On Monday 07 July 2003 11:36 pm, Mike Cole promulgated:
>
> Our interpreation was (mine is) that the initial coders formed an
> idioculture which allowed them to anticipate their joint interpretations,
> but its was a culture of two and very fragile. The codes did not cut
> interactional nature at its joint, but hacked a usable concensus.
since you also referenced Bronfenbrenner in your ecological niche picking
paper,
"the analysis must be consistent with the participants' definition of
the situation, by which he means that the experimental manipulations
and outcomes must be shown to be "perceived by the participants
in a manner consistent with the conceptual definitions
explicit and implicit in the research design" (1977, p. 35).
what I'm wondering is how the ideocultured analysis could even come close to
achieving ecological validity if the participants themselves had not engaged
in the analysis/interpretation. Sure, this complicates methodology further
-- are the coded interpretations what B. means by "experimental outcomes"?
if so does it require participants to understand the codings? and then if
so, can any study of the everyday ever achieve an acceptable level of
ecological validity?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 01 2003 - 01:00:08 PDT