Among the many common assumptions of sociological discourse (which immediately made me think you should write something about it) is the idea that qualitative techniques can not generalize. That said for those involved in the quantitative sounds attack ('saw, the quality is limited because it allows a generalization'), and said by those involved in the qualitative sounds like an excuse ('but hey, it was not ; never offered '). Now, that idea is deeply flawed.
Because if you can generalize qualitatively. To understand the above statement must first determine which means 'generalize'. Because obviously in a normal qualitative or quantitative research are not talking to claims of universal laws, we are simply saying if our results are applicable to a particular population.
Now, research is often quantitative, and automatic way, we generalize to a population even when not given the technical conditions for it: We all know that, in principle, should not generalize a quota sample, but regularly do. Therefore, if accepted in principle the same sins for which qualitative for quantitative, then well you could generalize from the qualitative.
But this is weak, and may well consider that this should only reaffirm the conviction that the only way to generalize it by his good random sample. This, of course, is nonsense. If we are to use a qualitative technique is because we are interested in meanings. And a very substantial reason why the meaning is relevant is because they are embedded in the practices of the people, and in a very basic sense, the form: practices are inseparable from the distinctions that structure. And this means that those meanings are known by the participants, otherwise practice would not work.
This has a very clear result: Participants in a practice known meanings and distinctions that make a practice. This implies that the investigation of the meanings and distinctions of these participants is generalizable to practice. Maybe a participant is not a valid reporting, but with just a few we should be able to remove biases from personal issues and acquire meanings and distinctions of the practice. But the quality is generalizable: The result holds for all those involved in the practice
And now comes the caveat for: The above argument applies to the meanings and distinctions that make a practice, say, that anyone who plays soccer goalkeeper can make the distinction / other players and what are the actions that the goalkeeper can do. Not necessarily apply to other items, such as ratings, unless these are part of the practice as such. And it requires people to be part of the practice, let alone 'trainees' of a practice (who are just starting to play chess). Be careful also with the limits of practice, football rules do not apply to foosball. But anyway, everything is always precautions, and statements can not be used beyond where they can be used.
None of that takes you to the type of information that supposedly looking for when we decide to use qualitative techniques in fact can be generalized qualitatively.
0 comments:
Post a Comment