引用了定性研究的一个基本原则，即Miles和Huberman(1994)的观点，即研究的目标是从数据中产生意义。作者同意这一观点，但指出这实际上是一项非常具有挑战性的任务，因为可以包含不同类型的数据。有简要回顾文献上体现,包括参考布迪厄(1977、1990)和一些女权主义者材料在社会权力结构的方式人们社会化到学校等机构,和身体是如何构建的,通过这些结构和机构(Probyn说道,1991)。在此，我首先声明引发这项研究的最初方法是由一名研究人员在新西兰一所学校对来自不同种族和文化背景的9名学生进行的标准访谈。还应进一步指出，被选中参加面谈的人是毛利族和太平洋岛国的后裔，而面谈者是Pakeha;欧洲血统的新西兰人(Ranford, 2018)。作者注意到一个权力不平衡的因素，因为采访者是占主导地位的种族。这是一种定性的方法，基于多角度存在的观点，他们每个人都构建不同的现实，留给研究者一个困难的工作，从一组可能是矛盾的复杂数据中解释意义(Denscombe, 2014)。这篇文章本身的形式是一篇关于所使用方法的报告，并反映了在这种特殊教育背景下研究的具体经验。研究人员介绍了他们的个人背景、观点和价值观，以及在学校环境中通过观察和谈话收集到的数据。问题答案的方法不仅允许而且鼓励在定性方法中,由于一个现实的实证主义范式基于显而易见的事实被拒绝的一种方法,认为研究者的背景以及多种声音,和不同的观点作者提供最小的采访片段文本转录频繁符号“? ? ?(Nairn, Munro and Smith, 2005, p. 240)，但是文章的主体部分包含了关于背景的详细信息;学校的行政区域(Nairn, Munro and Smith，第227页)，学生的背景，面试官的背景，以及其他方面的遭遇，如房间里的座位安排，面试官和参与者的肢体语言和说话风格。重点是这些环境因素，而不是采访的内容，以便阐明所使用的方法的所有方面。这些数据为反思所犯的错误提供了基础，并为作者提供了一个作为研究人员询问其实践的机会。
A fundamental tenet of qualitative research is cited, namely Miles and Huberman’s (1994) views that the goal of research is to generate meaning from data. The authors concur with this position but point out that this is in practice a very challenging task, as there are different kinds of data that could be included. There is a brief review of the literature on embodiment, including reference to Bourdieu (1977, 1990) and some feminist materials on the power structures in society on the ways people are socialised into institutions such as the school, and how the body is constructed in and through those structures and institutions (Probyn, 1991). I will begin here by asserting the original methodology that sparked this study was a standard interview conducted by a researcher with nine students from diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds in a New Zealand school setting. It should also be further noted that the participants selected for the interview was of Maori and pacific-island descent and the interviewer was Pakeha; New Zealander of European descent (Ranford, 2018). The authors noticed an element of power imbalance as the interviewer is of the dominant race. This is a qualitative methodology that is based on the idea that multiple perspectives exist, and that they each construct reality differently, leaving the researcher with the difficult job of interpreting meaning from a complex set of data which might be contradictory (Denscombe, 2014). The article itself takes the form of a report on the methods used and a reflection on the embodied experience of researching in this particular educational context. The researchers present personal background, views and values, as well as data that is gathered from observations and conversations carried out in the school context. The question answer approach is not only allowed but encouraged in qualitative approaches, since the positivist paradigm of a single reality based on demonstrable facts is rejected in favour of an approach that considers the researcher’s own background as well as multiple voices, and different views The authors provide minimal snippets of the interview text, transcribed with frequent notations of “???” which signifies indistinct words that were not clearly noted and understood by the interviewer (Nairn, Munro and Smith, 2005, p. 240), but the main body of the article consists of detailed information on the setting; the administrative area of the school (Nairn, Munro and Smith, p.227), the backgrounds of the students, the background of the interviewer, and other aspects of the encounter such as the seating plan in the room, and the body language and speaking style of the interviewer and participants. There is a focus on these contextual factors, rather than the content of the interviews, in order to illuminate all aspects of the methods used. This data provides the basis for reflection on the errors that were made, and an opportunity for the authors to interrogate their practices as researchers.
本段内容来自网络 并不是Excellentdue的写手作品 请勿直接剽窃，查重100%，造成后果与本站无关。如需定制论文请记得联系我们。