Paul's Questions for 10/12 & 10/19

Questions for 9/12:

In the Flick reading, longitudinal studies don’t appear to be conducive to qualitative research. While certain exceptions are listed, Flick indicates that the strength of a longitudinal study is the ability to document changes of view or action over time “through repeated collection-cycles, where the initial state of a process of change can be recorded without any influence from its final state.” Flick indicates that’s rarely attainable through the qualitative approach. What’s meant by “influence from its final state” and why is this so?

Through our readings already, it’s clear to me that the qualitative approach allows for and requires a more flexible approach than quantitative research, and I like that. On page 149 of Flick’s article, it specifically outlines how to go about formulating research questions. I’m interested to know more about what Strauss (1987) calls “generative questions.” Flick says these are questions that “stimulate the line of investigation in profitable directions.” Does this mean that you start with vague questions, and as you collect data, the questions become more specific, ultimately leading to the creation of hypotheses? Do you ever start with hypotheses (versus research questions) in qualitative analysis?

On page 150 of Flick’s article, Flick says that studies with a “sensibly limited claim to generalization are not only easier to manage but also, as a rule, more meaningful.” Potter also talks about this on Page 105 of his book. Dr. Harp, when I mentioned that my idea for Assignment #2 for our class was somewhat a matter of convenience for me, since I planned to interview co-workers, you replied something to the effect that, sometimes, that’s the best way to go. Are the best qualitative studies a matter of convenience?

Potter on Page 96 details interviewing techniques. Whether structured or unstructured, is it appropriate to go back to a subject during the course of an interview. When I participated in the U.S. Latino/Latina World War II Oral History Project, the interviewees were naturally senior citizens. In both cases, I wasn’t sure they fully grasped what I was looking for in my questions, so I tried to touch on the subject again much later in the interview. Is this appropriate when interviewing for a topical life history?

According to Potter, it’s important to address the issue of length of data gathering, “both in terms of span and degree of contact.” Then the researcher has to justify his or her decisions. What I find interesting is that in qualitative research for text-focused studies, length of the data gathering is never addressed. But that observation by Potter just deals with length of time going over data, right? It doesn’t mean you don’t list the amount of data considered, does it?


Questions for 9/19:

The Manning and Cullum-Swan reading (pg. 263) concerning biographical associations in the semiotic discourse approach to McDonald’s experiences reminded me of another reading from another class I took. The class dealt with American culture’s impact on the world, and vice versa. The book Golden Arches East: McDonald’s in East Asia was one of our assigned books, and it examined how various Asian countries identified with McDonald’s. For example, the idea that McDonald’s provides healthy foods based on nutritional ingredients and scientific cooking methods, according to the book, has been widely accepted by the Chinese media and general public. Isn’t this an example of a sign, the Golden Arches, providing a different meaning and thus providing a need for semiotic discourse analysis?

On page 252 of the Manning and Cullum-Swan paper, it states “a sign is essentially incomplete because it requires an interpretant, or context.” I get that, but further down it says that the “interpretant of a sign is another sign, and that sign is validated as it were by yet another sign, and so on without end (Eco. 1979, p. 7).” What’s meant here?

In the area of structuralism, the term “dehumanizing” (Lemert, 1979b, p. 100) is brought out in our first reading. Basically, the person examined/interviewed is just a spokesperson for a larger group? The structure or situation they are in shaped them enough that the researcher can use them as an overall example?

Our reading about media contents says (pg. 113) “one of the most powerful semantic notions in a critical news analysis is that of implication.” It latter states that examining what’s “unsaid” can sometimes reveal more than the text itself. I remember News 8’s coverage of the murder of five people in the Hill Country a couple of years ago. One of the victims was a bartender who was heroic in his actions. After days of coverage, the heroic description was left out of our coverage, simply referring to the victim as a bartender. His family was upset because simply saying “bartender,” to them, had negative implications. Am I right that this is an example of the statements above?

I have an observation rather than a question here. Style and rhetoric within news schema really interests me (and concerns me). A research project I’m working on right now deals with how and when minority sources are used. But as part of the research, we have found that unattributed statements, or descriptions, abound. On page 116 of van Dijk’s article, he states, “Such stylistic choices also have clear social and ideological implications, because they often signal the opinions of the reporter about news actors and news events…” I totally agree, and believe more qualitative research is needed in this area.