Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- phd:book-journals:qualitative-research [2020/10/15 21:47]
avnerus
+++ phd:book-journals:qualitative-research [2020/10/23 19:59] (current)
avnerus
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 <markdown>
+# Doing research intensive week
+## Latour / Science in Action
+Science as a form of argumentation. Referring to research, binding yourself to a network as a rhetoric.
+// Seems like there is a whole other network created for climate change denial which is not the scientific one, perhaps a social media one, and that one also has a good rhetoric.
+Water flow on a terrain metaphor. Research has set a brick wall to some flow directions. But the terrain can also change (the empirical reality) and erode those walls. Over decades the opinion aligns with the landscape (water canal is formed).
+## Positioning research to audience
+Instrumental reason , who are the target research audience / journals? // Maybe my instrumental reason is just 'using' those methods to get the social change out.
+What is new?
+ - Adding to line of research
+ - Disproving key data
+ - Showing by research what "all already knows" is not done before (validate an axiom with research).
+ - Introducing an idea of framework not known to the field
+If you link to the wrong community, the new is not considered new.
+Positioning can be implicit; Even the sentence structure implies on the position, using short sentences in natural sciences, longer in economy and much longer in humanities.
+Positionining can be completely explicit; State exactly where you work, who you want to influence, what is more relevant and what is less.
+**60/20/20 PhD (or even 80/10/5)**
+ - 60% build on old research
+ - 20% appropriate other research by analogy.
+ - 20% novelty.
+Clever research: say as much as possible by saying as little as possible, using positioning yourself correctly in other people's work.
+## Field research
+. Monotone description of what happened
+. Interpretation
+. Reflection
+Background research and theory keep interplaying, careful not continue down inductive rabbit holes.
+**Path finding checks:** Are theoretical constructs and/or research questions finding correlates in the empirical field?
+## Theory-Data relationship
+Kurt Lewin: _"There is no nothing more practical as a good theory"_ (it guides the practice).
+ - Capital T theory: Encompassing, intentional, conceptual system (Newtonian physics, evolution theory..)
+ - theory / theorizing: forming concepts and articulating relationships to better discuss empirical phenomena.
+// One rather abstract and broad question: Do you think that in every type of theory, even the super specific analysis of slices of of flesh in rodents, we should attach a deduction/induction into why having this theory my contribute to social and moral good.
+## Types of theory
+) "What":
+ - Naming theory, description of the dimensions and characteristics of some phenomena.
+ - Classification: More elaborate naming with some structural relations (typologies, taxonomies, frameworks)
+) "How" and "Why" theories for understanding
+ - Defamiliarizing (deconstructing)
+ - Sensitizing
+ - Conjectures from real world situations
+) "What will be", theories for predicting.
+) "How to do" design and action theories
+// My article: counts as "toward" a theory.
+## Sampling
+How to get representative population? Has to mirror to compound of the population.
 # An Introduction to Qualitative Research / Uwe Flick
@@ Line 194: / Line 268: @@
 . emerge in the field (Glaser),
 . get collected by using specific methods (Strauss 1987)
-  get constructed or produced by the researcher in the field (see Charmaz 2006).
+. get constructed or produced by the researcher in the field (see Charmaz 2006).
 _"you should consider a strategy that can accommodate several forms of data"
@@ Line 209: / Line 283: @@
 #### Strauss and Corbin
-*Open coding*: The first step. Data are segmented and attached to concepts. Every word is analyzed, assumptions are made about psychology of the participants //**how are those founded?((
+*Open coding*: The first step. Data are segmented and attached to concepts."it is used for particularly instructive or perhaps extremely unclear passages." Every word/sentence/paragraph can  be coded. ?/ assumptions are made about intention of the participants *how are those founded?**. Possible sources of the codes can be from the social science literature or preferably straight from the expression of the interviewees - **in vivo coding**. Concepts are generalized and grouped into categories. They are then _dimensionalized_, put into (linear?) scales such as a color's shade from dark to light. The researcher attempts to derive meaning from a text of the participants. Questions to consider when coding:
+. What? What is the issue here? Which phenomenon is mentioned?
+. Who? Which persons/actors are involved? What roles do they play? How do they interact?
+. How? Which aspects of the phenomenon are mentioned (or not mentioned)?
+. When? How long? Where? Time, course, and location.
+. How much? How strong? Aspects of intensity.
+. Why? Which reasons are given or can be reconstructed?
+. What for? With what intention, to which purpose?
+. By which? Means, tactics, and strategies for reaching the goal.
+// Mentions also the "flip-flop technique", comparing extremes of dimensions, and “waving-the-red-flag technique" of self-evidence **example?**
+*Axial coding*: Identifitying links and hierarchies between categories/sub-categories Use of the paradigm model:
+```
+               Context
+                 |
+                 |
+   Causes ---> Phenomenon ----> Consequences
+                 |
+                 |
+              Strategies (action/interaction)
+```
+// *** This should be expanded to systems thinking? Also what about the broader socio-material context ***
+_Selective coding_: Abstracting and enriching the axial coding to end up with **one central category and phenomenon** along with its causes, consequences, strategies and context. Eventually you should be able to say:
+_“Under these conditions (listing them) this happens; whereas under these conditions, this is what occurs”_
+// ** This reminds a bit of mediator/moderator and quantitative analysis. Why not go so far?**
+Chronic illness study and *trajectory phases*, // how did they fit this into the paradigm model?
+#### Glaser’s Approach: Theoretical Coding
+Criticizes axial coding: _"forcing a structure on the data instead of discovering what emerges as structure from the data and the analysis"_
+Instead, uses **coding families** to categorize and also find new codes. The coding families are also analytical categories but they are more broad: causes, effects, stages, intensities, types, strategies, interactions, identity, turning points, social norms, social contracts, family.
+// **Question: This is all so humanistic, can these categories apply to nonhuman?**
+[Practices for the “New” in the New Empiricisms, the New Materialisms, and Post Qualitative Inquiry](https://blogs.helsinki.fi/agora-new/tag/post-qualitative-inquiry/)?
+**"As Kelle (2007, p. 200) holds, this set of coding families comes with a lot of background assumptions that are not made explicit, which limits their usefulness for structuring substantive codes"**
+Then again there is selective coding
+In the case study they were able to compare situations of awareness and mutual-pretense in different cases, between hospital context of dying patients and circus clowns. // Doesn't say what coding families they used
+#### Charmaz’s Approach to Coding in Grounded Theory Research
+_"Charmaz suggests doing open coding line by line, because it “also helps you to refrain from imputing your motives, fears, or unresolved personal issues to your respondents and to your collected data”"_
+In line-by-line coding she translates the interviewee's words to her psychological analysis, then focuses on a few codes she found.
+_"All three versions discussed here treat open coding as an important step. All see theoretical saturation as the goal and endpoint of coding. They all base their coding and analysis on constant comparison between materials (cases, interviews, statements, etc.). Glaser retains the idea of emerging categories and discovery as epistemological principle. In contrast, Charmaz (2006) sees the whole process more as “constructing grounded theory” (hence the title of her book). All see a need for developing also formal categories and links."_
+Charmaz's study of chronically-ill men and their handling of loss of gender roles contributed a lot to research, but _"it is neither entirely clear how far the sampling is based on theoretical sampling, nor clear about which of the coding strategies were used exactly to analyze the data"_ // ** Was more intuitive and constructive, maybe that's OK?**
+#### Limitations
+. hazy, flexible method, difficult to teach
+. endlessness of options for coding and comparisons (when to reach saturation?).
+### Naturally Occurring Data: Conversation, Discourse, and Hermeneutic Analysis
+_"approaches that focus on how something is said, in addition to the content of what is said,,,look at how an argument or discussion develops and is built up step by step, rather than looking for specific contents across the (whole) data set..order is produced turn by turn (conversation analysis), or that meaning accumulates in the performance of activity (objective hermeneutics),."_
+#### Conversation analysis
+_"actors, in the situational completion of their actions and in reciprocal reaction to their interlocutors, create the meaningful structures and order of a sequence of events and of the activities that constitute these events."_ // **sounds much more [phenomenological](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(sociology))**. Method:
+. Turns at talk are treated as the product of the sequential organization of talk, of the requirement to fit a current turn, appropriately and coherently, to its prior turn.
+. In referring … to the observable relevance of error on the part of one of the participants … we mean to focus analysis on participants’ analyses of one another’s verbal conduct.
+. By the “design” of a turn at talk, we mean to address two distinct phenomena: (1) the selection of an activity that a turn is designed to perform; and (2) the details of the verbal construction through which the turn’s activity is accomplished.
+. A principal objective of CA research is to identify those sequential organizations or patterns … which structure verbal conduct in interaction.
+. The recurrences and systematic basis of sequential patterns or organizations can only be demonstrated … through collections of cases of the phenomena under investigation.
+. Data extracts are presented in such a way as to enable the reader to assess or challenge the analysis offered.
+// **Can it be done for mediated conversations? Does it require also the physical experience of operating the interface? Big problems in turn-taking**\
+Toerien (2014, p. 330) lists four key stages of conversation analysis:
+. Collection building;
+. Individual case analysis; (How are turns designed, how is the sequence organized
+. Pattern identification;
+. Accounting for or evaluating your patterns.
+_"the principle is that the talk to be analyzed must have been a “naturally occurring” interaction, which was only recorded by the researcher. Thus conversation analysis does not work with data that have been stimulated for research purposes—like interviews that are produced for research purposes. Rather the research limits its activities of data collection to recording occurring interaction with the aim of coming as close as possible to the processes that actually happened, as opposed to reconstructions of those processes from the view of participant (e.g., reconstructions created through the interview process). This recorded interaction then is transcribed systematically and in great detail and thus transformed in the actual data that are analyzed._" // **Refers back to the problem of non-participant observation.**
+Emphasys is on context and sequence. // **But how far should you go into the context? (Materialism...)**
+**Limitations**:  Subjective meaning or the participants’ intentions are not relevant to the analysis.often get lost in the formal detail—they isolate smaller and smaller particles and sequences from the context of the interaction as a whole.
+#### Discourse analysis
+_"Discourse analysis is concerned with the ways in which language constructs and mediates social and psychological realities. Discourse analysts foreground the constructive and performative properties of language, paying particular attention to the effects of our choice of words to express or describe something."_ // Reminds of habermas
+_"pays the same attention to what the interviewer says as to what the interviewees says_"
+Also has coding. _"analysis of psychological phenomena like memory and cognition as social and, above all, discursive phenomena."_
+// **Question: How can we use discourse analysis to talk about the flawed post-truth political discourse happening right now, what are the problems?** [Habermas?](https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/1-4020-8095-6_14)
+#### Questions to Address in a Discourse Analysis
+. What sorts of assumptions (about the world, about people) appear to underpin what is being said and how it is being said?
+. Could what is being said have been said differently without fundamentally changing the meaning of what is being said? If so, how?
+. What kind of discursive resources are being used to construct meaning here?
+. What may be the potential consequences of the discourses that are used for those who are positioned by them, in terms of both their subjective experience and their ability to act in the world?
+. How do speakers use the discursive resources that are available to them?
+. What may be gained and what may be lost as a result of such deployments?
+// **One more question to ask, who is allowed to participate in a certain discourse?**
+#### Foucauldian Discourse Analysis:
+. The researcher should turn the text to be analyzed into written form, if it is not already.
+. The next step includes free association to varieties of meaning as a way of accessing cultural networks, and these should be noted down.
+. The researchers should systematically itemize the objects, usually marked by nouns, in the text or selected portion of text.
+. They should maintain a distance from the text by treating the text itself as the object of the study rather than what it seems to “refer” to.
+. Then they should systematically itemize the “subjects”—characters, persona, role positions—specified in the text.
+. They should reconstruct presupposed rights and responsibilities of “subjects” specified in the text.
+. Finally, they should map the networks of relationships into patterns. These patterns in language are “discourses” and can then be located in relations of ideology, power, and institutions.
+Loook for constructions of agency, role, actor or victim. _"the active agent versus the power of discourse to construct objects including the human subject_". Emphasys on criticality. phenomena we as historically constituted, account of subjectivity into the research process,  include the subjectivity of the researcher in forms of reflexivity.
+**Problem?**: fuzzy and drifts away from more analytical origins.
+#### Objective hermeneutics
+_"draws a basic distinction between the subjective meaning that a statement or activity has for one or more participants and its objective meaning. The latter is understood by using the concept of a “latent structure of meaning.”_
+_"a sequential rough analysis aimed at analyzing the external contexts in which a statement is embedded in order to take into account the influence of such contexts...The central step is sequential fine analysis. This entails the interpretation of interactions on nine levels "_
+. Explication of the context which immediately precedes an interaction.
+. Paraphrasing the meaning of an interaction according to the verbatim text of the accompanying verbalization.
+. Explication of the interacting subject’s intention (minor role).
+. Explication of the objective motives of the interaction and of its objective consequences (context thought experiments, structure of interpretation, constructs stories about as many contrasting situations as consistently fit a statement.).
+. Explication of the function of the interaction for the distribution of interactional roles (conversation analysis).
+. Characterization of the linguistic features of the interaction (syntactic, semantic, or pragmatic).
+. Exploration of the interpreted interaction for constant communicative figures (increasing generalization)
+. Explication of general relations.
+. Independent test of the general hypotheses that were formulated at the preceding level on the basis of interaction sequences from further cases.
+The interpretation should focus on **autonmous contigency**,
+_"is necessary to rearrange the events reported in the interview in the temporal order in which they occurred. The sequential analysis should then be based on this order of occurrence, rather than the temporal course of the interview:"_
+#### Limitations
+because of the great effort involved in the method, it is often limited to single case studies.
+// **Can this also be endless when talking about multiple meanings and contexts? Foucault [rejects](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23679133/) that type of hermeneutics because it only uncovers what is already known and not said. But it doesn't hypothesize on why, what caused these meanings, **"what systematizes the thoughts"**

User Tools

Site Tools

Differences

Page Tools