 |
 |
Grr Albuquerque Grr London Darlings i am residing in the costa del Dublin. Wonderful - well, actually not too bad - 8 degrees clear and blue enough to burn off the smog at least (who ever said Ireland was clean n green)/ Harriet sorry for being silent - this is me work computer and it was the weekend!! Both Alan's and your messages struck me - Alan's because it reflects the position I am in - as a health services researcher with an anthropological background. Over and over again I see 'qualitative' research proposals which consist of a semi-structured (more structured than semi) interview schedule delivered under tight controls to a random sample of 100+ participants each of which MUST be asked the SAME questions in the SAME order. Suggesting that there are other ways of doing it lead to raised eyebrows and mutterings of poor research, validity, reliability etc etc. On the other hand - although there are one or two nurses doing ethnographic research, that is literally it, one or two - and publications non-existent so it isn't so much preservation of mystery but total isolation on the part of these people. Ethnography remains in the realm of anthropology (with some links with sociology) - but it is by no means anywhere near mainstream research. As for publishing - well Ireland is increasingly taking on what Strathern has called the 'audit culture' of higher education in the UK and this is having some of the same impacts - pressure to publish in high impact journals. In health services, most of the high impact journals would laugh/run away from the research I would like to engage in (there are a few notable exceptions, though). On the other hand, qualitative research journals, or anthropology ones, have very low impact factors. In short, they don't count in the eyes of the auditors. Am sure everyone can empathise in this - also read Marilyn Strathern's work on audit culture, very interesting stuff. Shame and obscurantism - Harriet gets to the heart of much academic debate - if you are not sure of yourself, retreat into using big words! Weave a web of words around your opponent... I think one of the joys of qual research at first was the freedom it gave you to express and celebrate uncertainty. Without that, what is the point? If you have to know everything about the endeavour from start to finish, doesn't it defeat the purpose. I also have found that one of the most common 'weapons' used in debates is accusing someone of engaging in 'bad research'. Everyone has had this thrown at them at some point or another (and, if we are to be totally honest, have thrown it), which should render the entire research community totally incompetent. Which we're not. It would be nice to look at why and how this is done, and the consequences of such unconstructive criticism Finally, if anyone can beat my personal favourite piece of obscurantism, I'd love to hear it!! This is mine Operationalism as a methodological dogma If you can get the reference for this you get a prize if you can turn up at me office (ahaha) 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: Alan Simpson > Reply To: qual-software > Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 9:44 am > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Haphazard sampling > > Harriet, > > I think there is a lot in what you say. It is astonishing how many > 'academics' talk in way that confuses rather than clarifies. A journalist > friend of mine says how often health academics talk in obtuse language and > then treat her as though she is stupid rather than realising they are > failing to communicate. Our job, all of us, should be to learn how to > communicate our ideas effectively to a range of audiences. > > This morning I left a murky, damp Brighton and travelled in to a warm, > sun-drenched London. Marvellous. > > Best wishes, > > Alan > > > > > > > > >From: Harriet Meek <[log in to unmask]> > >Reply-To: qual-software <[log in to unmask]> > >To: [log in to unmask] > >Subject: Re: Haphazard sampling > >Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 14:03:50 -0600 > > > >Hi Alan, > > > >You live in a pretty part of the world. I have friends just north of > >Brighton and my very first trip to England I was too frightened to go > >into London at first, so took the train to Brighton instead and spent > >a few lovely days exploring the south coast. > > > >I'm glad to have your comments. I had been worried that I'd said > >something taboo when no one replied -- yes, I know there is a wee > >time difference between north America and the UK and that not as many > >people have computers at home there as here. > > > >For me this brings to light another piece, that there is something > >that feels shameful about this business of not being sure of oneself > >in relation to research. Not just uninformed, but ashamed. > > > >I think this may cause a lot of people to throw around terms and > >concepts they don't fully understand and aren't using entirely > >correctly. When some people speak it rings true and makes sense. > >Not so true for everyone. I'm coming to trust my own judgement about > >that, to begin suspecting the problem may not always be my lack of > >knowledge but that the person speaking may not be speaking so > >clearly. It is that affective connection I was talking about earlier. > > > >BTW, I am in Albuquerque where it was bright and sunny early this > >morning but is now quite blowy with a yellowish-grey sky full of > >sand. Not so nice outside. The mountains are dusted with white for > >the first time this year. > > > >Thanks, > > > >Harriet > >-- > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp > >