--------------9F3BD71D2EDA80683B2FF9EA
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
dennis roberts wrote:
> At 12:56 PM 3/25/01 -0500, Karl L. Wuensch wrote:
> >Here is how I resolve that problem: Define the population from the sample,
> >rather than vice versa -- that is, my results can be generalized to any
> >population for which my sample could be reasonably considered to be a random
> >sample. Maybe we could call this "transcendental sampling" ;-) -- it is
> >somewhat like transcendental realism, defining reality from our percetion of
> >it, eh?
>
> this sounds like the method of grounded theory in the qualitative bailiwick
> ...
> look at data you have and see what you can make of it
>
> that is ... there is no particular PLAN to the investigation ... data
> gathering ... or, what you want to do with what you find after the fact
>
> i try to tell students this is not a very good strategy ...
Dennis:
This is a serious misrepresentation of qualitative research in general, and, in
particular, of Glaser and Strauss's insistence that social theorizing be
fundamentally be "grounded" in experience. The idea that qualitative research
begins with "no particular PLAN" is simply ludicrous.
Here's a couple of quotes from "Toward Reform of Program Evaluation" by Lee
Cronbach and others (1980):
"The evaluator will be wise not to declare allegiance to either a
quantitative-manipulative-summative methodology or a
qualitative-naturalistic-descriptive methodology. . . . Those who
advocate an evaluation plan [sic] devoid of one kind of information or
the other carry the burden of justifying such exclusion." (p. 223)
"Writings on experimental design emphasize extrapolation much less than
is appropriate for evaluation. Data on a particular set of program
operations are collected at specific sites, but the evaluation is
intended to answer a much broader question." . . . The design best for
sharpening a limited statistical conclusion may not be the best basis
for the broader inferences. " (p. 231)
Introductory statistics classes, with their artificially created null hypotheses
and impractical data gathering designs, often ignore these complexities.
--
*************************************************
`o^o' * Neil W. Henry ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) *
-<:>- * Virginia Commonwealth University *
_/ \_ * Richmond VA 23284-2014 *
* http://www.people.vcu.edu/~nhenry *
*************************************************
--------------9F3BD71D2EDA80683B2FF9EA
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<br>dennis roberts wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>At 12:56 PM 3/25/01 -0500, Karl L. Wuensch wrote:</blockquote>
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>>Here is how I resolve that problem: Define
the population from the sample,
<br>>rather than vice versa -- that is, my results can be generalized to
any
<br>>population for which my sample could be reasonably considered to be
a random
<br>>sample. Maybe we could call this "transcendental sampling" ;-)
-- it is
<br>>somewhat like transcendental realism, defining reality from our percetion
of
<br>>it, eh?
<p>this sounds like the method of grounded theory in the qualitative
bailiwick ...
<br>look at data you have and see what you can make of it
<p>that is ... there is no particular PLAN to the investigation ... data
<br>gathering ... or, what you want to do with what you find after the
fact
<p>i try to tell students this is not a very good strategy ...</blockquote>
Dennis:
<br>This is a serious misrepresentation of qualitative research in general,
and, in particular, of Glaser and Strauss's insistence that social
theorizing be fundamentally be "grounded" in experience. The idea that
qualitative research begins with "no particular PLAN" is simply ludicrous.
<p>Here's a couple of quotes from "Toward Reform of Program Evaluation"
by Lee Cronbach and others (1980):
<blockquote>"The evaluator will be wise not to declare allegiance to either
a quantitative-manipulative-summative methodology or a
qualitative-naturalistic-descriptive
methodology. . . . Those who advocate an evaluation plan [sic] devoid of
one kind of information or the other carry the burden of justifying such
exclusion." (p. 223)
<p>"Writings on experimental design emphasize extrapolation much less than
is appropriate for evaluation. Data on a particular set of program operations
are collected at specific sites, but the evaluation is intended to answer
a much broader question." . . . The design best for sharpening a
limited statistical conclusion may not be the best basis for the broader
inferences. " (p. 231)</blockquote>
Introductory statistics classes, with their artificially created null hypotheses
and impractical data gathering designs, often ignore these complexities.
<br>
<p>--
<br> *************************************************
<br> `o^o' * Neil W. Henry
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
*
<br> -<:>- * Virginia Commonwealth
University
*
<br> _/ \_ * Richmond VA
23284-2014
*
<br> * <A
HREF="http://www.people.vcu.edu/~nhenry">http://www.people.vcu.edu/~nhenry</A>
*
<br> *************************************************
<br> </html>
--------------9F3BD71D2EDA80683B2FF9EA--
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
