For this week’s readings there were a few key themes I pulled
together, namely the discussion/debate about qualitative and quantitative research.
A couple of other things stuck out but to a lesser extent; 1. the lack of
discussion regarding technology in introductory qualitative texts and 2. the
importance of the research proposal.
The biggest thing for me relates to the debate about
qualitative and quantitative research. I’m drawn towards ethnographies and case
studies thus my research background has developed in a qualitative nature. I
find the non-generalizable rich detail and description of an ethnography far
more educational and honest than a series of statistics even with a p-value of
.01. (I’m incredibly proud to know what a p-value means and am grateful my
minor adviser talked me into taking a statistics course if solely for the
working vocabulary.) My minor is in public management which involved some
courses at SPEA where the attitude towards qualitative research is tolerant at
best, disdainful at worst. Mentioning my qualitative background was often met
with a figurative pat on the head, an “isn't that cute smirk”, then an attempt
to encourage me to focus on quantitative methods. I find the bearish belief in
the superiority of quantitative research, especially in the field of education,
troubling. Educational researchers are studying human beings, not numbers.
Numbers and statistics can tell you lots of ‘what’s’ but provide very few
specifics about the ‘why’s’ of a phenomenon. And it is knowing the why that
makes change possible. (Which to me should be the end goal of any research!)
After reading both the introductory chapter of the Paulus,
Lester, and Dempster (2014) and the Davidson and Gregorio (2011) history, I’m left wondering if the advancement
of technology in the realm of qualitative methodologies will help to increase
the level of respect afforded this type of research? Paulus et. al. (2014) suggest that
the use of digital tools increases transparency and will increase the trustworthiness
of a study (p. 6). However, I fear, along
with Davidson and di Gregorio (2011), that if the qualitative use of digital
tools is not emphasized with proper training the use of QDAS and other technologies
will simply be seen as “quantitative research in disguise” (p. 35).
As demonstrated in the discourse analysis of qualitative
research tests conducted by Paulus, Lester and Britt (2013) there is a severe
lack of discussion related to the use of technology in qualitative research at
the introductory level. In my own intro courses I've read three of the book
described and remember being aggravated with the authors’ lack of discussion
related to technology. I found them antiquated and dismissive of the power of
technology. How much of this has to do with the authors own fears of technology
and the tradition of their own training or the fact that several of the books
were in their third of fourth edition is uncertain. (I mention the editions
because I might assume that the discussions of technology are added as
afterthoughts to the original texts and if not done right can seem patched in
place). Even though many professors of qualitative research methodologies are
digital immigrants (Palulus et. al., 2014), greater attention to digital
technologies for qualitative research need to evolve as digital natives enter
the profession.
Finally, and on a completely unrelated note I was comforted
to read the Kilbourn (2006) article regarding qualitative research proposals.
It tied directly into the proposal writing class I’m taking this semester and I
look forward to doing a more thorough reading as I move further into the
process. This article was a nice compliment to both the class discussion and
the texts we are reading and hopefully provided some insights as to things to come. Also, I
found the clear manner in which the literature review was divided informative
and know it will prove useful in developing my own literature review since I am
attempting to meld two connected areas of study that have an “abundance of
related literature” (p. 555) but for which little empirical literature exists.
Oh and here is a picture of Vic helping me “purr”use a few
articles. He’s such a helpful little fella!
References
Davidson, J. & di Gregorio (2011). Qualitative research and technology: In the midst of a revolution. In Denzin & Lincoln The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 4th edition.
Kilbourn, B. (2006). The qualitative doctoral dissertation proposal. Teachers College Record 108(4), 529-576.
Paulus, T. M., Lester, J. N., & Dempster, P. (2014). Digital tools for qualitative research. London, UK: Sage.
Paulus, T. M., Lester, J. N., & Britt, G. (2013). Constructing “false hopes and fears”: A discourse analysis of introductory qualitative research texts. Qualitative Inquiry. 19(9), 637-649.
References
Davidson, J. & di Gregorio (2011). Qualitative research and technology: In the midst of a revolution. In Denzin & Lincoln The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 4th edition.
Kilbourn, B. (2006). The qualitative doctoral dissertation proposal. Teachers College Record 108(4), 529-576.
Paulus, T. M., Lester, J. N., & Dempster, P. (2014). Digital tools for qualitative research. London, UK: Sage.
Paulus, T. M., Lester, J. N., & Britt, G. (2013). Constructing “false hopes and fears”: A discourse analysis of introductory qualitative research texts. Qualitative Inquiry. 19(9), 637-649.
You pose an interesting question in asking if the integration and advancement of digital tools in qualitative research might make it more respected. In some ways I think it can, especially considering Coffey et al's. (1992) argument that the advancement in digital tools and netowrked access can help researchers present their processes and work in new, non-linear fashions. It seems that forms of presentation that encourage interaction and discussion, like blogs or infographics for example, might help others take their own deep dive into the work we do and see the importance of such work themselves.
ReplyDeleteI use a methodology that integrates qualitative and quantitative elements - Design Based Implementation Research - but it is a fairly new methodology, and I lean more toward the qualitative side, and I've come across those same condescending smiles and reviews. I think new and evolving methodologies require new techniques for the research process and data representation. So yes, I'd say that new technologies might be just what we need to gain more respect in our methodologies.
Nice pic of Vic! Very interesting point regarding qual/quant divide perhaps being traversed via incorporate of tools. I was at a qual conference (The Qual Report) this Fri/Sat and this very topic came up. Several people mentioned that within their fields (primary health fields) they were not able to publish without the use of CAQDAS (qual software analysis packages). The rationale provided by journal editors was that this was because CAQDAS alone made the process more rigorous. Now, I would argue this is not necessarily true. However, it does pose quite an interesting dilemma. This directly gets at the critiques of early critics of technology use and qual -- will is imply that we are doing quantitative work. Certainly not -- however, it behooves us to carefully describe how such tools are used. This would perhaps allow us to position ourselves as primary research instruments, supported by specific tools.
ReplyDeleteWe will certainly be exploring this dilemma in class tomorrow. Great observations here.