[Xmca-l] Re: The Science of Qualitative Research 2ed

[WEBSTER, DAVID S.]

Hi Martin, does William Stephenson's Q Methodology feature in your discussion?


________________________________
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Martin John Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co>
Sent: 18 December 2017 01:12
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Science of Qualitative Research 2ed

Hi Huw,

In the field of research methodology in the social sciences the labels “quantitative” and “qualitative” are somewhat misleading; the issues at stake are better viewed as paradigmatic ones, rather than whether or not one uses numbers.

The position I develop in the book is that the logical positivists’ attempt to define a single scientific method has been a disaster for psychology, in particular. Positivism has led to the view that the ‘gold standard’ for research is a randomized clinical trial, in which one seeks a causal explanation of a phenomenon through testing a hypothesis, by defining and manipulating variables, and by measuring outcomes. This approach is what has come to be called “quantitative” research, and it is what is taught in most research methods classes. It is an approach that assumes that all explanation is causal, when in fact many explanations are constitutive. It assumes that causes are invisible and must be inferred: they are not, much of science involves making causal processes visible. And it assumes that measurement is an objective process: it is not, it always involves theory and interpretation.

I have nothing against numbers, and have no quarrel with mathematics. I studied math and physics as an undergraduate until specializing in psychology (which was considered a natural science) in the final year. But understanding what people do has always struck me as requiring something more than this. My book explores the ‘what more?’

Martin

> On Dec 17, 2017, at 4:29 AM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Martin,
>
> Do you define quality? And if not can you tell me why, from your
> perspective, QR avoids defining it?
>
> Thanks,
> Huw
>
> On 17 December 2017 at 01:15, Martin John Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Helen,
>>
>> It’s not a how-to book, but rather an exploration of the roots of
>> qualitative research — phenomenology, hermeneutics, critical theory - and
>> an examination of the logic underlying interviews, ethnographic fieldwork,
>> and analysis of interaction. That might be too theoretical for your class.
>> I continue to work away at a book on how to do qualitative research, which
>> I have taught many times. In case it’s useful I’ve attached the syllabus
>> from the last time I taught the course in English. You’ll see I assigned
>> only selected chapters from the first edition.
>>
>> But of course you should still buy a copy for each of your friends!  :)
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 16, 2017, at 7:15 PM, Helena Worthen <helenaworthen@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Martin, I’ve just been given the go-head to teach a social science
>> research methods class to undergraduates at Ton Duc Thang U. in Ho Chi Minh
>> City, VN. This sounds like a humane book - do you think it could be used
>> for undergraduates?
>>>
>>> The undergrads are in the Faculty of Labor Relations and Trade Unions so
>> the sites of their research will be workplaces.
>>>
>>> H
>>>
>>> Helena Worthen
>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com
>>> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745
>>> Blog US/ Viet Nam:
>>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com
>>> skype: helena.worthen1
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Dec 16, 2017, at 2:19 PM, Martin John Packer <
>> mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Cambridge University Press, in their infinite wisdom, have just
>> published an expanded second edition of my book The Science of Qualitative
>> Research. It will be a perfect holiday gift for a loved one!  :)
>>>>
>>>> The book continues to make the case that a common view of qualitative
>> research — that it amounts to a set of techniques for describing people’s
>> subjective experience — is mistaken. I propose that in fact qualitative
>> research can take us beyond the taken for granted ontological dualisms of
>> subjectivity/objectivity, mind/world, and appearance/reality. Human beings
>> have created the worlds, the cultures, in which we live, and we are
>> products of these worlds. Qualitative research can be the study of the
>> ‘ontological complicity’ that people have with the social reality in which
>> they live, and the ‘constitution’ in which specific ways of being human are
>> formed. The constituents of qualitative research — and in the book I focus
>> on three: interviews, analysis of interaction, and ethnographic field work
>> — can be combined and aligned to focus on ontology, in a scientific study
>> of the constitution of human beings. This science is centrally a matter of
>> interpretation, of hermeneutics, not of coding.
>>>>
>>>> The new material includes a discussion of the centrality of
>> constitution (not only causation) in every scientific discipline -- think
>> of Watson and Crick discovering how DNA is constituted -- in Chapter 1.
>> Discussion of Bruno Latour’s work has been included in several chapters:
>> there are treatments of his book Laboratory Life, of actor-network theory,
>> and of his Inquiry into Modes of Existence.
>>>>
>>>> In addition, a new final chapter presents as an example and case study
>> the research conducted by Löic Wacquant with boxers in south Chicago.
>> Wacquant joined the gym, learned to box, and came to be on familiar terms
>> with the men who were becoming constituted as boxers. His ethnographic
>> fieldwork focused on the bodily practices of the boxing life, while his
>> interviews illustrated how the boxer’s ontological complicity with this
>> life builds a way of understanding the gym, and the body. Wacquant helps us
>> to see the ideals and morality that are inherent in a boxer’s way of human
>> being, of being human. His research illustrates the potential of
>> qualitative research to enable us to recognize the diverse ways in which
>> people make themselves into particular kinds of person, so we can better
>> understand the ethical freedom that is key to being human. This, in my
>> view, is what makes this kind of scientific investigation both exciting and
>> important.
>>>>
>>>> CUP:
>>>> <http://www.cambridge.org/co/academic/subjects/social-
>> science-research-methods/qualitative-methods/science-
>> qualitative-research-2nd-edition?format=HB&isbn=9781108404501>
>>>>
>>>> Amazon:
>>>> <https://www.amazon.com/gp/search?index=books&linkCode=
>> qs&keywords=9781108417129>
>>>>
>>>> Facebook author’s page:
>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/pg/The-Science-of-Qualitative-
>> Research-2e-1851273521851365/posts/?ref=page_internal>
>>>>
>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>