Reflections Theme 4: Qualitative methods.
At the seminar yesterday we discussed qualitative
methods and some of the most common qualitative methods like interviews,
observational studies, focus groups and content analysis (and some more uncommon).
One of the most interesting methods – in my opinion –
to conduct qualitative research was presented as ethnographical research and it
was also touched upon in the text I read (virtual ethnography). Stefan told our
group about one PhD-friend of his who went to Umeå and started to work at a
call-center just to study his target group on site to get really good data.
This was interesting because of the delicate ethical dilemmas that it advances.
First off it’s forbidden according to Swedish law for a policeman to work
undercover but not as we were told for a scientist in ethnographical research.
Second do you tell the people working at the call-center that you are a
researcher (because of ethical issues) and if you do, will this actually just
promote “The Observer-Expectancy Effect”
(which my group also discussed a lot)? Meaning that the data collected becomes
a bit corrupt because of the understanding of why you as a researcher are there
observing the observation group. At the same time this might not be the case because
of the lengthy spell he stayed at the Call-Center and therefor became one of
the familiar faces or almost like one of the belongings/furniture. Indeed it
was interesting to discuss this kind of topic. Or as Balph & Hatch Balph
(1983) writes:
“The magnitude of observer-expectancy bias is
determined in part by the kind of observations being made”
My group discussed “The Observer-Expectancy Effect” or “The Observer-Expectancy Bias” (Balph & Hatch Balph, 1983) a lot
because of its impact on different qualitative methods such as interviewees in
an interview and on those observed in an observational study. How do you limit
the researchers impact, especially in a non-artificial environment? Could you
actually do this or is it impossible? And is it something that should always be
of notice when conducting critique of your own qualitative research? I believe
it is, as I also believe that you always should include that one of the
limitations with a research paper is the researchers subjective view or you
could call it the researchers biased view. Because if you just do this and show
that you have an understanding of the problem with prejudice in the kind of
research you conduct it shouldn’t be a problem to accept that your findings are
interesting.
EDIT update:
At the lecture yesterday we was introduced to Design research and we were questioned about if it should qualify as traditional research. It was an interesting lecture but it could have been more about qualitative methods in general.
EDIT update:
At the lecture yesterday we was introduced to Design research and we were questioned about if it should qualify as traditional research. It was an interesting lecture but it could have been more about qualitative methods in general.
Word count: 462
References:
On the Psychology of
Watching Birds: The Problem of Observer-Expectancy Bias
David F. Balph and Martha Hatch Balph
The Auk
Vol. 100, No. 3 (Jul., 1983), pp. 755-757
Published by: University of California Press
Article Stable URL:http://www.jstor.org/stable/4086487
Vol. 100, No. 3 (Jul., 1983), pp. 755-757
Published by: University of California Press
Article Stable URL:http://www.jstor.org/stable/4086487
On qualitative methodologies and dispersed
communities: Reflections on the process of investigating an open source
community” by Sigfridsson & Sheehan. Elsevier published the article in the
Information & Software Technology journal, and the impact factor on a 5-year
basis is 1.388
Den här kommentaren har tagits bort av skribenten.
SvaraRaderaI have always thought about "The Observer-Expectancy Effect" (and similar effects) not as a problem as long as all interview are conducted in the same manner. Obviously, this is impossible, I am just trying to put this problem in perspective. To be more specific, what I mean is that if interview results are affected by researchers in the exact way all the time, no matter who conducts the interview, the slightly incorrect data would not really matter, because if all interview data has the error, comparing interview data is still possible. The big problem arises when comparing data with errors of different magnitudes. What this shows is that maybe there should be put an effort into trying to figure out how to detect bias and exclude bias results instead of minimizing it. Brandfackla, ja ^^
SvaraRaderaShitload of grammar errors, sry bout that. Too much BF3 chat where you really don't give a f
RaderaHaha, I believe your brandfackla is justified. Interesting remarks. I've also thought about it in the way you explain it.
RaderaInteresting reflection! However, you have posted this too early... There is also class tomorrow (Wednesday)!
SvaraRaderaDen här kommentaren har tagits bort av skribenten.
RaderaOh, then I should edit-update the post after the lecture.
RaderaVery interesting story about Stefan's PhD-friend started to work at a call-center just to study his target group on site))) I think despite all the ethical dilemmas it is really worth the results)) Because in my opinion the main problem for any research is how to make people feel most comfortable and share their real thoughts =)
SvaraRaderaOh, why do you believe that to be the case? Is it okay to fool just because of necessity?
RaderaEveryone's different, so different people in the company would give different results I guess. And the results also depend on how well the researcher manages to "act normal" during his or her stay, even if the colleagues don't know he or she is a researcher, don't you think?
RaderaHmm, yes but this is still an ethical dilemma? Or isn't it? I do think thou that if the researcher stays at the site for a lengthy period of time then the researcher wouldn't impose so much of a disturbance to the regular or natural setting (in this case the researcher doesn't go undercover).
RaderaThe method you used, virtual ethnography, you describe as one of the most interesting ones. Is this because of it's new, open and exploratory style? Because I think in comparison to quantitative methods, the qualitative approach is characterized by much greater openness and flexibility, these methods are are free and exploratory...
SvaraRadera