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

[Greg Thompson]

My feeling is that qualitative researchers need to do three things better
(and we need to do a better job of training our students in these):

1. Articulate much more clearly what it is that qual research is UNIQUELY
positioned to do (I think that this has to do with, among other things, the
processual, the practical, the interactional, the material(!)(?) and the
contextual).
2. Recognize that there are questions/issues that qual research cannot
address.
3. Recognize that there are questions/issues that quant research cannot
address.

Most qual researchers seem unable to do #1 well (this is why I like
Martin's book so much). Instead they/we tend to say "... and qualitative
research could help too" - in the process uncritically accepting the
positivist paradigm of counting first and then adding on qual research as a
kind of non-essential topping or add-on, an unnecessary flourish in the
event that you want to do this. As a result, we don't notice that many
important questions REQUIRE qual research (and quant research can be added
on in cases where it is needed).

And, on the other hand, some qual researchers go a bit too far and say that
all questions can be answered with qual research (not recognizing #2). The
trouble here is (to use Lubomir's term) paradigmatic overreach.

What is really needed is a strong articulation of what qual research is
distinctively poised to do (again, see Martin's book). We need to be
training our students to do is to know how to ask the right questions. I
find that my students always come in asking questions that are answerable
by quant methods. They don't know how to ask qual questions - even though
these are much much more interesting!

I suspect the reason why they initially insist on quant questions has
something to do with what they understand "science" to be (i.e., a thing
that provides definitive answers to yes/no questions (how boring!)), so
Beth, my sense is you are asking the right question (and note that Martin's
first chapter is titled "What is Science?" (and in case you are wondering,
yes Martin is paying me by the mention!)).

And Beth, once things slow down for you I'd love to hear what you make of
this conversation and to hear some of your insights since I know that you
are extremely knowledgeable about qualitative research.

Very best,
greg



On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 9:44 PM mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Anthropology
880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu
http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181109/1b23036c/attachment.html