Q1. According to Denzin and Lincoln (p 5) qualitative research has multiple methodologies, research practices and various moments that simultaneously operate in the present (qualitative researches based on methodological pluralism?), what is the identity or common ground of qualitative research? Does its identity are only contrast to or resistance to quantitative research?
Q2. Denzin and Lincoln point out (P 21~22) that qualitative researchers are now confronting the double crisis of representation and legitimacy: qualitative researchers can directly capture lived experience created in the social text written by the researchers (representation crisis) and evaluating and interpreting qualitative research problematic (legitimacy crisis). What will be the possible solution of that crisis?
Q3. How can we utilize or adopt the Saussure and Peirce’s contributions in semiotics and semantics to communication research?
Q4. Jensen notes the uneasy cohabitation between structuralism and cultural studies regarding to the nature of social life and cultural forms under industrial capitalism, especially the matter of relative autonomy of culture (p 28~29). What is your opinion?
Q5 As Jankowski and Wester examine in the dilemma of feminist scholars (p 57), qualitative researchers are confronting matter of the politics and the epistemology of research: what is the relationship between the objective of a study and the objectivity of the research procedures and findings. If the researchers are activated by specific goals, repression or emancipation, what is the difference between qualitative research and politics? If it is not so different, are the fields of qualitative research the battle field of politics?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment