Final Statement on Qualitative Research

Final Statement on Qualitative Methods

               If I have figured anything out this semester, it is that qualitative methods are an iterative process constrained within certain professional expectations. Theoretically, they respond to the problems posed by traditional scientific inquiry, notably through acknowledging the role and position of the researcher. While metric empiricism (and other areas such as critical methods) may attempt to make the researcher invisible, qualitative methods take on the researcher as instrument. This is an important conceptual move, and it is related to where we believe truth or knowledge is located. In order to believe in the absent researcher of metric empiricism, you have to ascribe to the notion that truth is outside of the humans that desire it. It is something that can be reached as long as we find more perfect tools. For the qualitative researcher, the truth resides at the point that the self converges with the subject. It is truth that is contingent on the researcher’s ability to recognize it. Because this process is never simple or straightforward, the researcher must be able to constantly attune their process and methodology.

               It seems that one of the underlying assumptions in qualitative research is that the researcher should be given a degree of trust by those evaluating their work. Because there are not strict guidelines for doing qualitative research—no p-values for interview techniques—the researcher and their results are judged for qualities like coherence and resonance. This is not to say that it is easy to become accepted as a qualitative researcher. Scholars are expected to have certain standards of practice, and they are constrained by expectations placed on them by their academic institutions. This is why it is often difficult to do significant qualitative work early in one’s career: doing a true ethnography takes far too long, and qualitative work is simply not as frequently published as other types of work. This does not mean that it is not worthwhile. Qualitative work can access types of knowledge that cannot begin to be found through metric empiricism, particularly regarding cultural and relational information.

               Judging whether qualitative work is good is always going to be a difficult venture. Because the qualitative researcher is their own tool, it is exceedingly difficult to get outside of oneself to judge the work done. For this reason, having an auditor or colleague to provide feedback can be exceptionally valuable. For myself, I think that the way to define good work is in looking at its ability to help the site or culture that it studies. Attempting to judge whether a work is true is folly; the best you can do is to critique its methods from a third-party point of view. Instead, it may be more useful to define the merit of a work on the basis of what it can do. If the work can provide new understandings of a group or culture, then it is good; if it can help that group or culture become better regarded or gain validity, then it is very good. While I would not argue that all qualitative work needs to be prescriptive, it is hard to imagine a useful study that does not at least implicitly suggest a new course of action. In the realm of qualitative research, truth is always situated within the researcher, and while it will admittedly never produce pure, objective truths, qualitative research can benefit both scholarship and the outside world significantly.

Anderson's Media Research Methods, Ch. 2 - 6

Anderson Ch. 2

In studying the media, various entities can be understood or put into categories based on their properties, processes, consequences, and character. Properties can be studied through basic data collection (surveys, statistics) or immersive engagement (close reading, participant observation). Studying processes requires either sequential measurement methodologies or longer-form interpretive work (protocol analysis, interviews). Consequence is studied in a way that attempts to establish cause and effect, and this can be done through experimentation or participant observation. For character, populations need to be studied, and so surveys, rhetorical criticism, and cultural studies can work to answer questions.

Anderson Ch. 3

Methodology should be public, evidence based, and rule directed, and the studies that result should generate public knowledge. Public knowledge is not necessarily true, but it has passed enough standards not to be deemed false. Methodologies are developed in response to theories; without theory, there is no way to create a systematized method.

It is easier to find problems if you keep current with the discipline’s research. This should be done on a global scale, not limiting it to one’s home country. After doing preliminary research, the problem can be refined to express its domain and components. Methods can come at the problem from deductive (general sample to prove a point/theory) or inductive (single case generalized).

When writing up research, there should be a literature review (shows where in the literature there is material missing) and a problem statement (What is/How does/Why does/What good is?). The literature review should essentially point to the problem statement, showing why it is necessary to answer it.

Anderson Ch. 4

After establishing the problem statement, the researcher must move on to method. Empirical methods use the observation of real practice/culture/material in order to build arguments. It can be categorized as either descriptive, field/life-world, or laboratory.

Metric empiricism is concerned with the measurement and observation of variables. It can be accomplished through observation, survey methods, and experimental methods. In some cases, they can work in tandem with other types of research. Interpretive empiricism is aimed at the study of human action, and it includes reconnaissant observation (short-term), participant observation (long term), critical ethnography, and performance ethnography.

There are certain methods that blur the distinction between metric and interpretive empiricism, including textual analysis, discourse analysis, cultural-critical analysis, and dialogic analysis. These are different from mixed methods, which include multiple methodologies from both metric and interpretive methods.

Anderson Ch. 5

Data must be accompanied with an argument because, otherwise, it is largely useless. Before data can be used, the researcher must implicitly make several assumptions, including what constitutes the media/our text and the nature of the audience/public. We also make assumptions about culture (where and how it is constituted), the way in which individuals relate to society and society to culture, and the role or existence of agency.

Once assumptions are taken into account, a theory must be chosen. The major categories of theory are cognitivism (behavior is dictated from within the individual), social action (behavior is influenced from outside forces), psychoanalytical-semiotic (understanding, meaning, and discursive methods), and critical issue theories (Marxism, feminism, race studies). Each area of theory can be addressed to the psychological, sociological, or cultural level, and furthermore, they can target topics falling into media, content, message, audience, or performance. These theories fall into major epistemic categories as well, including Cartesianism, modernism, and postmodernism.

Depending on whether you are using metric or interpretive methods, the appropriate engagement, evidence, claim, and warrants for trustworthiness are going to differ. In metric work, evidence is characterized by measurable observations of variable manipulation. Trustworthiness is phrased in measurements of reliability, precision, accuracy, and validity.

For interpretive work, evidence is based on the researcher’s coherent and resonant narrative. Their ability to do so will be based on their degree of observation and participation in the studied population. They must be able to link warrants to all of their claims, demonstrating why their evidence is sufficient for the proposition. Trustworthiness for interpretive scholars comes out of coherence, resonance, and vraisemblance (the recognition of the narrative as plausible).

Anderson Ch. 6

Once researchers have research questions, they need to be able to translate their work into hypotheses. For each type of question (What? How? Why? So what?) there are appropriate forms of response. Hypotheses usually appear in metric work, using the theoretical constructs appropriate for the measures and methods of the study. They are not nearly as common in interpretive work.

It is a good idea to create research questions that are anchored both in the real world and the academic, theoretical world. This helps establish warrants for the research. Community-based research is one way to get at both types of problems.

All research work that deals with subjects rather than solely texts should anticipate working with the IRB. The board assesses whether the work is competent scholarship (whether they can really find out what the study sets out to find). They also are concerned with informed consent of participants.

Hammersly & Atkinson's Ethnography, Ch. 1 - 10

Hammersly & Atkinson Ch. 1

Positivism includes the assumptions that research should follow experimental guidelines, it should produce universal or statistical laws, and all knowledge is rooted in observation.

Naturalism refers to the belief that knowledge comes from the study of the social world in its natural state—without researcher interference.

Both positivism and naturalism lack reflexivity; they rely on situated observation but do not acknowledge the role of the researcher. In ethnography, reflexivity is the basis of knowledge.

Hammersly & Atkinson Ch. 2

In ethnography, researchers usually enter with some degree of foreshadowed problems, but they need to be careful not to let their ideas of problems define what they observe in the field. Furthermore, entering the field in hopes of testing a particular theory can be problematic for the same reason. As the researcher spends time in the field, they will most likely change or refine their research questions, being sure to pursue what is already there, not what they are trying to see. Part of this work can be described as either moving from the formal to substantive (theory -> observation) or substantive to formal/generic (observation -> theory/generalization).

The setting of the research also plays a large role in deciding the research question. It is a good idea to check out places being considered for an ethnography before choosing settings. After all, there are usually many settings to choose from to address the kinds of questions that you want to address. Ethnographers do not, technically, study settings—their work is in studying the populations in the settings. It is impossible to account for everything within the setting.

Sampling in ethnography refers to the choice of cases and cases within cases in a study. Sampling should aim to be representative of the culture studied. The act of sampling is the implicit choice of what is and is not relevant to the topic studied. Sampling can be decided on the basis of time (when to sample), people (who to sample), and context (where to sample).

Hammersly & Atkinson Ch. 3

Access is a major issue that ethnographers have to deal with. It can involve having to create or use interpersonal relationships with people of power in order to be able to visit or observe certain sites. Even the act of negotiating access can teach the ethnographer a great deal about the culture. Access also brings up issues of ethics (who can grant access isn’t always who ought to grant access) and behavior (just because you are present does not make you a welcome part of the scene).

The people who have the power to let you into a particular setting or scene are known as gatekeepers. They can have formal (clearance) or informal (integral member of culture) roles that give them this power. Sometimes gatekeepers are not the sole individuals needed to gain access to a site. They can be constrained by other individuals, rules, or laws.

When researchers cannot gain access to a field through gatekeepers, it is sometimes possible to do covert research in which the study is not announced to anyone. This can be a constraint on the research, limiting the kinds of data collection you can do. It is also a significant ethical issue.

Hammersly & Atkinson Ch. 4

For most participants, the ethnographer will initially be treated with suspicion, but this will dissipate as contact increases. However, this is not always the case. Sometimes participants misjudge the intentions of the ethnographer or assume that they are ignorant of the practices of the culture. As a result, the researcher has to engage in impression management by doing things like dressing like the people studied. Expertise and specialist knowledge can be useful in structuring relationships with participants in the field. Researchers must also decide on what level of self-disclosure is appropriate and whether or not they are trading friendship for data.

Researchers should be aware of their unmanageable characteristics (gender, age, ethnicity, etc.) that can have effects on how they relate to people in the field. Women can have trouble gaining access to certain areas (either because of actual rules or just established norms), and men can have trouble gaining access to settings and situations usually reserved for women. By the same token, these characteristics can make it easier to gain access to those areas that privilege such characteristics.

The early stages of research often involve learning the basic competencies for participating in the culture. During this time, the researcher is often granted the same grace as any new member of a culture—“acceptable incompetence.” This leads to one of the problems of studying a culture that you are already a part of—you cannot hold a novice position, and thus you miss all of the knowledge learned about the status of being a novice.

Hammersly & Atkinson Ch. 5

Because the ‘objects’ that ethnographers study are actually ‘subjects,’ collecting accounts becomes a hugely important part of research. Accounts can be both unsolicited and solicited. The former is generally thought to be more natural or more purposeful, which could be considered a naturalist perspective. We cannot be too heavily concerned with the influence of the researcher asking for accounts because there is no way to ever know if the data is compromised, including unsolicited accounts.

The act of choosing who to interview can have several effects on the research. Simply choosing those that are interesting to the researcher can be, in some ways, biased. Using a gatekeeper to select the respondents gives them the power to direct the results. Allowing the participants to self-select guarantees that the only perspectives heard are those that would want to be heard. The interview itself can be seen as a new site of participation—a “resource rather than a problem.”

Interviews are structured both by the ethnographer and the respondent. Using non-directive interviews requires the researcher to be an active listener, following up on important or interesting details to make the interview worthwhile.

Hammersly & Atkinson Ch. 6

It is important to pay attention to documents, physical objects, and various modes of communication. They can provide a source of information that does not come out in interviews or participation about the setting and context of the observation. They can also be a starting point for analytic ideas. Documents can be either solicited or unsolicited. The former can take the form of diaries or written accounts.

Hammersly & Atkinson Ch. 7

Researcher should try to record as much as they can. Memory is faulty, and it should not be the basis for analysis. Recording anything means that the researcher is choosing not to record something at the same time. It is selective, and something will always be left out. This alone is not reason to abandon recording data. This means that there will also always be interpretation, because recording cannot capture every bit of meaning attached to anything. Choosing to record can also have effects on the participants, and we need to account for this in our interpretations.

Ethnographers should use a reflexive eye when considering recorded data. Recorded data can be useful, not just for capturing specific data, but for use in determining what is usual or unusual in the field or for testing out conceptual links. The recordings can also provide information about the researcher and how the participants react to the researcher.

Hammersly & Atkinson Ch. 8

Data analysis occurs at every stage of ethnographic work. However, there are no guaranteed ways of doing data analysis that will make an ethnography successful. Using data to theorize should be an iterative process, emerging as analysis occurs.

Ethnography work can be largely descriptive, using techniques such as making the strange familiar/making the familiar strange. It can also attempt to explain or create theoretical models. In analysis, ethnographers should search for concepts or theories that help make sense of the cases in the data. One way of analyzing unstructured data can be to use theoretical concepts as categories and to begin sorting data into those categories. As this work continues, the researcher can find data that calls for new categories or that strikes interesting comparisons with existing categories. This can also lead to the establishment of relationships between constructs.

Other systems for working with data can be creating conceptual maps, working up grounded theory, and creating typologies. It is important to find concrete indicators within the data that link to the concepts you are using to theorize. The links can take the form of social context, time, or personnel (who does/says what). When finished, the researcher should seek respondent validation. The conclusions should seem correct/intuitive to those within the population studied.

Hammersly & Atkinson Ch. 9

Ethnography is produced through writing, and the production is just as much writing as it is the data collection. Depending on how the ethnography is written up, it will emphasize different facets of the study. The particular theories or concepts used in the ethnography will dictate what should be focused on. The ethnographer generally writes as a storyteller; because experience is data, the experience must somehow be conveyed. The writing will be read by an audience, and so the narrative must be compelling (or at least readable).

Writing up an ethnography can take either thematic or chronological arrangements. The former is useful for explaining constructs that are ordered in term of importance. The researcher should be careful when using metaphor and synecdoche. While they shouldn’t be eliminated, they can be used in ways that mislead or over-simplify. They should also consider the role of narrative, irony, and topos. When appropriate, or when writing for a digital form, the ethnographer can include extra data such as photos or recordings, though doing so may raise certain ethical issues.

Hammersly & Atkinson Ch. 10

There are many issues that ethnographers have to make ethical choices about. These can include informed consent (how/to what degree does the ethnographer attain consent from participants?), privacy (how is privacy guaranteed and where is it expected?), harm (does the ethnographer do any harm either in their participation or publishing of information?), exploitation (to what degree is the ethnographic work exploiting a community, and can the ethnographer do anything to give back?), and consequences for future research (does the ethnographer’s work preclude further studies?).

Outside Reading: Park and Choi's The Internet as a Political Campaign Medium

Park, H. S., & Choi, S. M. (2002). Focus Group Interviews: The Internet as a Political Campaign Medium. Public Relations Quarterly, 47(4), 36–44.

In this article, Park and Choi conducted focus groups in order to understand the effect that websites have on perceptions of political candidates. In particular, they were interested in whether interactivity on the website translated into a feeling of having interacted with the candidate.

The study was conducted in 2000 during the Bush/Gore election. The participants for the focus group were undergraduates who were in advertising classes, all age 21 or older. For the study design, they asked participants to look at the websites of Bush and Gore for half an hour in a computer lab before convening the focus group. Once there, participants were asked questions about their experiences with the websites. The questions were formulated with the intent of using Media Richness Theory in the study.

From a methodological point of view, one of the problems in this study is that the researchers specifically chose to have participants look at the websites for a certain amount of time. While this can be appropriate if you are looking for the baseline effectiveness of some kind of campaign material, it does not seem entirely useful for the purpose of their research. When trying to make generalizable claims about how the voting public is affected by candidate websites, you have to take into account that many are not affected at all, and even further, that those who are affected by the websites sometimes spread that information to others. It is possible to have secondhand knowledge of a website. By priming their participants, Park and Choi lost all possible data about whether their participants had seen or heard about the websites at all. It seems like it may have been useful to first distribute a survey or to have participants look at the websites partway through the focus group.

All of this is not to say that Park and Choi’s study does not have merit. Having been done in 2000, the study fell at a particularly valuable juncture when the web components of political campaigns were first being explored. Park and Choi describe the responses of participants to both Bush and Gore’s websites; those who liked Bush’s website appreciated its simplicity and those who liked Gore’s website appreciated how well it covers all relevant issues. At this point in digital media development, we know that both approaches are extremely valuable. Though they eventually conclude that interactive features on websites are not perceived as the same as interacting with the candidates, they do identify early efforts at personalization as being useful (which were later used to great effect by the Obama campaign).

Saldana Ch. 5 and 6

Saldana's The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers

Ch. 5: Second Cycle Coding Methods

The Goals of Second Cycle Methods
The second cycle of coding is the point at which the myriad codes created in the first cycle get refined into larger codes or categorical labels. The idea is to begin finding trends or themes within the data which can eventually be assembled into a theory or model. We have to be careful that our categories are not too disparate; if they are, we are probably misrepresenting some things because data will not tend to hold such variety without overlap.

Second Cycle Coding Methods
Pattern coding: a meta-code that pulls the existing codes into a smaller number of codes or categories
Focused coding: looks for frequent or high intensity codes to identify salient features of the text
Axial coding: reassembles split data; looks for dominant and subordinate codes to create a categorical system that specifies the properties and dimensions of categories
Theoretical coding: Identifies a core category and formulates codes that relate the data to that category; can be theory-driven or emergent
Elaborative coding: Uses categories/themes from a previous study to interpret the data; strengthens the theory by seeing how well the prior coding set explains the new data
Longitudinal coding: Used for life-long studies; notes increase/decrease in study variables, accumulations, epiphanies, idiosyncracies, constancy, and missing data

Ch. 6: After Second Cycle Coding
It can be difficult to transition from fully-coded data to making theoretical claims. There are many different formats that research can take, so Saldana focuses on solidifying ideas.

Focusing Strategies
The "top 10" list: Use the 10 most interesting or varied pieces of data to illustrate the salience or breadth of your research
The study's "trinity": Identify the three most important concepts in your research and figure out the relationship between the three
Codeweaving: Using the major codes in your research, tell a story that structures the relationships between the codes
The "touch test": Look at your codes and find those that are things-- what can be touched? These codes need to be abstracted a level (mother to motherhood)

From Coding to Theorizing
Elements of a theory: Identify the if/then components or relationships within your coding
Categories of categories: Place your existing categories into larger categories

Formatting Matters
Rich text emphasis: Bold major concepts and italicize important assertions
Headings and subheadings: Use headings and subheadings to structure an argument

Writing About Coding
It is helpful to include as much information about the methods you used as possible. This includes everything from the data acquisition and sampling to the computer programs you used to code and manage the data. Make sure to emphasize major outcomes of the analysis.

Ordering and Reordering
Analytic storytelling: Tell the story of your analysis in a chronological way
One thing at a time: Write about concepts or categories one at a time, keeping them separate initially
Begin with the conclusion: If having trouble writing, begin with the conclusion

Assistance from Others
Peer and online support: Have peers (in person or online) look at your work and provide suggestions
Searching for "buried treasure": Have readers of your work look for important ideas or assertions that are not explained

Saldana Ch. 3

The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, Ch. 3

First Cycle Coding Methods

The first cycle of coding is the initial coding of data. Saldana identifies seven types of first cycle coding: grammatical, elemental, affective, literary, and language. Each of these types has several particular coding methods associated with it. The second cycle of coding is characterized as more analytic, and it includes classifying, prioritizing, integrating, synthesizing, abstracting, conceptualizing, and theory building.

Choosing the right type of coding is dependent on several factors, and the choice should be guided by your research question, your paradigmatic and methodological choices, and exploratory work with your data set. Saldana suggests a generic coding method for figuring out the right type of coding for your data, begging with attribute coding and followed by structural/holistic coding, descriptive coding, and in vivo, initial, or value coding.

Grammatical Methods

Attribute coding: Used for nearly all studies, attribute coding goes before the text and lists all relevant attributes to the data set, including qualitative and quantitative properties.

Magnitude coding: This adds an alphanumeric measure of intensity to another coding scheme

Subcoding: Creates a secondary code to accompany a primary coding system. The subcode is hierarchically below the status of the primary code.

Simultaneous coding: Utilizes a second code of equal standing or importance to the primary code, at the same time on the same texts

Elemental Methods

Structural coding: Codes related to questions asked during interviews/recurrent topics from participants; especially useful with large numbers of participant responses following a similar structure

Descriptive coding: Creates codes related to the topic of qualitative data. This is different from codes referring to the content.

In vivo coding: Uses the language of the data to code instead of labels chosen by the researcher

Process coding: Codes through use of gerunds—what the language is doing conceptually or what an observed participant is physically doing

Initial coding: Open-ended approach that breaks data down into parts and compares them; iterative

Affective Methods

Emotion coding: Labels emotions experienced or recalled by participants

Values coding: Codes values, attitudes, and beliefs expressed in participant responses

Versus coding: Codes for binaries, dialectics, and rivalries

Evaluation coding: Used to evaluate programs, evaluation coding makes value judgments (non-quantitative) and attempts to describe, compare, and predict success from a program

Literary and Language Methods

Dramaturgical coding: The application of dramatic elements to qualitative data (not just Burke’s pentad), drawing from Goffman and impression management

Motif coding: Uses index codes for classifying folk tales, myths, and legends; the motif is the smallest unique unit in the story

Narrative coding: Open form of coding whatever the researcher considers a narrative; done from a literary perspective

Verbal exchange coding: Aims at finding a generic form of conversation. Codes precise transcripts of conversations as phatic communication, ordinary conversation, skilled conversation, personal narratives, and dialogue.

Exploratory Methods

Holistic coding: Looks for themes and issues by taking in qualitative data as a whole rather than analyze line-by-line.

Provisional coding: The creation of a set of codes before analyzing the data based on existing knowledge of the texts

Hypothesis coding: Coding done with a predetermined set of codes aimed at testing a particular hypothesis

Procedural Methods

Protocol coding: Protocol coding occurs when all coding is done by a rigid, preset system rather than an open or iterative process

Outline of Cultural Materials (OCM) coding: Coding that follows the OCM, a topical index for anthropologists and archaeologists

Domain and taxonomic coding: An ethnographic type of coding, domain and taxonomic coding looks for cultural knowledge; it separates processes into steps, looks for cultural categories, and identifies semantic relationships (strict inclusion, spatial, cause-effect, rationale, location for action, function, means-end, sequence, and attribution).

Causation coding: Looks for causal beliefs in qualitative data; notes dimensions of causality, including internal/external, stable/unstable, global/specific, personal/universal, and controllable/uncontrollable

Themeing the Data

A theme is a phrase or sentence that identifies what a unit of data is about or means. Creating themes means finding groupings of implicit ideas among the coded data. 

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.”