Q1 – Potter begins essentially by describing how qualitative research is defined by however the researcher decides to define it, noting the lack of consensus and even differing use of terms. Today, is qualitative research still seen as pretty much anything that is not numbers driven research?
Q2 – Potter talks about the rise of empericism. If one accepts empirical as meaning something that can be measured, doesn’t that lend itself to quantitative methods? (Seems like a misnomer…)
Q3 – Potter’s introduction is full of philosophical and ideological camps – constructionists v. realists; idealists v. materialists; ontological v. epistemological; etc… - do most qualitative researchers today find they must subscribe to such camps, or be accepted by their philosophical peers within these points of view?
Q4 – Flick describes how triangulation can mean many things, from triangulation of data, to researchers, to research methods. Does the idea of “more is better” ever come into play? As in triangulate as many research elements as possible in order to get better research? (I can see this is almost being chaotic, actually.)
Q5 – Pauwels raises an important issue of conducting qualitative research in a digital media environment and multi-media environments in general. Does a combination (triangulation) of methods seem to be the preferred way of approaching online media research today?
No comments:
Post a Comment