Qualitative inquiry

Comment

Comment by GIUSEPPINA on August 18, 2010 at 6:43pm

Dear Alfredo Berbegal Vazquez,
I thank You very much for the Conference indicated.
Best regards, Giuseppina

Comment by Alfredo Berbegal Vázquez on August 12, 2010 at 10:39am

just in case there is somebody interested in...

CALL FOR PAPERS
Qualitative Computing:
Diverse Worlds and Research Practices Conference
http://www.qualitativecomputing2011.net/english/reg.html


February 24-26, 2011, Istanbul, Turkey
Conference Chairs
Elif Kus Saillard, Sociology Department, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey, kus@humanity.ankara.edu.tr
Sema Sakarya, Department of International Trade, Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey, tapans@boun.edu.tr
Cesar A. Cisneros Puebla, Departamento de Sociologia UAM Iztapalapa, Mexico, csh@xanum.uam.mx

Organized jointly by Department of International Trade, Bogazici University, Turkey and the Sociology Departments of Ankara University, Turkey & the Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana, Iztapalapa, Mexico, Qualitative Computing: Diverse Worlds and Research Practices Conference will be held between February 24-26, 2011 in İstanbul at Bogazici University Campus.

The Conference will focus on how research practices from diverse worlds have been fostering qualitative computing. It will provide a forum for sharing research, analysing diverse research practices and methodological perspectives and discussing the epistemological roots of each national way of practicing qualitative research. The Conference is an excellent opportunity to observe the diversity of qualitative research, to learn about software assisted qualitative research and thirty years of CAQDAS influence into research methodologies in the social sciences.

Call for Papers

We encourage the submission of papers that address qualitative research methodology, cases reflecting experiences with qualitative research from disciplines like sociology, psychology, marketing, organizations, law and humanities, as well as cases utilizing qualitative software and technological developments in related software. We are interested in papers that address topics such as, but not limited to

1. Research cases from various disciplines utilizing qualitative methodology
2. Opportunities in and challenges of conducting software assisted qualitative research
3. Methodological reflections of using software in qualitative research
4. Analysis processes that benefit most from qualitative software
5. Innovative and new ways of using software tools
6. Transparency on reporting software assisted qualitative research
7. Experiences and models on teaching qualitative software
8. New software tools and the future of qualitative research
9. Research team possibilities in using software
10. On line research, ethics and qualitative software
11. Integration of quantitative and qualitative data in mixed methods research and emerging inquiry approaches
Qualitative Computing: Diverse Worlds and Research Practices Conference is open to any initiative to include other topics related to using qualitative software, you are invited to contact us if you have suggestions. Authors wishing to present a paper at the conference should submit an abstract by Monday the 23rd, September 2010 and will be informed of the outcome of their submission by December 1, 2010. Abstracts of accepted papers will be available to participants at the conference.

Abstracts should be 400 - 800 words in length and written in English. The abstract should include the title of the paper and an overview of the background theoretical/practical context, objective of the paper, methodology (if applicable), main findings/points of discussion and conclusions. The author’s name(s) should not be on the abstract itself. A cover sheet including the title of the paper, the author’s names, titles, institutional affiliations and contact details, with the primary contact person designated, should accompany the abstract. All submissions will be subject to a blind peer review process
Please send your submissions as a Word document to the Conference Chairs: csh@xanum.uam.mx , tapans@boun.edu.tr , kus@humanity.ankara.edu.tr

Deadline for abstract submission: September 23, 2010

Comment by Ann Randall on August 8, 2010 at 3:50pm

I just saw this group. I'm currently at the dissertation stage of a qualitative inquiry into the effects of qualitative interviews, and this group appears to be congruent with my interests. I'm happy to meet you. Ann

Comment by Naeem Ashraf on August 3, 2010 at 9:19am

Pat! Your chapter's excerpts are perhaps the finest and the most relevant. Things have become more clearer to me. Thanks a lot !

Comment by Pat Bazeley on August 3, 2010 at 1:13am

Naeem seemed a bit doubtful about my advice, so to show that it is not completely 'off the air', I share with you a small section from the first chapter of the text I am writing on analysis of qualitative data (the formatting of quotes in the middle is lost in this medium):

Several authors, in describing approaches taken to mixed methods research, have observed that there is little correspondence between methods as described in texts, and ‘methods in use’ (Bryman, 2006; Harden & Thomas, 2005; Maxwell & Loomis, 2003). In qualitative projects, too, there are marked discrepancies between theory and practice when it comes to methods, and even more when researchers claim to be following a particular methodological tradition.
If you want to understand what a science is, you should look in the first instance not at its theories or its findings, and certainly not what its apologists say about it; you should look at what the practitioners of it do. (Geertz, 1973: 9)
I begin to see that the whole idea of a method for discovering things is ex post facto. You succeed in doing something, or you do something so well that you yourself want to know how you did it. So you go back, trying to re-create the steps that led you, not quite by accident, not quite by design, to where you wanted to be. You call that re-creation your “method.” (Koller, 1983: 88, quoted by Sandelowski, 2008: 11)
To us it seems clear that research is actually more a craft than a slavish adherence to methodological rules. No study conforms exactly to a standard methodology; each one calls for the researcher to bend the methodology to the peculiarities of the setting.... (Miles & Huberman, 1994: 5)
I wonder if Sandelowski (2000) wrote her article on qualitative description out of frustration—the kind I have experienced when students come to me with a good question, useful data and some meaningful insights, but are struggling because someone has told them that they have to name the methodology that they are working in and then they are caught with trying to show how what they have done fits that methodology. Sandelowski and Thorne differ with respect to the relevance of a disciplinary base to methodology, but nevertheless agree on the need for intellectual honesty and methodological integrity in research products. Rather than ‘forcing on an ill fitting shoe’, it is better to ensure (and show) that the conclusions being drawn have coherence and validity in terms of purpose, questions, sampling, data gathered, and methods of analysis (Maxwell, 2005). “For me, the importance of method is not whose approach one chooses but the ‘quality’ of the research findings produced by any approach” (Corbin 2009: 52). Where modification of an established approach has occurred, it is better to be ‘straight up’ and say one has drawn on ethnographic (or grounded theory, or phenomenological) principles or methods, specifying how and how not, rather than claiming to have conducted an ethnographic (or grounded theory) study, with all that that claim implies.

Comment by Ahmad Salih on August 1, 2010 at 7:33am

Hello everyone,

Is the use of one or more independent coders common in qualitative inquiry? Particularly, in phenomenological studies?

Comment by Naeem Ashraf on July 29, 2010 at 8:17am

Thanks Pat, Jo and Giuseppina.

Your insightful and timely inputs are really what I needed at this critical juncture as I have to meet deadline to submit my article to a research journal and your feedback would definitely help me prepare arguments in response to blind review. I like Pat's advice of not labeling the study at all and Jo's hint about case study i.e. whether the projects that got financing under CDM were of the same nature. In fact in my study they were not, i.e. some related to generating energy or switching to less carbon intensive fuel while others projects were of green products production etc. Following this argument, method which I employed might not be called case study. Pat's advice of not labeling it at all seems a good idea in this regard. However can anyone tell me whether it is acceptable of not defining in concrete terms what methodology in a study is used e.g. ground theory, case study, ethnography or mixed method for that matter!

Naeem

Comment by Pat Bazeley on July 28, 2010 at 11:05pm

Naeem,
A question you might think about is whether the label you use makes any material difference to the way you do the research? I doubt it does, and so you might even consider not using a label at all, but simply describing what is was that you actually did, i.e. an expansion of the idea that you were studying a process using multiple sources of data, Start by providing an overview of the design, and your basis for working in that way, and then work through the details of phasing, sampling, data gathering, analysis etc. The critical thing is to provide sufficient detail that anyone reading your report/thesis can understand how you arrived at your results.
As you can see from your experience, and the discussion below, names don't really communicate very much at all, given the variety of ways people interpret them.
Pat

Comment by GIUSEPPINA on July 28, 2010 at 10:05pm

Dear Naeem,
I am in accordance with Jo about the use of the book on Methodspace of Helen Simons's Case Study Research in Practice.
this book can help you in your search
Good luck, Giuseppina

Comment by GIUSEPPINA on July 28, 2010 at 9:55pm

Dear Jo Moriarty,
I think that the Mixed Methods of search are useful and right.
Good luck!
Best regards, Giuseppina

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 11
• Next ›
• Page