Du Plock, S. (2004, January). What do we mean when we use the word 'research'? Existential Analysis, 15(1).
A couple of excerpts: "I would argue that, in important respects, the whole of training is a training in research. It is a mistake to think of research as a hurdle in the form of a masters dissertation to be got over. If we take this view then for many, probably the majority, it will be got over like the measles, never to be repeated" (p. 32). "There is a tendency among existential trainees to fall back on a few 'standard' methodologies - those of Colaizzi or Moustakas - which is every bit as mechanical as the unthinking application of a quantitative reserach tool" (p. 32) I do want to comment that, while I agree with above, I have no complaints about my class exercise in which I used a prescribed methodology (Moustakas, in fact) to work through analysis of an interview. I think the point du Plock is making has to do with not being limited to a boilerplate approach.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorI am Sheryl L. Chatfield, Ph.D, C.T.R.S. I am a member of the faculty in the College of Public Health at Kent State University. I also Co-coordinate the Graduate Certificate in Qualitative Research and I am a member of the Design Innovation Team at Kent State. Archives
February 2024
Categories
|