One time, many years ago, I prepared some pasta as part of a meal for some friends. This group included a much older man who moved with his family from Italy to the US when he was a child in the early part of the 20th century. He was also an excellent cook, and very passionate and particular about the quality of the food he ate. He took one bite of the pasta - which was probably linguini or fettucini - and said to me "You added more water to the pan after the pasta started to cook, didn't you?" The answer to that question was "yes," and this happened because I had underestimated the amount of water needed and what was in the pan was not ample to cover the pasta. But I was, still am, very impressed that he could tell that from a single bite. I think my ability to figure out whether pasta is appropriately cooked has improved (although I have known a lot of people who prefer noodles mushier than my standard preparation) but I'm not certain if I have fine tuned my tasting ability enough to recognized if the cooking process was interrupted or restarted. I thought of this incident today as I considered a few research papers I have reviewed in recent months - where I think the research process was interrupted or restarted. (Right now, by the way, based on requests I see and the progress of my own works, it seems like everyone has time to write or revise but no one has time to review!) There is something very compelling about reading a work that has clear aims and appears to be "coherent" (this is a word the TQR editors use to describe cohesion or consistency among all of the aspects of research) from the purpose through to the end. As an aside, my recent efforts with secondary analysis have shown that full coherence is difficult to achieve, so you do what you can and honestly offer up the limitations, which should be weighed against the efficiencies inherent in secondary analysis. But for a planned, purposive research study, coherence seems like it should be a given.
23 Comments
I have worked with some larger than usual (for qualitative inquiry) datasets through the course of a few projects that used CDC National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS) data. Sample sizes have been in the hundreds but case details are typically brief. The data also generally focus on a single (violent) incident although fortunately for qualitative researchers, there is often some contextual detail - although the amount varies from one case to the next. This summer I was provided with multiple opportunities to work with even larger samples - including some that include more than 1,000 cases. Like NVDRS data, case lengths vary and tend to be short. There are also clear categorical patterns that will allow for some quicker analyses - although how many things fit depends on how broadly you define a given pattern. Basically, I am trying to balance use of some automation and programming with hands on engagement with the data. I expect to have a few, maybe several more comments as these projects continue, but the point of this post is to describe my experience using the Microsoft Excel fill handles to copy data. I just re-read Longitudinal Qualitative Research Analyzing Change through Time by Johnny Saldaña (Altamira, 2003). I have had this book for a couple of years but am just now considering details of a longitudinal qualitative project, so I read it seriously and have just begun another work I will probably post about in the near future. One of the recommendations Saldaña made for researcher trying to understand change over time was to ask people directly how they have changed. This is one of those amazingly common sense things - that I have heard in other forms through the years (e.g., if you want to know how someone has been successful at something, ask them how they have been successful at that thing) although I realized that I probably do not do this nearly enough. How many interview guides steer all around the issue without coming right out and asking about it? How many times is the research question one of the interview questions?
I have finally updated the 'research and presentations' page. I uploaded all of my prior TQR presentation slides, plus the abstract for a panel presentation accepted for 2021.
I listed papers under review, and one recent publication, plus one "in progress." I added some comments under each - to provide a little info about the story behind each work. This is something you never see on a CV, although I suspect every paper has some type of story..... I have been a member of the Mixed Methods International Research Association (MMIRA) for a few years now. It is a truly international interest group with chapters representing a variety of countries or regions, and a governing board of international scholars. One of the best benefits is the mixed methods MOOC. One reason I am a fan is that I have just completed a module (on mixed methods secondary analysis), and another is that I have not had access to many academic courses on mixed methods. I have completed a couple of the modules in the first two seasons, and I was able to virtually, asynchronously attend courses taught by known scholars including Elizabeth Creamer, Joseph Maxwell, and Jennifer Greene. Membership is required for access to the MOOC, but membership costs, especially student ($25) are pretty reasonable. When you consider the cost of some single session online workshops, having access to the entire expanding MMIRA MOOC for the basic fee of $65 is a pretty good deal.
|
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
|