Mirka Koro-Ljungberg

(E)pistemological Awareness, Instantiation of Methods, and Uninformed Methodological Ambiguity in Qualitative Research Projects

This article explores epistemological awareness and instantiation of methods, as well as uninformed ambiguity, in qualitative methodological decision making and research reporting. The authors argue that efforts should be made to make the research process, epistemologies, values, methodological decision points, and argumentative logic open, accessible, and visible for audiences. To these ends, they discuss two ways of conceptualizing the role of epistemological awareness and instantiation of methods, including (a) a series of decision junctures and (b) a spatial conceptualization of epistemological decision making. Through an analysis of researchers’ decision junctures drawn from studies published in high-impact education journals in 2006, the authors illustrate current methodological awareness and instantiation of methods in the field of education research.

The erosion of a method: examples from grounded theory

Since its original inception in the 1960s grounded theory has been widely used by many qualitative researchers. However, recently epistemologically different versions of grounded theory have been presented and this epistemological diversity among grounded theorists and the erosion of the method will be the major focus of this paper. The first section explores the question of what ‘erosion’ of grounded theory means for the practice of qualitative research and the epistemological assumptions embedded in different uses of grounded theory are discussed. Furthermore, three ways to use qualitative methods are conceptualized: epistemological, strategic and intuitive. Additionally, the first section describes the erosion that occurs when research methods are transferred from one epistemology to another. The second part of the paper raises the questions as to whether it is possible to transfer methods from one epistemological realm and theoretical stance to another one to do qualitative research situated therein and how the erosion of a method influences qualitative research. To elucidate these questions, examples will be drawn from grounded theory to illuminate the different uses of methods. Last, the authors ask why such a transfer would be attempted altogether. In this final part of the paper they discuss how grounded theory is used as a label, believing that much of the current popularization of grounded theory is based on power, privilege and authority.

Exploring Help-Seeking for ADHD Symptoms: A Mixed-Methods Approach

Objective: Gender and race differences in treatment rates for attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are well documented but poorly understood. Using a mixed‐methods approach, this study examines parental help‐seeking steps for elementary school students at high risk for ADHD. Methods: Parents of 259 students (male/female, African American/Caucasian) identified as being at high risk for ADHD completed diagnostic interviews and provided detailed accounts of help‐seeking activities since they first became concerned about their child. Help‐seeking steps (n=1,590) were analyzed using two methods: inductive analysis based on grounded theory, and deductive quantitative analysis of coded data derived from application of the network‐episode model, merged subsequently with demographic and other characteristics. Results: The inductive analysis revealed unique parental perceptions of their childrens sick role and of the agents of identification and intervention for each of the four groups. Deductive analysis showed significant variations by race and gender in consultation experiences, in the person or entity being consulted and in the transactions occurring in the consultation, and in illness careers. Conclusion: ADHD symptoms are interpreted as having different implications for the sick role and the intervention, dependent on a childs gender and race. Educational interventions need to address cultural stereotypes contributing to inequitable access to treatment.

Validity and Validation in the Making in the Context of Qualitative Research

In this article, I focus on two ways of conceptualizing validity and validation, by using reductionist and (e)pistemological approaches, respectively. I question some common understandings of reductionist validation and describe an (e)pistemological standpoint that provides an alternative to reductionist views. In addition, I argue that validity and validation, as concepts, are tools rather than reflections of truth. Furthermore, fallibility, which is embedded in all views of validity and validation, can be compensated with pluralism, as well as acceptance, coexistence, and collaboration with the Other.

Validity, Responsibility, and Aporia

In this article, the author problematizes external, objectified, oversimplified, and mechanical approaches to validity in qualitative research, which endorse simplistic and reductionist views of knowledge and data. Instead of promoting one generalizable definition or operational criteria for validity, the author’s “deconstructive validity work” addresses how validity can be framed in the context of researchers’ responsibility and decision making during the research process. More specifically, the author utilizes the concept of aporia to discuss researchers’ responsibilities in the face of impossible decisions when aiming for “valid” and trustworthy qualitative research practices. The author argues that qualitative researchers should reconsider the promotion of validity or validation practices that disable researchers’ responsibility. Alternatively, it could be illuminative to ask how impossible validity and ongoing puzzlement associated with the quality of qualitative research could influence current research practices and reporting.

Contending with Border-making in the Social Constructionist Interview

As a part of the border-making process that occurs during the social constructionist interview, realities and various preassumed roles are created by researchers and by their respondents. Arbitrary lines are set between researcher and respondent during the interview as the researcher seeks to better understand and tell the story of his or her interviewee in a clear and controlled manner. The authors do not consider the Romanticist aim of obtaining structure-free experience; rather, they contend with the inevitable border-making process of communication. This article explores the social constructionist interview by examining how to contend with four forms of border making: (a) the borders of control, (b) research agendas as border making, (c) language and discipline as border making, and (d) the border-making influences of roles and socialization. Examples from a multicultural research interview project are used to contextualize the argument.

The Relational Selves of Female Graduate Students during Academic Mentoring: From Dialogue to Transformation.

This study, framed by social constructionism, retrospectively examines how faculty mentoring influenced the transformations of 10 female graduate students’ relational selves and their professional identities as qualitative researchers and scholars. Participants reported that effective mentorships often resulted in collaboration on research projects, as well as shared decision‐ and meaning‐making. Effective mentoring also led to the development of the students’ research skills while simultaneously constructing their professional and academic selves. These situated mentorships were shaped by the diverse values, expectations, and hopes that the participants associated with mentoring. Additionally, the local practices, power structures, and relationships at the department or university level influenced, and possibly discouraged, active communication and ongoing dialogue regarding the individuals’ experience of mentoring. Ultimately, participants described how their experiences of mentoring welcomed them into the scholarly community and ensured their professional competence as researchers and academics, which, in turn, transformed the students’ broader sense of self.

Demystifying Interdisciplinary Qualitative Research.

This article seeks to demystify, through deconstruction, the concept of interdisciplinarity in the context of qualitative research to contribute to a new praxis of knowledge production through reflection on the possibilities and impossibilities of interdisciplinarity. A review and discussion of disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity leads the authors to formulate and explore the following questions: What is interdisciplinary knowledge? What is it that researchers observe as interdisciplinarity? Why do researchers pursue it? In demystifying interdisciplinarity, the authors focus on the legitimacy of the sign interdisciplinary and the process of (interdisciplinary) knowledge production. After investigating the former, the authors explore the latter by metaphorically mapping the terrain of knowledge production and conclude by proposing that interdisciplinarity, as a sign, may have the function of enabling knowledge-producing organizations to leverage resources by symbolically alluding to desired characteristics of knowledge-production processes whereas, as an act, it may de facto reproduce and maintain the disciplinary organization of knowledge and knowledge production.

Challenges and promises of overcoming epistemological and methodological partiality: Advancing engineering education through acceptance of diverse ways of knowing

The purpose of this paper is to explore some challenges and promises when the epistemological diversity embedded in qualitative research traditions is introduced to research communities with one dominant research paradigm, such as engineering education. Literature is used from other fields and empirical data are used from engineering education, including the practices of the European Journal of Engineering Education and the Journal of Engineering Education, with the expectation that the ideas that are presented are relevant to a broad range of education disciplines. A number of challenges are identified as the epistemological diversity of qualitative research is introduced to the primarily positivist field of engineering education. Ultimately, embracing epistemological diversity holds the promise of researchers being able to ask: ‘What questions and answers become possible from these newly created positions and what can be learned from these alternative approaches?’.

A Hermeneutical Study of Older Korean Graduate Students’ Experiences in American Higher Education: From Confucianism to Western Educational Values

In this hermeneutical study, the authors focus on understanding the experiences of older Korean students who have come to the United States to pursue academic degrees at American universities. The purpose of this study is to describe the critical events related to their adjustment processes as well as to address some of the specific concerns of the students who returned to higher education after a long professional career in their home countries. In particular, the authors find it important to describe some of the adjustment problems from the Korean cultural perspective relating to Confucianism, loyalty, and respect. The authors conclude by arguing that without situational cultural understandings or without respect for the cultural historicity of international students, the quality of the educational experience in higher education will not be promoted.