Q1 – Given the glowing description of the value and noble goals of Qualitative research by Denzin & Lincoln, why does mass communication research lean so heavily towards quantitative research? Is there a quantitative bias?
Q2 – Denzin & Lincoln openly discussed the inclusion of biased points of view in qualitative research by approaching research within the context of prevailing “paradigms.” Does this mean than quantitative research is considered more “objective?”
Q3 – Jenson seems concerned with the study of linguistics and suggests that genre adds even greater meaning to it. Given that, is it Jenson’s position that Genre is essentially a culturally specific construct?
Q4 – I’m not certain that I understand “positivist” theory and its impact on the “methodological debate.” What was the philosophical goal of positivist theory and how did post-positivism affect this methodological debate?
Q5 – A consistent issue throughout the readings concerns bias and objectivity. And it’s been suggested that quantitative methods are “less-biased” because, after all, “numbers don’t lie.” But the work of ethnic and feminist researchers who have taken over the research of their respective communities has raised question of objectively to new levels. How can an “ethnic” or “feminist” researcher work within their communities without the “bias” label completely undermining the value of their research contributions?
No comments:
Post a Comment