It has been a long time since I made regular posts to this blog, that started as a class research journal assignment.
Through the few years, the content and focus has varied but I aim now, and in the near future, to bring the focus back to research methods, which is where I started. Lately I have had a few opportunities to explore qualitative secondary analysis. I continue to think this is a under-used approach although I understand some of the challenges and constraints that contribute to it being under-used. But I increasingly have less patience with the idea (excuse?) of ontological or paradigmatic incompatibility. (I need to acknowledge that my use of these terms is imprecise and definitely in conflict with at least some peoples' understanding of them.) I have mostly resisted taking a side in qualitative (and mixed methods) research. In some ways I think I lean toward the traditional or "classic" qualitative preferences that have to do with research practice. I am not fixated on sample sizes, I dislike anything that smells like subgroup analyses, so resist gathering excessive demographic information, any themes I report were identified and developed by me (i.e., did not emerge), and I mostly prefer individual interviews as a data source.
0 Comments
|
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
|