Contributions such as this are a joy! I love being part of a list where the
fundamental nature of what we do is open to be re-examined/defined in this
way. I would thoroughly agree with the point about quality in qual.
research - in health research, where qualitative stuff is still new and
still has to justify itself (I am currently wrestling with an ethics
committee form that wants to know my sample size and my power calculation!),
many qualitative papers simply end up saying "these were the themes that
emerged"..... well OK, but where does that take you? I think we are often
scared to take the next step and formulate a theory - or conceptual
framework - or anything that will actually move the subject forward, and
even, God forbid, be tested!
Is this a problem unique to the health field, or is it more general in qual
research?
Kath Checkland
GP and PhD student
Manchester
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sarah Delaney" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 23 November 2001 15:20
Subject: Re: Haphazard sampling
> Harriet!
>
> Good to hear from you!
>
> Sorry, list, will now say something erudite and relevant - yes I agree
that
> the qualitative community has struggled to form a separate identity (v.
> psychotherapeutic/anthropological, man). At first I (due to relative
> isolation) that this was mainly occurring in Ireland, where (at risk of
> offending irish listers here) qualitative research has really been the
poor
> and inferior cousin of quant methods. Qual researchers has to compete for
> limited funding with the established paradigm, and justify itself over and
> over in terms of scientific value, validity, all the old chestnuts, even
> today. It really is only in the last 5 years that things have begun to
open
> up. An example is the availability of training in qualitative software
(all
> you qual-soft listers have heard me wittering on about this before) in
> Ireland. Almost (acknowledging the trainers that do exist - Catherine
> Conlon, Trinners and UCD inviting Ann Lewins over) non-existent.
>
> However, as I have gained more experience and met more people it is
becoming
> clear to me that this really is an international problem. I believe that
> there are a number reasons behind this. First there was and still is an
> element of 'preciousness' about the origins of qual, and the disciplines
> involved. The Chicago School in Sociology and Anthropology in general
> preserved an air of mystic, even myth about ethnography and how to do it.
> Practical training in what this thing was and how the *** one, as a
> student, was meant to go about was seen as almost taboo. Students were
> expected to go on to post-graduate study and apprentice themselves to
senior
> people and pick it up - not really suitable to today's high pressure, high
> output, audit oriented world.
>
> This had the effect of creating a false division between the 'pure'
> ethnographic tradition, and somehow 'polluted' (long live Mary Douglas)
> techniques, such as narrative techniques, group approaches and even
grounded
> theory (not mentioned in my ug degree, sorry anyone who knows me!).
>
> The other factor was the environment in which the young qualitative method
> had to grow. Hostile, to say the least, and from the get go qual had form
> an identity in opposition to, and therefore referential (and indeed
> deferential) to the traditional positivist paradigm. This did not foster
> the development of new concepts and a new language to describe the
> fundamentally different concepts and purpose of the qualitative endeavour.
>
> So perhaps it is time to look at where we stand now. At the 2000 QSR
> conference, serious concerns about the quality of qualitative research,
how
> fragmented it was, how we coded too much, were raised. I feel that this
> thread is part of the same concern. Is it time to consolidate our
position?
> I personally never felt very comfortable about using the term 'sampling'
to
> describe something that was not a poor relation of the ideal of random
> sampling - but rather a fundamentally different process - a process of
> selection, either self-selection, or intra group selection (aka 'snowball
> sampling') or researcher-driven selection.
>
> Jaysus, it's happening again - doors opening in me head while I have a
> document to proof!
>
> dear oh dear. Feedback most welcome....
> 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: Harriet Meek
> > Reply To: qual-software
> > Sent: Friday, November 23, 2001 2:41 pm
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: Haphazard sampling
> >
> > Yes, Sarah. It makes an enormous amount of sense. I think we are
> > seeing results of the growing pains of the qual field. And, thank
> > you for reminding us that we might need a slightly deeper reply to
> > this questions.
> >
> > Hope you are feeling better today and that you are finally getting
> > used to a Mac!
> >
> > Harriet Meek
> >
> > >followed this thread with interest yesterday but was unwell so didn't
> > >contribute - now here's my short but sweet contribution
> > >
> > >sometimes I wonder whether even using the term 'sampling' with all
it's
> > >connotations can be construed as attempting to 'live up' to a quant
> > >standard, when really qual should be setting it's own. What does
> > 'sampling'
> > >mean? How relevant is it to the qual endeavour when it is so
associated
> > >with the positivistic tradition that you have explain for hours to
> > someone
> > >why qualitative sampling is different?
> > >
> > >does this make any sense?
> > >
> > >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]
> >
> > --
> >
> >
|