Key Takeaways

• I understand that participant witnessing reframes observation into a more collaborative, embodied act that values humility and presence

• I understand that interviews, texts/archives, and visual/arts-based materials each reveal insights that cannot always be accessed through direct observation

• I understand that good qualitative sampling is purposeful

  • Strategies like maximum variation, snowball, theoretical-construct, and critical/deviant are chosen based on goals.

• I understand that IRB review protects participants and varies by level of risk

• I understand that  proposals organize the study’s rationale, methods, and practical plan

Tools 

• Sampling strategies to remember

  • Maximum variation = breadth and diversity of perspectives.

  • Snowball = accessing hidden or hard to access networks.

  • Theoretical construct = selecting cases tied to conceptual categories.

  • Critical/deviant = illuminating extremes or testing theoretical claims.

• IRB levels: 

  • Exempt = low-risk public data

  • Expedited = moderate risk

  • Full-board = high-risk or vulnerable groups.

• Proposal essentials

  • Clear rationale (answering “so what?”)

  • Conceptual framework tied to literature

  • Specific research questions

  • Detailed methodology

  • Sampling rationale

  • Practical elements like budget, timeline, and projected deliverables
    

Key Takeaways

• I think the first time I read this chapter, it was the first time my comfort in academic elitism was shaken

  • Re-reading this chapter was full of excellent reminders that are integral to my work

• I understand that “Western” research, especially in the Indigenous context, shouldn’t be boiled down to merely a “positivist” framework

  • This research employs knowledges and epistemologies to maintain colonial powers structures 

  • The use of the term “Western” research has implications as well as it allows for the stratification of different knowledge systems to be valued relative to their proximity of “Western-ness”

• The concept of “Western” research reminds me a lot of Foucault’s Archaeology of Knowledge

  • Western knowledge being a cultural archive that values and devalues knowledges 

  • Knowledge that is usually attributed as “Western” are often found to be harvested from non-White civilizations and appropriated

  • (I wrote this note before I saw the citation for Foucault’s Archaeology of Knowledge) 😆

• Western knowledges that attempt to challenge the oppressive structures of “Western” research still operate within the rules of Western knowledge

  • In other words, while there have been attempts to challenge dominant knowledge structures, if they operate under the epistemologies of ‘Western” frameworks, then they truly cannot dismantle

    • Reminds me of Audre Lorde, “The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House”

• Because Indigenous knowledges are epistemologically and ontologically incompatible with Western knowledges, Indigenous knowledges and ontologies are often rendered as “barbaric” or “uncivilized”

  • This legitimizes the colonization of knowledges

• Western knowledges are rooted in Enlightenment era epistemologies surrounding individualism and capitalism

  • In other words, the purpose of Western education is to discipline “good” laborers

  • Because Indigenous ontologies and epistemologies are rooted in more communal and collectivist thought, Indigenous knowledge systems are characterized as “unproductive”

• This is relevant to my work because a key part of settler-colonial education is to misrepresent Indigenous peoples as “uncivilized” through curriculum and instruction

Key Takeaways

• I understand that subjectivities are central to qualitative research 

  • Rather than striving for neutrality, researchers must acknowledge their own positions, assumptions, and values

  • Subjectivity is not the same as bias

Creates richer possibilities for meaning-making when handled reflexively.

• I understand that qualitative research requires shifting language and paradigms

  • Move from terms like “objectivity” and “validity” to terms like “trustworthiness,” “reflexivity,” and “multiple realities”

• I understand that a good research purpose is open-ended, invites multiple possibilities, and avoids narrow answers

• I understand that research questions should align with purpose, remain open-ended, and allow for complexity without becoming overly broad

• I understand that qualitative data can come from multiple sources

  • Interviews, 

  • Observations

  • Documents

  • Archives

  • Elicitation methods

    • Photos

    • Objects

• “for indigenous Australians to be in an ‘empty space’ was to ‘not exist’.”

  • So they were labeling land with ownership of some sort, or at least “our territory vs. their territory”? How does this tie into the above thing about classifying space.

Sampling in qualitative research = purposive, theoretical, snowball, etc., depending on goals

This example I think really provides a great rebuttal to the attacks on non-Western approaches to science/medicine/etc. because it operates on the same truth-claim level with a set of details that un-work the conveniences of the Western philosophy of science (i.e. for most Enlightenment and Romantic-era scientist-philosophers would manifest a divine explanation for an otherwise unexplainable, generate phenomenon and call it “Logic” (for example Leibniz and Newton)).

o   Mean/Matter: I am thinking about this in relation to the IRB approval and whether it would be good practice to assume at some point we might do interviews when conducting qualitative interviews- even if our focus is on a different approach? It seems like it is good plan for the purpose of being able to bring up observations for input and ensure we are interpreting things the way the interviewees would interpret them.

o   Mean/Matter: This means that the way Western research presents information, and classifies information, is not neutral. It is entangled with power, and the “legitimate” ways of knowing that the power dictates is “rational.” I need to be aware that even if I am well-intentioned, I need to understand the context of the scenario and ensure that the interpretation is from the person experiencing it, not only my own experiences or worldview.

o   Mean/Matter: This is an interesting concept for me and one I want to ponder more. In researching how to better support students with ADHD in higher education, it is good to think about alternative ways of knowing and interacting with students as there is a variety on ways that they think and present information. This might be something to explore…

• physical space and culture is important to consider as qualitative researchers, especially when you enter a different cultures space for interviews etc.

was thinking of the importance of "informal" conversations when speaking about sensitive topics, and as a way to gather genuine responses that a person might not share in a "formal" setting.

This makes me think about the concept that someone needs to hear information five times before they are able to properly consider it, it is rightly understood, or before action is taken. It is amazing to me how common it is that the default response to being confronted with new information, new ways of doing, and different ways of believing is to reject it. We are socialized to believe that our own way(s) of living, being, doing, are correct, and anything that deviates is suspect. Western paradigms continue to be elevated above indigenous ones to maintain dominance, perpetuate white supremacy, and justify the subjugation of others.

I laughed when I first read this, because it describes a challenge I am experiencing currently. The subsequent examples really helped to reframe how I think about the language that is most appropriate for qualitative research.

As a proponent of the use of counterstorytelling to reframe the commonly held paradigms and ideas about the world and people in it that have largely resulted from a, “Western” (Tuhiwai Smith, 2021, p. 59) lens and lend authenticity to how narratives are created and public discourse shaped, I enjoyed learning more about the ways that researchers can engage with study participants, not just through verbal means of communication, but also through art, representative cultural artifacts, and other visual tools that lend support to the nature of storytelling in creating and disseminating knowledge.

It was helpful, also, to better understand the different types of sampling, and how to approach determining who will comprise the population of a study. I do believe that I can benefit from additional review of the sampling process, as I want to be very clear on best practices in selecting study participants that are the most appropriate for different kinds of studies. Frequent revisitation of the, “Tips and Tools 4.1” (p. 94) chart will be of tremendous assistance moving forward.

In random samples, every member of a group has an equal opportunity to be selected.  Random samples are popular among researchers who desire to make statistical generalizations to larger populations; such is the case in political polling and census taking.    

A representative sample is when members are chosen specifically to replicate characteristics of the larger group and these types of samples are often more representative of a population than random samples.

One of the most common sampling plans is the convenience or opportunistic sample.  These samples are chosen because they are convenient, easy, and relatively inexpensive to access. 

Be Careful: Not to allow bias sway the findings because research subjects are easy and convenient.

Interpretation: Dissent is a dangerous business. It can cost funding, credibility, prestige, and can alienate colleagues. Unless dissent stays within the confines of the approved narrative, it is not allowable.

Colonization is often viewed as a 'shared culture' for both those who have been colonized and those who have colonized. This means, for example, that colonized peoples share a language of colonization, share knowledge about their colonizers, and, in terms of a political project, share the same struggle for decolonization. It also means that colonizers, too, share a language and knowledge of colonization.

1.     witnessing is a fully embodied activity that benefits from a range of senses such as sound touch smell taste and not just sight

2.     witnessing is not just about being present but it's also about testifying to aspects of the world that other people may not have experienced or imagine

3.     field work is related to surveillance and its attendant power relations

4.     the term leaves open the possibility that surveillance can be accomplished via nonhuman entities such as hidden cameras

5.     witnessing connects with the colonial ethics that Focus on the collaborative and performative parts of fieldwork activity

Witnessing shifts qualitative research from a passive, detached “looking” to an active, ethical, and embodied engagement with the field, emphasizing responsibility, reflexivity, and a commitment to justice and respect for participants.

Tuhiwai Smith demonstrates ways that Western language and understanding of language problematizes translations and interpretations of indigenous language, particularly in understanding gendered and racial issues. Furthermore, Western concepts of time and space are significantly different from indigenous concepts, which are often lost in translation (not just linguistic renaming, but also the material, social, political, and practical [mis]interpretations).

“Claiming value neutrality would be intellectually dishonest because as human beings we have values, and if we became truly neutral and no values, beliefs or assumptions, we could argue that we would be quite robotic.” p. 36

Perhaps those who would feel more inclined to claim value neutrality are those whose values may have had little opportunity to be questioned.