JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for QUAL-SOFTWARE Archives


QUAL-SOFTWARE Archives

QUAL-SOFTWARE Archives


QUAL-SOFTWARE@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

QUAL-SOFTWARE Home

QUAL-SOFTWARE Home

QUAL-SOFTWARE  November 2001

QUAL-SOFTWARE November 2001

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Haphazard sampling

From:

Kath Checkland <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

qual-software <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 23 Nov 2001 16:09:41 -0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (148 lines)

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]
> >
> > --
> >
> >

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager