Debates and Paradoxes Surrounding the Use of Qualitative Methods

Autor/inn/en	Shenton, Andrew K.; Dixon, Pat
Titel	Debates and Paradoxes Surrounding the Use of Qualitative Methods
Quelle	In: Education for Information, 22 (2004) 1, S.1-12 (12 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0167-8329
Schlagwörter	Methods; Researchers; Qualitative Research; Undergraduate Students; Foreign Countries; Information Seeking; Secondary School Students; Users (Information); United Kingdom + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Method; Methode; Researcher; Forscher; Qualitative Forschung; Ausland; Informationserschließung; Sekundarschüler; Benutzerprofil; Nutzer; Großbritannien
Abstract	Although qualitative methods have been employed for many years, there remain many unresolved issues for investigators wishing to undertake work of this type. This paper, aimed primarily at students and inexperienced researchers, considers some of the most pertinent of these matters and suggests responses that the investigator may make. Some of the issues under scrutiny are expressed as "debates", in which the contrasting standpoints of different writers are presented. This discussion is followed by coverage of "paradoxes", in which either there may appear to be inconsistencies within the qualitative paradigm or the investigator is likely to encounter problems in attempting to satisfy different criteria within it. Provision for one such concern may lead to the detriment of the researcher's attempt to address another. The paper concludes by acknowledging that, although some of the matters raised can be addressed through processes such as prioritising, there remains much disagreement among researchers as to the best courses of action for addressing many of the outstanding issues. (Author).
Anmerkungen	IOS Press. Nieuwe Hemweg 6B, Amsterdam, 1013 BG, The Netherlands. Tel: +31-20-688-3355; Fax: +31-20-687-0039; e-mail: info@iospress.nl; Web site: http://www.iospress.nl
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2017/4/10