It’s about the depth of your data
A key strength ofin-depth interviews and ethnography is obtaining textured insights into socialphenomenon. Yet, many qualitative researchers try to invoke the reliability ofquantitative methods by shrouding themselves in numbers as a way to legitimizetheir work. They offer up the number of interview...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | text |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
2016
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/soss_research/2555 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/soss_research/article/3812/viewcontent/its_about_the_depth.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Singapore Management University |
| Language: | English |
| Summary: | A key strength ofin-depth interviews and ethnography is obtaining textured insights into socialphenomenon. Yet, many qualitative researchers try to invoke the reliability ofquantitative methods by shrouding themselves in numbers as a way to legitimizetheir work. They offer up the number of interviews, the number of hours, weeks,and years spent in the field and they propose bigger and bigger samples. Evenas qualitative researchers assert that they have carried out in-depthqualitative research, they often revert to the language of quantitativeresearch to justify the legitimacy of the work. The nod to numbers is a way ofclaiming trustworthiness and, importantly, scientific expertise, which isusually equated with quantitative methods. This dependence on large samplesizes for qualitative research as a form of legitimacy, however, is misplaced.Indeed, we see this seeking of legitimacy through quantification as a distortionof where the value of qualitative research truly lies. |
|---|