HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.qualrs-l
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 12:44:00 PDT
              <QUALRS-L@UGA.BITNET>
From:         Peter Coughlan <IHW1IIH@UCLAMVS.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Help Request

------------------------------TEXT-OF-YOUR-MAIL--------------------------------

> On Wed, 29 Jul 1992 09:36:18 EST Tom Schwandt, 5-0278 said:
> >Re: the new request for help with software for data analysis.  The best
> >starting point I'm aware of is a book by Renata Tesch, Qualitative
> >Research:  Analysis types and Software Tools.  It reviews a variety of
> >current software packages and it's bib. contains other useful references.
> >Further, Renata runs a consulting "company" specializing in this kind
> >of software; contact her at 73425 Hilltop Rd., Desert Hot Springs, CA
> >92240.  Sorry but I don't have a phone number handy.  T. Schwandt,
> >Indiana Univ.
>
> Renata's phone number is (619)329-7026.  She has a chapter in another
> recent book my students have found useful, "Using Computers in Qualitative
> Research," edited by Nigel G. Fielding and Raymond M. Lee (London:  Sage,
> 1991).  j.
>
> *************************************************************
> * Judith Preissle-Goetz                                     *
> * Professor of Anthropology and Education                   *
> * Social Science Education              Voice: 404-542-6489 *
> * Tucker Hall                             Fax: 404-542-3282 *
> * University of Georgia                  BITNET: JGOETZ@UGA *
> * Athens, GA  30602         Internet: jgoetz@uga.cc.uga.edu *
> *************************************************************
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.qualrs-l
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 14:18:00 PDT
              <QUALRS-L@UGA.BITNET>
From:         Peter Coughlan <IHW1IIH@UCLAMVS.BITNET>
Subject:      qualitative vs. quantitative

Taking up Bradley Stoner's comment that he sees a
tendency toward making qualitative studies "more
statistical."  I'm not sure what you mean by more
statistical:  do you mean that such studies analyze via
statistical tests, or that they make use of numbers
(frequencies) to report trends in data?

I've always had a problem between the distinction
"quantitative" as "numerical" and "qualitative" as
"interpretive" (or non-numerical?), since our "qualitative"
findings must surely be linked to how frequenly (or
infrequently) we observe a phenomenon (if neurobiology
and parallel distributed processing are on the right
track).

For a given segment of linguistic data, if I report that "X
asks more questions than Y," how different is that from
reporting that "X asked 22 questions, and Y asked 15 in
this particular stretch of data"?  To me, the second
statement gives me (and my readers) more information,
though I don't consider it statistics, but rather a case of
"using numbers qualitatively."  If, however, I make a fraction
(or a percentage) out of those numbers, have I then entered the
"quantitative" realm?  If statistics means "relating different
sets of numbers to one another," then I suppose I have . . .

Comments?

Peter Coughlan
UCLA Program in Applied Linguistics
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.qualrs-l
Date:         Fri, 24 Jul 1992 13:38:00 CDT
              <QUALRS-L@UGA.BITNET>
From:         Gary Shank <P30GDS1@NIU.BITNET>
Subject:      last word on MWERA

This will hopefully be my last word on MWERA:
Rick Pugh and I just concluded an extensive phone conversation
where we resolved a series of misunderstandings and misperceptions.
First of all, we discovered that my student's paper had been sent to
an inappropriate section of MWERA, and had not been re-routed due to
logistical problems.  Rick read me the full text of the reviewer's
comments, and given the mixup, I have no problem in certifying the
professionalism of the reviewer's analysis.  Second, MWERA remains
one of the best places for beginning scholars and qualitatively
oriented research.  I heartily endorse the practice and commitment
of MWERA in these regards.  Finally, let me certify both my support
of both MWERA as an organization and its mission.  Long may it
prosper.   Gary Shank
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.qualrs-l
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 14:04:17 GMT
              <QUALRS-L@UGA.BITNET>
From:         Lee Komito <LKOMITO@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Subject:      Re: BEYOND ENTHNOGRAPHER !!!

Let me preface the following short note on computer programs with an
agreement with some of the recent comments that it is useful to be
able to use computer programs to keep track of the text data that
qualitative research generates. This does not imply using the computer
to do the analysis, anymore than writing down all your field notes
on 3x5 cards does.

On the question of computer programs, if you are a PC person, you
might consider Nota Bene. It is an integrated word processing/
textbase/bibliography program. The bibliography part has been
modified to deal with field notes (using anthropological styles),
and the textbase can be used to do free-form indexing of text
files (whether they are previous articles/papers or transcripts
of interviews). There is a new version due out in August which
promises to be a major improvement over earlier versions, not
only in the previous capabilities, but also its capabilities
to deal with foreign language characters.


Lee Komito                       Internet: lkomito@irlearn.ucd.ie
Dept of Sociology                CREN/Bitnet/Earn: lkomito@irlearn
University College, Dublin       phone: +353 1 706-7106
Belfield, Dublin 4; Ireland      Fax: +353 1 269-4409

P.S. No affiliation with Dragonfly/NB Informatics, other than an
often pleased user.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.qualrs-l
Date:         Fri, 24 Jul 1992 16:34:46 -0400
Reply-To:     aa248@yfn.ysu.edu
              <QUALRS-L@UGA.BITNET>
From:         Nicholas Sturm <aa248@YFN.YSU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Qualitative-Quantitative

>
>Michael Fischer writes:
>>There is a bit of confusion in my mind about what people are referring
>>to when they use these terms; is the object, subject or both
>>qualitative (quantitative)? Or is the information relating to the
>>object, subject or both qualitative (quantitative)?
>
>Perhaps the terms qualitative and quantitative were originally adopte
>and should be used to refer NOT to the type of data collected (numbers,
>categories, frequencies,...) but to the assumptions underlying the
>research itself: qualitative presumes a relatively open mind with an
>aim to understanding some area from the perspective of those intimately
>involved in it (of which ethnography is one species of endeavor); quantitative
>presumes a relatively precise hypothesis about some area and proceeds
>with an aim to confirming this hypothesis (or at least rejecting the null
>hypothesis). If this is the case, then the TYPE OF DATA, however one
>might want to call it, will follow from the area to be studied and
>the epistemological underpinning of the effort. There is nothing in
>principle that precludes the same data from being collected by a
>researcher engaged in a qualitative or a quantitative research effort,
>although this is usually not the case.
>
>
That might be appropriate if the words were not used with rather different
meanings before (some apparently writing here) they were used with other
meanings.  But that is what often makes it difficults for those in one
area of study to comprehend what those of other areas mean.  I.e., we just
don't speak the same languages.  I find I argue a lot with an economist
friend because his words (usually qualitative) so often are only belatedly
discoverd to mean quite different things--neither of us seem to detect the
fact we are saying different things with the same words until a few days
later.  But, if we did, we'd probably have little to discuss except, "Wasn't
that a bad storm yesterday?"


--
  * aa248@yfn.ysu.edu *
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.qualrs-l
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 09:20:00 CDT
              <QUALRS-L@UGA.BITNET>
From:         Gary Shank <P30GDS1@NIU.BITNET>
Subject:      unsolicited MWERA addendum

Just an unsolicited addendum to my message about MWERA and my
student's work on the Negro Leagues...
I want to make it clear that my copmplaints are with the STRUCTURE
of MWERA and the criteria it uses to accept and reject innovative
work.  It was in no way intended to be a personal attack on the
character or judgement of Rick Pugh.  I have known Rick for 15 years
and no one has more respect for his professionalism than I.  But I
have to report that he did sign her letter.  Rick, as a straight
ahead researcher, would expect  me to get my facts straight.
I hope this note makes my postion clear.  If I have brought about
any personal misunderstandings earlier, please rest assured that
they were not intended.
As they say in the computer world, lets go flame off and address the
issues....
Gary Shank
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.qualrs-l
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 16:13:00 EDT
              <QUALRS-L@UGA.BITNET>
From:         GOODALH@CLEMSON.BITNET
Subject:      Reply to Jim Thomas

Jim,
I've never had an obscure experience, although I've had many
strange ones, including reading your interpretation of my "deeper
message."  Nowhere in my reply to Tom did I use the words "theory"
or "mutually exclusive" yet you seem to infer that (a) I think
interpretive and critical research are "mutually exclusive," and
(b) that I am somehow anti-theory because I want to privilege
experience over disputes about labels (which was, I think, the
original issue).  Let me say categorically (pun intended) that
I believe any act of interpretation is inherently critical (again,
Burke reminds us of that) and any criticism is inherently an
interpretation.  Let me also say that I happen to have had a long
and pleasurable love affair with theory, one that I believe I pass
on as a virtuous activity to my students and share with my colleagues.
While I've invoked KB again, let me add that the context in which
he describes occupation and preoccupation refers to the problem of
treating the categories we use as if they were real, rather than
symbolic, constructions, and therefore leading us to "occupational
psychosis."  I must say that I felt as if I was seeing this happen
when I saw you claim that good fiction is somehow not only distinct
from, but apparently superior to, "empirical science."  Given that
I don't privilege "Science" any more than KB does, and that as an
ethnographer and writer I have long since abandoned the false di-
chotomy between "fiction" and "nonfiction" I believe your response
says more about your own interpretive categories than it does about
my critical intentions.
On another level I worry that when we teach theory and then expect
students to go out and do "research" we succeed in providing them
with an ideology of power that privileges the academic story over
the experiences (and perhaps the resistance narratives) of their
collaborators in the field.  I must say that I have no magic for-
mula for how to guard against this, only to remind myself, my
students, and my colleagues that there is often nothing so dangerous
as a good theory.  To balance this awkward and troubling assertion
I also add that dangerous theories are the lifeblood of intellectual
activity.
Dr. Bud
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.qualrs-l
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 22:32:00 CDT
              <QUALRS-L@UGA.BITNET>
From:         Gary Shank <P30GDS1@NIU.BITNET>
Subject:      update on MWERA

MWERA Update --
I sent a copy of my message to Rick Pugh directly, and he responded
to me with a concerned and thoughtful letter.  Being in charge of
a major meeting program is no picnic, and I think that Rick has
handled himself with great skill and professionalism.  He has ex-
plained to me that perhaps the paper was mis-routed, and we are in
direct and cordial contact over the issue.  Now that the adrenlin
has settled down, and my Mama Bear instincts have subsided, I feel
that we can press on with some positive initiatives.  Let me just
suggest three:
!) Rick reported that his mailbox has been stuffed with notes on
this matter.  Please desist from sending him notes.  We are working
on this matter.  I will keep you posted on progess...
2)  I want to thank everyone who sent me public and private notes
with resources for my student.  This is the true strength of an
electronic network like this, and we need to continue to build upon
the fantastic access we have to each other's knowledge and skills
3)  Lets nip any movement to treat MWERA as a scapegoat for our
frustrations over problems with acceptance of research methods
RIGHT NOW.  MWERA in general and Rick in particular have clear and
public records for evenness and support of young scholars.  That is
one reason why I was so shocked and distressed. It just didnt make
sense from past knowledge.
Let me end with a personal note of my own.  As a practicing Roman
Catholic, I believe that the fundamental strength of my faith com-
munity is the idea of witness.  While I may have rallied some
support for our endeavors with my message, I feel that I have
personally failed to witness the character of our field, in that I
assumed others were operating in bad faith.  This path can only
degenerate if we pursue it.  We need to take and maintain the high
road, and work in good faith with all other types of inquirers in
our field.  I have not set a good example, esp. for my student, and
for that I apologize.  I would like to chart a cooperative path in
this venture, and I welcome the rest of us to do so as well.
Gary Shank     p30gds1@niu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-To: PO%"QUALRS-L@UGA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.qualrs-l
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 14:40:05 EST
              <QUALRS-L@UGA.BITNET>
From:         "Bill Brescia,
              Development Office 812-855-0581" <BRESCIA@UCS.INDIANA.EDU>
Subject:      mail problem

    I just tried to send a message to:
    Fran Marrus
    MARRUSF @ CLEMSON.BITNET
    Dept of Performing ARts
    Clemson University
    Clemson, SC  29634-1505 (USA)

    Who posted the intercultural commuincations message this afternoon and got
    a message from the postmaster at Clemson that the message was
    undeliverable.  Can you give me some assistance on how to reach him.

Thanks

Bill----

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    William Brescia, Development Officer
    One City Centre, Suite 200			Phone:  (812) 855-0581
    Reserach & University Graduate School	FAX:    (812) 855-8270
    Indiana University		      		Bitnet: BRESCIA@IUBACS
    Bloomington, IN 47404	      Internet:BRESCIA@UCS.Indiana.edu
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    "My job is to make the agony of decision so intense that it can
     only be escaped by thinking."  Fred Friendly
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"qualrs-l@uga"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.qualrs-l
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 09:09:00 CDT
              <QUALRS-L@UGA.BITNET>
From:         BOEHLEFELD@WISCSSC.BITNET
Subject:      Re: What is critique?

The two threads...critical theory and qualitative/quantitative...seem
to have run together in my mind. But I find the debate between 'JT' and
'Dr. Bud' particularly intriguing.  JT wants to find room for science
in his qualitative social research and Dr. Bud seems adamant about
refusing to allow that particular voice any credence. (Yes, Dr. Bud,
I believe you did say something about 'privilege,' not credence...)

I guess I find it confusing, in part, because I always thought among
the goals of science was the development of means of communication
which made it possible for people who have learned something, figured
out something, devised something, ...dare I say it?... experienced
something, to 'transfer' that learning, that experience to someone
else. ("See, guys, here's this thing. I call it a wheel. Let's put
it at the end of these sticks, and yeah...we got a wheelbarrow..."
fade to black, next cut: "See this article? It's a cultural artifact
describing, as closely as I can make it, the experience of [...fill
in the blank...]. I worked with several members of the group to
create this written artifact...[fill in methods]. Here's how they
do government..." etc.)

That goal is hardly unique, but seems to have been particularly
successful for some applications over a period of...oh, a few years.

But, lest I sound too flip, it also occurs to me that having means
of testing each others' experiences (findings, if you will) in
order to compare, contrast, modify and, yes (as Marx suggested),
*change* things is the empowering element of the 'scientific'
endeavor. How can we change that which we can see indistinctly?
(Well, we can always burn L.A.) Teaching students science doesn't
(necessarily) inhibit their discourse with themselves or others.
It merely adds another language to that discourse.

In my mind, what distinguishes science from other ways of knowing
is its intentionally systematic information gathering perspective.
Others...who would never lay claim to being 'scientists'...also
gather information, sometimes intentionally, sometimes systematically.
It's when they do both, whether they care to be labeled 'scientists'
or not, that they become such to me. Yes, that means I'm imposing
a label on them and their activities. But that's a way of making
sense of my experience of their experiences as they relate them
to me. And I guess I don't feel guilty yet about trying to make
sense of my world...which I do know I share with others.

...my two cents.

sharon bo.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"QUALRS-L@UGA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.qualrs-l
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 11:42:00 CDT
              <QUALRS-L@UGA.BITNET>
From:         JE01@SWTEXAS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: ecopy,finally...

I'm pleased too, and our responses suggest that from time to time, selected
short papers might be broadcast for discussion as well. (For those of you with
bandwidth concerns, this should no doubt be limited, but our responses suggest
a receptive audience for this.)

======================================================
 Dr. J. Ellsworth          OCED/Technology Department
 Southwest Texas State University
 JE01@SWTEXAS              N5XUF
======================================================
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.qualrs-l
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 15:18:05 -0400
Reply-To:     aa248@yfn.ysu.edu
              <QUALRS-L@UGA.BITNET>
From:         Nicholas Sturm <aa248@YFN.YSU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: back to critical theory !!!

>
>On Sat, 18 Jul 1992 09:38:00 CDT <P60CLF1@NIU> said:
>>
>>If I were to use the Burrel and Morgan framework of the
>>theory of science and the nature of society ..... where
>>most of organizational theory and research falls into the
>>functionalist quadrant (the others are radical humanist,
>>radical structuralist, and I think that the other is
>>interpretive) ... as a backdrop, where would critical
>>theory and research fall ......
>
>Connie, if the above are four cells in a two-by-two matrix (quadrant),
>what are the names of the two axes on the matrix?
>
>Jean
>
>
Major and minor?  But those terms have additional social connotations.

--
  * aa248@yfn.ysu.edu *
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: qualrs-l@uga.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"qualrs-l@uga"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.qualrs-l
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 10:49:00 EDT
              <QUALRS-L@UGA.BITNET>
From:         PGRAHAME@BENTLEY.BITNET
Subject:      qualitative journals

Re the list of journals which accept qualitative work, I would like to
add:
        Discourse & Society
        Human Studies
        Semiotica
and, in education:
        Curriculum Inquiry

-- Peter Grahame
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <diana@u-shizuoka-ken.ac.jp>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.qualrs-l
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 15:19:45 JST
              <QUALRS-L@UGA.BITNET>
From:         "Diana B. Putman" <diana@U-SHIZUOKA-KEN.AC.JP>
Subject:      Re: Qualitative/quantitative social science

	I am an anthropologist and one trained primarily as a qualitative
researcher.  But that does not negate the use of numbers and quantification
in my research.  When I was doing my first field work and writing it up, my
advisor kept asking me to note how many cases of what ever I had observed,
thus allowing the reader to get a feeling for what I meant by "many", "most,
"some" etc.  I often use percentages in my work and try to provide enough
information for the reader to judge whether my information applies to a
broad population or not.  Recently I have combined the use of in-depth
interviews with the use of a survey.  I guess I too worry about not having
the quantitative data to please people in my own field.  Happily, and
frankly, much as I expected, the answers from over 100 women are similar to
those of the 30+ who were interviewed.  But, I do not plan to use a lot
of complicated statistics to try to interpret this data.  Rather I will use
the insights I have gained from participant-observation and reading during more
than one year in Japan to try to make sense out of it for the reader.   Then
the next researcher who wants to manipulate numbers can go out and prove some
of my results.
	But, the qualitative-quantitative split is extremely strong in
Japan and one of the researchers with whom I have been associated has now
dismised my research because I do not want to spend my limited time doing
factor analysis but instead want to focus on interpreting what "really"
goes on in individual women's lives!!  Comments?

		Diana Putman, University of Shizuoka, Japan
		diana@u-shizuoka-ken.ac.jp.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: QUALRS-L@UGA.BITNET
Date-warning: Date header was inserted by OREGON.UOREGON.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.qualrs-l
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 14:12:00 PDT
              <QUALRS-L@UGA.BITNET>
From:         MHORNEY@OREGON.BITNET
Subject:      Computers & Qualitative Research

A hopefully not very sarcastic response to Bruce Jones:

Please do not make the mistake in believing, as unfortunately many if not
most people do, that computers are intrinsically concerned with, or even
really based upon numbers. This is an illusion caused (can we use that word
on this list?) I believe (with little data in support) by the fact that
early computer users happened to be focused on quantitative problems (e.g.
calculating ballistics tables, atomic bomb design, weather prediction
etc.), and by the accident that the alphabet adopted by early computer
designers happened to consist of 0 and 1. Had A, B, and word processing
been the initial applications, we might have a radically different cultural
notion of what computing is about. History is contingent.

I conceive of a computer as a machine for conjering, storing and
manipulating symbols. What the symbols mean is entirely in the eye of the
beholder. In qualitative research projects I have found computers very
useful in a variety of ways, but especially in organizatizing coding
categories. Instead of marking up and then cutting up my transcripts and
notes, I manipulating them electronically. The outcome is the same (as far
as anything can really be the same). I am also experimenting with
techniques for drawing pictorial renditions of categorical relationships
among data. This, I project, will provide researchers with a new tool.

I work with a program of my own devising called EntryWay. There are many
others, such as the Enthnograph which has been much mentioned, which do
similar things.

The goal, Bruce, has nothing to do with "pushing the project into the
quantitative realm."

Mark Horney
215 Education
University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403
mhorney@oregon.uoregon.edu
(503) 346-2679
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU