Post-class reflections: The process of generating data

I really enjoyed class yesterday. There were so many insightful questions posed, highlighting the ways in which qualitative researchers must continually position themselves as 'questioners'/reflexive practitioners.

As I reviewed the "tickets-out-the-door," I noted that one of the overarching 'themes' was around naturally-occurring/researcher-generated data. Questions included...

• Why focus on these data types in a course on digital tools? 
• What are the affordances of considering these two types of data? 
• Do these types of data (when categorized this way) results in generating/producing validity?

I'll begin first by reiterating that these two constructs (researcher-generated and naturally occurring) are not viewed as mutually exclusive, but rather as a tool for understanding differences between data types.  So, why spend time thinking through these differences in a course focused on digital tools? First, in general, emergent technologies are affording researchers opportunities to explore new forms of naturally-occurring data (e.g., online communities). Yet, these 'new' forms of data bring with them emergent ethical dilemmas and the need to carefully examine the 'place' of the researcher. As was mentioned in class yesterday, the researcher is always already present. Our power as researcher is in place, yet how this plays out may look difference across data types. So, it is important to begin thinking through data types, recognizing that these 'types' will also be linked to our methodological positions/orientations. Second, what might these new forms of naturally occurring data afford us? Access is one particular gain. We may be able to learn with and from new communities. However, we must also keep in mind that this 'access' is often a privileged access. Technologies typically require resources. As such, we need to remain reflexive about who has access to participate in work that is bound by technological access. What socio-economic and geographical bounds might limit our participation? Another gain may be the opportunity to engage in the study of social life in contexts not examined previously. New contexts lead to new understandings. This highlights the importance of thinking about the Internet as not only a tool for research, but a research context as well. As one of the readings noted this week, contexts like Facebook, Twitter, and any other 'new' social media site on the horizon are one of many social spheres. Qualitative researchers often ask questions about how meaning comes about and the place that everyday life plays within this meaning-making process. As such, exploring across social sphere is often a central pat of our work. These are just a few ways to think about the affordances.

The question around validity and new data types fascinates me. I would be interested in hearing all of your thoughts around this. Indeed, being able to access varied data types would allow for the pursuit of variability, which is important in relation to validity. Other thoughts?

****
There were a few comments/questions around the differences between online and face to face data collection. I copied a table below that I think is helpful for thinking through the gains/losses. I encourage you to fill it out, particularly if you are considering how you might collect data.

Observations	Gained	Lost	Interviews/ focus groups	Gained	Lost
Face to face			Face to face
Researcher-initiated online discussion (using blog, social networking site, email discussion list or other tool)			Phone
			Email/ asynchronous
			Instant messenger/text-based synchronous chat
			Video conferencing (2 way audio/video e.g. Skype)

****
There was another question around balancing the ethical concerns of participants' views of themselves and the researcher's interpretation?

"Ethical balancing" around around our interpretative practice is always going to be central to our work as qualitative researchers. In fact, some scholars have highlighted how this very 'balancing act' becomes a validity move within our work. For instance, perhaps it is at this moment in our research process that we return to the participants with our initial interpretations. Yet, what if there is a vast difference between how we see what is happening? These are validity questions. One thing we need to consider is how we will report this difference, as reporting it highlights how we are going about validating our findings. This is also a space for us to lean into the methodological assumptions that drive our work. These relate to researcher power (who has the last word?) and the epistemological and ontological claims we make related to 'truth' and 'meaning.' Are we reporting one truth or one of many possibilities? How do we share this with participants? Should we? I would argue that the methodological positions you take up will also inform how you answer these questions. If you all would like to explore these issues further, let me know! I'd be happy to share some readings around validation strategies and dilemmas in qualitative research.