From Qualitative Research Methods
Paradigms
“Paradigms are preferred ways of
understanding reality, building knowledge, and gathering information about the
world.” This includes ontology (nature
of reality), epistemology (nature of knowledge), axiology (values associated
with areas of research and theorizing), and methodology (strategies for
gathering, collecting, and analyzing data).
Tracy identifies four major paradigms:
positivist/post-positivist, interpretive, critical, and postmodern. The
positivist paradigm believes that there is a single reality, a big-T truth.
They “conduct research in order to observe, measure, and predict empirical
phenomena,” and they “build tangible, material knowledge.” Positivism turns to
post-positivism if the researcher acknowledges that individuals each only have
partial understandings of reality. They are aware that there are weaknesses in
human methodology, and that knowable truths are always somewhat imperfect. In
general, this perspective attempts to minimize or eliminate bias. Using
qualitative methods, for them, is a way to triangulate research; it increases
certainty by using different types of tools and sources of data.
The interpretive point of view,
which can also be called constructivist/constructionist, espouses the belief
that reality is not an externality, but it is “constructed and reproduced
through communication, interaction, and practice.” Any attempt at reaching
reality or outside knowledge will always be mediated through the interpretation
of the researcher. They are concerned with the effect of the participant on the
experience, a process termed verstehen.
Interpretivists also consider knowledge to be socially constructed. In
research, interpretive scholars work with texts, taking a hermeneutic approach
and contextualizing/situating all knowledge that comes from those texts.
Critical scholars conduct research
based on the premises “that thought is fundamentally mediated by power
relations and that data cannot be separated from ideology.” Critical research
tends to fall into positivist or postmodern techniques. The more realist of
these tends to draw from the Frankfurt School and Marxism, whereas postmodern
critiques are more concerned “with the shifting, fluid, and constructed nature
of power relations.” Such work is imbued with the idea that there is an ethical
obligation to research to emancipate or deconstruct immoral and unfair
situations. A major concept in the paradigm is hegemony—“situations in which
people accept, consent to, internalize, and are complicit in reproducing values
and norms that are not in their own best interests.”
While postmodern paradigms are
similar to critical paradigms in their interest in power relations, they differ
in their approach to knowledge and power. Postmodern scholars see knowledge and
power as “dispersed, unstable, and plural.” This paradigm emphasizes the
existence of agency (the power to do otherwise). It is concerned with questioning
“totalizing truths and certainty, reject[ing] grand theories and master
narratives that tidily explain a phenomenon, and resist[ing] the idea that,
with just more research, we can better control the world.” Postmodern scholars
are also concerned with sedimentation, or the solidifying of problems and
situations in society. Part of the postmodern paradigm is the crisis of
representation—the problems that occur through meaning being constructed solely
in relation to other meanings—and acknowledges the rhizomatic nature of it all
(unless you’re not a fan of Deleuze). Other ideas frequented in the postmodern
paradigm are pastiche (“the endless appropriation and recycling of older
cultural forms to make new but familiar forms”), hyperreality (“many
representations or signifiers are constructed and consumed but lack a specific ‘real’
referent”), simulacrum (“a representation that is a copy of something that
never actually existed”), and deconstructionism and difference (“methods of
data analysis… to dismantle a text and accentuate foundational word oppositions”).
Paradigmatic complexities and
intersections
Choosing one paradigm can restrict
the use of other paradigms, a problem known as incommensurability. Despite
this, many researchers tend to use concepts and tools from different paradigms
at different times in their work.
Theoretical approaches that
commonly use qualitative methods
Geertz’s interpretivism and thick
description
Geertz viewed researchers as
cultural interpreters; their goals were to provide significant description that
included values, beliefs, and action when studying groups, society, or
organizations. The major product coming from this type of research is thick
description. This takes the description beyond the mere facts to explain the
concepts and values behind a set of actions. This is done through immersion in
a group or culture. Another important part of this process is interpreting the
interpretations of the participants. When done well, interpretivism “analyzes
how culture is symbolically constructed and reconstructed.”
Symbolic interaction
Symbolic interaction is a theory by
Herbert Blumer (1969), who was a student of George Herbert Mead. Researchers
who use symbolic interactionism “investigate how meaning and identity are
co-created through interaction.” Meaning is made on an individual basis,
founded on how they interpret situations. This perspective differentiates signs
(natural symptoms/indicators or phenomena—smoke to fire) and symbols (abstract
indicators—peace sign and peace). People react to situations, and these
reactions are mediated through symbols and signs. Symbols are what makes
conceptual though possible. This perspective also acknowledges the Sapir-Whorf
hypothesis, which states that “we do not see or understand issues or concepts
for which we do not have words.” We come to know ourselves through the
interactions we have with people that are near to us, creating a looking-glass
self.
Ethnography of communication
The ethnography of communication
(EOC) was originally pioneered by Dell Hymes (1962). EOC is concerned with
examining language in use and cultural patterns of communication. Researchers
using this theory study units such as the communication event, the
communication act, the communication situation, and the speech community. There
are 8 major aspects to the EOC approach:
S
– setting or scene
P
– participants
E
– ends, goals, outcomes
A
– act sequence
K
– keying/spirit or tone
I
– instrument used for communication
N
– norms, rules, habits
G
– genre or category
There are three major issues that
EOC is concerned with: the linguistic rules and resources used by participants,
the comparison of messages across different communication media, and the rules
and norms of identity, relationships, or culture.
Feminism
Feminist research always begins with
a few key assumptions: the patriarchy exists, it unfairly reduces the role and
value of women, and change is preferable to the status quo. There are several
types of feminism as well: liberal feminism (“women should be included in the
same structures and have the same rights as men”), Marxist feminism (the
oppression of women is linked to capitalism), radical feminism (“women are
foundationally dissimilar to men and should work toward overthrowing patriarchy”),
standpoint feminism (“because women hold a marginalized place, they are able to
have a unique and significant view of the world”), transnational/postcolonial
feminists (“discourses of gender, race, and citizenship justify and reproduce
relationships of dominance within and between nation-states”) and
postructuralist feminism (“gender identities are continually reconstructed
through societal and organizational discourses of power and hegemony”).
Participatory action research
Participatory
action research (PAR) “is based upon the notion that researchers should work
together with research participants to help them address, understand, or
improve local issues or dilemmas.” A key difference in this type of research is
that the participants are considered to be co-researchers. Problems are solved
through the process of “planning change, acting on the change, observing and
reflecting on the process and consequences of that change, and then repeating.”
Sensemaking
Sensemaking was originally proposed
by Karl Weick (1979). It is concerned with the processes of meaning making,
ambiguity, and identity. The theory states that “people make sense of their environments
retrospectively, by taking into account their behaviors, talk, and action.” There
are three phases in sensemaking: enactment (what I say), selection (until I see),
and retention (what I think). This model highlights the ways meaning is “chosen,
interpreted, and retained by participants.”
Structuration
Structuration theory is primarily
concerned with individuals’ relationships with institutions. This theory
advances the idea of the duality of structure, which “refers to the idea that
rules, policies, and structures are only made ‘valid’ when individuals follow
them and make decisions based upon them.” Transformation or change of
structures is decided by the dialectic of control, a mechanism similar to
hegemony, which “suggests that the power of dominant groups is not just
top-down, rather it depends on the action of less powerful people.”
No comments:
Post a Comment