Reply To: Block 4

[Margaret McHugh]

Agree: As referenced in Nick’s video about the paper, I agree that there is more to good research than ‘trustworthiness’ – eg Good research is ‘more than just technically competent’. Things I value in research are for example; innovation, quality and impact – how does the research inform, change and/or challenge the way we live in the world.

Confusing: Triangulation – why will the triangulation of methods necessarily result in ‘trustworthiness’?

Interesting: I found the concept of ‘circling reality’ interesting. It reminded me that reviewing or obtaining perspectives that are intersectional/conflicting/nuanced can create deeper understandings, albeit more complex to ‘make sense of’, of an issue.

‘The sampling of a range of people in different organisations may be employed to provide the diversity that underpins Dervin’s concept of “circling reality”, which she defines as “the necessity of obtaining a variety of perspectives in order to get a better, more stable view of ‘reality’ based on a wide spectrum of observations from a wide base of points in time-space”’

Further reading on Sense-making: AN OVERVIEW OF SENSE-MAKING RESEARCH: CONCEPTS, METHODS, AND RESULTS TO DATE – Brenda Dervin http://faculty.washington.edu/wpratt/MEBI598/Methods/An%20Overview%20of%20Sense-Making%20Research%201983a.htm

Disagree: Member checks – in certain cases, this might be important, however, generally it seems this would be an opportunity to corrupt the data – as if the participant wanted certain things excluded or changed this would change the outcome of the research. Also on an individual level, there could be ethical issues around such things as level of education etc as some participants might not have the knowledge to understand certain issues that might arise or impact them because of the information they have shared.