Theory and Rationale

Theory and Rationale

1. Discursive main but not only type of qualatative

   • Quantative methods not necessarily the best way

2. Quan: decide how to analyse before

   • Criticism: assumes statistical sig adequate

3. Qual: data dependent on context, can't get away from it

   • Criticism: too subjective
     • How do you know anything is more than someones opinion, BUT isn't all of psychology like this? Q is what is the nature of that subjectivity

4. Depends on the Q's you're asking and why, if you choose qual or quan

   • can't begin to ask why until you've asked how
     • view quan is to get to how

5. Theory of knowledge (how we know things, epistemology) begins with some assumptions

   • Method you use depends on problems you want to solve, HP, realism- knowledge corresponds to out there reality. No matter what method we use we have to agree if its scientific, good. (not a firm sense of scientific is)
   • Constructionism: knowledge is a social product, thats how we construct knowledge of reality
     • Competing versions of reality which is right? How does this SK come to be considered valid? Look at this by discourse analysis

6. DA: instead of talking look at what they are saying. Oilbert & Mulkay (1984) abandoned discourse as route to reality studied discourse itself ie form and funtion of particular versions of relaity

   • They found 2 ways of talking about science and realism- Empiricist: scientific knowledge, based on facts, ideal (your research. Contingent: SK as produce of personal stuff, agendas imcompetence bias ie bad structure (how you taok about opponents research)
     • avoids challenging idea of science and realism by saying im right hes wrong

7. Conversation Analysis: Harvey Sacks- 'can't hear' is action of not having to refuse name not a description of reality

   • interaction is socially organised, we do use particular versions of things, look at form of discourse can get at function. 'shoes' infers he should go outside. discourse severs different functions be infernences-mostly theoretical
     • what form does this description take? why not another? what does it do?

8. Empirical discourse- present facts as separate from yourself, don't show anything about yourself, often we use detail as a way of making things more 'factual'

   • Corroboration- use 'we' to seem factual
   • Footing- reduce accountability 'i read'
     • all knowledge subjective in a way, can be part of analysis eg constructing objectivity to ensure quality in  qual ana: analysis grounded in data, accounts for al ldata, open to reader evaluation