This week, I've seen three examples of what I think of as "Gotcha!" research. I tooIn each of these research designs, a type of qualitative (or allegedly qualitative) inquiry was used in conjunction with some other data source (or other information within the qualitative data) to triangulate or validate something. I also sense that the researchers in each instance were either certain or hopeful they would catch participants in some type of inconsistency, if not an outright lie.
I have not done much work in the discourse analysis realm, but these designs seem to me ripe for that approach. That someone's words and deeds to not match (which is what I'm labeling the "Gotcha" - because it reminds me so much of entrapment) is not nearly so interesting to me - since it occurs regularly in most humans - as is the source of the disconnect, and how the individual has reconciled it, as I think people are frequently aware, on some level, of these inconsistencies. I'm just not that impressed when you (researchers) have set someone up to be caught. It seems more an attempt to demonstrate cleverness or even superiority on the part of the researcher than an effort to improve our understanding of the complexities of human behaviors. I took the picture of a waterfowl at last year's TQR conference - in the body of water at Nova Southeastern Uni in Fort Lauderdale, FL. I transformed and added letters using Comic Life for Mac.
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
|