It's funny - I didn't use to have the word longitudinal in the description
of my work, but added it some time later. Perhaps I was trying to become
more academic or something. I think I could easily take it out and won't
make any difference, so you're probably right Lyn.
alan
>From: Lyn Richards <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: qual-software <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Longitudinal studies
>Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 00:04:16 +1000
>
>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. Has qualitative research just
>blunted a perfectly good methodological term? Perhaps, Alan, you and I
>shouldn't use it if we just mean over time - we don't add any
>methodological
>info by doing so. I think it matters if we don't have a relevant term for
>studies over time, or even a very good methodology for handling them - 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"?
>
>btw while the dictionary defn is just "of or pertaining to length" - (how
>did it get into methodology as time, I wonder?), the Shorter Oxford adds
>"Produced in the direction of the vibrating body" which sounds a bit more
>like fieldwork studies I have known!)
>
>I'll look forward to the wisdom that morning brings when I log on...
>Lyn
>
>Lyn Richards,
>Director, Research Services, QSR.
>(email) [log in to unmask]
>(Ph) +61 3 9459 1699 (Fax) +61 3 9459 0435
>(snail) Box 171, La Trobe University PO, Vic 3083, Australia.
>http://www.qsrinternational.com
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Nicholas JS Gibson [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: Monday, 9 April 2001 11:45 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Longitudinal studies
>
>
>Here's a couple general definitions to throw into the mix:
>
>Hilgard's introduction to psychology 12th ed.
>
>"A research method that studies an individual through time, taking
>measurements at periodic intervals."
>
>Penguin dictionary of psychology 2nd ed.
>
>"Research carried out by following a number of subjects over an extended
>period of time (c.f. cross-sectional method)."
>
>
>Maybe my use of the word variable in my last email reflects that I'm more
>used to doing quantitative work than qualitative. Further, the above
>definitions are also probably somewhat limited, given that the system of
>interest may not be an individual but rather a community or some other
>thing altogether (an environmental system, say).
>
>So I guess the key element is that of looking for change over time, as
>Harald said.
>
>Nick
>
>--
>Research Assistant
>Psychology and Christianity Project
>Faculty of Divinity, University of Cambridge
>West Road, Cambridge, CB3 9BS, UK
>
>mailto:[log in to unmask]
>phone/fax: +44 1223 763010/763003
>
>
>
>Today 2:29pm, Alan Simpson wrote:
>
> > I'm really glad that Lyn wrote in response to this and also that others
> > raised and discussed the issue. Before Lyn wrote I was thinking 'oh
>dear.
>I
> > had better not call my study longitudinal anymore'. I have being
>conducting
> > a research project using predominantly qualitative methods where I
>re-visit
> > people and teams over a 15 month period of time, or more. However, there
>are
> > no 'fixed' variables, other than the individuals and teams (and they're
>are
> > not very fixed at all!). So, I will be very interested in any future
>noise
> > on this one.
> >
> > bets wishes,
> >
> > Alan Simpson
> > Brighton, UK.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
|