HSX 7238 Methodology II

docx

School

Moi University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

Subject

Sociology

Date

Nov 24, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by ElderInternet10287

1 HSX 7238 Methodology II Student’s Name Department, Institution Affiliation Course Name and Number Instructor’s Name and Title Assignment Due Date

2 HSX 7238 Methodology II Methodology Versus Method Method and methodology are two distinct tools utilized in research. They differ in several distinct ways. First, methodology is a conceptual term, understood as a transdisciplinary process of theoretical construction of a research object for projects, while a method is a contextual term and tool embraced based on the research object’s construction (Fairclough, 2013, p. 13). Second, while a methodology aims to determine the appropriateness of a method in the discourse process with causal models and independent and dependent variables, a method focuses on determining a solution to a research question or social analysis. Third, a methodology underpins the logic of research where researchers systematically apply epistemological concepts, procedural rules, and scientific concepts, while methods are the techniques that facilitate data collection and analysis for answering research questions. Also, research methodology and methods have an interactive relationship that allows for their application in research contexts. For instance, methodologies are a combination of methods based on an epistemological rationale, with theoretical and systematic approaches such that methods can effectively derive solutions to social concepts of research (Castles, 2013, p. 7; Fairclough, 2013, p. 13). Deduction Versus Induction Induction is the analytic process of seeking standard features and major variation dimensions among phenomenon instances, developing explanations accounting for the features and dimensions, and pursuing disconfirming evidence to refine, limit, and test these developing explanations. Therefore, induction moves from specific standpoints to general ones. Conversely, deduction begins from correct premises and leads to “true” conclusions. Therefore, deduction uses factual statements to derive truth about developed explanations (Denzin & Lincoln, 2018, p.

3 601). Notably, these terms differ in their application and context; while inductive processes make inferences and reasoning based on uncertainty, deductive processes focus on theorizing to make inferences and construct truths. Additionally, induction is not exclusive to qualitative research due to its approach from observations to abstractions. Since induction employs intersecting syntheses representing conglomerating suggestions, it can be applied in other research types, such as quantitative, since it associates analyses with research purpose and inquiry (Bhattacharya, 2017, p. 150). Reflexivity Reflexivity is the means, i.e., actions, performance, and movement, by which scholars engage personal and queer scholarships by circling, beginning again, pulling, and returning to power, language, thought, and self-culture. Therefore, reflexivity appertains how individuals sketch assumed cultural facts, identities, and situations, making them appear normal or natural (Adams & Jones, 2011, p. 108). Critical sexuality studies (CSS) explore intersections in gender, sexuality, and sex while addressing the centrality of human differences. Similarly, axiology deals with the conceptual and structural issues associated with value. Therefore, reflexivity on critical sexuality studies will use axiology to reflect on structural (related to meaning-making) and conceptual issues (related to definitions) regarding the intersections of gender, sex, sexuality, and power. Also, the aggregation of axiology in CSS intentionally concerns the attendance of ethics and value within personal texts and traces their importance in creating socially just means. Therefore, reflexivity allows researchers to engage axiology on CSS concepts (Adams & Jones, 2011, p. 108). Mid/meso-level versus “Grand”/macro theory

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

4 A middle-range, meso-or mid-level theory is a sociological theory developed to connect empirically observed patterns with high-level social theories and guide empirical inquiry. Therefore, middle-range theories originate from grand theories and link to empirical patterns through bridge laws. An example of a middle-range theory is the reference group theory that assumes individuals’ self-appraisals, values, and attitudes are shaped by their identification and comparison with a superior reference group (Farmbrough et al., 2006). Also, grounded theory is a middle-range theory that, Conversely, grand theories are prominent, over-arching explanations and models of socio-political behaviors that inform existence. These theories provide researchers with a holistic conceptual framework for society and life-based thinking. A post-structuralist theory and structuralism are grand theories demanding that scholars study objects and knowledge systems that produce them for a comprehensive understanding of studied objects (Davies & Gannon, 2005, p. 312). Constructionist versus Objectivist Epistemology Constructionist and objectivist epistemologies differ in their view of social reality and how to describe and experience it. First, a constructionist epistemology formulates its assumptions based on the relativism of many social realities, aims at providing subjects’ meanings using interpretive understanding, and acknowledges the mutual knowledge created by the social viewer and viewed. Conversely, objectivist epistemology assumptions are based on the existence of a realist ontology; reality exists in the presence (or absence) of human consciousness. Second, a constructionist epistemology has incomplete, indeterminate, and suggestive causalities for social realities. At the same time, an objectivist obtains a positivist approach where its causalities are determined. Individuals must follow systematic method sets that lead them to discover social reality and construct true and testable theories (provisionally)

5 for ultimate verification (Charmaz, 2003, p. 274). Lastly, a constructivist epistemology presumes that discovered social realities arise from interactive processes and structural, temporal, and cultural contexts (Charmaz, 2003, p. 273). Conversely, objectivist epistemology contends that social realities exist, not constructed, and individuals know the truth about these realities through consecutive observations and under controlled situations instead of engaging in interactive processes. While these antagonistic epistemologies hold their discourses’ validity, they have challenges. The constructivist approach lacks an exclusive basis for differentiating between ontological and epistemological claims on the existence of a real-world and standard social reality, and researchers are bound to respondents to create an understanding of the asserted meaning (Charmaz, 2003, p. 275). However, objectivist assumptions are overly simplistic, inflexible, structured, and unyielding, creating no room for extenuating circumstances. Therefore, these assumptions fail to deal with complexities regarding confounded social realities. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) CDA is distinguished from other discourse analyses through several factors. First, CDA’s focus rises beyond semiosis to assert the relations between other social elements and semiotic ones. Therefore, the nature of these elements is established via an analysis, varying between organizations and institutions based on time and place (Fairclough, 2013, p. 11). Second, CDA views semiosis as a social process element with a dialectical relationship with others, such that they are fully separate; each element internalizes another without expressing reducibility. Third, since discourse analysis is a social process that interplays between three reality levels structures, events, and practices, CDA only provides an analysis that focuses on structure and events. (Fairclough, 2013, p. 11).

6 Ethnography Ethnography, the science and art that describes a culture and group’s characteristics, patterns, and lived experiences, has three distinct traits. First, ethnography occurs on-site and in naturalistic settings where people live. Second, the research methodology has a personalized approach where the researcher plays the role of an observer and participant in the study group’s lives. Ethnography collects data via triangulation over long periods. Lastly, ethnography is dialogic; comments and feedback from the study group inform the conclusions, interpretations, and inferences (Hodder, 1994, p. 401). Ethnography, as a methodology, and participant observation, as a method, have a research-based relationship. Ethnographers utilize participant observation, where they become part of a study group or research situation to acquire a wider understanding of a culture and perform a successful qualitative search. Participant observation aligns with ethnography’s data triangulation aspect that combines different perspectives of a study issue without pragmatically combining methods. Grounded Theory The constructivist grounded theory approach has three key features. First, the theory has an interactive approach to data collection and analysis. Researchers involve a smaller number of interviews and conduct initial analysis. The analysis informs subsequent data collection and guides additional data collection. Second, it has constant comparison during the analysis phase. Researchers compare data points and refine emerging theoretical constructs via comparisons with fresh examples. In concert with other vital features, the constant comparison is characteristic of grounded theory’s constant comparison. Third, the theory embraces theoretical sampling. The sampling is a strategy based on theoretical considerations. Unlike purposive sampling,

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

7 theoretical sampling considers an anticipatory population based on informativeness (Charmaz, 2003, p. 265). Theoretical agnosticism and tabula rasa have a cautious relationship that discredits them as mutually exclusive. For instance, while theoretical agnosticism, a grounded theory concept that inquires researchers to take a critical stance and treat all extant concepts and (or) theories— encountered during data collection, pre-study, literature review, and data collection and analysis —as provisional, modifiable, and disputable, the researchers must be aware of the risk of the tabula rasa thinking that assumes researchers approach their grounded theory research as a blank slate that forgets their knowledge and seeks to learn (Urquhart & Fernández, 2013, p. 228). Prior knowledge has relevance, and instead of ignoring it, the researcher sets it aside and conducts their research independent of the research’s influence. Creative Analytic Practice (CAP) Increased postmodernist critique of traditional qualitative writing practices has led to challenging social science writing conventions’ sacrosanctity. Therefore, creative analytic practices are the ethnographies produced through the blurring, enlarging, and altering of ethnography with the rise of different formats for audience varieties (Richardson & St. Pierre, 2005, p. 963). CAPs are differentiated from traditional approaches to data representation and analysis. While traditional research approaches valorize triangulation to represent and validate study findings, with assumptions of an object or a fixed point of triangulation, CAP ethnographies draw data and perform analysis based on literary, scientific, and artistic genres, with instances where they break these genres’ boundaries. Therefore, the assumption goes beyond the rigid three-sided and two-dimensional triangulation concept and crystalizes (waves, particles,

8 externalities, internal refraction, variety of colors and patterns, and multidirectional) research analyses (Richardson & St. Pierre, 2005, p. 964). With the occurrence of the postmodernist CAP approach, researchers can engage in a collaborative process where distinct and separate voices can explore observation and imagination boundaries, witness, retell, and memorialize narrative accounts. Also, crystallization via CAP provides researchers with a deeper, more complex, and thoroughly partial understanding of a research topic or concept (Richardson & St. Pierre, 2005, p. 965) Case Study The assertion that “Case researchers seek both what is common and what is particular about the case” reveals characteristics of case study and the requirements aligned with case study research. The assertion reveals that a case study goes beyond an individual case and could embrace collective cases to capture the complexity of an object of study. Therefore, researchers investigating a case must search for commonality and particularity, in-depth consideration of a case’s nature, background, setting, other contextual factors, and the relationship between them. Also, since data collection and analysis may obscure some details regarding a case, researchers must use multiple data sources to provide a holistic description that details a case’s common and particular aspects (Stake, 2005, p. 446). Intrinsic case study is a form of descriptive case study undertaken because of the particular interest in the case; researchers utilizing the intrinsic case study aim at appreciating and exploring the case’s uniqueness and complexity and how it [case] interacts or embeds with its contexts. Conversely, an instrumental case study focuses on shedding light on matters and issues beyond the case under study, making an explanation and description (Denzin & Lincoln, 2018, p 609).

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

10 References Adams, T., & Jones, S. H. (2011). Telling Stories: reflexivity, queer theory, and autoethnography. Cultural Studies <=> Critical Methodologies , 11 (2), 108–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532708611401329 Bhattacharya, K. (2017). Fundamentals of Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide (1st ed.). Routledge. https://openlibrary.org/books/OL28861878M/Fundamentals_of_Qualitative_Research Castles, S. (2013). Understanding the Relationship between Methodology and Methods. Handbook of Research Methods in Migration . https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781005231.00007 Charmaz, K. (2003). Grounded Theory: Objectivist and Constructivist Methods. In Strategies of Qualitative Research (pp. 249–291). Sage Publications. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2018). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (5th ed.). Sage Publications. Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical Discourse Analysis. In The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis (1st ed., pp. 9–33). Routledge. Fambrough, M. J., & Comerford, S. A. (2006). The changing epistemological assumptions of group theory. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science , 42 (3), 330–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886306286445 Gannon, S., & Davies, B. (2011). Feminism/Post-structuralism. In Theory and Methods in Social Research (2nd ed., pp. 318–325). Sage Publications. Hodder, I. (1994). The Interpretation of Documents and Material Culture. In Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 393–402). SAGE Publications.

11 Richardson, L., & St. Pierre, E. A. (2005). Writing: A Method of Inquiry. In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed., pp. 959–978). Sage Publication. Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative Case Studies. In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed., pp. 443–466). Urquhart, C., & Fernandez, W. (2013). Using Grounded Theory Method in Information Systems: The Researcher as blank slate and other myths. Journal of Information Technology , 28 (3), 224–236. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2012.34

HSX 7238 Methodology II

Related Documents