Hi Monica,
How about a coffee on Tuesday 12th May, 1pm at the Biscuit?
Frances
________________________________
From: Performative Social Science on behalf of Monica Prendergast
Sent: Mon 27/04/2009 17:49
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Response to the NSF report on standards for qual research
And, to add to your European perspectives, might I point out the cutting-edge work being done in Canada in arts-based qualitative research at the University of British Columbia, Faculty of Education, in a/r/tography (http://m1.cust.educ.ubc.ca/Artography/) and at the Centre for Arts-Informed Research at the University of Toronto (http://www.utoronto.ca/CAIR/airchome3.html <http://www.utoronto.ca/CAIR/airchome3.html> )?
Cheers,
Monica
Monica Prendergast, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Graduate School of Arts and Social Sciences
Division of Creative Arts in Learning
Lesley University
13 Mellen Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
Ph: 617-349-8304
Fax: 617-349-8142
Email: [log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]
Web: www.bostontheatrereviews.blogspot.com <http://www.bostontheatrereviews.blogspot.com/> <http://www.vicreviews.blogspot.com/>
--- On Sat, 4/25/09, Kip Jones <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: Kip Jones <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Response to the NSF report on standards for qual research
To: [log in to unmask]
Received: Saturday, April 25, 2009, 4:21 AM
Dear Carolyn
I have just read your response to the NSF through the newsgroups.
You message certainly calls attention to the diversity and depth of qualitative research. In doing so, however, you have missed or excluded the work being done in Europe (for example, FQS, the trilingual, international, open access journal for qualitative research) and tend to conceive of 'international' events and resources in a North American-centric way. The only exception seems to be a mention of a journal out of Cardiff (perhaps because they have been loudest in their criticism of some 'American' qualitative work?).
You have not mentioned our work here at Bournemouth and the Centre for Qualitative Research (http://www.bournemouth.ac.uk/cqr/) our pioneering efforts in novel and innovative research methods, humanising health and social care, and Performative Social Science (Performative Social Science moves well beyond the 'performance ethnography' that you do mention, by the way). You message also leaves out the biennal qualitative research conference that we organise, attracting participants from dozens of countries every two years (and organise with quality, rather than simply quantity, in mind). In addition, we are well known for the four to six masterclasses held annually at Bournemouth with internationally recognised qualitative experts in a diverse range of qualitative methods (you were one of them a while back!) .
There are many other universities, centres and qualitative groups throughout Europe making important contributions to qualitative research and methodological innovation. (For a list of some of these international resources, see http://www.bournemouth.ac.uk/cqr/rescqrlnk.html) I will not rehearse that list here, except to say that it is often to Europe that many American qualitative research look when seeking a philosophical foundation to their qualitative efforts. In addition, qualitative work from Australia, South America, the sub-continent and other global locations cannot be ignored. By doing so, American scholars run the risk of creating an 'intellectual Las Vegas', --inward-looking and microcentric.
As an American, I can understand how easily we can fall into the trap that what is American is global and that we do not have to look beyond our shores for answers (examples from sociology of the immigrant to America turning her/his back on Europe abound). I would hope that recent movements, however, are beginning to change that pervasive cultural flaw. The current economic crisis (and any potential solutions to it) seems to point to the fact that we need to think globally if we are to dig our way out of it.
Please remember your 'cousins' over here; we may actually be able to contribute to the battle raging there!
My best to you and Art,
Cheers,
kip
Dr Kip Jones
Reader in Qualitative Research
Centre for Qualitative Research
Leader, Performative Social Science Group
School of Health & Social Care and
The Media School
Bournemouth University
Royal London House, Christchurch Road
Bournemouth BH1 3LT UK
*****************************************
Telephone 44+ (0)120 296 2800
*****************************************
Webpage:http://kipworld.net <http://kipworld.net/>
New! Blog: http://kipworldblog.blogspot.com/
*****************************************
"Changing the way we view social science, one download at a time".
Carolyn Ellis
Professor of Communication and Sociology
Department of Communication
University of South Florida
4202 E. Fowler Ave., CIS1040
Tampa, Fl. 33620-7800
April 23, 2009
Memo to:
Michele Lamont and Patricia White, authors of report on "Workshop on
Interdisciplinary Standards for Systematic Qualitative Research"
The International Community of Qualitative Scholars
From:
Norman Denzin, Distinguished Professor of Communications, College of
Communications Scholar, and Research Professor of Communications,
Sociology, and Humanities at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Yvonna Lincoln, Ruth Harrington Chair of Educational Leadership, and
Distinguished Professor of Higher Education at Texas A&M University
Arthur Bochner, Distinguished University Professor, Department of
Communication, University of South Florida, Immediate Past President of
National Communication Association
Carolyn Ellis, Professor of Communication and Sociology, Co-Director of
the Institute for Interpretive Studies, University of South Florida
Re:
NSF's 2009 report entitled "Workshop on Interdisciplinary Standards for
Systematic Qualitative Research."
We write to respond to NSF's 2009 report entitled "Workshop on
Interdisciplinary Standards for Systematic Qualitative Research." We
welcome the recent attention given by NSF to interdisciplinary standards
for systematic qualitative research in the social sciences (Lamont and
White, 2009; Becker 2009). NSF's statement recognizes the central place
of qualitative research in the academy today, while noting considerable
variability in the emphasis on constructivist versus positivist
epistemologies.
Missing from the lengthy report, however, is acknowledgement of the
critical and interpretive qualitative work being done in and supported
by the International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry (qi2009. org),
the number of journals now publishing this work (Atkinson and Delamont,
2006), the number of disciplines involved (St. Pierre and Roulston,
2006; American Education Research Association, 2006, 2008), and the
many different paradigms, methods, and approaches being widely applied
within the broader field of qualitative inquiry.
In seeking interdisciplinary (cultural anthropology, law and social
science, political science, sociology) standards for qualitative
research, the NSF workshop: (1) narrowly and traditionally defines
qualitative research (QR)/methods as a set of data gathering tools, to
be used alone or in tandem with quantitative data techniques; (2)
narrowly frames QR to only include interviews, archival research, and
ethnography; (3) seeks common themes and standards between QR and
quantitative methods, such as: (a) an emphasis on rigor, (b)
operationalizing key constructs, (c) testing hypotheses, (d) thorough
data analysis, (e) sampling techniques, (f) small samples can yield big
results, still be scientific, even if not random, and offer generalization.
The focus on common criteria: rigor, design, sampling, and generalizing,
reads QR through an exclusively quantitative, logical empiricist model
of inquiry. There is no consideration of the new interpretive
qualitative inquiry methodologies: autoethnography, performance
ethnography, active and interactive interviews, critical ethnography,
mixed methodologies, narrative, discourse methods, decolonizing
methodologies, disability issues, feminist qualitative research, ethics,
IRBs and academic freedom, indigenous epistemologies, indigenous ethics,
grounded theory and social justice methodologies, participatory action
research, collaborative inquiry, the politics of evidence, postcolonial
methodologies, qualitative case studies, queering the interview, writing
as a method of inquiry, or varieties of validity.
This discourse contests and debates terms like operationalize, test,
sample, generalize, and data analysis. Regrettably, in confining the
document to these four disciplines, the report failed to consider the
efforts by committees within the American Education Research Association
to formalize evaluative criteria for qualitative research, including
arts-based methodologies (AERA 2006, 2008). This discourse is situated
within the global conversation regarding evidence-based research, and
the challenges it raises for qualitative researchers. Indeed the report
seems to stand outside time, ignoring the demands the global audit
culture places on social science inquiry.
The report calls for: (1) partnerships with professional associations,
(2) summer institutes focused on qualitative methodology (i.e.
IQRM--Institute for Qualitative Methods--the qualitative equivalent of
ICPSR--Interuniversity for Political and Social Research), (3) workshops
for teachers of qualitative methods. Thankfully, two such institutes now
exist: the International Institute for Qualitative Methodology at the
University of Calgary (twelve years old), and The Center for Qualitative
Inquiry and the International Institute for Qualitative Inquiry at the
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, which is the independent
non-profit that oversees the International Congress of Qualitative
Inquiry (six years old). In addition, a global network of
interconnected Qualitative Inquiry Collaborating Sites connects programs
and scholars in 65 nations. In May 2009, the Fifth International
Congress will be held. As has been typical each year, the 2009 program
has attracted 225 panel and 1500 paper submissions from 40 disciplines
and 70 nations. Additionally, there were 70 submissions for the Illinois
Distinguished Dissertation Competition, which features critical and
interpretive ethnographic work
We urge NSF to take into account the work being done by interpretive and
critical ethnographers in all disciplines, including Communication
Studies and Education among others, and to include on their review
panels and in their workshops distinguished scholars working within
these approaches who can effectively represent this body of qualitative
researchers in further deliberations about qualitative research.
References:
American Education Research Association. 2006. Standards for Reporting
on Empirical Social Science Research in AERA publications. Available at
http://www.aera.net/opportunities/?id=1480
American Education Research Association. 2008. Standards for Reporting
on Humanities-Oriented Research in AERA publications. Available at
http://www.aera.net/pubs/draft_Humanities Standards_April 30.pdf.
Atkinson, Paul and Sara Delamont. 2006. "In the Roiling Smoke:
Qualitative Inquiry and Contested Fields." International Journal of
Qualitative Studies in Education, 19, 6 (November-December): 747-755
Becker, Howard S. 2009. "How to Find Out how to do Qualitative
Research." (circulated electronic document, April 2009).
Lamont, Michelle and Patricia White. 2009. Workshop on
Interdisciplinary Standards for Systematic Qualitative Research
(Washington: National Science Foundation), available at
http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/ses/soc/ISSQR_workshop_rpt.pdf
St. Pierre, Elizabeth A. and Kathryn Roulston. 2006. "The State of
Qualitative Inquiry: A Contested Science." International Journal of
Qualitative Studies in Education, 19, 6 (November-December): 673-684.
--
________________________________
Get the name you've always wanted <http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/jacko/> ! @ymail.com or @rocketmail.com.
|
