Search

In the past few decades, there have been efforts to transform qualitative inquiry, drawing on resources from both imaginative literature and art. There have long been tensions within social science that have encouraged the use of these resources, but the recent "literary turn" is more radical. The assumptions underpinning it are examined, and it is argued that what is most important is the purpose for which modes of expression are employed and how well they serve this. The problem with the literary turn is that it frequently involves substitution of the purposes of art or politics for those of social science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article, titled "Is There Quality in Qualitative Research?" by Martyn Hammersley, explores the concept of quality in qualitative research. The author questions whether quality can be objectively measured in qualitative research and suggests that it may be subjective and dependent on individual perspectives. Hammersley, an Emeritus Professor of Educational and Social Research, has written extensively on methodological issues in social inquiry. The article raises important considerations about the nature of qualitative research and invites readers to reflect on their own beliefs and perspectives. [Extracted from the article]

Ethnomethodologists have made some fundamental criticisms of conventional forms of ethnography. For example, it has been argued that they fail to examine the processes through which the phenomena studied have been constituted, and that they lack rigour because they rely upon unexplicated common-sense knowledge. In my view, these criticisms have not been given sufficient attention. This article outlines them in detail and then goes on to provide an evaluation. It is concluded that they do not provide a sufficient basis for the radical-re-specification of the focus of inquiry that ethnomethodologists propose. However, they do raise issues to which ethnographers should give more attention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article raises serious questions about the relativist approach to assessing qualitative research that has been championed by John K. Smith and various colleagues. They reject not just empiricism but also what they refer to as "neorealism." Against both these positions, they advance an antirealist, antiontological argument to the effect that we should not assume the reality of social phenomena as existing independently of our knowledge claims about them; insist that assessing the value of research findings is always a practical matter, rather than an issue of method; and claim that we must abandon epistemic in favor of moral criteria in assessing social research. On the basis of detailed scrutiny of their arguments, it is shown that neither the critique of neorealism they present nor the alternative approach they recommend is coherent or convincing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 paper is a response to Jacob's (1987) presentation on qualitative research traditions published in the Review of Educational Research, Volume 57, Number 1. There is no disagreement about the benefits for educational research that accrue from systematic use of qualitative research. This paper differs from Jacob's in two ways. First, it argues that a framework of distinct theoretical traditions is neither an accurate historical account of social science nor helpful to researchers. Second, and more important, it addresses a major gap in Jacob's article: the neglect of British research drawing on qualitative perspectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]