A selective and partially annotated bibliography on transcription in social research

[No abstract provided]

Why critical realism fails to justify critical social research

Many social scientists have argued that research should be designed to perform a ‘critical’ function, in the sense of challenging the socio-political status quo. However, very often, the relationship between the political value judgements underpinning this commitment and the values intrinsic to inquiry, as a distinct form of activity has been left obscure. Furthermore, the validity of those judgements has usually been treated either as obvious or as a matter of personal commitment. But there is an influential tradition of work that claims to derive evaluative and prescriptive conclusions about current society directly from factual investigation of its history and character. In the nineteenth century, Hegel and Marx were distinctive in treating the force of ethical and political ideals as stemming from the process of social development itself, rather than as coming from a separate realm, in the manner of Kant. Of course, the weaknesses of teleological meta-narratives of this kind soon came to be widely recognised, and ‘critical’ researchers rarely appeal to them explicitly today. It is therefore of some significance that, under the banner of critical realism, Bhaskar and others have put forward arguments that are designed to serve a similar function, while avoiding the problems associated with teleological justification. The claim is that it is possible to derive negative evaluations of actions and institutions, along with prescriptions for change, solely from the premise that these promote false ideas, or that they frustrate the meeting of needs. In this article I assess these arguments, but conclude that they fail to provide effective support for a 'critical' sociology

Can We Re-Use Qualitative Data Via Secondary Analysis? Notes on Some Terminological and Substantive Issues

The potential gains and practical problems associated with secondary analysis of qualitative data have received increasing attention in recent years. The discussions display conflicting attitudes, some commentators emphasising the difficulties while others emphasise the benefits. In a few recent contributions the distinctiveness of re-using data has come to be questioned, on the grounds that the problems identified with it of data not fitting the research questions, and of relevant contextual knowledge being absent are by no means limited to secondary analysis. There has also been a more fundamental claim: to the effect that these problems are much less severe once we recognise that all data are constituted and re-constituted within the research process. In this article I examine these arguments, concluding that while they have much to commend them, they do not dissolve the problems of 'fit' and 'context'.Re-Use of Qualitative Data, Secondary Analysis, Qualitative Data Archiving, Constructionism

Is there any justification for academic social science?

The role of academic social science in relation to policymaking and practice has seen extensive discussion and disagreement in recent years. An essential starting point for our understanding, argues Martyn Hammersley, is to distinguish among the different types of social research, especially between academic work and more practical forms of inquiry. We need to start presenting a more realistic justification for our work, and for why it warrants public funding. But we must also be clear that the indirect and elusive character of social science’s contribution does not mean that it is meagre or insignificant

What is Qualitative Research?

This book is available as open access through the Bloomsbury Open Access programme and is available on www.bloomsburycollections.com. This book invites readers to explore the nature of qualitative research, and to recognise the varied and conflicting forms it can take. It examines how these contrast with quantitative work, as well as how they differ from journalism and imaginative literature. The book describes various methodological philosophies that have shaped qualitative work, as well as different types of orientation to be found within it today. It offers clear definitions of key terms and concepts, and also a detailed exploration of recent disputes among qualitative researchers, with a view to showing how differences in practice relate to underlying commitments. This book will be a vital resource for both new and experienced researchers

Understanding a Dispute About Ethnomethodology: Watson and Sharrock's Response to Atkinson's "Critical Review"

Since its emergence, ethnomethodology has been subject to a succession of disputes, prompted both by external commentaries and by internal divisions. Often, the external commentaries have been rejected as displaying gross misconceptions about the character of ethnomethodology, and these misconceptions have frequently been all too evident. In this article I examine a less well-known case where the external commentary—a "critical review" by Paul ATKINSON—displayed considerable understanding of, and indeed appreciation for, ethnomethodological work; albeit alongside some criticism, and an argument for the fruitfulness of combining elements of ethnography and ethnomethodology. It also connected with some disputes internal to ethnomethodology. The response to this review was, nevertheless, sharp rejection. This was on the grounds that ethnomethodology is fundamentally different from the "constructive analysis" characteristic of conventional ethnography, and qualitative research more generally. The arguments on each side make this a particularly illuminating dispute

Is there any such thing as social science evidence? On a Winchian critique

Keine Beschreibung

What is Qualitative Research?

This book is available as open access through the Bloomsbury Open Access programme and is available on www.bloomsburycollections.com. This book invites readers to explore the nature of qualitative research, and to recognise the varied and conflicting forms it can take. It examines how these contrast with quantitative work, as well as how they differ from journalism and imaginative literature. The book describes various methodological philosophies that have shaped qualitative work, as well as different types of orientation to be found within it today. It offers clear definitions of key terms and concepts, and also a detailed exploration of recent disputes among qualitative researchers, with a view to showing how differences in practice relate to underlying commitments. This book will be a vital resource for both new and experienced researchers

Interrogating the Concept of ‘Vulnerability’ in Social Research Ethics

This paper examines the concept of ‘vulnerability’ in the context of social research ethics. An ambiguity is noted in use of this term: it may refer to an incapacity to provide informed consent to participate in a research project, or it may imply heightened susceptibility to the risk of harm. It is pointed out that vulnerability is a matter of degree, and that there are different sources and types of harm, which must be taken into account in any judgment about whether additional precautions are required to protect particular categories of research participant. Furthermore, such judgments must be sensitive to the particular context in which research is taking place. This is one of several considerations that raise questions about the desirability of the sort of pre-emptive ethical regulation that has become institutionalised in many countries over the past few decades, a form that is more appropriate to medical rather than to social research. However, this is not to deny that a concern with the vulnerability of research participants is necessary on the part of social researchers. Furthermore, it must be recognised that researchers themselves may be vulnerable to harm in the research process. Finally, some discussion is provided of the way in which a concern with vulnerability may conflict with other considerations that researchers need to take into account in doing their work. The key point is that ‘vulnerability’ is a complex and controversial concept, and it requires careful handling in social research ethics