[Xmca-l] Fwd: Strict definitions of qualitative research

[mike cole]

An interestingly different, but thematically identical,discussion about
qual/quant binary is going on and there are overlapping members
on the two lists.
mike

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Lubomir Savov Popov <lspopov@bgsu.edu>
Date: Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 7:08 PM
Subject: Re: Strict definitions of qualitative research
To: <QUAL@listserv.temple.edu>


Dear Colleagues,



This is an interesting thread and deserves some thoughts.



There are a lot of misconceptions about the Qualitative. The major reason
is that the Qualitative is an umbrella term for several paradigms from the
realm of humanities and social sciences. If people understand this,
everything will come in its place. Then the issues about methodological
fidelity will be construed by paradigm rather than regarding the vast and
nebulous entity we call qualitative research. In addition, people who are
not happy with the current deformations in the mass understanding of the
qualitative, those people would not express their dissatisfaction in terms
of the Post-Qualitative. We can’t have Post-Qualitative when the
Qualitative is in its infancy stage and worst of all, it is grossly
deformed.



So, instead of claiming we are doing qualitative research, let’s study a
paradigm, let’s understand it, let’s master this way of thinking, and then
follow its epistemology and methodology.



If we share these positions, many things will come in their places, and
with ease.



One of the reasons not to start with a literature review is to bracket out
(I don’t refer to Phenomenology here) past experience, to prevent
contamination of researcher’s consciousness.  Hermeneutical scholars might
disagree with this, but they have to show they are doing Hermeneutics. And
one other exception: rapid qualitative research.



Saturation: Qualitative research is not intended to provide information
that is generalizable for a vast population. If you want such
generalizations, make a survey, learn how Positivists work. In order to go
in-depth, and to be feasible regarding time and budget, we select cases
that are representative only for their class. The less, the better. We can
go deeper and deeper. But work till saturation.



In order to achieve saturation, narrow down the population to a very
homogeneous group. Exceptions: if you need to use “compare and contrast”
approach, with negative cases. But even in such situations, the target
population should be narrowed down to a highly homogeneous composition. In
the qualitative paradigms, do not try to take a case from each subgroup. If
you see a subgroup, treat it as a target population. Then make several
studies; then … we can talk later how to proceed.



In the qualitative paradigms, the researcher is the tool. This is a very
authoritative area, like the arts. Only the best artist knows best. And who
is the best artist is terra incognita. It is about intuition and zeitgeist.
And if we misjudge, it is our problem. The experienced researcher might (I
say might) be more trustworthy than the undergraduate student.



Disagreement: This is natural. Each paradigm is (supposed to be) a coherent
system of thinking. Everything that doesn’t fit into that system is
rejected violently and experienced painfully. History of science and the
major writings on the concept of paradigm show that clearly.



Changing paradigms to fit the project: Shopping for paradigms is not like
shopping for methods. The paradigm is a state of mind. If you change
paradigms like we change cars and still drive, there is something wrong
here. Changing paradigms is associated with confusion, cognitive
dissonance, and pain. People need a life time to master a paradigm of
thinking. Well, let’s say a very long time, many years, decades. The switch
is confusing because all the right things in one paradigm are the wrong
things in the other paradigm. On top of all, mix and match creates even
more discord. And when people read publications predominantly from one
paradigm, they get tuned to it subconsciously and then have problems
thinking properly in the other paradigm. Then they start subconsciously
mixing epistemological and methodological requirements. Some people become
aware of this and try to bracket out contaminating idea; other people
believe they create better science this way. You guess what is my opinion
about this.



A bit more about paradigmatic fidelity: If a researcher is using a
hermeneutical approach, they should not claim they are making
phenomenology. And Grounded Theory – it is high time to disclose that this
is the field research offspring of Symbolic Interactionism. I have reviewed
articles that claim a phenomenological approach, and half of the article is
filled with statistics. These are extreme cases, but they are also pretty
common.



Starting with one interview question: Well, let’s start with an interview
GUIDE and be ready to modify the guide as we receive new information.



Using the concept and term “research question:” Well there is too much
Positivism here. If we cannot align with some basic conceptualizations in
the qualitative paradigms, we cannot claim we are doing good “qualitative”
research.



If we understand the concept of paradigm, we would not fight about what is
the right way of doing qualitative research. Our problem will be what is
the right way of doing research within this or that paradigm. There will be
less irrelevant discussions and less animosity. I mean less, rather than no
more.



I am also stressed when I read a title like: Qualitative Research: Several
Traditions/Approaches/Ways…Well, let’s refer to several paradigms. And then
the issue will be – why put all these paradigms in one book? Why not
produce instructions by paradigm, in more depth, with more understanding.
Then it will become clear that there not several ways to do qualitative
research, but there are several paradigms that can be used for studying
social reality. In this regard, I would say – there are not many ways of
doing qualitative research. They are only several. The rest is not serious.



By the way, all these paradigms are unfinished business. I am astonished
that no one thinks about developing further their epistemologies and
developing field research tools commensurate with these epistemologies.
Instead, we jumped to the Qualitative and now, even to the Post-qualitative
(as if the Qualitative is a done deal).



If there is something that is more abused than “qualitative research,” it
is “phenomenology.” I don’t know why everyone claims they are doing
phenomenology while they simply make a hodge-podge of what they have read
in several books with the title Qualitative… It is not uncommon to see
“Teacher’s Emotional Labor in the Classroom: a Phenomenology” and then
elaboration of number of interviewees (from 20 to 70?), percentages, and
even more than descriptive statistics.



I have always claimed that the phenomenological method cannot be learned by
reading books. It takes more than that – discussions and deliberations over
a glass of cognac or a cup of coffee. It is not like Positivism and
Arithmetic: open a book, read, go, and solve the problem – 2+2=4.



And when we talk so much about Phenomenology, I am astonished that everyone
is doing it in their own way (the wrong way), rather than learning
Ethnomethodology. This is a clear indication that people have no idea what
is Phenomenology, never read, and never heard beyond the name by itself.



At the end, to be honest, I use the term Qualitative. Simply because it is
easier to communicate with the outside World. It saves me lots of disputes
and angry reviewers. The umbrella keeps me from the rain, in some way. When
everyone uses the qualitative jargon, it is easier to communicate with the
faithful population, even when I understand the precarious inaccuracies and
misconceptions. But in the long run, we have a talk, which is most
important.



Thank you for attention,



Lubomir



Lubomir Popov, PhD

Professor, School of Family and Consumer Sciences

American Culture Studies affiliated faculty

N217 North Eppler Hall,

Bowling Green, Ohio 43403

Lspopov@bgsu.edu

419.372.7835
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181108/a7074847/attachment.html