Paul's Questions for 9-21

1) It’s interesting to read the various definitions scholars give to the term “qualitative analysis.” Some have similar terms and descriptions, and others are almost on their own. But on Page 7 of Potter’s textbook, he says that there are some very good reasons why some scholars won’t try to define it at all. He says the task of defining one’s area is “so complex and fraught with danger” that doing so might mislead the reader. He adds, “Definitions have a static nature whereas the qualitative approach is organic." Later, on Page 21, Potter describes the Component-Type Definition and Procedural-Type Definition, among others, which also show the difficulty of coming up with a definition that makes sense to someone outside the qualitative field. Is it misleading to define qualitative analysis?

2) Potter mentions in the opening of Chapter 2 that he prefers to use the term qualitative approach, because the word approach is not as formal as paradigm and more general than technique, method, or methodology. He adds that an approach consists of a set of assumptions, goals and methods, and qualitative is one such approach. Would quantitative scholars also consider their area an approach? It seems from Potter’s description, both involve assumptions, goals and methods.

3) When trying to define or describe qualitative analysis, Potter uses the example of a “third” dimension and illustrates it by comparing the approach to a cube (page 23). There is the axiomatic position, methodology, and then method. In the first step, Potter says making a certain set of assumptions defines a researcher as quantitative, and making another set of assumptions defines a researcher as qualitative. This three-level “scheme” makes sense to me. I just want to confirm in my mind that it can be applied to both quantitative and qualitative, and that it is in the first phase where the two approaches really differ. Is that right?

4) In the reading concerning triangulation, Flick refers to Denzin in the specific area of triangulation of theories. Denzin says "approaching data with multiple perspectives and hypotheses in mind… . Various theoretical points of view could be placed side by side to assess their utility and power." I think I know what’s meant by “utility,” but what really is meant by “power?”

5) In the description of Between-method triangulation on Page 180 of Flick’s article, he describes a research situation where a combination of reactive and non-reactive procedures is utilized. In the example where the qualitative procedure is reactive, Flick says investigators are part of the research situation. He uses an example where consultation talks that the interviewees had had with their clients in their everyday professional life are analyzed. Is this planned and obvious to the participants? If so, isn’t this like the argument against cameras in the courtroom, where opponents to this journalistic practice contend the presence of cameras impacts how participants act? In order for this approach to be effective, does the observation have to be concealed to be effective?