What Good is Qualitative Literacy Without Data Transparency

Bibliographic Data

ID2331144
AuthorsColin Jerolmack (0000-0001-5998-1083, Sociology and Environmental Studies, NYU, New York, NY, USA, corresponding author)
Year2023
Volume52
Issue2
Pages1059-1072
Publication date2023-05-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueSociological Methods & Research (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0049-1241 • E-ISSN: 1552-8294
PublisherSAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1177/00491241221140429
OpenAlexW4311509012
LanguageEN
Citations received3
References cited21

Ethnographic and interview research have made significant contributions to cumulative social science and influenced the public conversation around important social issues. However, debates rage over whether the standards of positivistic social science can or should be used to judge the rigor of interpretive methods. I begin this essay by briefly delineating the problem of developing evaluative criteria for qualitative research. I then explore the extent to which Small and Calarco's Qualitative Literacy helps advance a set of standards attuned to the distinct epistemology of interview and ethnographic methods. I argue that 'qualitative literacy' is necessary but not sufficient to help readers decide whether a particular study is high quality. The reader also needs access to enough information about the researcher's data, field site, or subjects that she can independently reanalyze the researcher's interpretations and consider alternative explanations. I also touch on some important differences between ethnography and interviewing that matter for how we evaluate them

Conversation · Epistemology · Ethnography · Interview · Literacy · Pedagogy · Positivism · Qualitative research · Science education · Scientific Literacy · Social science · Sociology · Transparency (behavior) · Computer Science · Data Analysis and Archiving · Psychology · Qualitative Comparative Analysis Research · Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics

Tools

Open DOI