Search

This paper discusses key methodological issues for qualitative research with learning disabled children, based on the author’s experience of involving learning disabled children in her doctoral study. The study was founded on the social model of disability and a sociological understanding of childhood that recognizes the abilities of disabled children as competent research participants. Issues that arose throughout the research process, from the early stages of gaining access to children, to communication challenges for interviewing learning disabled children, and the analysis and dissemination of data, are discussed. Within this context, this paper explores key methodological issues for researchers with regard to interviewing learning disabled children and actively involving them in qualitative research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper offers a theoretical ‘action research spiral’ model to guide reflection on the dual client focus of action research. While theoretically exploring and highlighting the tensions and dilemmas created by this dual client focus, this paper will argue for a greater degree of reflection on action research practice and utilize vignettes from action research cases to illustrate those reflective processes. It is concluded that further discussion and reflection on the process of action research is an important component of social science’s contribution to phronetic knowledge. I saw the University as helping us to reflect on what we are doing—they are the expert reflectors. This is particularly what I saw as X’s role. Sometimes his interjections go above their heads and his ‘nine words or less’ statements need to have some explanation, and I should feed this back to him. I also see the University as playing a visionary role, helping to show us new things about what is possible. I don’t see the University as helping to pull the team together—that is when it gets confusing. They are observing us, they are looking at us as the rats, and when they see something that they think needs to be addressed, they can feed this back to us—and this is where teaching and formal learning comes in. This is a difficult role for the University. I can see some of the University people just squirming—you can see it in their face that they want to intervene. They know something about what we are doing but are not imparting the knowledge. This can piss people off. They are withholding what they know and not helping. But it can also piss people off if they come in too early and tell us what is going on and what to do and not let us wallow around for a while, and learn. This is what I see as a major problem for the University. As you observe us, at what point do you reflect the learning and feedback, and yet not prostitute the learning or dirty the data. ..We are the rats, the factory is your laboratory. But when we are looking at the role of the University, you are the rats. (Plant Manager and Industry Sponsor of an Action Research Project, 2000) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper highlights what psychoanalysis can add to discussions of reflexivity, by specifically describing how reflexivity is conceptualized and fostered on psychoanalytic observation methods courses at the Tavistock Clinic, London. It is demonstrated that this psychological form of reflexivity is relevant to empirical and conceptual work and shown that it shares interesting parallels with debates about reflexivity in social research methods, while also being able to contribute to discussions of what constitutes reflexivity and what kinds of methods course might facilitate it. Reflexivity is often discussed in relation to a researcher’s empirical work, but this paper argues that reflexivity is equally needed in relation to the academic context in which most research and learning takes place. This paper demonstrates how psychoanalytic approaches to learning stimulate a reflexive relation to empirical and conceptual work and it provides examples of reflexivity from a two‐year infant observation and a research project on romantic love (involving conceptual and biographical research). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This reflective paper draws on a range of experiences developed over the last 11 years regarding the way in which qualitative data analysis (QDA) software (QSR NUD*IST and NVivo) is taught and used within doctoral research. The existing separation of qualitative methods training from QDA software training can result in disconnected technical and methodological learning curves. This can cause a number of problems for doctoral students because a ‘methods revolution’ is being experienced and current students are not necessarily exposed to the support they require via the methods literature, their postgraduate training programme or their supervisor. Three key influences on the use of QDA software are discussed within the context of teaching and learning QSR NVivo: the increased popularity of QDA software amongst those from traditionally positivistic backgrounds; the promise of improved levels of transparency; and the reliance upon the free tutorials, which are distributed with the software, to learn qualitative research methods as well as software processes. Implications for doctoral students, supervisors and examiners are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper reflects on and theorizes strategies to design and teach an introductory qualitative research class to US doctoral students. My orientation towards learning theory as an educational psychologist shapes my analysis in fundamental ways. The course blends elements of philosophy, method, skill‐building and reflection to explore both ‘why’ and ‘how to’ elements of qualitative research. Four process components are examined: (1) the construction of my own beliefs about research, (2) the evolution of course readings and skill‐building activities, (3) an analysis of quotations from students’ work, and (4) implications for teaching research methods courses. Class members unearthed moral and ethical dilemmas in every aspect of the research process, and we worked to excavate ways to do quality work in respectful ways. My reflection concludes with two personal insights: (1) social science graduate students in the US need more opportunities to think theoretically and write interpretively and (2) self‐knowledge is integrally connected to issues of openness, voice, and seeing the world with new eyes through the research process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]