Sociological Imagination and Investigation

1. Sociological Imagination and Investigation Power, politics and practice in qualitative research

2. In this lecture we will… • Broaden our discussion from ethnography to consider more general qualitative approaches • Outline a qualitative posture • Consider interviews and focus groups as ‘conversations with a purpose’ • Consider issues of power and politics in qualitative work

3. From quantitative to qualitative [while] ‘“qualitative” methodologies seek to make a decisive break from “quantitative” ones, the way they are usually applied makes in fact a secret compact with positivism to preserve the subject finally as an object’ (Paul Willis, ‘Theoretical confessions and reflexive method’, 1976,in Gelder and Thornton (eds), 1997 p.247) • There is a continuum from ‘quantitative’ to qualitative work • ‘Covert positivism’ might be evident in design or analysis of qualitative data • Can we enter a research field without an object to our research? Would we want to? • ‘Reflexive methodology’ – researchers are part of the data they collect.

4. A qualitative posture • What is qualitative about qualitative research? • Doesn’t necessarily strive for objectivity • ‘human-as-instrument’ • i.e. concerned with the meanings of people in the research setting AND the meanings of the researcher • Can include texts, images, archives – not just ‘humans’ themselves • Observation, experience, reflection NOT measurement • More interviews, more texts, more images doesn’t necessarily mean better data

5. Interviews/Focus groups • The dominant mode of sociological inquiry • 80% of articles published in sociological journals in 2000 (Halsey, 2004) used in-depth interviews • An ‘interview society’ (Gubrium and Holstein) • Approaches begin with the assumption that it is possible to investigate the social world by asking people to talk • Varying degrees of ‘structure’ and design • Asking, listening and interpreting are practical skills and epistemological positions • ‘Conversation with a purpose’ (Burgess)

6. Conversation with a purpose • The interview as a site of exchange of knowledge (More covert positivism…) ‘The interview conversation is framed as a potential source of bias, error, misunderstanding, mis-direction; it is a persistent set of problems to be minimised. The corrective is simple: if the interviewer asks questions properly, respondents will automatically convey the desired information’ (Holstein and Gubrium: 141)

7. Conversation with a purpose • The interview as a social reality in itself– rather than an indication or expression of participants’ social reality ‘the interview is an artefact, a joint accomplishment of interviewer and respondent. As such its relationship to any ‘real experience is not merely unknown but unknowable’ (Dingwall 1997:56) • The interview as a site for the production of knowledge – researcher and participant are ‘fellow travellers’ in the process of discovery.

8. Comes into sociology via public opinion research/productdevelopment. More naturalistic. Generates more ‘data’. Protects, or ‘empowers’ participants? Gaz Yeah, Terrible trouble he has with that van, mind Bill Yeah, a curse to him it is Kat Oh yeah, suffers, he does [Group breaking up laughing] Conv: Why are you all laughing? Have I missed something? What’s so funny about his van Gaz The lawnmowers keep falling off the back of it love. Faulty doors I expect Bill Yeah, we’re all flush for lawnmowers round here Conv: Oh right, with you. That’s handy. Chez Not really love none of us have got any fucking gardens have we? Conversation with a purpose - Focus groups

9. ‘I’m always careful when people say they’re doing research on us Black people. They take our stories and try to twist things so that we look bad. They have all these professionals asking questions about how we live and our lifestyles and then they say it’s all our own faults because we don’t have proper families, we don’t have discipline, we don’t know how to bring up our children properly…they can turn round and use it against me’ (Pearl, quoted by Reynolds in May, T (ed) 2004: 302) Power and practice: the privileged position of the researcher The research encounter…… Spud: No disrespect to these people but I still reckon that they’re not looking at the whole picture, right? Bif: I’m telling you something now. I’d love us to be in a situation where education wasn’t a problem, we wouldn’t have the Health Authority as a problem, we wouldn’t be moaning at the council because we’ve got housing difficulties. And then for them to suggest that we’ve got a problem with not going to galleries and theatres. They need to get real. (CCSE focus group extract 2004) Representing the researched…

10. Feminist epistemologies; recognising positionality • women’s exclusion from the public realm puts them in a marginal, ‘outsider’ position that can be used to undermine the privileged position of the researcher in the research process • the feminist researcher conducts research in a democratic and participatory way through involving research participants • Falsely homogenises identity? • Is shared identity the only basis for the conduct of qualitative research. • Can men conduct feminist research?

11. In this session we have… • Moved from a specifically ‘ethnographic’ approach to consider a broader qualitative one. • Reflected on the distinction between quantitative and qualitative approaches and stressed the importance of ‘reflexivity’ in the research process • Outlined a qualitative posture and considered its place in interviews/focus groups – conversations with a purpose • Considered power and positionality as aspects of the research encounter.