Search

This paper analyses the phenomenon of the death of informants. Based on his own experience with the long-term (1999-2016) research of Voyvodovo - the only Czech village in Bulgaria, the author shows what the death of one's informants means for the research and the researcher. The author argues that any long-term fieldwork entails emotional involvement of the researcher, and so the departure of his or her informants has a deep impact on the researcher's well-being. The articles also address methodological consequences of the death of informants, namely, the case when the death of all of them leads to a situation that the group ceases to exist. The author shows that with the last member's passing away Malinowski's 'native's point of view' is lost forever. The author also suggests that the topic of death of informants should be included into educational curricula for fieldwork training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper advances the conjecture that Social Research is becoming a discipline in its own right, independent of substantive disciplines such as sociology, social policy or political science. In the first part of the paper I briefly examine the historical foundations of research and the factors that led to its growth in the last two decades. In the second part of the paper I discuss the implications arising from an increased demand for methods training, in particular the potential impact of autonomous degrees and pathways in Social Research on traditional social science disciplines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper seeks to contribute to debates within the ‘new’ sociology of childhood by focusing on issues of structure and agency in the research process. Drawing on a detailed qualitative study of children's paid work and employment, funded as part of the ESRC ‘Children 5—16: growing into the 21st Century’ initiative, the discussion examines the extent to which it is possible to design and conduct research on and for children, where children are participants in the research process. The paper suggests that despite the best intentions of researchers, the structure and organization of research inevitably reduces children to the status of at best, participants rather than partners and at worst objects of the researchers gaze. The reasons for this relate to issues of methodology rather than method in that what counts as acceptable academic knowledge is defined in relatively narrow and conservative terms by academics who are invariably adults and to children's lack of research or academic capital. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A good systematic review is often likened to the pre‐flight instrument check—ensuring a plane is airworthy before take‐off. By analogy, research synthesis follows a disciplined, formalized, transparent and highly routinized sequence of steps in order that its findings can be considered trustworthy—before being launched on the policy community. The most characteristic aspect of that schedule is the appraise‐then‐analyse sequence. The research quality of the primary studies is checked out and only those deemed to be of high standard may enter the analysis, the remainder being discarded. This paper rejects this logic, arguing that the ‘study’ is not the appropriate unit of analysis for quality appraisal in research synthesis. There are often nuggets of wisdom in methodologically weak studies and systematic review disregards them at its peril. Two evaluations of youth mentoring programmes are appraised at length. A catalogue of doubts is raised about their design and analysis. Their conclusions, which incidentally run counter to each other, are highly questionable. Yet there is a great deal to be learned about the efficacy of mentoring if one digs into the specifics of each study. ‘Bad’ research may yield ‘good’ evidence—but only if the reviewer follows an approach that involves analysis and appraisal. [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]