Truth be told, I knew from the get-go that my sensibilities would predispose me to research questions suggesting a fit with canonical based methods of inquiry and analysis. That said, I read portions of this week’s reading list with an easy sense of appreciation and empathy.
While Luker’s discussion concerning the refinement of an interview schedule (question clumps, turn signals, and “cool down” questions), the need to create “slots” as a means to test schedule related relevance and breath, and the need to be mindful of one’s appearance was of general interest, I felt a greater sense of engagement in the follow-up discussion concerning focus groups; for example, the comment (p. 183) concerning their capacity to enable an abundance of “slots” leading to a rich flow of data and very likely, a satisfying experience for the researcher (p. 187). I also found useful the comment concerning content analysis as a means to recognize “discursive shifts” – those times when an alternate frame of reference underpinning a particular dialogue becomes the norm (p. 189).
The effort to stay engaged with the Shaffir and Stebbins readings was, as a function of the illustrations (faith, football, and baseball) also an easy effort. I found myself easily absorbed in the balancing act each described while working to build trust and a credible projection of competency concerning subject-relevant knowledge, versus the understanding that sound research necessitates discernible detachment.
Michael Watchorn
No comments:
Post a Comment