Thanks for the thoughtful responses by trainers and developers.
I take Lyn's points that neither the founders nor the developers are making
the problematic elision of grounded theory and QDA software, but I think
the interesting group here are the thronging masses of followers who are
using qual methods and software in applied situations. As Lyn rightly hints
it is this group of users and followers, and not the innovators, who are
most likely to be only semi-literature in the theory of QDA. Hence my
question focused on the training courses.
Perhaps there's a more general political issue here.
Compare biostatisticians, or demographers, or satisticians in general.
There is a sense in which their expertise is generally recognised and the
'esoteric' nature of their knowledge unquestioned. Courses in
multivariate statistics typically require a sophisticated background in,
and completion of other courses, in statistics. Qualitative research
doesn't yet seem to have the prestive of quant methods, so we don't have
the same ability to be as selective about who we allow to attend our
training courses. Also, because qualitative methods deals with meaning and
'everyday' knowledge, I suspect that many people think that they can just
'pick it up' without too much background.
Professional associations are one answer to this quality control issue. If
you employ a qualitative researcher - demand they have the appropriate
training. Though, I am of course probably mostly speaking to the
converted!
As a famous Australian once said.
Such is life.
Doug Ezzy
Douglas Ezzy PhD
Sociology
University of Tasmania,
Hobart, 7001, Australia
Ph (613) 6226 2330
Fax (613) 6226 2279
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|