W4 Designing Qualitative Research--Qualitative Research Genres
In the chapter, the author introduces
several genres in qualitative research. Historically, there are different
typologies to the field according to which different sets of subject, most of
which were social science, were included. Along with some other critical
genres, the qualitative research shows interests on three major areas: 1) a
focus on society and culture, 2) a focus on society and culture and 3) a focus
on talk and text.
Several points in the article stand out for
me. Current perspective on qualitative research calls for scrutinization of the
“complex interplay of our own personal biography power and status, interactions
with participants, and (the) written word” (Rossman &Rallis. 2003, p.93),
which reminds me one of the points of view we discussed in an applied
linguistic class about English second language writers. Traditionally, the
differences between the works of English language learners and English native
speakers are ascribed to the writes’ cultural background, which means they are
simply classified into a large group by their nationality. However, people
found that it is actually hard to identify the nationality of the author from
an anonymous article. So more and more linguists nowadays are advocating
instead of simply classifying non-English speakers into large groups by their
cultural background and simply deem the “errors” in their language outcome as a
result of cultural influence, more personal factors should be taken into account,
for example, personal education and family background, experience and personal
interests etc. This advocacy may have been inspired by that new perspective on
qualitative research.
My question:
As mentioned in the article, rational
social science research is criticized for having “silenced many marginalized
and oppressed groups in society” and newer perspectives advocate an examination
on the way the Other is presented. But studying and explaining difference are
the major jobs of research in some research. So is it sometimes inevitable to
assume otherness? If so, how should we do to avoid marginalizing a group by
assuming otherness?
Hi Haynam,
ReplyDeleteYour comment about the writing of English language learners (ELL) and native speakers gave me pause for thought, particularly “it is actually hard to identify the nationality of the author from an anonymous article”. I have worked quite a lot in language assessment and I have often marked anonymous papers where I could tell the nationality of the author. Granted, this usually occurs when there are quite a lot of grammar errors characteristic of the learners of a particular country or country-specific lexical items. However, I don’t clearly understand your point that “non-English speakers” should be (or could be) categorized by “family background” or “personal interests” rather than their cultural background. Am I correct in thinking then that, rather than calling someone a Japanese ELL, we should say “a middle-class student” or “a student who likes tennis”? I’m not sure how much those latter terms aid in identifying the students in any useful way.
Your question about how we might avoid marginalizing a group by assuming otherness poses a lot of challenges. I wonder if this issue could be addressed in some way by having research on marginalized and oppressed groups be carried out, where possible, by members of that same marginalized and oppressed group. However, like you said, studying and explaining difference are part of the major task of research so perhaps the perspective of an “outsider” could, in some ways, be equally important or insightful. Perhaps there is room for both these approaches?
Thanks for your comment Kieran! Sorry for being a little ambiguous in the ELL students issue. I think what the linguists are advocating is that we should be vigilant to ascribe some linguistic features of individual ELL only to one factor. Instead, there are actually so many different factors influencing one's use of language that any attempt to classify a student into one single group seems one-sided. For example, one might expect a Japanese student to make certain 'typical' Japlish errors and if so he would be disappointed if that student is from a upper-middle Japanese famlify that have sent him to an international school since he is very young. Also, if one catches some Japlish errors in an ELL's essay and says 'he makes these mistakes because he is a Japanese', then he might be also wrong because the student could be a Chinese student who is very interested in Japanese culture and has exposed himself to so many Japanese cultural products that he unconsciously picks up that language habit. In short, according to this point of view, we should diagnose our students' academic performance individually instead of simply putting them into any single group.
DeleteHey,
DeleteThanks for clearing that up; you gave a clear example and I totally get what you mean now.
See you this afternoon.
Hi Haynam,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your great summary! You and I, we picked the same article for this week and I found that it was quite challenging for me to write a summary for this one as there are so many rich concepts and ideas presented in this paper. Regarding your questions on how to avoid marginalizing a group by not assuming otherness, I think we, as researchers should first be aware and remind ourselves that research could be ‘political’ and when we design our research framework/methodologies, we should interrogate and re-examine the power relations presented in the research.