Saturday, October 3, 2009

Alex Questions - Oct. 5


Q1- Bohnsack (2004) raised the issue of validity within focus groups and group discussions. One solution he suggests is to reconstitute the “structure of the case.” I’m not certain I understand what this means. Have researchers found ways to make group discussions more reliable – meaning (to me) more replicable?

Q2 – I see that Reader (2006) at the end of the lit review posited four issues one might call “expectations” or even “hypotheses” (although not approached using the “scientific method”). Is this typical of qualitative papers?

Q3 –Reader (2006) mentions this notion of two-types of journalism being practiced – big city newspaper v. small town newspaper. Personally, I’ve done everything from bi-weekly community journalism, to print magazine journalism, to national network radio news. In my experience, journalists must always conform to the audience where they are working. I guess what Reader wanted to show was HOW it was different. Is it common to question some of the tenets and results conclusions of qualitative papers? How? With another paper?

Q4 – I’m having trouble understanding why Dueze (2005) studied pop journalists in The Netherlands. At one point, Dueze mentions that The Netherlands did not have as strong a tabloid (sleaze) journalism history as the U.S. and Britain. And I kept wondering why, then, The Netherlands? Shouldn’t Dueze make more of a case that access to pop journalists in The Netherlands was an opportunity to study some of these issues (if this were truly the case)?

Q5 – I found Curtain & Maier (2001) an interesting read. It seemed like the groundwork for further study, which it said was its purpose. Now, what does one do with a paper like this? (What would be the next step in terms of research?)

No comments:

Post a Comment