Shenton ACID
Agree – Triangulation as an approach where different informants perspective are brought together to draw a “rich picture of the attitudes, needs or behaviour of those under scrutiny…”, my experience with this is it’s just as likely to bring out contradictions and a ‘messy’ picture as opposed to convergence and a clear picture.
Confusing – being comfortable with messiness as a researcher is difficult. How do we help the reader be ‘comfortable’ (enough) with messiness and not isolate them? I’d include in this the example, if we think an interviewee response has told us what we want to hear.
Interesting – I took this as an “oh yeah that’s good” moment when reading the paper or listening to Nick’s commentary. This for me was both in what Shenton wrote about debate on transferability and Nick’s comment on “the findings may be meaningful for others, it doesn’t mean the findings will be the same”.
Disagree – at ISF at UTS, we talk much about world views which skew what we do and see and how we interpret the world. I’m yet to find approaches which help capture that in a neat way, but still was surprised this was not mentioned in the piece. I note they describe researcher reflexivity, however, this seemed more incremental responses to individual pieces of the research rather than a ‘meta view’. (I’ll slot in, I really liked NH’s suggestion of only including “need to know” in researcher reflexivity, it’s a good rule of thumb).
I think understanding of world views extends to others who might be contributing to our research (e.g. if we are seeking feedback or input from others).
