Creswell Ch 11 and CQR Ch. 1

Creswell Ch. 11 Conclusion

In the final chapter of Creswell’s book, he “turns the story” by showing how a single case (the gunman story previously presented as a case study) could be analyzed through each of the five methodological approaches presented in his book.

For example, in the narrative approach, Creswell would have focused on a single individual and their reaction to the situation instead of gathering responses from multiple people. The entire study would have revolved around the experience of this one person and their reaction to the gunman situation. From a phenomenological perspective, Creswell would have observed multiple students involved in the case. He would have explored the phenomenon of their fear surrounding the situation. In a grounded theory approach, he would have developed a theory that explained the experiences of the students following the gunman situation. Lastly, as an ethnography, Creswell would explore the campuses meaning-making and cultural experience following the event.

In this practice, he addresses how the mode of inquiry and type of research design will change the focus of the study. Lastly, he recommends that the reader design their study within a particular type of inquiry so that the elements of the design (purpose of the study, research questions, etc) will contribute positively to the methodology.

 

Composing Qualitative Research Ch. 1 

Golden-Biddle and Locke present a helpful framework for the actual composition of research worthy of publication. In the first chapter, “The Style and Practice of our Academic Writing,” the authors remind the reader that we are, as qualitative researchers, writers. No matter what our exact field, area of expertise, or preferred methodological approach, we are writers. Thankfully, I like to write…it is one of my favorite parts of this whole doctoral student thing!

First, they remind that traditional academic writing is simple, straightforward, free from expression, and meant to transfer data from the field to the reader. The author is separated from the data presentation process, thereby leaving out any sort of personal experience with or response to the data. However, “writing up” qualitative data is far more complicated and is simply not simple, nor straightforward. The authors humorously quip, “we never yet have had a piece of data tell us its significance” (p. 13). Truly, qualitative researchers (as the authors note) must decide what to report from the data, as the entire story can simply never be told due to spatial constraints (in articles, for example).

They also remind the reader that we contribute to the knowledge field not just by presenting data in a coherent fashion. Firstly, the knowledge presented in the article must be considered true and worthy by both small and large audiences that are experts in the pertinent field of study.

Lastly, the author identify the four components of the writing task: 1) articulate relevant insights gained through research and study, 2) develop a “theorized storyline” for your work that connects the field work to the academic side, 3) address a current limitation in the research with your findings, and 4) be an academic storyteller.