I may be wrong but given the nature of my research interests—cultural heritage institutions and historically black colleges and universities—I am pretty sure that I will engage in qualitative research. (I really feel, though, that I should heed the consistent advice to have quantitative research in my tool kit. So the mixed methods route seems lucrative). Accordingly, this week’s readings are good road maps. The “Planning and Designing Qualitative Research” chapter was a rubber-meets-the-road, easy read. As mentioned in class, it was insightful, digestible and still sophisticated. I have tucked this reading away as a top reference.
Likewise, I was edified by the Denzin and Lincoln article; I must admit that I enjoyed the beginning more than the end. It became a tedious read after a while. I put it down and came back to it. The discussions on the politics and ideologies behind qualitative research were fascinating. I was drawn to the sections regarding colonialism and “otherness.” I feel as though I have a grasp on the various eras in terms of qualitative research methodology. More importantly, I thoroughly understand that I need to strive for value-free research.
The Westbrook article added to the concepts we learned in Research Methods. For instance, it provided more explanation on constant comparative, content analysis and other qualitative techniques. It was neat that this reading revolved around LIS research.
In closing, I feel that qualitative methodology is the natural course for those whose interests entail cultures, communities and underrepresented groups. One of my favorite books, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks by Rebecca Skloot, was an ethnographic slash biographical slash context analysis slash metaanalysis study of (ironically) one of the biggest medical breakthroughs in history: the discovery the regenerative human cell, HeLa. I am not quite as ambitious as Rebecca Skloot nor do I have ten years, as she did, to finish my research. Nevertheless, I see the possibilities!