Reply To: Block 4

[Yvonne Young]

Agree: Audit. Doing an audit is essential for good research. but not necessarily so that it can be done again. Undertaking an audit provides a framework for high standards of documentation and clarity.
Confusing: I don’t understand why “member checks” are seen as so important. They are a useful measure but are they the “single most important provision that can be made to bolster a study’s credibility” ? Surely not! How does checking research procedures alone ensure trustworthy research?. The need for trust is woven into so many aspects of research. The quality and trustworthiness of the research is always inextricably linked to the integrity and skill of the researcher.
Interesting: The idea of the double edginess of subjectivity. Knowing your context must help. But when does “knowing” become knowing too much?. I have changed how I feel about subjectivity. Previously, I felt it was a disadvantage that makes the researcher high risk to lose objectivity and therefore it adversely affects the quality of research. That isn’t how I feel now. When I do my study one of the sites will be in a space that I am familiar with. That will mean that I will be able to fine tune to the environment and pick up on subtleties and nuances.

Disagree: I disagree that studies should be able to be replicated somewhere else . My own study is located in social space sites. Using a spatial theory lens, and in particular a Lefebvrian approach, it would be reasonable to claim that nothing is done exactly the same way twice. Space is socially produced. Space shapes and is shaped by the here and now.