Marcus' Questions

Q1) The depiction of values-based research and value-less research in Denzin and Lincoln bothered me a bit. Their argument seemed to be that by disclosing biases and acknowledging values, qualitative research is more objective than quantitative research – but ironically, that logic is subjective and self-defeating, because how can “values” be established objectively? There’s no universal standard of “value,” and disclosing an author’s personal convictions simply reveals their priorities without guaranteeing honesty in their research. Now, you can turn that right around and say that hiding those convictions is even more dangerous to research, but then you reach the conclusion that neither is effectively objective – which is precisely the argument in favor of qualitative research, and now you’ve come full circle.

I understand the logic behind disclosing those values, I just am not convinced it makes a difference in the long run. And I know for sure that the “disclosing biases” argument barely works when discussing substantive media – people tolerate FoxNews and MSNBC because the subject matter is obtuse and far away, but when it comes to actual news about tangible issues, they just want the facts. Here’s a great example of a “traditional values” newspaper trying to slant local news in the most Republican county in Texas … and it’s flopping.

Q2) How essential is the idea of replication to qualitative research? Sung Woo brings up an interesting point. I know that when you’re talking about physics or math, the idea is that the universe works in constant ways – and that’s why replication is so important, because gravity is the same in Texas and in China. But social sciences seem like a different animal, because there is no assurance of consistency.

Q3) One thought that kept coming back to me as I read these texts is the unneeded exclusivity of it all. I understand that there’s a certain rivalry between quantitative and qualitative research, and I get that academics can be the most obtuse gatekeepers of them all, but it still seems like there are an awful lot of connections between the two. If you’re qualitatively assessing, for example, the photos on the cover of Time Magazine or National Geographic – was that this class that we touched on that? Or another one? – it stands to reason that a few statistics would go a long way. It’s hard to quantitatively analyze the imagery presented in such photographs of women, for example, but it’s also hard to qualitatively establish how many of those photos fell into the subject range in the first place. So can’t we all just get along?

Q4) Am I the only one that felt that the Jensen piece was a bit, uhm … I don’t want to say paranoid, but excessively skeptical? Terminology is certainly very powerful, and how images and ideas are framed is a big deal, but that doesn’t always mean there’s a serious difference between what someone says and what they really mean. Sometimes there’s a difference, but I can think of plenty of times when what a source said was honestly pretty close to what they meant. Plus, most of what’s hidden in an interview is simply unsaid – what’s left out is often more important than what’s included – and it’s hard to linguistically analyze words that aren’t there.

Q5) This is perhaps a bit off-topic, but we keep referring to quantitative research as the “dominant paradigm,” which seems to imply a constant paradigm across communication and social sciences research. But it seems more nuanced than that – how common is quantitative research in women and gender studies, for example? Is it that qualitative methods are really that uncommon, or just that different camps have set up their own preferences for particular subjects?

Also, you could Jensen that phrase, “dominant paradigm,” and argue that it’s clearly preferred by qualitative researchers because it implies that they’re a resistance force or alternative beat. Without poking the proverbial bear, I just wonder how much traction qualitative researchers get from playing the underdog? And how would quantitative folks describe that same dynamic, how would they refer to the "dominant paradigm?"