1 In Schmidt’s article (p 254 -258), she proposed 5 steps to make a semi-structured interview more systematical. However, I am wondering if this method will hurt the characteristics of qualitative method. Or is semi-structured interview more suitable for selecting a group of interviewees to figure out their common features.
2 Following my first question, in Bohnsack’s article (P217-218), I am still confused by the reliability and validity. For example, Bohnsack believe standards of everyday communication or nature standards and routines communication will improve the reliability and validity. But I doubt it will also hurt the unique of qualitative method.
3 In Reader’s article, he claimed he interviewed top-level editors in 28 newspapers. My question is why he doesn’t use survey which has more reliability and validity. I will suggest to use survey to find out “what”. Then he can select several typical newspaper to interview and then find out “how”.
4 In Curtain and Maier’s article, they use the qualitative method of focus group systematically. Can we say it is some sorts of in-depth survey or scientific-orientation focus group method?
5 In my personal opinion, in contrast to the two articles in J&MCQ, the two articles from MCS are better in the perspective of qualitative method. However, I found the two authors’ backgrounds are not so America. It seems that research methods indeed have regionalism.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment