I basically just wanted to outline the five steps of qualitative research according to Inglis as suggested by Bogdan and Biklen (1982).
The first is that the research should take place in the most natural setting. If I am observing a practice, the most natural setting would be for the team and coaches to be where they usually are. Also, if I am somewhat hidden from their vantage points, they will not notice me and practice like usual with the usual dynamic involved.
The second is that the data should maintain its original meaning. This can be done with still photos, video, documentation and transcripts. If I take video of a practice, I can refer back to that when trying to answer questions as opposed to having to recall everything from memory.
The third deals with the process that the data is collected as opposed to the data itself. If I'm worried about data or a specific result, I might have a bias going into the process. However, if I only focus on my method of collecting information, I can deal with the results later and not worry about swaying my opinion at the time.
The fourth deals with theories being born through induction. Through observation, the researcher can come to conclusions based on reasoning and evaluating what occurred during the observation.
The last one involved the meaning of the information. This does not necessarily mean the meaning for the researcher but for the participants. I should ask myself, "How did the events of my observations get perceived by those I was observing?"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
These are good observations from Bogdan and Biklen. I want to just touch on the aspect of observation, because I think there can be multiple ways to observe, and this has actually been the subject of ethical scrutiny. In some cases, writers have tried to blend into the setting and not reveal that they were doing a study or writing a book. One of the best examples of this was Friday Night Lights, where Buzz Bissinger revealed things that upset many of those about whom he was writing. That was the kind of participant observation that many anthropologists have done in the past. However, obviously, the repercussions of revealing your findings can be more difficult to deal with if you do it within your own culture rather than some far-away culture.
ReplyDeleteThe question that must be asked in such a case is whether the findings you will obtain are worth the need to go under cover and not reveal your intentions. The trade-off was that by doing what he did, Bissinger was able to observe what happened in the most "natural" setting possible.