I am responding to Helen Marshall's request for answers to the question,
"'what are the signs by which you recognize good
qualitative data analysis when you examine a thesis?"
This is a difficult question to answer because the thesis or dissertation
is always judged as a whole, and in my circumstances, I usually have
followed the student through the entire process, i.e. from finding a topic
to writing the discussion of findings. But, since asked, I will try to
articulate what I look for. First, What is being analyzed? Is there
plenty of evidence that the data is detailed, clear, liberal in examples,
and on target as far as answering the question posed. Next, I consider the
complexity of the project, number of cases, quantity of data, has the data
been managed (filed, categorized, organized) in a manner appropriate to its
volume and complexity? If it is a thesis or dissertation and I am
chairing, the student uses the computer to file, organize, retrieve, etc.
Then, after reading the analysis at least twice, I ask myself, what has
been learned here? Usually there are several new ideas or insights
articulated. I then look for clear evidence that the ideas presented are
in fact "grounded" in the data. I need to see several quotes from the data
presented as evidence of a conceptualization. These quotes need to be
convincing and clear. If the quotes from the data are weak, then the point
"made" is not made, and we "go back to the drawing board."
Probably because I am a grounded theory devotee', I like to see visual
representation of the data...diagrams, pictures, etc. To me these are more
evidence that the student has done the "cognitive work" involved in a
qualitative research project. Lastly, I must see some evidence that there
were some instances or cases that (at least when first noted) did not fit
or were a problem. These "contrary cases" need to be treated to a
cognitive and data based evaluation. If there are questions "left over",
that is fine; they simply have to be dealt with in some logical manner.
My experience tells me that a well analyzed project generally produces a
sense of pride, satisfaction and a certain calmness in the student...That
may be a little harder to interpret since it is not on paper, but when it
is there, we both know it.
I am an Assistant Professor of Nursing at the University of Pittsburgh in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. I enjoy working in grounded theory research. I
have supervised 2 masters level thesis and about 8 doctoral level
dissertations.
I wish you luck, productivity, and satisfaction in your endeavor.
Regards, Valerie
=======================================================================
>At 11:22 AM 8/29/2003 +1000, you wrote:
>Dear colleagues
> This email is a follow -up invitation to all those
>who have examined qualitative research theses (full theses or minor theses,
>postgraduate diploma, master's or doctoral level) to participate in a
>research project on the issue of recognizing good qualitative research. If
>you responded to my earlier request, or this is of no interest to you,
>accept my apologies for taking your time (especially for those who will get
>cross-postings).
>
>For those who would like to participate, the background of this project is
>as follows:
>
>I have been wrestling in various ways with the starting question of what
>constitutes good analysis of qualitative data. One of the difficulties is,
>of course, that 'good' means different things in different parts of the
>research world. Health researchers will probably have some rules for
>goodness in common with cultural anthropologists and educational
>researchers, and some differences.
>
>It dawned on me late one night (after writing an examiner's report) that
>people who examine theses must have articulated to themselves the rules and
>heuristics they use to evaluate research. So if I can get examiners to
>spell out the characteristics that represent good data analysis I will get
>some answers my starting question.
>
>Here's what I am asking you to do:
>1) Reflect on the question what are the signs by which you recognize
>good qualitative data analysis when you examine a thesis?
>2) Email your answer to the discussion list before 30 September 2003.
> Please add a note on:
>· your discipline or specialization (e.g. 'sociology of health',
>'evaluation research', etc)
>· the number of qualitative theses you have examined (as best you can
>recall it)
>· what type of theses you have examined (e.g. 'all minor theses for
>coursework degrees or about 5 research PhDs and about 10 research Masters')
>
>
>I think that a public discussion will create interesting synergies, and so
>encourage you to use the list rather than a reply to me direct, but if for
>some reason you prefer not to make a public response, please email me direct
>at [log in to unmask]
>
>This research project has been approved by the Ethics committee of the
>faculty of The Constructed Environment, Royal Melbourne Institute of
>Technology. Responding to the question about signs by which you recognize
>good analysis constitutes agreement to participate in the project.
>
>Here is what I will do with your data in the first instance:
>I will copy all email responses, and edit them to remove your name and any
>identifying details except for your specialization and experience as
>examiner. Once the copy is made, I will delete the original email.
> I will use NVIVO for data management. I seek your permission to quote
>from the text of your email in publications resulting from the project. I
>undertake to post to the list a brief description of the findings of the
>project in October 2003.
>
>Data storage and later use
>I will keep the NVIVO file for five years, and may use it during that time
>in teaching qualitative methods. I hope to include use material from the
>project from it in a monograph on qualitative data analysis, and to generate
>at least one conference paper from it. Although your original responses are
>identifiable to the e-list like any other public communication, they will be
>anonymous in the context of my research project and any publications or
>teaching arising from it.
>
>I thank those of you who have already participated, and apologize to those
>who will receive cross-postings. I look forward very much to discussion
>around the question "what are the signs by which you recognize good
>qualitative data analysis when you examine a thesis?"
>
>Yours sincerely
>Helen Marshall
>
>Dr Helen Marshall
>Senior Lecturer,
>Coordinator of context Curriculum
>School of Social Science and Planning
>Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology
>
>phone 61+03+99253016
>fax 61+03+99251087
>email [log in to unmask]
>
>
>Double click on www.rmit.edu.au/tce/ssp
>to visit the School of Social Science and Planning's Website
>
>Or click http://www.rmit.edu.au/tce/ssp/socialscience/honours
>to visit the honours program page
>
>Or click www.rmit.edu.au/tce/ssp/ap/context
>to visit the CCpage
Valerie Swigart, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Nursing
University of Pittsburgh
440 Victoria Building
Pittsburgh, PA 15261
Phones: 412-624-1214 or 412-621-7812
Fax: 412-621-8424
|