Q1. As Adlers and Frey note, the participatory observation and interview become more and more difficult because of the government regulation in the name of right to privacy or protection from harm. I think these kinds of regulations, although I admit the potential danger of experimental and stimulus interview, limit other valuable rights such as the right of knowledge and expression. I read the story about the prison and its life near New York. The report worked as a jailor for two years to write that story. Is it unethical? I would like to have your opinions.
Q2. Many skills of qualitative research including interview and participatory observation look almost same to those of narrative journalism. What is the distinction between qualitative research and narrative journalism?
Q3. Frey’s note on the gendered interview, including the interviewer’s bias and affective features, is interesting. How can we avoid those kinds of error or failure?
Q4. The case study of the Sarasota Herald-Tribune by Everbach provides very interesting message: changing leader affects the working culture of the company -female leader changes the newspaper company more open, more family-friendly, more consensus-building decision making structure. In my opinion, open, family-friendly, consensus building structure is the aims of all companies which want to make their organization more efficient and productive. Can these virtues be the only feature of the company leaded by female leader? Does it come from only female leader?
Q5. Observations and interviews are largely affected by researcher’s bias; to some extent, it is unavoidable. Then how can we obtain the objectivity? Or don’t we need to be objective?