In praise of methodological messiness: (Re)claiming the hermeneutics of inquiry Ann Robertson,...
-
Upload
delphia-morton -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of In praise of methodological messiness: (Re)claiming the hermeneutics of inquiry Ann Robertson,...
In praise of methodological messiness: (Re)claiming the hermeneutics of inquiry
Ann Robertson, Jessica Polzer, Bronwen Williams University of Toronto
March 30, 2006
2
Presentation Focus
1. Focus on how we went about sampling the public news media for articles on “genetic risk for breast cancer”
2. First, need to situate this discussion within context of current demands being placed on qualitative (health) research, and how this is at odds with hermeneutic inquiry
3
it is hardly surprising that hermeneutics should fall victim to our society’s obsession with technical procedures and formalistic organization of knowledge. Interpretation has too often been accepted by practitioners of the human sciences as merely one methodological option among a growing number of available investigative tools. For us, this view displaces the significance of the interpretive turn and ultimately empties it of its capacity to challenge the practices of knowing in our culture (Rabinow & Sullivan, 1987: 2)
4
Background
Qualitative research has gained legitimacy
Demands for increased rigor, transparency
Has increasing systematization and standardization of qualitative research gone too far?
5
Turn to Procedure
Value of interpretation displaced
Interpretation seen as an “option”
6
Hermeneutic Inquiry
MethodologicalMethodological
Procedural
Epistemological
7
Audit Culture
Renders human activity a discrete, manageable tasks
“creeping managerialism” stifles radical potential of interpretive qualitative research
8
Audit Culture in Health Research
“evidence-based”
knowledge economy – knowledge can be produced, exchanged, transferred
Qualitative research as added “value”
9
Purpose of Presentation
To show how sampling is necessarily interpretive
Emphasize methodological “messiness”
Show how messiness more accurately reflects the iterative, reflective nature of interpretive research
Disrupt traditional boundaries drawn b/w technical and analytic steps
10
What was planned
1. Develop search criteria > field
2. Use selection criteria > pool
11
The neat, tidy story
434 (field) > 89 (pool) > 63 (sample)
12
The messy story
378 (field) > 434 (field) > 131 > 89 (pool) > 67 > 63 (sample)
13
Epistemological Clarification
“Genetic risk” not singular, discrete discourse; is a diffuse and complex discursive terrain
Risk discourse is multivocal; not just statistics
Public media include wide variety of articles that focus on “genetic risk”
14
Creating the Discursive Field
Technical Procedures
Key expressions in 19 articles highlighted by 3 people > 98 key phrases
Key phrases/terms clustered into 7 categories (e.g. family, genes/genetics, breast cancer, risk)
15
Creating the Discursive Field
Analytic Questions & Insights
“Genetic risk” cuts across and connects many discursive areas, e.g. family, risk, genes, scientific research
How wide do we cast our net?
16
Creating the Discursive Field
Technical Procedures
23 searches ran using variety of terms (and combinations of terms) within and across categories (e.g. ‘breast cancer’ and ‘gene’; ‘brca1’, ‘brca2’)
Total Field = 434 articles
17
Narrowing the Study Pool
Analytic Questions & Insights
How do we narrow the discursive field into a manageable study pool from which the study sample will be drawn?
18
Narrowing the Study Pool
Technical ProceduresHeadline review for 5 “manageable” searches (yielded > 10 and < 100 articles)
Articles reviewed in full print for which decision could not be made based on headline alone
Analytic Decision
Start to articulate inclusion / exclusion criteria
19
Narrowing the Study Pool
Technical ProceduresFull article review for 2 searches with most hits
Analytic DecisionRefine inclusion / exclusion criteriae.g. to what extent does article have to focus on breast cancer?
Total (study pool) = 89 articles
20
Bounding the Study Sample
Technical ProceduresReview articles in full text to develop initial coding frameworkApply inclusion/exclusion criteriaTotal (study sample) = 63 articles
Analytic Questions & InsightsQuestions raised by sampling process carried over and reflected in coding structure and discourse analysis
21
Discourse Analysis
Analytic Questions
How are ideas about breast cancer and genetic research linked the articles? What metaphorical strategies are used?
What metaphorical devices are used to describe genes? Scientists? Genetic research?
How are women described? (e.g. as (potential) carriers of genes, as research subjects, as volunteers for research projects, as activists, as mothers, daughters, etc.)
22
Conclusion
The time seems ripe, even overdue, to announce that there is not going to be an age of paradigm in the social sciences. We contend that the failure to achieve paradigm takeoff is not merely the result of methodological immaturity but reflects something fundamental about the human world . . . the crisis of social science concerns the nature of social investigation itself. (Rabinow & Sullivan, 1987: 5)
23
24