[Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: What is science?

Fri Nov 9 13:50:12 PST 2018

Got it. Martin
Thnx
Mike

On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 11:01 AM Martin Packer <mpacker@cantab.net> wrote:

> As Greg mentions, the first chapter of The Science of Qualitative Research
> is indeed titled "What Is Science?” Since that was the title of this thread
> I’m attaching a copy (from the corrected proofs, not the final pdf).
> Normally the listserv removes the attachments from my messages, so let’s
> see…
>
> Martin
>
>
> On Nov 9, 2018, at 11:31 AM, Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> 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/20181109/44187d91/attachment.html 