Huberman & Miles (Chapter 16) and Reflection

“Doing qualitative analysis means living for as long as possible with that complexity and ambiguity, coming to terms with it, and passing on your conclusion to the reader in a form that clarifies and deepens understanding” (p.394).

This chapter was on reflections, because of this and of where I find myself in the term it is an appropriate time to make several of my own. In this response I will include one reflection; I will focus on the phrase “passing on.”

The nature of qualitative research is to pass on a deeper understanding to other individuals. The struggle with ambiguity and masses of data is a struggle to not necessarily solve a problem, but to provide further insights, add additional narratives. This act is performed so that others can do so by adding theirs. It is a continual dialogue.

The course of this term is an illustration of this exercise. Dr. Shulman passed on his own knowledge, experience, and insights; this allowed each of us to become actors in this dialogue, by passing on our own bits of knowledge, experiences, and insights.

I am left with more questions than answers. This is however the consequence of a good education. I recognize different types of questions and problems and am now better equipped to contemplate means to address them as well as the questions and problems themselves.

Gorman & Clayton, Chapter 12: Analyzing Qualitative Data from Information Organizations.

This reading, like the Huberman and Miles reading, was incredibly useful and could not have come at a better time. This chapter reemphasizes data analysis strategies we have discussed throughout the term, coding and content analysis, while introducing less familiar aspects of data analysis, like data reduction. Because I am working with a relatively small body of data this is not an issue for me. However, I have not devoted serious contemplation to the difficulties posed by having too large of a data set, in terms of understanding and viewing certain patterns that may exist in the data. As Gorman and Clayton detail rather nicely, too little data may inhibit the ability to conceptualize certain patterns, but too much may also bury them, if the data is not managed effectively (Gorman & Clayton 207).

Huberman & Miles, Chapter 12: Framework Method

The illustration of this approach to data analysis was very helpful. The framework approach is systematic, but flexible enough to take into account the “unwieldy” nature of qualitative data. The systematic nature of the technique is helpful in that it requires the analyst to build a solid framework with which to understand and work with data. The aggregative nature of the building process strengthens the ability to see relationships. This also requires an active consideration of how the data was collected and how it will be used. All of this ensures that the requirements of the analysts will be considered.

Chapter 11, Silverman Text

An interesting point in this chapter is Potter’s criticism of the study of talk as simply a “conduit for information between two speakers” (Silverman 210). The meaning is not simply in the message, but how the message is constructed. Conversation analysis makes use of the “blurry edges” because these too are products of the speaker and the result of choice/action.

Discourse analysis for naturally occurring talk does not reduce the value or the purposefulness of the words used. This is nicely illustrated by the contrast described between discourse analysis and the psychological approach to studying talk. In reference to the talk between the late Princess Diana and her interviewer Martin Bashir, Potter notes that the cognitive psychologist might treat her use of the phrase “I dunno” as an “uncertainty token” (Potter 210). These words, in this approach, are used to make up for the lack of words or understanding. However DA recognizes these words as actions, which may be essential to understanding what occurs in the talk.

More Thoughts on Interviewing

I’ve continued to think about the question discussed in seminar regarding the knowledge of, or relationship to, a specific group the interviewer should be in possession of. Again I think Holstein and Gubrium’s concepts of interview as a meaning-making process and the interview as a dramatistic process are helpful. A film director brings individuals together based upon the reaction that will be produced. Different orchestrations allow for a variety of affects, but the director selects a cast that will hopefully produce his or her desired affect.

The interview as meaning-making process functions in a similar way. If the interaction creates the meaning and the type of knowledge produced is affected by the characteristics of the parties involved, then the researcher can “stage” interactions based upon the desired results, i.e variety/texture of knowledge sought. Now, on the surface, or at the very least how I describe it, this may seem suspect, and carry an aura of manipulation. However, it is important to note that though the setting of meaning making is directly manipulated, as it always in some way is, the meaning created is not. This too however carries important issues that must be thought over, but I’ll save those for a later post.

Qualitative Research, Chapter 8: The Active Interview

The conceptualization of the interview as a site of meaning making and possible knowledge production fits in well within the larger context of knowledge production, i.e. research. Holstein & Gubrium write that the interview is like a “two way information street,” and that because the interview is a “two-way construction” the construction of knowledge is interactional (Holstein & Gubrium 143). This idea of the “two-way construction” can be applied to the researcher’s relationship with other aspects of knowledge construction-production. Reading other reports, investigating and using methodologies, and analyzing data entail working with objects that are ambiguous. The image of the onion is one that I continue to return to as the authors of the various essays discuss the nature of layers and textures in relation to qualitative research. Unraveling can be understood to be a dialogue. An action is imposed upon an object, but the object also reacts in terms of how it responds to the actions of the researcher. How does an object resist, or encourage the researcher to desist, from analysis? The idea of the active interview could be extended to that of active research.

Gorman & Clayton, Chapter 8: Interviewing

An important point emphasized in this chapter is that of record keeping. As the authors note, having detailed notes and records will allow a researcher to increase the credibility of his or her study by being able to support the work with a body of documentary evidence (Gorman & Clayton 139). Additionally, it serves the researcher well during the process of writing up the work (Gorman & Clayton 139). Like the field notes strategy recommended in the chapter on fieldwork, using the “who, when, where” guidelines provides the researcher with an additional means to conceptualize the methods used in the interview process. This can be constructive in terms of evaluating the design or methods used.