Difference between revisions of "Roulston2016"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Kathryn Roulston; |Title=Issues involved in methodological analyses of research interviews |Tag(s)=EMCA; Qualitative interviewing; Anal...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
| − | |Author(s)=Kathryn Roulston; | + | |Author(s)=Kathryn Roulston; |
|Title=Issues involved in methodological analyses of research interviews | |Title=Issues involved in methodological analyses of research interviews | ||
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Qualitative interviewing; Analysing interviews; Co-construction of research interviews; Methodological analysis of interviews; Research interviewing; Researcher reflexivity; | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Qualitative interviewing; Analysing interviews; Co-construction of research interviews; Methodological analysis of interviews; Research interviewing; Researcher reflexivity; | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|Volume=16 | |Volume=16 | ||
|Number=1 | |Number=1 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=68–79 |
| − | | | + | |URL=https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/QRJ-02-2015-0015/full/html |
| + | |DOI=10.1108/QRJ-02-2015-0015 | ||
|Abstract=Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to argue that qualitative researchers have much to learn from conducting methodological analyses of their own talk in relation to research participants in interviews. Yet there are specific difficulties in representing findings from methodological analyses of research interviews. | |Abstract=Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to argue that qualitative researchers have much to learn from conducting methodological analyses of their own talk in relation to research participants in interviews. Yet there are specific difficulties in representing findings from methodological analyses of research interviews. | ||
| − | Design/methodology/approach – Although qualitative researchers have for some time followed | + | |
| − | recommendations to analyze both “how” interview data are generated in addition to “what” is discussed, little has been written about the challenges of representing these sorts of analyses. The paper uses a case to first examine difficulties in the representation of an analysis of interview data that draws on discursive psychology. After discussing the case, the paper further explores the challenges of conducting and presenting these sorts of methodological analyses of interview data to research participants and readers in ways that clearly convey what might be learned by examining how interviews are accomplished. | + | Design/methodology/approach – Although qualitative researchers have for some time followed recommendations to analyze both “how” interview data are generated in addition to “what” is discussed, little has been written about the challenges of representing these sorts of analyses. The paper uses a case to first examine difficulties in the representation of an analysis of interview data that draws on discursive psychology. After discussing the case, the paper further explores the challenges of conducting and presenting these sorts of methodological analyses of interview data to research participants and readers in ways that clearly convey what might be learned by examining how interviews are accomplished. |
| + | |||
Findings – The paper outlines considerations for researchers in doing methodological analyses of interview data, including challenges, reconciling interpretations of “what” and “how” topics are discussed in research studies, and possible areas of focus. | Findings – The paper outlines considerations for researchers in doing methodological analyses of interview data, including challenges, reconciling interpretations of “what” and “how” topics are discussed in research studies, and possible areas of focus. | ||
| − | Research limitations/implications – This paper examines what researchers might learn from | + | |
| − | examinations of their own interview practice and does not focus on representations of topical analyses. | + | Research limitations/implications – This paper examines what researchers might learn from examinations of their own interview practice and does not focus on representations of topical analyses. |
| − | Practical implications – The paper argues that when interviewers subject their own talk to | + | |
| − | analysis, they learn about themselves, their craft, and the ways in which knowledge about social worlds are collaboratively produced in research encounters with participants. | + | Practical implications – The paper argues that when interviewers subject their own talk to analysis, they learn about themselves, their craft, and the ways in which knowledge about social worlds are collaboratively produced in research encounters with participants. |
| − | Originality/value – By developing expertise in how to analyze their interview interaction | + | |
| − | methodologically, qualitative researchers can attend to significant features of their interview practice and in so doing, develop a reflexive research practice. | + | Originality/value – By developing expertise in how to analyze their interview interaction methodologically, qualitative researchers can attend to significant features of their interview practice and in so doing, develop a reflexive research practice. |
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 10:48, 22 December 2019
| Roulston2016 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Roulston2016 |
| Author(s) | Kathryn Roulston |
| Title | Issues involved in methodological analyses of research interviews |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Qualitative interviewing, Analysing interviews, Co-construction of research interviews, Methodological analysis of interviews, Research interviewing, Researcher reflexivity |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2016 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Qualitative Research Journal |
| Volume | 16 |
| Number | 1 |
| Pages | 68–79 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1108/QRJ-02-2015-0015 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to argue that qualitative researchers have much to learn from conducting methodological analyses of their own talk in relation to research participants in interviews. Yet there are specific difficulties in representing findings from methodological analyses of research interviews.
Design/methodology/approach – Although qualitative researchers have for some time followed recommendations to analyze both “how” interview data are generated in addition to “what” is discussed, little has been written about the challenges of representing these sorts of analyses. The paper uses a case to first examine difficulties in the representation of an analysis of interview data that draws on discursive psychology. After discussing the case, the paper further explores the challenges of conducting and presenting these sorts of methodological analyses of interview data to research participants and readers in ways that clearly convey what might be learned by examining how interviews are accomplished.
Findings – The paper outlines considerations for researchers in doing methodological analyses of interview data, including challenges, reconciling interpretations of “what” and “how” topics are discussed in research studies, and possible areas of focus.
Research limitations/implications – This paper examines what researchers might learn from examinations of their own interview practice and does not focus on representations of topical analyses.
Practical implications – The paper argues that when interviewers subject their own talk to analysis, they learn about themselves, their craft, and the ways in which knowledge about social worlds are collaboratively produced in research encounters with participants.
Originality/value – By developing expertise in how to analyze their interview interaction methodologically, qualitative researchers can attend to significant features of their interview practice and in so doing, develop a reflexive research practice.
Notes
