Richardson’s reading is very refreshing. He says unlike quantitative work, with its tables and charts, you can’t just scan qualitative research. The meaning is basically in the words. Does it therefore spoil a really well written qualitative piece to include any kind of tables or chart? That’s my inclination, but I know some qualitative work we’ve seen sometimes has more than just words.
If poststructuralism allows qualitative writers to nurture our own voices, then putting ourselves into our work is certainly part of this. But I realize that does not mean writing in first person exclusively. There is a time and place for this, especially when we’re a participant observer, for example. But is it okay to ever write in first person when the text is not about the writer?
Are there specific journals that encourage metaphoric writing, and others that prefer a more “scientific” approach to writing qualitative articles? I definitely want to stray away from the latter!
Whether its metaphoric, experimental, or any other style of qualitative writing, do qualitative researchers typically stick with one style, or does the subject at hand typically dictate that style? When writing a news story, I typically have a particular style, but it’s more pronounced for profile pieces, and almost invisible in spot news coverage. However, my style is always present, just in varying degrees.
Ethnographic fictional representations seem to me to be an extreme way of conducting qualitative research, and I’m not sure I understand this style entirely. However, I will use a hypothetical to make a point in an article, making it clear that it is such. Is this an example of this type of writing, or is it all or nothing?