Follow this link to see a very nice 'how to 'present' video from Ron Chenail, Editor-in-Chief of TQR: The Qualitative Report. While this speaks specifically to the TQR conference - an interdisciplinary qualitative research conference - I suggest that a lot of these tips apply to other presentations, even including thesis/dissertation prospectus and defenses. In my opinion, the #1 problem I see is research presentations that spent 2/3-3/4 of the time going over the review of existing research. The audience usually prefers to hear what new things you have to say or are considering.
Ron Chenail TQR Conference Presentation Tips
0 Comments
While reviewing an article submitted for publication, I came across the methods reference I link to at the bottom of this post. It is frequently cited probably because it is an open access article and addresses some of the complexities of meta reviews of qualitative research. However I was surprised by the authors' emphasis on line by line coding, which I think is rarely used by anyone other than some grounded theory purists. The process these authors described was as follows:
"Three reviewers then independently coded each line of text according to its meaning and content." I will be the first to admit that I almost never use 'line by line' coding (I have done it but find it really tedious) and instead I generally perform more focused coding. Even when striving for 100% coding coverage, I use meaning units (see Chenail, 2012) rather than the more arbitrary standards such as lines or even words. I also train students or others to use meaning units and we generally cite Chenail as the source for this decision. So along with being surprised by this approach, I was confused by the example in the screen shot provided by these authors that appears to show focused and selective coding. The actual coding demonstrated includes entire excerpts, so does not represent an actual line, and most lines were not coded. I can understand that the lines might be out of alignment in the software, but this does not explain to me the lack of coverage in most of the coded data. I also know that some researchers only consider quotes as data, but this was not the case in this instance either. So I continue to be confused by these authors' ongoing references to line-by-line coding in an article that includes a visual example that seems to not actually exemplify this practice. This work has at this point been cited more than 1000 times. What I do not know is how many of those authors coded selective and limited segments of data and then described this as 'line by line' coding. bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45 |
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
|