| Popis: |
Key Words: qualitative research, social context, theory construction.In "Writing and Reviewing Manuscripts in the Multidimensional World of Qualitative Research" (LaRossa, 2012), I expressed the hope that, by sketching a cognitive map of the writing and reviewing process, authors and reviewers for the Journal of Marriage and Family (JMF) would be better able to communicate with each other about the location of qualitative manuscripts on a humanities-sciences continuum latitude), length-andnumber-of-data-excerpts continuum longitude), and level-of-theorizing continuum altitude). The three-dimensional navigational system was intended to describe some of the ways that scholars think about research and offer a template to help frame questions about what constitutes good qualitative work.I appreciate the remarks that Lareau (2012), Matthews (2012), andRoy (2012) provided. Iteli my students that if people have taken the time to read their papers/theses/dissertations and offer constructive comments, they have been given a gift. It is in this spirit that I welcome the reactions of my colleagues.Although there is some overlap in the issues that Lareau, Matthews, and Roy raised, what I found interesting were the particular issues on which each chose to focus. I thus organize my reply by commentator: starting with Roy, moving to Matthews, and ending with Lareau.NAVIGATING THE DIMENSIONS OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCHRoy wrote that the map offered "innovative tools to guide writing and reviewing" and a "shared language" to talk about disciplinary and methodological boundaries and about how scholars might ' 'work across' ' those boundaries. Second, he stated that the map "encouraged [him] to rethink the processes of theorizing and discovery and to reshuffle consideration of rigor and multiple methodologies." Third, he proposed that the map was applicable across different cultures and that it invited a discussion of not only the culture of qualitative research at JMF but also the culture of qualitative research at granting agencies, academic departments, and other journals. Fourth, he reinforced the adage that cultures are constructed in a political context and that the different positions on the map - or, for that matter, the map and dimensions themselves - "are suffused with elements of status and power."A vernacular is needed to productively think about what we mean by theory, rigor, and the like. That vernacular, if reasonably flexible, can be applied to different thought communities (Zerubavel, 1997) and allow scholars with dissimilar points of view to converse and collaborate (e.g., on multidisciplinary and multimethod projects). At the same time, we cannot ignore the fact that cultural configurations, embedded in systems of stratification, are shaped and perpetuated by certain groups while being challenged and opposed by other groups. In recognition of this, I recommended that a commission be convened to discuss the nature and scope of qualitative research, and I stated that its membership should be made up of novice as well as veteran researchers. An ensemble of voices from different tiers should be at the table.Roy mentioned several other items. He indicated that sample may not be the most appropriate term in qualitative research, because of the term's association with "positivistic assumptions," which are not applicable to all modes of qualitative work, and because of the implication of "representativeness," which is difficult to achieve when relying, for example, on in-depth interviews with 25 to 30 caregivers, participant observations of 10 to 15 families, or the written correspondence of a lone parent educator.I personally feel it is fine for qualitative researchers to use whatever terms they think are appropriate to describe the people they interview, observe, and so on. Qualitative researchers who are uncomfortable with applying strict sampling logic in their research often talk about "cases," "participants," "collaborators," or "consultants," rather than "samples" and "subjects" (Daly, 2007, p. … |
Plný text