Qualitative Inquiry
Công bố khoa học tiêu biểu
* Dữ liệu chỉ mang tính chất tham khảo
Sắp xếp:
Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research This article examines five common misunderstandings about case-study research: (a) theoretical knowledge is more valuable than practical knowledge; (b) one cannot generalize from a single case, therefore, the single-case study cannot contribute to scientific development; (c) the case study is most useful for generating hypotheses, whereas other methods are more suitable for hypotheses testing and theory building; (d) the case study contains a bias toward verification; and (e) it is often difficult to summarize specific case studies. This article explains and corrects these misunderstandings one by one and concludes with the Kuhnian insight that a scientific discipline without a large number of thoroughly executed case studies is a discipline without systematic production of exemplars, and a discipline without exemplars is an ineffective one. Social science may be strengthened by the execution of a greater number of good case studies.
Qualitative Inquiry - Tập 12 Số 2 - Trang 219-245 - 2006
Evaluating Ethnography With full awareness that criteria are mutable, the author argues that ethnography needs to be evaluated through two lenses: science and arts. The author suggests five criteria: substantive contribution, aesthetic merit, reflexivity, impact, and expression of a reality.
Qualitative Inquiry - Tập 6 Số 2 - Trang 253-255 - 2000
The Death of Data in Neoliberal Times We need new ways of making the everyday world visible through disruptive empirical methodologies that privilege social justice and utopian acts of critical imagination.
Qualitative Inquiry - Tập 25 Số 8 - Trang 721-724 - 2019
Not So Innocent Anymore The purpose of this article is to throw into radical doubt the material-discursive practices of recording devices (e.g., tape and digital recorders) used in qualitative interviews. To do this work, I first present a Baradian diffractive reading, a reading across epistemological and ontological differences that matter, of recording devices in qualitative research. I explore how recording devices have become a normalized material-discursive practice in which recording devices are both part of and result from an objectivist epistemology and realist ontology. Then, I share four irruptive moments from my study about family history genealogists’ use of objects (e.g., photographs, documents, and artifacts) that called into question such a material-discursive practice. Last, I situate recording devices in Barad’s agential realism, an onto-epistemological framework in which recording devices intra-act with humans, nonhumans, culture, and discourse to generate entangled meanings and knowledge in a constantly shifting world(s).
Qualitative Inquiry - Tập 21 Số 4 - Trang 388-401 - 2015
Tổng số: 4
- 1