Readings response: Week 4

“The objectives of qualitative research are to discover, describe and analyze the complexities of common phenomena through observation and involvement in a research setting.” (Gorman & Clayton: p. 182)

To fulfill these objectives we need to clearly define our research methodology, which is done after an initial process of preliminary preparation as explained in the readings for last week (see Gorman & Clayton, Ch. 3). Preparing the methodology also encompasses identified which strategies will be used to collect data (interviews, focus groups, observations or texts analysis). Chapter 6 of Silverman brakes down these data gathering strategies into to main concepts. One concept is research-provoked data, which applies to interviews and focus groups. The other concept is naturally occurring data, which applies to observations and analysis of written text. Is one better than the other? I think than more important than arguing if naturally occurring data is better that research-provoked data, or vice versa, what is important is that the methodology (or methodologies) selected eventually will present strong evidence to support the researcher’s findings. Or as Silverman indicates: “have the researchers demonstrated successfully why we should believed them? And does the research problem tackled have theoretical and/or practical significance?” (Silverman, p. 237)

This week readings deal more with the concept of naturally occurring data, and more specific on fieldwork. By engaging in fieldwork, the researcher “’inserts’ his or her presence into the natural setting of the subjects.” (G&C, p. 65) This explanation of fieldwork reminds me of the methodology of archival ethnography, which has as its main purpose for the researcher to became immerse in the archive’s daily work. Dr. Karen Gracy used this methodology for her doctoral dissertation and explain it in her article “Documenting Communities of Practice: Making the Case for Archival Ethnography” (Archival Science 2004, vol. 4).

From the readings of Gorman and Clayton, which explains in details how to use fieldwork and what are the different strategies for note-taking, I will like to mention two important issues. First, good note taking is am acquired skill that needs a lot of practice. This discipline of note taking also requires that the research not only records his or her observations, but also is recommended that he or she should look at the data soon after the session is finished to add other notes that are not recorded. Second, just as for the rest of the methodologies and strategies, there’s the issue of error and bias in note taking (see G & C, p. 190). To face this issue, Gorman and Clayton recommend that the researcher could control bias “through the practice of building trustworthiness.” (p. 191) I will add that to build trustworthiness, the most important aspect is to keep and present strong evidence of the researcher’s data, methodology and findings.