Sampling and Methodology- Oct 15, 2012
1Monday, October 15, 2012 by Rachael
For the past few weeks I
struggled to narrow down a research interest into a research question. However,
after re-framing my research interest into a question and completing the SSHRC
research proposal I am excited to find that the readings are becoming less
fuzzy and more applicable to my own research proposal. Without this focus, the
readings almost became a theoretical menu. I found myself picking and choosing
between methods which I for one reason or another related. Now that I
am reading Luker’s chapter on sampling, operationalization and generalization I
can pick out certain elements that justify how I chose my methodology and at
the same time illuminate the areas where I missed important elements. The four steps to frame a research sample also
highlight a confusion I made between defining a sample population and random
sampling. I originally assumed these two things were mutually exclusive.
I also found that Luker’s chapter “On Sampling, Operationalization, and Generalization” helped me to better understand how I would find what I was looking for. I wish I’d had a chance to read the chapter before completing my Proposal Assignment, since it would have influenced the methodologies I chose and the way in which I defined certain concepts.
ReplyDeleteOne point that interested me was Luker’s discussion of synecdoche, which is “where the part stands in for the whole” (p. 108). Although my research interest pertains to a very specific group in a specific setting – patients at the Hospital for Sick Children – it strikes me that it would still be useful to look at the case in those terms. I have already chosen the place to explore my research question, and yet I want to make sure that the sample I use is truly representative of the whole. Hospitals experience a fairly frequent patient turnover rate. Is a sample of patients used at a given time similar enough to one used at another time? Furthermore, if a study done on such a specific population is to have greater social implications, one must ensure that a sample of people in one location resembles samples elsewhere. Are children in other pediatric hospitals likely to have similar feelings and interests as those at SickKids? These are questions I must ask in order to ensure that my research is both generalizable and worthwhile.
Another point that resonated with me was Luker’s discussion of operationalization, and the idea that language and terms are “shifty and unpredictable things” (pg. 113). She uses the example of rape, which has been defined differently by groups of people who are influenced by different social practices, political views, and more. Although my research does not deal with a similarly sensitive topic with shifting boundaries, I am interested in the definition or quantification of abstract terms. My proposed study hopes to measure the level of “comfort” that patients feel from reading certain types of texts, whether they be fictional, educational, electronic, etc. In order to do so, it will be important for me to define exactly what is meant by that term. After reading Luker, it seems more and more likely to me that this is something that will be defined and redefined as the study progresses, and after having talked to actual patients about their reading experiences. I am happy to have these things to think about so that I can better focus and conduct my research.