I was very interested in Philips discussion of the theoretical underpinnings of
QDA software. I am originally from a positivist background but now I'm
exploring the value of Nudist from a interpretivist perspective, because I am
new to the area I often get confused over the terminology used. Following
recent discussions with other GT (grounded theory) users at a NUDIST workshop I
have the impression that GT is a methodology rather than a theoretical
perspective. Interpretivism is the perspective associated with GT. Also Philip
states:
"I find it alarming that some researchers seem to be collecting their data and
THEN asking "what QDA software should I use?"
The decision to use QDA or not, and if so what type, should follow the
research question(s), not the collection of data . . . my opinion at least."
I thought the whole point of GT was that the research is exploring issues and
the 'questions' will emerge from the data. To start with research questions
will invalidate the inductive nature of the methodology. Although knowing the
software choice before collecting the data obviously allows the transcripts to
be typed in a way that determines units of analysis etc.
In my research I started with a broad list of issues I wanted to cover in
interviews. This is not a pure GT approach but a development which I have seen
referred to as Modified Ground Theory. Should I refer to my methodology in this
way or is to now accepted by Qual researchers that the term 'Grounded theory'
has evolved from the most pure inductive form.
I also intent to triangulate the research following the Qual analysis with a
large sample questionnaire,using Likert scales analysed through SPSS. Some
people appear to have problems with mixing these methods on epistemological
grounds. Any thought's or references?
Andrew Knight
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|