>I'd agree that the key element is change over time, Nick, but I seriously
do
>wonder whether we should restrict the use of the term to its very sharp and
>specific meaning, as you and Harald reported.
.... I am
>increasingly convinced that qualitative research requires study of process,
>and once-off data like single interviews are very challenging to analyse
>qualitatively for this reason. Is anyone writing a book on "Longitudinal
>Qualitative Research"?
>
I think that Lyn raises an important issue. I agree that "longitudinal
qualitative research" focuses on "process" rather than simply "change over
time." But I also think that if you elaborate on this idea a bit, you can
get a better sense of both the similarities and differences between
longitudinal quantitative research and longitudinal qualitative research.
Both sorts of methods deal with "change over time." However, for
longitudinal quantitative research, "change over time" usually boils down to
"variation over time." The basic variables are stable. Only the values of
the variables change over time. The methods support testing models in which
time is an important element. In my opinion, for longitudinal qualitative
research, "change over time" really refers to "transformation (or lack of
transformation) over time." From this perspective, the basic variables
(institutions, rules?) themselves may change and the purpose of research is
to understand how process either facilitates or constrains these changes.
Both are valid/useful forms of longitudinal research. They are just have
somewhat different objectives (and I suspect are associated with somewhat
different epistemic stances about the nature of "social reality.")
Bill Kaghan
|