative Methods in Psychology: A Research Guide. Bucks, UK: Open University Press. Chapter 3 discusses Ethnography and chapter 6 discusses Discourse Analysis. 1-9 Mann, C. and Stewart, F. Internet Communication and Qualitiative Research (2000) Guilford, Sage. Willig, C. (1999) Applied Discourse Analysis. Guildord, Open UniversityPress. Hine (1998) Virtual Ethnography. International Conference: 25-27 March 1998, Bristol, UK IRISS '98: Conference Papers http://www.intute.ac.uk/socialsciences/archive/iriss/papers/paper16.htm Introducing the Traditions In this section we provide brief introductions of each of the traditions in order to guide you to some of the main points in your required reading. Ethnography Ethnography is the quintessential qualitative research method. Its roots are in anthropology but in more recent times it has made an impression in sociology, and social and developmental psychology. It is concerned with lived, felt experience. More specifically it is concerned with developing accounts or stories of lived experience which are both from the perspective of those living the experience and theoretically oriented towards social relations. With such a broad remit, it inevitably accommodates a number of research methods. Ethnographers participate in people’s daily lives for an extended period of time, observing what is happening, listening to what is said, asking questions, and studying documents. Ethnography involves a pragmatic approach to methods of data collection where the guiding rule is to collect whatever data are available to elucidate the issues at the heart of the research. In this sense, ethnography bears a close resemblance to the ordinary, everyday ways in which people make sense of their experience. From a qualitative research perspective, where the ecological validity or naturalness of data is highly prized, the resemblance to everyday sense-making is a strength. The main stages characteristics of ethnography according to Banister et al. (1994) are as follows: Gathering data from a range of sources. Studying activity in everyday contexts rather than experimental situations. Using fairly unstructured data collection early on to allow key issues to emerge through a broad analysis. Once issues are clear, data collection takes the form of an in-depth and focused study of one or two well defined situations. We would add participant observation as a characteristic feature. Ethnographers try to observe and develop accounts from inside, from a position where they participate in the activity or group being studied. For example, Janet Rachel’s chapter in Richardson (1996) gives an account of her attempts to understand computer systems design by becoming a member of the team for a period. She uses her experience as a member of the team to help make sense of interviews, observations, documents and other data collected. Is participant observation just another data collection method? Christina Toren, in her chapter in Richardson, says no. She argues that it is not so much a method as an intense way of living in which you are both caught up in the activity and attempting to distance yourself a little from it in order to be able to question what is happening. It puts the researcher in a strange position as both a member of a group and an observer of the group. It also requires the researcher to creatively use the tension between these two positions to develop an account of the group or activity. It is an approach to research which has to be developed with practice, not just learned from a book. 2-9 Unit 6: Traditions of Qualitative Inquiry Participation of the researcher in the research involves abandoning attempts to eliminate the effects of the researcher on the research and instead to try to understand them. Ethnography holds that as researchers are part of the social world they study, they should recognise the futility of trying to separate themselves from it, and instead use their participation as a strength, a key to understanding. Participation also gives ethnography a commitment to understanding how people actually live their lives. Most ethnographic research lays claims to be relevant to real life and to identify the complexities of social life as it is lived. As such, ethnography is suited to research questions which try to understand and contribute to aspects of social life and social practices. In the context of internet research, it is suited to questions such as: how the internet is used in educational and business practices, how it influences social relations in those domains, and to identifying potential improvements in practice. Grounded Theory " A grounded theory is one that is inductively derived from the study of the phenomenon it represents. That is, it is discovered, developed, and provisionally verified through systematic data collection and analysis of data pertaining to that phenomenon. Therefore, data collection, analysis, and theory stand in reciprocal relationship with each other. One does not begin with a theory, then prove it. Rather one begins with an area of study and what is relevant to that area is allowed to emerge." (Strauss and Corbin, 1990, p.23). Grounded theory was developed by Glaser and Strauss (1965) during their investigation of institutional care of terminally ill patients. They were keen to ensure that qualitative research would amount to more than a collection of disconnected insights and impressions. They argued that qualitative research could result in contributions to formal description and explanation, i.e. theory. They developed grounded theory as a discovery-oriented approach to the development of theory using qualitative research. Rather than beginning with a theory which it then tries to prove, it begins with an area of study and allows themes relevant to that area to emerge in a rigorous, relatively structured, qualitative analysis of data. On first reading, some accounts of Grounded Theory (e.g. Strauss and Corbin, 1999) which emphasise the structure of grounded analysis, or the steps that you go through in producing a grounded theory, can be misleading. In our experience of teaching grounded theory, students can interpret these texts as providing a mechanical route from textual data, through a highly structured coding and analysis process, to the concepts that constitute a theory. In our experience of using grounded theory, it is far more fluid and sophisticated than that, with data and theory in dialogue at every stage. One way to think of it is as a process of enhancing theoretical sensitivity in analysing qualitative data, which values both rigor and imagination. Pidgeon and Henwood (1996) make this point by writing that: "Although grounded theorists use maximum flexibility in qualitative data analysis, it is still useful to chart a number of steps in the overall scheme of moving from the collection of unstructured data through to the theoretical outcomes." (p.87). Pidgeon and Henwood emphasise, as we do, that these steps are guidelines not a rigid procedure to be followed mechanically. Grounded theory is an iterative process in which researchers move flexibly between steps and between data collection, analysis, and interpretation (see figure 1, unit 7). There is some disagreement between writers on grounded theory as to what its essential characteristics are. For example, some argue that interpretation should occur within a causal paradigmatic framework (e.g. Strauss and Corbin, 1990). Others argue for a less objectivist more interpretative social theory approach (e.g. Glaser, 1992). Our view is that this argument need not colour your view of grounded theory too much. It reflects different approaches to research, rather than different approaches to grounded theory. Instead we suggest that you concentrate on the core values shared by all grounded theory researchers. These values are as follows: 3-9 The importance of developing a theory that is accountable to the data being studied (e.g. clear audit trail, making assumptions and interpretations explicit in memos, etc.) A methodology built on the procedure of constant comparison. The procedure of constant comparison informs the whole process generating relationships or patterns of similaritydifference. For example, codes are produced from comparing each datum with the others; categories from constantly comparing codes with each other; theoretical concepts from comparing categories with each other. Interpretation as a search for patterns of relations between data, codes, categories, etc. which leads to the most abstract category being seen as the core category or the concept that organises the theory. Theoretical sensitivity which starts as early in the process as coding. Analysts make theoretical choices as soon as they start coding. Finally, as Pidgeon (p.75) notes "... grounded theory is particularly suited (though is by no means restricted) to the study of local interactions and meanings as related to the social context in which they actually occur." Check out the website http://www.groundedtheoryonline.com/ for more details. 4-9 Unit 6: Traditions of Qualitative Inquiry Discourse Analysis Let’s examine discourse analysis by highlighting and discussing the four themes of discourse analysis outlined by Gill (1996, p.141-143). 1. Discourse analysis takes discourse itself as its topic. It is not an approach to understanding intentions, attitudes, and other psychological constructs assumed to lie behind human action including discourse. Discourse analysts do not propose that discourse is a pathway to the mind or some other reality rather they are interested in the content and organisation of talk and texts. But discourse analysts are not linguists either. They study the content and organisation of talk and texts with a view to better understanding social life and social interaction. For example, a discourse analyst could study the content and organisation of email or chat room contributions with a view to understanding aspects of a particular ‘electronic community’. Or the analysts could study people’s accounts of internet shopping experiences with a view to understanding that particular aspect of electronically mediated social interaction. 2. Language is constructive Even the simplest piece of discourse is manufactured from pre-existing linguistic resources and involves choices from a number of possibilities. A politician apologising for wrongdoing can use language to throw himself on the mercy of his audience e.g. I know it was wrong and I have no excuses. I lost my way for a while and I hope you can forgive me. This whole experience has renewed my sense of what I am in politics for - to serve my constituents. Alternatively the politician could use language to ‘come out fighting’ I have served my constituents well for 20 years and anything I have done in politics has been done to improve their lot. I know that they understand that the gutter press blows everything up out of all proportion to create headlines and sell papers. My constituents know me of old and know they can trust me above any gutter press journalist. People choose words, metaphors, and styles of speech when constructing an account. In doing so they represent events, experiences, and speakers themselves in particular ways for their audiences. In fact, it would not be terribly surprising to have the same politician using each account when addressing different audiences e.g. colleagues and constituents. Of course the two accounts construct the world in two different ways. They present events and the speaker’s relationship to events in different ways. As Gill notes, this points to the way in which texts construct our world. Discourse analysis takes a constructivist position on human knowing, that is that we create understandings of our world through discoursing with each other. This is quite different from the traditional experimental research position which argues that we can know the real world through the systematic application of experimental method (see Potter’s chapter in Richardson for a detailed discussion of constructionism). 3. Discourse analysts regard discourse as social practice. Language does not merely represent events nor is it an epiphenomenon or a side-product of social interaction. It is social action. Language is action. In social interaction, language is used to do things: to make excuses, to blame, to present oneself as virtuous and hardworking. As we have seen with our politician example above, the politician uses language to create two different accounts of an event. In one case he apologises and looks for mercy. In the other, he comes out fighting, blaming the press, and stands on his record. The politician is making language work, making it do things in a social context, making it do different things in different social contexts 5-9 depending on the nature of the audience. In Gill’s terms the different accounts are occasioned by different interpretative contexts. 4. Discourse analysis treats talk and text as being organised rhetorically. Talk and text is involved in establishing one version of the world over competing versions. Although this may be a deliberate Machiavellian move when politicians and advertisers set out to present a position on a policy or a product, more often than not discourse is rhetorical in a situated way. In many cases, discourse provides a particular view of the world but not because of a deliberate intention of the speaker to lead or mislead. As we said earlier, the intention of the author is not of any great moment in discourse analysis. As discourse analysts have no direct access to mental states such as intention, they focus on the work the text does in social settings. Discourse analysis is a tradition best suited to answering questions about the content and organisation of language as a social practice: questions about the discursive repertoires (i.e. the whole of words, metaphors, style of discourse) people use when presenting themselves in a ‘chat room’; questions about the way in which accounts of internet shopping are constructed by those who shop regularly (e.g. the benefits of internet shopping, personal feelings about its effect on local shops, etc.); and questions about the ways in which ‘facts’ are constructed in discourse (e.g. "e-commerce benefits Ireland"). Summary Our main aim in discussing ethnography, grounded theory, and discourse analysis as three different traditions of qualitative research is to demonstrate the rich multidisciplinary background to qualitative inquiry. You will have got a sense of that yourself from reading Potter, Gill, Pidgeon, Henwood, Toren, and Rachel. In each of these chapters, questions about our understanding of language, reality, knowing, interpretation, and social life are brought into focus and addressed through readings in psychology, sociology, philosophy, and linguistics. Although they have much in common as qualitative research traditions, ethnography, grounded theory, and discourse analysis take different positions on many important questions. For example, whereas the theoretical accounts developed through ethnography claim to be about actual lives from the perspective of the people living them, discourse analysis presents accounts of the content and organisation of talk and text as social practices in social settings. Moreover, whereas ethnography attempts to develop holistic accounts by expressing one experience in terms of another (e.g. marriage in terms of exchange), grounded theory strives for core concepts by processes of abstraction, and discourse analysis grounds its interpretations in the similarity and varity of occasioned discourse. We will make a systematic summary of various features of the three approaches in the next section. For now, suffice it to say that they are different traditions of enquiry and if you are inclined to use any of them for research purposes, a familiarity with the tradition and any assumptions entailed in it is a necessary prerequisite. Nonetheless there are ways in which an analysis based in one tradition can be enriched by borrowing from another, for example, we find that constant comparison, normally associated with grounded theory, is a very useful practice when dealing with any qualitative data. By now it should be clear that qualitative research is not an easy option for those who don’t like experimental or broadly quantitative approaches to research. It is not an anecdotal or impressionistic approach to making sense of interviews and observations. Rather it is an umbrella term for a collection of interpretative traditions of inquiry (far more than the three we have covered) which share some features but differ from each other in many ways. Qualitative researchers try to be imaginative in their approach to research but they are very careful to balance imagination with rigour and theoretical sensitivity. 6-9 Unit 6: Traditions of Qualitative Inquiry Comparative Analysis of the Traditions In this section we will present a couple of tables which are designed to summarise similarities and differences between the three traditions at a glance. You should use your detailed reading of the chapters in Richardson to complete the comparisons by ‘unpacking’ or ‘elaborating’ the phrases we present in each cell in the tables. Credit is due to Creswell (1998) for the idea for presenting the comparisons in this tabular manner. His book compares five qualitative research traditions: biography, phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, and case study. Given the emphasis on social life on the net in discussions of cybertalk, cyber-communities, and cyber-identity, we felt that discourse analysis merited a place in our comparative analysis. We also have a somewhat different emphasis in places. 7-9 Overall Comparison of Three Traditions in Qualitative Research Research focus Data collection Data analysis Reporting style Ethnography Describing and interpreting the lived experiences of people in their culture from their perspective Field research involving participant observation, interviews, and analysis of documents and other artefacts Description Analysis Interpretation from the perspective of the person experiencing Description and interpretation of cultural lives of those studied. Report is an attempt to find a way of expressing the lived experience of participants in the research. Grounded Theory Developing a theory grounded in field data Discourse Analysis Analysing people’s use of discourse (talk and text) to do things in social contexts A common source of data is research interviews but texts and archives are also analysed using GT Coding Categorising and conceptualising Interviews Recordings of naturally occurring interactions Texts (e.g. documents and advertisements) Listening, transcribing, reading over and over coding analysis and interpretation Analysis and interpretation presented in such a way that the reader is able to assess the analyst’s interpretation. Includes examples of the discourse together with their analysis and interpretation linking analytic claims to parts or aspects of the extracts. A clear analytic story on a conceptual / theoretical level. Clear specification of relationships among categories. Clear specifications of variations - parts of the story or categories that don’t quite fit with the others. 2 Creswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1998 8-9 Unit 6: Traditions of Qualitative Inquiry Data Analysis and Representation in the Three Traditions Managing data Reading and notetaking Describing Classifying Ethnography Many videotapes and/ or audiotapes and many pages of extensive field notes require a well organised recording and filing system. Read text over and over; make notes in the margin; make memos Describe the social setting, actors, events;draw a picture of the setting Generate concepts and models that help make sense of the data; develop and test these analytic categories; be tolerant of ambiguity don’t rush to closure; identify patterns and themes; constant comparison Grounded Theory Documents, otes, recordings - again create and organise files for data Discourse Analysis High quality tape recording; good transcription; thoughtful filing system for transcripts, notes, etc. Read text over and over; make notes in the margin; form initial codes Describe the setting and context for data collection Read text over and over; make notes in the margin; form initial codes Describe the setting and context for data collection Coding for analysis; Axial coding Open coding (categories, properties, dimensions); constant comparison Coding in order to make the data manageable; Select different kinds of instances from the data set which relate to the research question (be inclusive); place the different kinds of instances in different files Read and re-read for detail not gist; search for pattern differences and similarities in content and form of accounts; form and test hypotheses about the functions of these accounts (a) coherence (b) participant’s orientation (c) new problems identified (d) fruitfulness in making sense of new kinds of discourse and generating novel explanations Present analysis and interpretation together with detailed examples to illuminate both analysis and claims Analysing/ Interpreting Interpret and make sense of the findings;stories, typologies of categories, relations between categories; constant comparison Selective coding and developing stories; conditional matrix; typologies of categories and relations between them; constant comparison Warranting (or validating) claims audit trail; triangulation; respondent validation. audit trail; triangulation; respondent validation. Representing, visualising Narrative presentation augmented by tables, figures and sketches Present a model or theory Present propositions 9-9