10_30_03
Qualitative
Dilemma card #1
Tara the loner
What are your reactions to these statements? How do you feel about the potential impact of the researcher not only on his subjects but potentially on the subject of his study as well? Are there ways to avoid or minimize this and other kinds of influence/impact at a research site? If so, what are they? Is that necessarily desirable? What impact would such actions have on the progress of the research? Should educational research be (or purport to be) "antiseptic" in some way?
Identity constructed
Boundaries without rejection?
Try for more straight observation, work on interaction later?
Card #3
Responses to parent questions about research.
Would you let them know that you are studying the experiences of individual students? How might that impact your work and/or your students? If you choose not to be explicit about the students, how might you handle parents who ask for details about their own children in relation to your work?
"I'm not at liberty to discuss it" other vague descriptions.
"I'm observing a lot of things about the classroom in general"
Say "yes" and ask parent questions to get more data?
LIE about looking at specific students ("we're looking at the whole class")
LIE about what exactly you're studying Ð we don't know yet.
Pick one ethical issue in any of the three readings:
I really didn't understand the ethical kerfluffle in the Alturk article about drinking. The fuss about interviewing a subject who had had a margarita seemed ridiculous. Clearly, her subject had access to the paper before it went out, and was able to see how she was represented, and would have been able to censor any comments she felt uncomfortable about when sober. It wasn't a huge amount of alcohol, and she even said that drinking some wine together was part of their interviewing ritual.
I guess it's another question of what is a "natural" state in which to interview someone. If she usually has a drink when she is home in the evenings and expecting company, then NOT to have a drink would have been to alter the situation from its normal course. If you're studying junkies, do you only talk to them when they are clean? If the subject had been an alcoholic, would the researcher only have interviewed her sober? Do you only talk to people when they are fully alert (not tired or hurting) or emotionally stable? Alturk's subject addresses this, she asks how you know what a healthy person look like anyway, and how could you possibly only interview healthy people?
While there would be ethical considerations in getting a subject drunk in order to get a more candid interview, or using a drunken interview without running it by the sober subject before publishing, it doesn't seem that allowing someone who regularly imbibes a little to imbibe a little is necessarily biasing results or taking advantage of the relationship; indeed, the opposite might be true. _
á Collaboration Ð common in feminist methodology
á Manipulation
á Affirmations
á Power Ð the "last word" Ð Goldie will never have the last word as long as Alturk is writing about it
á Who owns the data Ð Gloldie asked her to cut certain things, did Alturk keep her word?
á What is "taking advantage" in a collaborative environment?
á Interviewing people in "bad" conditions (depressed, drinking)
á Line between friend and researcher
á (presenting interpretations to different audiences)
á Mixing of narratives Ð interior narrative and spoken narrative
á Jumping to conclusions/auditing your subjectivity
Page:
Menchu:
Tayolor and Bogdan piece on analysis
Kathy Charmaz on memoing
Read last appendix of Grau and Walsh Ð attempt to code it based on the other two readings.