Newsgroups: bit.listserv.qualrs-l
Date:         Sun, 24 Jan 1993 16:07:27 -0500
Reply-To:     aa248@yfn.ysu.edu
From:         Nicholas Sturm <aa248@YFN.YSU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Coding in qualitative analysis
Comments: To: QUALRS-L@UGA.bitnet

>
>In <9301240333.AA11087@titan.ucs.umass.edu> GERALD WEINSTEIN
><gerald.weinstein@EDUC.UMASS.EDU> writes:
>
>>It seems as though there is some reluctance on your part to trust the
>>researchers interpretations. You therefore recommend that the *interviewee*
>>be given the opportunity to *validate* the interpretation. But what if
>>one had interviewed some convicted sexual molestors in order to find out
>>how they viewed their behavior and to what extent they could identify the
>>feelings of the victims. Upon analysis of the responses the researcher
>>*found* that the molestors (a) attributed most of the causes to the situation
>>or the victim and that (b) they couldn't assume the perspective of the
>>victim. How would the research benefit from the interviewee's evaluation
>>of the researcher's interpretation?
>
>     First, the interviewee's evaluation would be intrinsically
>valuable, because there could well be patterns of response which
>correlate well to patterns in the original data (i.e., the ones with a
>'good' prognosis from their counsellor could be the ones who *are*
>able to assume the perspective of the victim, and acknowledge that the
>researcher is right.) Failure to validate on some points raises a
>question of a difference in perception, which would then have to be
>explained.

  I'm not at all sure how a concept of validation fits here.  If the
interviewee disagrees, it would seem to invalidate.  If this is not the
perception, then it is just more interviewing.

However, failure to obtain such a difference in perception
>due to methodological considerations is an error, because we are
>ignoring the very real possibility that we are wrong.
>   A good theory could lend weight to the researcher's explanation of
>any failures to validate. An ad-hoc explanation which dismisses the
>rival hypotheses because they are not generated by researchers is a
>borderline ad hominem argument not untainted with hubris.
>     Secondly, let's turn that last question around, and ask "how
>could the interviewee benefit from the researcher's evaluation of the
>interviewee's perspective."

  That may be a morally useful thing to do, but it's not quite the same
as the original "research goal".

Should we not give our 'subjects' the
>chance to at least disagree with what is said about them, if not gain
>some insights about themselves? This is the classic counselling model,
>and while I hardly suggest that researchers untrained in counselling
>engage in counselling behaviour, it does appear that under proper
>supervision, even a child molestor could gain from the hypothetical
>research described above....particularly if he or she felt burdened
>with an 'incurable disease' which no one else shared.  Knowing that
>others have the same problem and are working on it can ease the
>emotional burden that perceived isolation imposes. Sharing some of the
>findings could be of great benefit in such cases.  A fair payback for
>participation, don't you think?

  If the interview is being repaid, perhaps he should just be made
co-author of the report.  Seems rather like what one is desiring by
requesting the 'validation.'

  But pardom my butting in.  I should just remain a watcher here.
>
>

--
Nicholas Sturm, 4037 Ward Beecher, 410 Wick Ave., Youngstown, Ohio 44555
  * aa248@yfn.ysu.edu *
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU