Tracy Ch. 8

Qualitative Research Methods

Interview Practice: Embodied, Mediated, and Focus-Group Approaches

Negotiating access for interviews

Getting participants to agree to an interview is extremely important. Some types of people are more likely to agree than others, particularly when the interview is about sensitive topics. Researchers should try to start a relationship with the person they want to interview before asking for the interview. This increases the chance that the participant will agree. After an interview is agreed upon, the researcher should send a reminder to the participant that includes information on how to contact the researcher if something goes awry on the day of the interview.

Conducting face-to-face interviews

When scheduling an interview, it is important to choose locations that are accessible and public, but provide a degree of privacy. They should feel comfortable and safe to the interviewer and interviewee. Recording devices should be tested out beforehand, and locations should be chosen that are quiet enough to use a recording device. When the participant arrives, you should offer to get them a drink or something to eat (if available). It is also useful to take site notes and cursory information about the participant before the interview begins. Scheduling should be done in a way that leaves time for briefing and debriefing.

A good interviewer does more than simply ask questions-- they should prepare themselves to be knowledgeable about the topic at hand and the participants; they should be gentle, forgiving, sensitive, and open-minded; they should structure the questions to be probing and show  their attentiveness; and they should actively interpret what the interviewee says. By repeating certain ideas back, interviewees are able to correct interpretations or provide more nuance. Researchers should be mindful of their non-verbal communication and refrain from anything that would connote judgment or shock. At the end of the interview, researchers should be appreciative. It is especially useful to shut off any recording device and ask if there is any information the interviewee is willing to share now that the recorder is off. When the interviewee leaves, the researcher should take notes on anything that was notable that was not captured by the recorder.

Technologically mediated approaches to interviewing

Technologically mediated interviews can be synchronous (real time) or asynchronous (reply on own time). There are significant advantages to online interviewing-- it is cost effective and can reach a wide participant base, it can increase engagement, it can be more flexible, it can change power dynamics that are present in face-to-face communication, it can provide data that is unavailable face-to-face (grammar, typing, deaf or heavily-accented participants), and it does not need to be transcribed.

There are also disadvantages to technologically mediated interviews. They provide no nonverbal data, and they require participants to have access to a computer as well as the relevant technological skills. Participants can more easily become distracted while interviewing or they can drop off of the project entirely. There are more confidentiality risks on both the part of the interviewer and the interviewee, and it is nearly impossible to verify identities.

The focus-group interview

Focus groups traditionally bring together 3-12 people who are taken through a guided group discussion. Focus groups can be particularly valuable, especially when they are able to create a group effect-- where responses become chained, and members of the group leave with a new understanding of the topic through their interactions with others. It also provides a space to observe vernacular language and communicative interactions. The focus group can serve as a way to gather creative data; researchers can ask participants to rank concepts, draw or create pictures or collages, create metaphors, or act out scenarios.

Members of a focus group should have a key characteristic in common. It can be valuable to have oppositional points, but the group can be hard to manage if there are not meaningful commonalities. On the day of a focus group, you should provide comfortable accommodations for the participants, and before things begin, you should provide them with informed consent and make it known that the event will be recorded and/or observed.

When moderating, it is important to know the discussion guide so that the discussion can be moved in the correct direction. You should not take notes, but rather focus on providing positive and supportive feedback. This can also include paraphrasing and asking for clarification. It is important to provide breaks every hour-- during this time, natural conversations can arise. Closing the focus group should consist of reminding participants to keep the conversations confidential. Afterwards, you should take notes on important details and make a to-do list for the next focus group.

Overcoming common focus group and interviewing challenges

Some challenges that arise during interviews can come from both the interviewee and the interviewer. The interviewee can espouse unexpected behaviors that make it difficult to schedule interviews or record them. Interviewers can talk too much, interrupt, or use problematic formulations-- interpretations of the interviewees responses that gloss over or omit certain information for the sake of simplicity. They also have to be aware of any problems in the interview guide and be mindful of tangents. Some researchers have problems with probing and creating follow up questions; they should aim to ask for clarifications, deeper meanings, or greater detail. When participants become emotional, it can be difficult to respond. Tracy advocates trying to identify  with or show compassion to the participant. Researchers are also often unaware of what to do if an interviewee is deceitful. To combat this, you can build redundancy into the question guide or refer to others with whom you've spoken. Not all lies are useless, either, because often it can be strategic.

Transcribing

There is no universal transcription method or set of symbols-- these are constructed by the researcher and meant to fulfill whatever purpose they are put to. The choice of what details to note comes down to what the study is examining. More detailed is not always better. It can take quite a long time, and the more people that are speaking, the longer it takes. Transcriptionists have to make choices about things like punctuation, laughter, pitch, tone, and homonyms. Fact checking transcripts requires that you listen to the interview while reading the transcript to make sure that it does not omit (or add) anything. Voice recognition software can also be used.

Tracy Ch. 7

Qualitative Research Methods

Interview Planning and Design: Sampling, Recruiting, and Questioning

The value of interviews

Interviews should be thought of as guided conversations, and we need to remember that they are not always face-to-face, one-on-one. Interviews can occur through various media and can involve small groups as well. The goal is to access subjectively lived experiences and viewpoints related to a particular topic. Because the interviewer has power in the situation, it is up to them to treat the interviewee and the resulting data ethically. Interviews should be seen as a process of mutually creating a story or meaning, and so the process of conducting an interview is just as important as the data collection.

Interviews provide the unique ability to gain access to motivations, thoughts, and reasoning that would otherwise be unaccounted for. Furthermore, they can provide information about things that cannot be otherwise observed-- private or past experiences. Interviews are also a good opportunity for getting more information about observations; they can act almost as a member check.

Who, what, where, how, and when: Developing a sampling agenda

The sampling plan or sampling agenda is a proposed way to choose sources for interview data. In qualitative work, most researchers use purposeful sampling, which chooses participants and data that will work especially well with the goal of the research project.

Random samples - Every member of a population has equal chance of being interviewed (or otherwise have data collected).
Convenience/opportunistic sampling - This type of sampling is very common, and it involves using participants that are convenient to the researcher. It is often quicker to use this type of sampling, although it is not often considered enough data for a full study.
Maximum variation samples - When there is significant variation within a population, researchers may choose to portray this variation through purposefully choosing participants from the far ends of the spectrum.
Snowball sampling - This type of sampling is good for reaching difficult-to-access or hidden populations. It begins by choosing a few participants and then asking them to suggest friends, family members, or colleagues who may be open to participating.
Theoretical-construct samples - When working with a theory that requires participants to meet certain goals or have certain characteristics, theoretical-construct sampling purposefully chooses those people.
Typical, extreme, and critical instance sampling - Typical instance sampling looks for average participants; extreme instance sampling looks for participants who exhibit a chosen characteristic in the extreme; and critical instance sampling requires participants that have experienced something in particular (which may be extreme).

A sampling agenda can often be determined through your research question and chosen theories. If doing participant observation, it is often a good idea not to set a strict sampling agenda very early-- doing so can restrict your ability to observe what the field has to offer.

Interview structure, type, and stance

Structured interviews are those that repeat the same questions for each participant. This is often done with the help of an interview schedule. These are most useful when using a large sample that needs to be analyzed. These types of interviews may be good for quantity, but their depth suffers.

Unstructured interviews are far more flexible. What structure they have is provided by an interview guide-- it goes through required topics, but not specific questions. Unstructured interviews require interviewers to be more skilled and empathetic; they need to be able to pick up on emotional cues and keep the conversation on the research topic.

Types of interviews: ethnographic (informal, emergent, instigated by researcher), informant (interviews with those who are savvy in the scene, requires long-term relationship), respondent (group of participants with similar subject positions, speak only for themselves), narrative (open-ended, participants tell stories, related to oral history), life-story or biographic (includes stories, asks about life as a whole, provides understanding or empathy), and discursive (focuses on structures of power and their effects on knowledge, asks how participants navigate power).

There are multiple stances for the interviewer to take. Deliberate naivete falls between overt honesty and deceit, with the interviewer losing any presuppositions and judgments. Collaborative or interactive interviewing places the interviewer and participant on the same plane, with each interviewing the other. Pedagogical interviews ask for expert knowledge or emotional support. Responsive interviewing "suggests that researchers have responsibilities for building a reciprocal relationship, honoring interviewees with unfailingly respectful behavior, reflecting on their own biases and openly acknowledging their potential effect." The friendship model is similar to this, coming out of feminist scholarship. When interviewers deliberately provoke the people they are interviewing, the technique is called confrontational interviewing.

Creating the interview guide

Interview questions should not use jargon or overly-complicated language. They should focus on one topic at a time, and they should be open-ended. Questions should also be neutral and not lead to particular answers. They should uphold the participants' identities, and they should be followed by appropriate probes for further information.

Interviews should be sequenced as follows:
Opening - Breaks the ice, sets expectations, and begins with experience-related questions.
Generative questions - Questions that generate frameworks for the interview.This can ask for descriptions of experiences or processes that act as tours. They can also include examples or timelines. Hypotheticals can also work here. Behavior and answer questions can use past experiences to ask for factual reports of behavior. It is also productive to ask about participants ideal visions of certain things. This is also the part of the interview to ask participants to compare and contrast things, ask about their motivations (or others' motivations) and for predictions about the future.
Directive questions - Direct questions call for specific type of answers, and these direct the trajectory of the interview. Close-ended questions require very specific answers. Typology questions can ask for respondents to categorize certain knowledge, and elicitation questions prompt discussion by showing some kind of stimuli (video, image, text, etc.). Data-referencing questions ask participants for commentary on data gathered by the researcher in the past. Member reflection questions can be used to get participants' opinions on observations made by the researcher, and devil's advocate questions make participants respond to skeptical positions. This is also the point to use what may be potentially threatening questions. They are best left for the end of the interview in case they somehow effect the participant.
Closing the interview - At the very end, it is appropriate to ask catch-all questions and questions that enhance the identity or self-perception of the interviewee. You can also ask at this point if the interviewee has a preferred pseudonym.

Tracy's Qualitative Research Methods, Ch. 6

Tracy’s Qualitative Research Methods

Ch. 6: Field Roles, Fieldnotes, and Field Focus

Field Roles and Standpoints of Participant Observation

            Whereas once, the idea of “going native” (participating too fully in the scene) was considered a bad thing, modern qualitative researchers believe that this is the only way to fully understand the emotionality of participants. The phrase, which has colonialist undertones, assumes that researchers must remain detached and objective, a perspective that is generally rejected by qualitative scholars.  Instead, we ought to consider our place in the scene to be one gauged by degree of enmeshment and overlapping roles. We must ask which standpoint of participation is appropriate for the project, and what kind of data would best maximize outcomes and minimize limitations?

            When researchers study places or groups to which they are already a member, it is called complete participation. This gives more incentive to the researcher to spend time in the field. The availability of data is far greater than in other contexts, and it allows for greater insight into motivations, meanings, and assumptions. Researchers must remember, however, to pursue others’ interpretations as well as their own. If the researcher assumes the values and ideologies of the studied group, they are called an ardent activist. The challenges that come with this type of participation are the ethical problems and the potential feeling of deception by participants. Deception may be necessary, though, when studying contexts that otherwise would not divulge information, such as studying “up the hierarchy.” Being so heavily enmeshed in a culture may also mean that the researcher has a hard time distinguishing unique values.

            If a researcher enters a new culture and improvises or assumes membership in a temporary way, they are called a play participant. They watch and join in, but do so entirely to gain greater understanding of the culture. When the researcher joins in, but remains skeptical, they are called a controlled skeptic. Being a play participant means that the researcher is able to get close to those on the scene, and they go beyond basic reporting. This can sometimes be uncomfortable for the researcher. It is also easier for the play participant to make data recordings, while the complete participant usually does not have time or ability to do so. It is also easier for play participants to take breaks. One of the biggest challenges is in keeping good standing with the participants and making them feel that the research will not harm them.

            The focused participant observer is a researcher who “enters a scene with an explicit researcher status and a clear agenda of what data to gather in the scene.” This approach can include structured interviews, but without long-term participation. The field work with this type of role is highly structured, and it doesn’t last as long as other types of field work. The benefits of this type of work include the well-defined research plan, the low time commitment, and the ability to avoid recurring negotiations of access. It is, however, limited to the data that participants are willing to reveal about themselves, and it takes a necessary etic approach.

            The complete observer is one that is unobtrusive or on the peripheral. They do not participate in the scene. Participants are not aware that they are being studied. A positive characteristic of this is the ease of access. It also is usually granted exempt IRB status. The risk taken in this kind of research is the observer’s detachment from the scene. There is no questioning of the actors, and so it is difficult to gauge motivations or feelings. It is possible that misinterpretations can arise, fueled by ethnocentrism.

Writing Fieldnotes

            Field notes are narrations of the observations taken in the field. The process begins with raw records—the notes jotted down during the act of observing. It is a good idea not to write about what you are seeing as you see it. In some cases, you can bring along a camera or videocam, but this must be included in the IRB application. Voice recorders can also be particularly useful. The method used should be chosen by considering efficiency, reliability and durability, personal comfort, organizational skills, and the way you personally make sense of data. Even if you are not able to take notes, it is possible to get some fieldnotes out of memory. These can take the form of headnotes—“focused memories of specific events, as well as impressions and evaluations of the unfolding project” (Linklof & Taylor, 2002, p. 159).

            Fieldnotes should be written within a day and a half of having done fieldwork. You should try not to talk to anyone about the experience, because the conversation can color your recollections. The fieldnote should be created in a new file with a significant identifying name. It is helpful to put names to the episodes in the header of the document. The header is also a place for location and source of data. The fieldnote should be written quickly, without concern about enforcing a particular style. There should be some kind of organizational element, whether you start from a high point and work around it or write in a chronological fashion. They can also be organized as sketches or episodes. It is a good idea to end fieldnotes with a to do list. There can also be an ongoing cast of characters file in a separate document that keeps descriptions of certain recurring figures. Good fieldnotes should be clear, vivid, detailed, showing (rather than telling), full of dialogue, and complete with your interpretations.

            Lindhof and Taylor recommend that fieldnotes should take up 10 double-spaced pages for each hour of participant observation. Goffman suggests three to five. Tracy notes that it depends, and length is not always equal to quality. If they are too long, fieldnotes can become cumbersome.

            Fieldnotes should be concerned with showing things so that a reader would come to the same conclusion as the writer without being told what to think. Good fieldnotes also elaborate on tacit knowledge. They include descriptions of concrete, sensory detail. It is important to include nonverbal behavior. When you can include sentences or phrases directly from the scene, these are called in vivo terms.

            Another important thing to attempt in fieldnotes is to make the familiar strange and the strange familiar. They should explain things in a way that renews perception. This can be done by pointing out peculiarities about otherwise ordinary situations or familiarities in otherwise strange ones.

            Fieldnotes should also include analysis, which can come in the form of the researcher’s reactions, doubts, prejudices, frustrations, and interpretations of the scene. These can take the form of analytic reflections, which are commentary from the researcher about these feelings. They can be brief and reflective, more elaborate and focusing on specific issues, or more sustained analyses.

Focusing the Data and Using Heuristic Devices

            When researchers start questioning what kinds of data to collect, they should consider visiting the periphery. This can allow you to compare things like the typical to the extraordinary and the peripheral with the marginal. Data can come in three forms: typical/representational, negative/disconfirming, and exceptional/discrepant. Systematization can be facilitated through heuristic models—“conceptual tool kits that stimulate further investigation, learning, and thinking.” These can include processes like examining rituals or cultural scripts. Tracy advocates looking at the following: Space/scene, frontstage/backstage, objects and artifacts, actors and agents, roles and types, activities, interactions, time, goals/purpose, feelings, power relations, values, communication, and processes. As the researcher decides just which facets of the culture they are interested in, they can begin selective observation. 

Tracy's Qualitative Research Methods, Ch. 5 Notes

Tracy’s Qualitative Research Methods

Chapter 5: Proposal Writing

Getting Started with the Institutional Review

            Research proposals are “detailed plans that lay out the purpose, path, and procedures of the project.” Voluntary informed consent is a necessity, and as a result, we have human subject protections. Review boards are mostly governed by the Belmont Report, which is a statement of principles regarding human subjects. It includes requirements for scientifically valid research designs and that the benefits of the study outweigh the risks. Your university’s IRB website will have a great deal of resources, and sometimes this includes training, workshops, and online certifications.

The IRB Proposal: Rationale, Instruments, Informed Consent, and Confidentiality

            The rationale for a study is a primary component of an IRB application. It should explain things like research questions, duration, scope, recruitment, and data collection methods. For qualitative scholars, when asked to list research instruments, they should cite things like the questions they intend to ask in interviews. In the IRB application, it is also necessary to include the way that you intend for people to give informed consent. The particular requirements for informed consent will differ depending on the institution. When working with vulnerable populations, forms of assent are used instead of consent. Forms of consent are still needed from guardians or trustees in these situations, though. IRB may also ask for a letter of permission from an official or group gatekeeper if the group studied is private. Applications must also contain the procedures used to keep information about participants protected. In some cases, data will have to be modified or omitted in order to minimize the chance of deductive disclosure of a research participant.

Different Levels of IRB Review

            Exempt review – This is the quickest review, and it is used for qualitative studies of public behavior. The study must not collect identifying details of participants. It often requires the researcher to only give out an informational letter rather than a full letter of consent. Letters may not even be needed if observations are done from afar.

            Expedited review – This includes the usual application and turnaround takes several weeks. This type of review is necessary for studies that collect names and identifying details about the subjects. An expedited review is also necessary if the data collected could cause criminal, financial, or occupational harm to the participants.

            Full-board review – This type of review is necessary for projects that work with participants that cannot give their consent. Full-board review can take longer than three months.

The Quirks of IRB

            IRB has been criticized for its involvement with qualitative research because members of the board are frequently unfamiliar with the conventions of qualitative work. Due to the emphasis on generalizability by the IRB, some qualitative researchers choose to skip IRB because they are not concerned with making generalizable statements with their research. Not getting IRB backing can be problematic, particularly if something goes wrong with the project. Review is also advisable for any work that may be presented or published. Getting a project through IRB quickly can be done by making sure the project uses well-known and frequently used practices.

Creating the Scholarly Research Proposal

            The success of scholarly research proposals is in their ability to closely adhere to the standards and guidelines of the professor, institution, or agency. Research proposals almost uniformly include titles, abstracts, key words, rationales, research purposes, goals, reviews of existing knowledge, research questions, plans for data collection, and timeline or budget.

            Titles of research projects should communicate the main topic and invite readers to learn more. The title, abstract, and key words should clearly communicate what the proposal is about, and they should stay away from heavy uses of jargon or overly clever or cute conventions. Key words can include methodological terms, the discipline, context, or theoretical approaches.

Introduction and Rationale

            Purpose statement – Explains the primary purpose and goal of the research; should be obvious and explicit.

            Conceptual cocktail party – This is the identification of the various audiences of the project. It should attempt to create a dialogue by citing four or five major people who are influential or tied to the project through scholarly work or other types of contributions.

            Rationale – The rationale answers the “So what?” question. If the work is phronetic, this is an easy task. If it is a theoretical piece, then rational can explain how the study will build on existing knowledge, how it might fill a gap, or how it might bridge various concepts. Simply pointing out a lack of knowledge is usually not good enough.

            Literature review – This is the longest part of a proposal. It shows how the primary concepts and theories have evolved over time, and it frames the study. This can be easier if you adopt the theories that have guided another project—you can mine their bibliography. The literature review should be organized by topic or issue rather than author.

            Research questions – The research question should be closely related to the title, rationale, and literature review. They include the same language that is used within the rest of the proposal.

            Methods – The methods section includes the number of researcher hours, the number and type of participants, the number of pages of data that might be expected, and the way that such data will be collected. This is also the area for explaining specialized words.

            Budget/timeline – This section is not required in all proposals. It includes a list of all the research tools needed and their costs. It is important not to be too conservative when writing this section.

            Projected outcomes – This section is also not required in every proposal. It needs a discussion of possible conceptual or material outcomes, such as helping resolve a theoretical debate or increasing understanding of a problem. Material outcomes can include class papers, conference papers, grant applications, scholarly articles, white papers, class syllabi, strategic plans, or coordination plans.

Tracy Notes, Ch. 4

Tracy, Qualitative Research Methods

Chapter 4: “Fieldwork and fieldplay: Negotiating access and exploring the scene”

A participant observation primer

            Participant observation is a way of generating knowledge through participation within a group, organization, place, or culture. It involves watching, interacting, and asking questions. Tracy advocates the use of the term “fieldplay,” because often there is much to be learned through creativity, curiosity, improvisation, and playfulness. Despite this, research must be systematically planned out, and the researcher must always be mindful. It is important to not only study people, but also to learn from/with people. This comes through looking at three aspects of human experience: what people do/cultural behavior, what people know/cultural knowledge, and what people make and use/cultural artifacts.

Knock, knock, knocking on participants’ doors: negotiating access

            One of the most important parts of qualitative research is finding people who are willing to let you in, and therefore, such people are participants rather than subjects. Researchers study with such people, not conduct research on them. The process of gaining entry is a continual and time-consuming part of the research. One way of getting around this is to study places where you are already a member. Another is to begin by working with someone who has credibility in the group, organization, or culture, who can essentially vouch for you. Researchers can also take advantage of family and friend networks. Tracy advocates making contact information logs so that you can stay on top of who you know and what access they can provide you.

            Getting into a scene often requires the permission of a gatekeeper. There are challenges not only in negotiating entrance with this person, but also in identifying them in the first place. We should be conscious of how we present ourselves and our project, particularly emphasizing beneficial frames. This can be done through an access proposal, a document that pitches the project to the gatekeepers.

            Working in virtual environments presents certain challenges as well. Even if a site is public, that does not mean that one should not announce their presence. It is also considered a poor practice to take up textual harvesting—simply copying others’ words for use in research.

Abandoning the ego, engaging embodiment, embracing liminality

            One does not need to become an expert on a subject before beginning in a study. In fact, Tracy suggests a “mindful state of ignorance.” Researchers must be comfortable abandoning the prestige, language, and ego of being an academic before entering the scene. Field research can be physically, mentally, and emotionally draining, and so researchers must find ways to deal with possible exhaustion. Fieldwork is also notably an embodied experience, which differentiates it from the body-less quantitative methods. We must be reflexive about our bodies, whether we are presenting ourselves as is or dressed to fit the scene. This is where some elements of liminality can enter—the feeling of being between two states. It is an ambiguous place, but it can become normalized for researchers.

Navigating those first few visits

            The first few visits can be plagued with anxiety, but they are also a good opportunity for rich field notes. In the beginning, everything is interesting. Some researchers believe that, once the scene begins to feel natural, it is time to move on. It is important to ask questions, but be tactful at the same time. The way that participants react to you early in the process can also be good data. After all, it is an example of how they deal with outsiders.

            The act of negotiating access is one that is ongoing; even after the initial gatekeeper lets you in, you are still evaluated tacitly by every member of the group that you encounter. One of the best ways to work through a group of people is to begin with those who are marginalized and move up the hierarchical ladder. This, however, leads to the tension of first having to be approved of by those in power and then immediately working with those who don’t have power. This can be mediated by introducing yourself rather than having someone in power introduce you. It is always important to gain informed consent. This is not compulsory in public settings, but it absolutely is in private settings.

Exploratory methods

Briefing interviews and participant information table

            A briefing interview “records information gathered as you informally meet with a series of gatekeepers and other participants, invite questions, and ask advice as you move forward.” A participant information table includes real names of participants, pseudonyms, names of the subgroups a participant is associated with, positions in the group, key demographic characteristics, whether the participant was observed, whether they were interviewed, whether they were involved in other data collection, contact phone number, address, or email, and whether they had been involved in follow-up.

Member diaries

            These are particularly useful when working with a population that isn’t in a specific geographical location. The researcher asks the participants to record specific behaviors.

Public documents/artifacts

            These can include websites, brochures, pamphlets, advertisements, technological equipment, toys, furniture, or artwork. Fieldwork then gives the opportunity to see how these artifacts are used on a daily basis. They can also provide history and information about rules, policies, and requirements.

Maps and narrative tours

            Tours “offer you an opportunity to attune to the surroundings, understand the people who inhabit different spaces, discover the group’s history, and learn how you might best embody your participant observation role.”

Tracy Notes, Ch. 3

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.” 

Tracy Notes 2

Tracy, Ch. 2

The Nature of Qualitative Research

               Logic tends toward inductive (bottom-up) or deductive (top-down) approaches, but qualitative research focuses on the emic (description from the actor’s point of view, context specific). This is different from etic (behavior described through external, preset criteria). Inductive and emic research goes together; they both EMerge. Deductive and etic work is based on External Theories. The inductive process tends to move from observation, to conceptual patterns, to claims, to conclusions that build theory. Deductive begins with theory, makes a hypothesis, tests the hypothesis, and either confirms or denies the theory.

               Qualitative work is concerned with both actions (of people) and structures (shape, guide, and constrain action). This appears in discourse studies as small-d (everyday talk) and large-D (unspoken rules and guidelines). One type of structure is the grand narrative, which is a system of stories driven by our expectations for things to unfold in a particular way.

Key Characteristics of the Qualitative Research Process

               One of the major ideas of qualitative research is gestalt, or the essence of form or shape that is untranslatable. It generally refers to our tendency to see various items as a whole. Another such idea is bricolage, which refers to a “a pieced together set of representations that is fitted to the specifics of a complex situation.” This can be used to talk about the way that qualitative researchers tend to piece together various theories, methodologies, and traditions. As researchers, we can put together numerous types of data to make an interesting whole. Tracy also brings up the funnel metaphor, which illustrates the process of qualitative inquiry. It starts broad, with a large research question. But as time goes on, work in the field will cause the question to get narrowed further and further. The theories or topics that one starts off with are referred to as sensitizing concepts. These can be theoretical concepts that we are fond of looking for or using for interpretation.

Key Definitions and Territories of Qualitative Research

Qualitative methods: “an umbrella concept that covers interviews, participant observation, and document analysis.” They “need not include long-term immersion into a culture or require a holistic examination of all social practices.”

Naturalistic inquiry: “the process of analyzing social action in uncontrived field settings in which the inquirer does not impose predetermined theories or manipulate the setting.” It is also “described as value-laden and, by definition, always takes place in the field, which may be an organization, a park, an airport, or a far-away culture”

Ethnography: a “key type of qualitative research” that requires “ethnographers… to live intimately beside and among other cultural members,” focusing on “language use, rituals, ceremonies, relationships, and artifacts.”

Narrative inquiry: The study of gathered stories, using fieldnotes, interviews, oral tales, blogs, letters, or autobiographies. Narrative scholars believe that narratives are fundamental to the human experience.

Autoethnography: “the systematic study, analysis, and narrative description of one’s own experiences, interactions, culture, and identity.”

Impressionist tales: also known as “performance and messy texts, creative analytic practice ethnography, and the new ethnography.” Involves an author analyzing their own stories.

Grounded theory: “a systematic inductive analysis of data that is made from the ground up”

Historical Matters

               Early ethnography was an extension of colonialism—looking to “barbaric” or “savage” cultures and trying to better control or exploit them. Many of these studies could be seen as ethnocentric. In the early 1900s, researchers (including DuBois) began questioning colonization and showing how it enforced racial prejudice. This ended some of the earlier types of ethnography. With the two world wars, researchers stayed closer to home. Orwell, Whyte, and Gramsci were all writing at this time, as well as the Chicago School of Sociology, which used ethnography to study social problems.

               After WWII, the Nuremburg Code was drafted, which required ethical guidelines for research. This led to the founding of the IRB. Ethically questionable work, such as that undertook by Milgram and in the Stanford Prison experiments have led to the creation of human subject protections.

               More recently, ethnographers have been sent out of their home countries again, studying areas termed “Third World.” In the mid-70s, social science scholars began to use more qualitative methods. Though this was in contrast to the “realist” ethnography, these types of studies gained a greater foothold through the 1980s.

               Currently, there are certain controversies. Qualitative methods are not accepted in all parts of the academy, and governmental intervention into education are requiring more and more emphasis on quantitative knowledge. 

Qualitative Research Methods, Chapter 1

               Tracy begins by listing three major concepts: self-reflexivity, context, and thick description. To be self-reflexive, we need to acknowledge our positionality, our “past experiences, point of view, and roles.” Context is important because it helps clarify/define elements observed in the field. Tracy reminds us of Geertz’s boy winking/wincing. Furthermore, thick description integrates this context into a more holistic understanding of situations. It hones the researchers’ ability to interpret.

               Phronetic research emphasizes praxis, suggesting that research should be aimed at having a real-world impact. Tracy notes that qualitative research is especially well-suited to phronesis because of its emphasis on morality and values. Qualitative research is also especially useful for giving the researcher an opportunity to get out in the field and pursue topics/cultures/social situations that are of particular interest to them. It also allows us to question or better understand things that are “tacit, taken-for-granted, [or] intuitive” in a culture. Beyond this, field work uncovers information that cannot be gauged by quantitative means, and it also allows for discovering further/new issues and problems. Tracy describes several areas on which qualitative research tends to be focused: the self, relationships, groups and organizations, culture, and mediated or virtual contexts.

               One of the choices that needs to be made in qualitative research is how to move from an idea to a site. Tracy explains that this can be seen on a continuum, with one end being absolute certainty of the issue/research question and venue and the other being a generalized place or situation and a “whatever happens” approach. Between these is the iterative approach, which begins with certain theories and interests, but is modified as things develop in the field. Tracy takes care to define phenomenon (locus of study) as being different from field (collection of spaces and places in which the phenomenon may be found and explored). Furthermore, sites (specific geographical or architectural areas) are different from settings (specific parameters of the space), which are also different from scenes (field, sites, settings, and participants).

               For actually coming up with research ideas, Tracy suggests looking into things that interest us in our personal life. Additionally, we can look to social or organizational problems and current events that have caught our attention. Of course, we can always look to existing literature to find gaps in knowledge. Tracy also mentions finding research areas when looking at the context or participants in the field.

               In the next section, Tracy asks us to consider compatibility, suitability, yield, and feasibility. Since the researcher is the instrument through which information is interpreted, it is important that you take careful consideration of your potential projects. For some, it is easier to study contexts in which participants are similar to them. There are also questions of whether it will be feasible or comfortable for the researcher to become accepted by the studied population. We must also consider yield, because we don’t want our research to go unused. It should produce enough material to accomplish our goals.

               Though qualitative projects usually start out with fairly simple research questions (What is going on here?), they should progress to more nuanced/specific questions. It can be useful to have several questions when entering the field; this helps guide your inquiry. When trying to come up with more specific research questions, you can ask about issues that the participants find important or elements of the field that relate to theoretical areas.