[Interpretationandmethods] Interpretationandmethods Digest, Vol 43, Issue 1
psshea at csbs.utah.edu
psshea at csbs.utah.edu
Fri Jul 11 15:41:03 EDT 2008
All,
I've been out of country and came back to all this discussion - which
has been great.
I thought I'd add my 2 cents to Judy's question about research design.
In case it helps, below is what I recently put in a syllabus. I
think it hits many of the points already made but focused on
communicating to a student audience - which is part of Judy's task.
In discussing the difference in design in a NSF sponsored seminar on
"the scientific status of qualitative research," Charles Ragin used a
"prospecting" metaphor to defend the more open design process
characteristic of those doing qualitative and interpretive research
(tho as he agreed with me last year on APSA panel on funding, NSF does
not recognize "interpretive" research.)
Whether that metaphor is apt can be debated, but it can help
variables-researchers (PTJ - does that get me around the
realist/positivist labels?) to get some sense of why not everything
can (or should) be spelled out in interpretive/relational research
proposals.
Peri Schwartz-Shea
PADMN 6289-030
Research Design
Part I ? Qualitative-Interpretive Research Design
Professor Schwartz-Shea
Course Description
The first half of this course, conducted by Schwartz-Shea, will focus
on research design for qualitative-interpretive research projects.
The second half, conducted by Prof XXX, will focus on research design
for quantitative projects. The overall purpose is to acquaint
students with the general components of research design so that they
have the essential vocabulary for communicating effectively with Major
Research Paper (MRP) supervisors.
The concept of ?research design? focuses on the preparatory stages of
research: the formulation of a research question, justifications for
its theoretical and practical significance, methods for accessing and
generating data appropriate to the question, choice of analytic
techniques, and standards of research quality. Research designs are
used to convince those who would invest in the research that a
research topic is not only significant but can be feasibly completed
by the particular researcher. Those investing in the research are,
most commonly, a faculty supervisor but also, at times, funding
agencies and, always, the researcher him- or her-self! A research
design also constitutes a record of the researcher?s initial ideas and
plans that he or she can consult during the research process.
Although this general concept is applicable to
qualitative-interpretive, quantitative, and ?mixed method? research,
there are significant differences in the philosophical and practical
approaches among these types. Most notably, quantitative researchers
expect that a design should be perfected as much as possible before
?testing? begins; changes from the design may even be designated as
?errors.? In contrast, interpretive researchers expect that a design
will change during the research process as the researcher learns more
about the topic; indeed, it is even acceptable for the initial
research question to evolve during the research process.
The first half of the course will help students to understand the
significant differences as well as the commonalities among
quantitative, qualitative, and interpretive research approaches. A
key commonality is that all approaches depend on three basic ways in
which evidence is generated: observation of people, talking with
people, and reading of the documents (and artifacts) that people
produce. Quantitative researchers, of course, approach these tasks
assuming that the evidence generated by these processes will be turned
into the quantitative indicators that constitute a ?data set.? As we
shall see, qualitative-interpretive researchers approach the
data-generating tasks quite differently because they do not assume the
superiority of quantitative data. In order to grasp the interpretive
approach to data generation, class members will conduct several ?field
exercises.? We will also explore a few of the many data analytic
techniques that interpretive researchers apply to their data upon
exiting ?the field.?
There is one more complication that bears mentioning. The most common
advice given to students about research design is: ?Use the methods
that best suit the question!? Although this statement is not wrong, it
glosses over the sometimes, subtle ways in which methodological
presuppositions affect the way in which questions are posed.
Quoting Dvora Yanow <D.Yanow at fsw.vu.nl>:
> RE: [Interpretationandmethods] Interpretationandmethods
> Digest,Vol 43, Issue 1
>
> Judy,
>
> Both for your student and for your colleagues, it might be useful to
> have a look at Peri Schwartz-Shea's chapter in our edited book
> "Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the
> Interpretive Turn" (M E Sharpe, 2006), where she talks about the kinds
> of assumptions a variables-oriented reader would look for as an entree
> to discussing the variety of alternative evaluative criteria for
> interpretive work that have been developed by qualitative
> methodologists over the last 20 years.
>
> I can also heartily suggest Martyn Hammersley's "Reading Ethnographic
> Research: A Critical Guide" (Longman, 1990; there is a 2nd ed., which
> I've not seen), which situates these concerns within their
> methodological context. Although himself taking a more realist
> position, he gives interpretive ones a fair shake.
>
> Patrick articulated a response to Bill Kelleher's post that got to
> what for me is the heart of things. I don't want to repeat the points
> he made, but I do want to underscore one of them. For me, the heart
> of an interpretive approach entails problematizing not only what are
> considered the "facts" of a situation, but challenging that very term.
> It seems to me, Bill, that by taking 'facts' as your starting point,
> you put your analysis in the presuppositional context of a real world
> that can be known, objectively -- the kind of position that Rorty
> sought to grapple with in his 1979 discussion of theories mirroring
> nature.
>
> One approach to social science is to try to piece together "what
> really happened" (whatever methods one uses to do that). Another is
> to problematize whether we can ever do that in light of a
> phenomenological-hermeneutic understanding that that can never be
> known -- which then shifts us to inquiring into the multiplicities of
> the experience or perception of that event, speech, act, etc. Both
> (can) entail "interpretation" -- as does the interpretation of
> statistical data. But what "interpretive" signifies in
> methodology/methods is rather different.
>
> I suppose, Patrick, that this is why you prefer to refer to these as
> "relational" methods/methodologies?
>
> Dvora
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: interpretationandmethods-bounces at malagigi.cddc.vt.edu on behalf
> of Judy Brown
> Sent: Tue 08-Jul-08 00:11
> To: interpretationandmethods at malagigi.cddc.vt.edu
> Subject: Re: [Interpretationandmethods] Interpretationandmethods
> Digest,Vol 43, Issue 1
>
> Many thanks Patrick - this is really helpful. It is indeed the
> ethnographic/relational aspects that are of interest - and I agree on
> reflection that "impact" is a (and my) bad choice of word implying a
> neopositivist approach. I will print all this exchange out - as the
> basis for some discussion when I meet the student concerned later this
> week. Your response strikes bang on part of the issue faced when
> positivist colleagues assume interpretivist work is really looking for
> "causal variables" (e.g. contingency theory).
> "Relational/interpretive horizon" rather than "impact" talk is a far
> more helpful way of conceptualising what is involved.
>
> But, of course, it may also be me presupposing too much that it is
> really the enthnographic/relational aspects that are primary in this
> study because that it is the approach that I would want to take... so
> this reinforces for me the need to "sense-check" my understanding with
> the student. It is, after all, her thesis not mine!! So many thanks
> again...
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: interpretationandmethods-bounces at malagigi.cddc.vt.edu on behalf
> of interpretationandmethods-request at malagigi.cddc.vt.edu
> Sent: Tue 8/07/2008 9:27 a.m.
> To: interpretationandmethods at malagigi.cddc.vt.edu
> Subject: Interpretationandmethods Digest, Vol 43, Issue 2
>
> Send Interpretationandmethods mailing list submissions to
> interpretationandmethods at listserv.cddc.vt.edu
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
> http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/interpretationandmethods[1]
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> interpretationandmethods-request at listserv.cddc.vt.edu
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> interpretationandmethods-owner at listserv.cddc.vt.edu
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Interpretationandmethods digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Interpretationandmethods Digest, Vol 43, Issue 1 (Judy
> Brown)
> 2. Re: Interpretationandmethods Digest, Vol 43, Issue 1
> (Patrick Thaddeus Jackson)
> 3. What is The Right Way to do Interpretive Social Science?
> (wjkellpro at aol.com)
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 10:11:08 +1200
> From: "Judy Brown" <Judy.Brown at vuw.ac.nz>
> Subject: Re: [Interpretationandmethods] Interpretationandmethods
> Digest, Vol 43, Issue 1
> To: <interpretationandmethods at malagigi.cddc.vt.edu>
> Message-ID:
>
> <7A8436AD0EB8F4428BEC320CC109A242022E5AB3 at STAWINCOMAILCL1.staff.vuw.ac.nz>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hi Patrick, Dvora and Jack
>
> Many thanks to the three of you for your prompt and generous
> responses. I realise now that I should have provided a bit more
> background information, so here goes to clarify:
>
> 1. I currently teach a course in Accounting Research Methodology:
> Interpretive and Critical Theory aimed at just the sorts of issues
> Patrick raises. Our Honours students take this course and another
> course focussing on positivist research, for the purposes of exploring
> different research possibilities and (for students going onto
> Masters/PhDs) to help them identify research that feels "right" to
> them. We now have a (growing) group of students pursuing
> interpretivist/critical theory work.
>
> 2. Patrick and Dvora - yes, I totally agree that the overall
> structure of a PhD proposal is similar for all types of research. It
> is in the latter area that Dvora identifies that I would really
> welcome examples - talking about research not based on hypothesis
> testing - specifically at the proposal stage. We are very short of
> examples here - particularly in the area of interpretive research.
> This would be helpful not only to students, but also to those of us
> supervising to help ensure quality work (not least of all to counter
> colleagues who still "test" proposals by positivist standards and
> expect to see hypotheses, statistical tests etc. etc.). While
> students can look at examples of published research, it is still not
> quite the same as having proposals to look at.
>
> 3. The student about to start will be examining the involvement of
> accountants in the decision-making processes surrounding information
> technology governance. In particular, she wishes to explore the ways
> in which the ideas and attitudes of accountants and IT practitioners
> might enable or constrain the involvement of accountants in IT
> governance. An interpretivist methodology will be adopted in order to
> explore the impact of various "ideational" aspects on IT governance
> design choice e.g. the ways in which IT governance is conceptualised
> by accountants and IT practitioners, interpretive schema and
> institutional 'habits', professional identity, organisational culture
> and politics. I am meeting her later this week, and will encourage her
> to join the list so she can tell you more about her interests.
>
> 4. Jack - many thanks for the lead to Hansen's work. I have already
> Googled it and it looks fascinating - it will be on my next book
> order!!
>
> Cheers, Judy.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2008 21:39:23 -0400
> From: Patrick Thaddeus Jackson <patrickthaddeusjackson at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Interpretationandmethods] Interpretationandmethods
> Digest, Vol 43, Issue 1
> To: interpretation and methods group
> <interpretationandmethods at listserv.cddc.vt.edu>
> Message-ID: <26FB774E-E865-41FE-B099-FE9FA628C88E at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
> On Jul 6, 2008, at 6:11 PM, Judy Brown wrote:
>
>> 3. The student about to start will be examining the involvement of
>> accountants in the decision-making processes surrounding
> information
>> technology governance. In particular, she wishes to explore the
> ways
>> in which the ideas and attitudes of accountants and IT
> practitioners
>> might enable or constrain the involvement of accountants in IT
>> governance. An interpretivist methodology will be adopted in order
>> to explore the impact of various "ideational" aspects on IT
>> governance design choice e.g. the ways in which IT governance is
>> conceptualised by accountants and IT practitioners, interpretive
>> schema and institutional 'habits', professional identity,
>> organisational culture and politics. I am meeting her later this
>> week, and will encourage her to join the list so she can tell you
>> more about her interests.
>
> Judy:
>
> One question I would ask the student is what, if anything, is
> "interpretive" about this research question. "The impact of various
> 'ideational' aspects" sounds like pretty standard neopositivism to
> me:
> code a variable like "professional identity" or "organizational
> culture" and then test to see whether the variable is significantly
> correlated with an outcome of interest across cases. I see
> interpretive methods here, but no interpretive methodology.
> "Attitudes
> cause an outcome" is not the kind of proposition one needs anything
> complicated to evaluate; Mill's Methods ought to do the job just
> nicely.
>
> Of course, one could also ask a research question here that *would*
> require a non-neopositivist research design. But "the impact of X on
> Y" wouldn't be it. For example, one could propose an ethnographic
> account of accountants working in IT governance, seeking to bring to
> light the interpretive horizon within which they work; that isn't
> hypothesis-testing, but it also isn't causal (so such a study
> couldn't
> be about "impact"). Or one might make a relational turn, and discuss
> IT governance as emerging someplace between a variety of conflicting
> parties and strategies, and hence examine the detailed transactions
> that take place between (e.g.) IT practitioners and accountants in
> the
> process of constituting "IT governance." That's causal, but it's not
> "X causes Y" (or statistical-comparative) causal.
>
> I think it's great that you have a multiple-methodology sequence for
> your students; I agree, that's the best way to allow students to
> experiment, and to find the right methodological approach for the
> question at hand. But the flip-side of that, I think, is that if one
> has a neopositivist question then one should use a neopositivist
> methodology in an attempt to answer it.
>
> PTJ
> ===
> Patrick Thaddeus Jackson
> Director, General Education Program, American University
> Editor-in-Chief, Journal of International Relations and Development
> http://profptj.blogspot.com[2] <http://profptj.blogspot.com/[3]> |
> http://www.kittenboo.com[4] <http://www.kittenboo.com/[5]>
> calendar: http://ical.mac.com/onyxdr/Patrick[6]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Interpretationandmethods mailing list
> Interpretationandmethods at listserv.cddc.vt.edu
> http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/interpretationandmethods[7]
>
> !DSPAM:487328792573030612447!
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/interpretationandmethods
> [2] http://profptj.blogspot.com
> [3] http://profptj.blogspot.com/
> [4] http://www.kittenboo.com
> [5] http://www.kittenboo.com/
> [6] http://ical.mac.com/onyxdr/Patrick
> [7] http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/interpretationandmethods
>
--
Peregrine Schwartz-Shea
Professor
University of Utah
Political Science Department
260 South Central Campus Drive Rm 252
Salt Lake City, UT 84112-9152
(801) 581-6300 phone mail
psshea at poli-sci.utah.edu
More information about the Interpretationandmethods
mailing list