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. As a contrast to some of what I see as "classic" approaches, and maybe because I was educated in health - first in an allied health profession, and then in a health and kinesiology degree program - I have a strong preference for useful research as opposed to research that has other aims. This does not mean I am not supportive of critical approaches, just that I think that critical research outcomes, or product, like any research product, should make good use of what participants gave to the process.
It feels increasingly to me like qualitative research is yet another thing that is beginning to be represented by the extremes - the tails of the curve (I'm using a quan reference here - the normal curve) as much qualitative research is either really pretending to be quantitative, with themes or findings expressed in percentages, and includes subgroup analyses, or, on the other hand, entirely resists any structure, with reports mostly being about the researcher and his/her experiences and his/her thoughts and his/her views, and his/her awakenings, realizations, discovery of universal, essential truths, etc.. (Sort of like this blog, which is why it is a blog and not a research report.) Peer review sometimes feels to me like it reflects these polar opposites - reports are too qualitative or not qualitative enough. I have been asked how many people said something (and how old they were, what race they were, where they lived, etc.) and also have been given recommendations to further explore single findings that did not reflect any type of trend (and I pretty much think something has to occur more than once to "run through" the data - the one offs might go in the discussion section but do not typically comprise the findings in my reports). Mostly what inspired me to write this post was to mull over the idea of the role of the researcher. The editors of TQR, my main journal as far as editing/reviewing goes, provided recommendations that include that authors talk about their role with respect to the research. I think this is wholly appropriate. On the other hand, I struggle, as suggested above, with describing my (presumably stable) identity as a researcher. I tend to believe in individual realities, so, OK, constructivism, but I also think some research, including some secondary analysis projects, are not sufficient or compatible to offer much of anything beyond descriptive analysis. Am I in this instance allowed to say that I lean constructivist but for the purpose of this report, I'll be a little more of a critical realist? Or even pragmatic (although I think that is a pretty loaded term....)Along with this I have a general dislike of the idea that I need to provide instructions that will enable readers to read (understand? appreciate?) my report. So that is one thing to worry about heading into 2020. The Roy Rogers photo is a screenshot from the Today (today.com) website, July 12, 2010. Roy Rogers - a song by Elton John and Bernie Taupin, is also one of approximately two things I ever learned to play on the acoustic guitar, the other being the classic Lennon and McCartney tune Rocky Raccoon. I never noticed the RRRR pattern before...
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
|