Just a quick note as I am horribly horribly busy at the moment
Pelto and Pelto have an interesting take on being the 'other' at home -
don't have time to look up reference but as soon as I get a chance I will
Also look at Michael Agar - The Professional Stranger, and I think Van
Maanen discusses this issues in his book 'Tales of the Field'
righty-ho, i'm off to transcribe huge long interviews and all that.....
Sarah Delaney
Research Officer
Health Services Research Centre
Department of Psychology
Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland
The Mercer Building
Mercer Street Lower
Dublin 2
00-353-1-4022121
[log in to unmask]
> ----------
> From: Birrell Walsh
> Reply To: qual-software
> Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2001 7:24 pm
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Studying one's own culture (was Coding in Nvivo)
>
> Toby Lipman wrote:
> >
> > The problem I have (not really a problem, more a conundrum) is how to
> > interpret my own input and reactions. I share their culture, know many
> > of them personally, and am deeply involved (and known to be deeply
> > involved) in teaching and developing evidence-based practice. I think
> > this has many advantages, in that I can understand and empathise with
> > what they are saying, but the downside is that:
> >
> > 1) they may tell me what they think I want to hear in order to seek my
> > approval
> > 2) I may not challenge shared assumptions about the nature and value of
> > evidence (during analysis rather than during the interviews)
> > 3) my experience as a clinician may be too close to theirs to see issues
> > that a more detached researcher might detect more easily
> >
>
> When I was interviewing people for a dissertation in Comparative
> Religion, I was immersed in the same problem. I finally decided that it
> couldn't be solved: to stand outside of my own culture, I had to stand
> outside myself. It just couldn't be done. I had to leave the
> outside-critic position for those who could genuinely occupy it.
>
> What I could do was twofold. I could attempt to represent the
> experience of my respondents faithfully. That meant in part deliberately
> making an analysis that the informants would agree with. The other part
> was to be a thoughtful commentator, which might mean making comments the
> informants would not agree with.
>
> Steinar Kvale, in his *Interviews : An Introduction to Qualitative
> Research Interviewing* suggested that one might return what one wrote to
> the informants for their comments. I did so, and included their further
> responses in each chapter. The dissertation became a conversation among
> the participants.
>
> This was a wonderful solution. I could attempt to understand what the
> informants said with the assurance that they might correct my
> misunderstandings. I could disagree with their beliefs openly, and they
> could respond.
>
> So may I second Rachel Hopkin's comment:
>
> > > ... Don't forget that the
> > >'expert' you can return to with your codes can also be the
> > >respondent, for who else can 'expertly' say "yes that is
> > >the essence of what I was trying to get across".
> >
>
> Toby Lipman continued:
>
> > So far I have found things that surprised me, such as that those GPs who
> > have the most sophisticated understanding of the evidence are also the
> > most relaxed about accepting decisions by high risk patients not to have
> > the treatment. This begins to reassure me a little, but I'd be
> > interested in others' views on studying one's own culture.
> >
>
> Learning something surprising is the best part of qualitative research,
> methinks.
>
> Birrell Walsh
> MicroTimes Magazine
> San Francisco
>
>
|