Thursday, June 15, 2006
A little jewel
In developing "ideas for a pragmatic postmodernist qualitative method” (p. 185), Alvesson and Sköldberg (2000) identified the following six principles.
Pluralism – the idea of emphasizing multiple perspectives and looking at various angles, not only the atypical or at dichotomies (looking at opposites or extremes). It also includes the importance of addressing “what [data] is being included and what is excluded. And why does he or she [the researcher] choose to exclude certain voices?” (p. 187).
A well-grounded process of exclusion – which implies that not all possible voices and categories identified from the data (an infinite process) can be included in the final research report. The authors stated, “[w]hat is important is not to include all possible categories and voices that are at odds with established ones, but to reflect upon the process of exclusion and thus to avoid getting entangled in established categories and distinctions” (p. 188). This would have direct implications in how the generalizations or results of the study are made.
Cautious process of interacting with empirical material – Theory can help the researcher emphasize a particular voice present in the data, but what about the researcher’s voice? Should it be silenced or undervalued? “What can be attempted in PM/PS-inspired [postmodernist and poststructuralist - inspired] research is a cautious process of working with inclusions/exclusions in terms of representations and readings … of the material.” (p. 189). The researcher’s voice/interpretations “should be a complement to what emerges in the texts” (p. 190).
Avoiding totalizing theory – there is always “an element of skepticism and self-criticism with regard to theoretical frames of reference” (p. 190) in postmodernism. So, different interpretations can be confronted among themselves, allowing for ambiguities and new meanings to surface that will lead to reframing initial metaphors/interpretations.
Authorship and linguistic sensitivity – The different voices present in the data, the multiple interpretations that arrive form it, implies that there would be different perspectives presented. The researcher can then assume a second voice, with which to entail a dialogue with the reader, “indicating pertinent problems and imperfections in the text … problems that the researcher has been unable to solve” (p. 192).
Research and the micropolitics of the text – postmodernism and poststructuralism believes “research text is always, in some sense, about authority and consequently about power” (p. 194). The way things are stated implies a certain political statement. “One representation may block another possible one” (p. 194).
These principles exemplify the author’s stand over research data analyzed from a postmodernist, poststructuralist, and even social constructionist perspective. The researcher’s own limitations when interpreting data, the political standings by which s/he abide, the knowledge of the subject, will all impact the interpretations/generalizations made. The postmodernist and poststructuralist researcher is well aware of this and opens a door to expose him/herself to the reader.
Alvesson, M. & Sköldberg, K. (2000). Reflexive Methodology: New vistas for qualitative research, pp. 148-199. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Pluralism – the idea of emphasizing multiple perspectives and looking at various angles, not only the atypical or at dichotomies (looking at opposites or extremes). It also includes the importance of addressing “what [data] is being included and what is excluded. And why does he or she [the researcher] choose to exclude certain voices?” (p. 187).
A well-grounded process of exclusion – which implies that not all possible voices and categories identified from the data (an infinite process) can be included in the final research report. The authors stated, “[w]hat is important is not to include all possible categories and voices that are at odds with established ones, but to reflect upon the process of exclusion and thus to avoid getting entangled in established categories and distinctions” (p. 188). This would have direct implications in how the generalizations or results of the study are made.
Cautious process of interacting with empirical material – Theory can help the researcher emphasize a particular voice present in the data, but what about the researcher’s voice? Should it be silenced or undervalued? “What can be attempted in PM/PS-inspired [postmodernist and poststructuralist - inspired] research is a cautious process of working with inclusions/exclusions in terms of representations and readings … of the material.” (p. 189). The researcher’s voice/interpretations “should be a complement to what emerges in the texts” (p. 190).
Avoiding totalizing theory – there is always “an element of skepticism and self-criticism with regard to theoretical frames of reference” (p. 190) in postmodernism. So, different interpretations can be confronted among themselves, allowing for ambiguities and new meanings to surface that will lead to reframing initial metaphors/interpretations.
Authorship and linguistic sensitivity – The different voices present in the data, the multiple interpretations that arrive form it, implies that there would be different perspectives presented. The researcher can then assume a second voice, with which to entail a dialogue with the reader, “indicating pertinent problems and imperfections in the text … problems that the researcher has been unable to solve” (p. 192).
Research and the micropolitics of the text – postmodernism and poststructuralism believes “research text is always, in some sense, about authority and consequently about power” (p. 194). The way things are stated implies a certain political statement. “One representation may block another possible one” (p. 194).
These principles exemplify the author’s stand over research data analyzed from a postmodernist, poststructuralist, and even social constructionist perspective. The researcher’s own limitations when interpreting data, the political standings by which s/he abide, the knowledge of the subject, will all impact the interpretations/generalizations made. The postmodernist and poststructuralist researcher is well aware of this and opens a door to expose him/herself to the reader.
Alvesson, M. & Sköldberg, K. (2000). Reflexive Methodology: New vistas for qualitative research, pp. 148-199. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
