Sebastian's q's

1. Potter, chapter 1. Why the reluctance in defining what's qualitative? Potter provides several answers: definitions may be misleading, limiting or, worse, overly simplistic. However, I do think that definitions are quite helpful. Herbert Blumer once said that without definitions, it's impossible to know where to look, what to look for, or --most importantly-- how to recognize what we were looking for when we find it. If researchers can agree that a discourse analysis is different from an ethnography, I'm sure they can also agree that the qualitative approach has some unique attributes that are worth defining in the first place.

2. Potter, chapter 2, table 2.1. Jensen & Jankowski (1991, p. 4) argue that "qualitative analysis focuses on the occurrence of its analytical objects in a particular context, as opposed to the recurrence of formally similar elements in different contexts." The way I see it, this suggests that qualitative research focuses on particular cases and tries to describe a unique phenomenon, whereas quantitative research is mainly concerned about different units and common patterns across these units. I believe that generalizability is an important attribute of social science, regardless of the method of study. I'm interested in studying a specific population at a specific location at a specific point in time not because I only want to learn, describe and explain that specific population at that specific location at that specific point in time, but because I believe that my study can say something about "us" (and by "us," I mean a community, a country, a culture... the human species, perhaps?). So, where's the principle of generalizability in the qualitative approach? Is it a priority?

3. Potter, chapter 2, table 2.1. Bogdan & Taylor (1975, p. 2) noted that "qualitative methodologies refer to research procedures which produce descriptive data." I wonder: why stop at describing a phenomenon? What's the purpose of describing something? Shouldn't we aim for explanation, prediction, or something else?... Or am I just a prisoner of the quantitative/social science approach by asking this?

4. Potter, chapter 3, p. 32. "Scientists abandoned claims of truth; rather, they opted for utility." So, in the best case scenario, science provides improved explanations. I wonder how this is related to the concept of social construction of reality. If truth is something we reach through consensus and socially shared perceptions of what is and what is not (Potter calls it intersubjectivity), then perhaps an improved explanation can reach the status of truth (I'm thinking about the theory of evolution here).

5. Potter, chapter 4. Despite the illustrations and examples on the seven methods of qualitative research, it was quite difficult for me to picture the differences. I guess my problem was that I always think of research questions and methods simultaneously (what's the purpose of having a question if you can't address it with the methods you have at hand?) So, perhaps, I'd like to cover this semester the fit between the type of qualitative research methods that fit certain types of research questions.