Hi Helen - I haven't been an internal or external examiner of a qualitative
thesis but I do give lectures on qualitative analysis. For a recent
assessment I requested students to submit a design for the analysis of the
qualitative data they were collecting for their dissertations. I have noted
significant confusion among students due to the contradictory and fragmented
nature of qualitative research so this was worked into the assessment. I
list the title given to them and the criteria for assessment below:
'Develop a proposal for the analysis of data collected (interviews). Set
out the theoretical background for the chosen methodology, and the data
collection strategy. Show how the analytic framework relates both to theory
and strategy. Include a description of coding and searching strategies, and
the contribution of NUDIST to these strategies.'
Marking criteria:
Good clear research question
Theoretical background - linking the topic under study to the philosophical
position espoused
Justification for using particular approach
Clear linkage between philosophical background - data collection method -
analytic framework - analytic process
Good outline of proposed analytic process
Discussion of advantages/disadvantages of using CAQDAS and reasons for
selecting either manual or computerised approach
Feasibility - is it possible to accomplished the proposed approach within
the time set?
Understanding the fundamental differences between quantitative and
qualitative research! (Particularly relevant in health sciences where most
students are trained in quant first and only come to qualitative at
post-grad level)
Presentation
I specifically asked students to clearly link their philosophical background
(i.e. grounded theory, narrative, hermeneutic etc) to their analytic
framework in order to help them translate theory into practice. Many of
these students were taught qual research with reference to a particular
philosopher, such as Husserl, Heidegger, Gadamer, etc and found it hard to
work out how these philosopher's ideas could translate into research
practices (not surprising since most of those guys never did research!).
This enabled me to deal with a range of qualitative approaches from
descriptive, through narrative, GT, and the bundle of phenomenological
approaches that the students were undertaking.
My main area of work is health services research but I come from a general
anthropology background. I lecture at Masters level, mostly nursing and
health services. I have advised on 3 Master's theses, and this assignment
was set for 14 MSc Nursing students.
Hope this is of interest,
Sarah D
-----Original Message-----
From: qual-software [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
Helen Marshall
Sent: 29 August 2003 02:23
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: follow-up request for participants in study of examniers' views
on qual analysis.
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
|
