Qualitative Research Methods

1. Qualitative Research Methods Writing the Study

2. I. Writing Considerations • A. Going public • 1. Authoring & publishing some type of report • 2. Based on the goals for the project, the audience for the report will vary • 3. Writing up reports often filled with 4 sources of such tension: • a. Seeing it as a necessary task after data collection, with a set end

3. Considerations, con’t. • b. A belief that writing is merely a technical process for “capturing truth” • c. The need to be professionally sensitive to knowledge generation & the creation of a sufficient dialogue • d. An identity formation process that reinscribes the boundaries between social realities • 4. A report of a qualitative study may take many forms, both traditional (similar to quantitative research) & also new forms

4. Considerations, con’t. • 5. Not unusual for even experienced researchers to feel overwhelmed by the amount of data to be analyzed & described • 6. Also normal to feel a lack of confidence that your interpretations & conclusions represent any thing close to "the truth" • 7. Most authors simply advise writers to "do it," or to "begin" to write, to refine, write, & refine again because “All writing is rewriting” (Lindlof & Taylor, p. 283)

5. II. Dealing with Research Paradigm Shift • A. The Crisis of Representation • 1. Traditional notions of authorship as a neutral, individualistic practice undermined • 2. Must confront influence of personal experience (subjectivity & reflexivity) • 3. Must confront influence of cultural politics & hegemonic pressures • 4. Reject “positivist fiction of an objective observer” (L & T, p. 285)

6. Paradigm Shift, con’t. • 5. Questions of power led to ethical considerations: • a. Problem of “otherizing” participants (e.g. as “subjects” or as primitive % exotic) • b. Claiming authority over interpretations • c. Using participants for self-interests • d. Denying a voice to participants • 6. Endorse more critical approaches

7. Paradigm Shift, con’t. • B. Led to creative approaches to writing • 1. “Creative non-fiction” • a. Uses literary & cinematic techniques of storytelling • b. Dramatize the factual • 2. Dialogic; crafting a kind of bricolage • a. Polyvocal & intertexual (Bakhtin, 1986) • b. Adapted concepts from literary & rhetorical theory

8. Paradigm Shift, con’t. • C. Voice & Style • 1. Modes of expression to aid understanding of a text • a. “Objective” 3rd person (masks ideology) • b. “Subjective” 1st person • 2. Style emerges from practical choices • 3. Depict “unsettled relationships” (Strine 1997) • D. Narrative Presence (from narrative theory) • 1. Author(s)—includes participants (implicitly or explicity) • 2. Personae—mediated impressions of “actual” identities • 3. Narrators—”characters” who selcted & interpret events in a story

9. Paradigm Shift, con’t. • E. Narrative presence (Strine & Pacanowsky, 1985) • 1. Authorial stance—degree of closeness to participants (involvement to detachment) • 2. Authorial status—degree researchers emphasis themselves as text creators (present to absent) • 3. Contact (writer-reader relationship)

10. Paradigm Shift, con’t. • From Baker & Benton, in a footnote: • “This chapter was created in an unusual manner. At first we were concerned with making both voices heard, not stepping on each other's boundaries, & examining how we were constructing the writing of this chapter. • “During February & March 1992 we engaged in a series of discussions which were audiotaped. These tapes were transcribed, without identifying who said what, & used as the rough draft of this chapter. • “We both felt pleased with the results of our joint effort. We create very similarly, though describe differently in written language. One of us is adept at elaboration while the other excels at summarizing”

11. Paradigm Shift, con’t. • “We constructed a third ‘person’ who is the one writing this. This conceit took away some of the tension, if not the responsibility, in collaborating, meshing our voices together. • “The actual creation of the chapter, then, became both narrative & performative. We grappled with performance issues surrounding the creation of this study, especially in disclosing ourselves to each other within the confines of a collaborative academic relationship.”

12. Paradigm Shift, con’t. • F. Genre-Audience Nexus • 1. Constrained by professional & cultural codes for the form & content of writing • a. Similar to literary genres—a frame for understanding • b. Flexible & evolving • 2. Shape work to appeal to particular audiences • a. Area specialists • b. General disciplinary readers

13. Paradigm Shift, con’t. • 3. Human science readers—non-disciplinary but professional • 4. Action-oriented readers—key figures in institutional spheres • 5. General readers—the popular audience • 1) Can be a safe way to confront ethnocentrism • 2) Enjoy user-friendly texts • 3) Examples range from journalistic efforts to those by independent scholars, to institutionally-connected researchers

14. Paradigm Shift, con’t. • G. Institutional contexts • 1. Academic politics • a. Ideology of a discipline • 1) maintains community • 2) Disciplines the field • 3) Senior researchers have more freedom to experiment • 4) Younger scholars must “pay their dues”

15. Paradigm Shift, con’t. • b. Power relations • 1) gatekeepers—tenure committees, paper & journal reviewers, etc. • 2) Criteria for scholarship • 3) Some more open than others • 2. Biases (non-exhaustive list) • a. Devaluation of subjective research • b. Funding agency preferences • c. Favoring positivist research

16. Paradigm Shift, con’t. • 3. Problems of writing in an alternative format (mulitimedia, performative, nondiscursive modes of presentation, etc.) • a. Fitting into scholarly norms • b. Lack of respect (or understanding) or creative work • c. Build a body of work that is both traditional & alternative • d. Or do later in one’s career

17. Paradigm Shift, con’t. • H. Publishing economics • 1. Academic writers participate in a highly specialized, artificial, yet unstable economic system • 2. No direct compensation for work (as authors, reviewers, editors, etc.—sometimes must pay) • 3. Book presses in financial crunch; becoming less professional • 4. Problems in publishing exist (biases, mistakes, abuses of power, etc.)

18. Paradigm Shift, con’t. • 5. Recent pressures destabilize an imperfect system • a. Consolidation & conglomeration • b. Concern with profits • c. Libraries unable to get discount subscription rates for journals, etc. • d. Lack of support for university presses • e. Outlets becoming constricted • r. Access becoming restricted

19. Paradigm Shift, con’t. • I. New Media • 1. One solution is to use web-based technologies to “publish” • a. Use blogs, listservs, podcasts, wikis, etc. • b. Hypertexuality erodes boundaries & exposes arbitrary practices • c. Digitized images available • d. Electronic journals

20. Paradigm Shift, con’t. • 2. Large companies have yet to establish proprietary control over web-based outlets • 3. Many qualitative researchers use new media more for conventional purposes than as bold new challenges to traditional publishing • 4. Professional organizations moving to establish on-line data bases • 5. Libraries moving to on-line data bases

21. II. The Craft of Qualitative Writing • A. Traditional Writing Formats • 1. Positivist • a. Objective • b. Reporting • c. “interpretative omnipotence” • d. “realist tales”

22. Qualitative Writing, con’t. • 2. Similar to a four-act play • a. Act one—four goals • 1) Novelty & significance • 2) Situate study in existing literature • 3) Problematize literature to create a space for new study • 4) Foreshadow how study will deal with the problem

23. Qualitative Writing, con’t • b. Act Two--Method • 1) Review logic of design • 2) Include relevant information about conditions of study • 3) Include both general & specific detail to enhance credibility • 4) Some discussion can be in study, in appendices, or in footnotes (see examples)

24. Qualitative Writing, con’t • Examples: • From DVC paper, 2007: “When I first encountered The Da Vinci Code, I was struck by this claim of Brown’s, and I was curious as to whether other women found the novel, and subsequent film, an empowering message in any way, as I did not. • “For 19 months, from March 2006 to November, 2007, I interacted on-line with numerous people about the ways in which they interpret this text. I also read the novel & saw the film several times. I compared Sophie Neveu’s actions in the book & film, as well as her actions in contrast to Robert Langdon’s.”

25. Qualitative Writing, con’t • DVC continued: • “I also researched the various controversies surrounding both novel & film. Many persons who opposed both were concerned not just by the factual errors in Brown’s novel, but also by its heretical view that early Christianity was heavily influenced by the ‘sacred feminine,’ embodied by Mary Magdalene, often seen as a representation of the divine goddess by various neo-pagan groups. • “The method used for analysis included a close reading of the novel multiple times, reading the Illustrated Screenplay, & viewing the film seven times (three in a theatre; four more times at home via DVD). Dialogue was checked against both the novel & the film itself, as the published screenplay is not completely identical to the U.S. theatrical version of the film.”

26. Qualitative Writing, con’t • “For this project, I went through every line of the book and every scene in the film, noting ALL the sections where the ‘sacred feminine’ was mentioned, along with discussions of Mary Magdalene. • “I noted each time Sophie says or does something. Interestingly, I have discovered that, despite widespread perceptions that the book character was the stronger, the two characters (book Sophie and film Sophie) are very similar--indeed, their actions are practically identical with only a few exceptions. (see Appendix A for an example). I also reviewed Dan Brown’s website & the official movie website at www.SonyPictures.com & the Internet Movie Data Base (www.imdb.com) site for the film (for information about the film).”

27. Qualitative Writing, con’t • “I also spent nineteen months interacting with fans & critics of the film on the DVC message board at imdb.com, which eventually led to being part of a group that developed a Facebook discussion group on the film. I also participated on some other internet sites, such as the Lisa Shea forum for the film (Shea 2006), & the discussion board for O’Neill’s website, often discussing the questions raised earlier as to whether or not this was a feminist narrative, or text, as well as attempting to understand the possible appeal of the story to a mass audience.” (from p. 4 of the study)

28. Qualitative Writing, con’t • From T & Paper, 1993, in a footnote: • “Dialogue & other material were derived from numerous viewings of the film, Thelma and Louise (MGM/Pathe, 1991), Directed by Ridley Scott; produced by R. Scott & M. Polk. Starring Susan Sarandon (Louise), Geena Davis (Thelma), Harvey Keitel (Hal), Michael Madsen (Jimmy), Christopher McDonald (Darryl), Stephen Tobolowsky (Max), & Brad Pitt (JD). These viewings were supplemented by Callie Khouri's screenplay, Thelma and Louise (1991), obtained from the USC Cinema Library, Los Angeles, CA.”

29. Qualitative Writing, con’t • c. Act III—Description & interpretation • 1) What evidence should be selected? • 2) How should I present this evidence? • a) authenticity • b) Use of exemplars • 3) How should I construct the relationship between data & theory? • See Katz (2001, 2002) criteria for presenting “luminous data” (L & T, p. 304)

30. Qualitative Writing, con’t • 4) Traditional strategies of organization for interpretation • a) Themes & topics • b) Narrowing & expanding the focus • c) Puzzle-explication strategy • d) Separate narration & analysis • e) Chronology model • f) Natural history approach—the journey of the researcher • 5) Might include quantitative charts, etc.

31. Qualitative Writing, con’t • d. Act IV • 1) Summarize research • 2) Implications of study • 3) Recommendations of future research • 3. Bogdan & Biklen (1984) consider qualitative researchers fortunate in that there is not one accepted convention for writing qualitative reports

32. Qualitative Writing, con’t • B. Alternative writing formats • 1. Lots of possible approaches • 2. No one set structure or strategy • 3. Many possible types • a. Autoethnography • b. Performative writing • c. Postmodern ethnography • Etc.

33. Qualitative Writing, con’t • 4. Tierney, et. al. (1995) divided study into three sections—the researchers’ interpretation, the participants' interpretation, & then their response to the participants • 5. Other styles include using metaphors & various experimental representations such as "narrative of the self," "ethnographic fictional representations,“ "poetic representations,“ "ethnographic dramas,“ & "mixed genres" (Richardson, 1995, pp. 521-522)

34. Qualitative Writing, con’t • 6. Fetterman (1989) stressed the use of 'thick description" for ethnographies • a. Liberal use of the participants' own words to illustrate the reality of the setting & subjects • b. Usually written in an "ethnographic present" (Fetterman, p. 116), as if the reality is still ongoing • 7. Qualitative reports typically woven around a theme or central message (Bogdan & Biklen, 1984)

35. Qualitative Writing, con’t • C. General organization • 1. Dialogue • 2. Reflexivity • 3. Accountability • 4. Fragmentation • 5. Embodiment • 6. Vulnerability • 7. Ambivalence & ambiguity

36. Qualitative Writing, con’t • 8. Van Maanen (1988) typology • a. Confessional tales • b. Impressionist tales • c. Denzin (2000) adds Critical tales • 9. Other strategies (non-exclusive) • a. Fiction, poetry, allegory, etc. • b. Collage/bricolage (blending of types) • c. Scripts • d. Documentaries

37. Qualitative Writing, con’t • D. Issues related to alternative approaches (see L & T, p. 312 ) • 1. Ethics & politics of disclosure (for confessional narratives)? • 2. How can personal experience be linked to larger social phenomena? • 3. How to mediate relationships between writers & readers • 4. Use of theory?

38. Qualitative Writing, con’t • E. Criteria/standards for alternative formats (see L & T p. 313) • 1. Coherent structure • 2. Interesting & skillfully written • 3. Address multiple audiences • 4. Self-reflexive & reflective • 5. Be clear but preserve some ambiguity & open-endedess • 6. Be substantive in contribution

39. Qualitative Writing, con’t • E. Practical issues • 1. takes longer than you think • 2. pre-writing helps with writer’s block • a. brainstorming • b. journaling • c. clustering of ideas • 3. keep audience in mind • 4. write regularly • 5. read passionately