Search

In their article in this issue, Speer and Hutchby argue that qualitative researchers' fears about the reactive effects of audio- or video-recording on the quality of data are misplaced. They claim that these fears stem from a methodological orientation which assumes that in order to study the world we must obtain data that are unaffected by the process of research, that we should observe the social world as if through a one-way mirror. Yet, they point out, most research strategies do affect the data produced. So, the authors argue, qualitative researchers are faced with an intractable dilemma. The solution proposed is to abandon naturalism and to investigate those occasions when people address the fact that their talk is being recorded, using a conversation analytic approach. In response to this, I argue that a concern with reactivity does not imply commitment to any naïve naturalism, and that the approach recommended by the authors does not avoid this methodological problem, unless one is prepared to accept that conversation analysis is the only legitimate form of social research; a proposal for which the authors do not provide a convincing case. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The archiving of qualitative data seems likely to become much more common in the future. It promises to make an important contribution to the development of sociological research. This contribution relates to at least two main areas. It should facilitate assessment of the validity of particular studies; and it ought to increase the scope for secondary analysis. At the same time, the archiving of qualitative data and its use are not without problems. This paper examines both the possibilities it opens up and the limits to the contribution it can make. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents the author's response to comments by Caroline Ramazanoglu, Lorain Gelsthorpe and Anne Williams on his discussion of feminist methodology. Ramazanoglu attributes to me a fundamental opposition to the central tenets of feminism, claiming that I regard the whole of feminism as largely unconvincing, and complains that this only emerges piecemeal in my article rather than being stated explicitly at the beginning. What the central tenets of feminism are is a matter of dispute, I imagine, but I certainly do not reject the whole of feminism, nor does this follow from what I wrote. What I do find convincing is the case for a distinctively feminist methodology, and this is indicated at the start of my article, in the abstract. As I also make clear there, I do not deny the validity of all of the arguments that form part of the case for a feminist methodology, although I question some interpretations of them. In my view the idea of a feminist methodology suffers from the same weaknesses as all attempts to establish new research paradigms based on distinctive epistemological and/or political assumptions. One of the elements of feminist methodology that I questioned is the idea that the transformation of gender relations, which is the point of feminism, properly be the point of feminist research.

There is now a considerable literature advocating a feminist methodology. This article summarises the features of such a methodology under four headings: the ubiquitous social significance of gender, the validity of experience as against method, the rejection of hierarchy in the research relationship, and the adoption of the emancipation of women as the goal of research and the criterion of validity. The arguments supporting each of these themes are assessed. The conclusion reached is that while some of these arguments are convincing the overall case for a feminist methodology is not. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper questions the commitment of ethnography to the goal of producing theoretical descriptions of particular settings, groups or organisations. It is argued that both the concepts of theory and description assumed by this goal are misconceived. Various interpretations of the concept of theory embedded in ethnographic work are examined, revealing some serious difficulties. It is also argued that the concept of ethnographic description, as currently conceived, obscures the role of values and purposes in structuring descriptions. The conclusion reached is that the goals of ethnographic research need rethinking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is a shortage of well-developed and systematically tested theory in sociology, and in the sociology of education in particular. The studies of the effects of streaming and banding carried out by Hargreaves, Lacey and Ball provide one of the few examples of a powerful theory which has survived systematic testing. This sequence of studies provides the basis for a research programme extending beyond the field of education. At the same time, and more importantly, this body of research offers a paradigm for case study research designed to develop and test theory. In this way it helps to close the deplorable, and much lamented, gap between theory and empirical research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]