[NLA] research terms

[Eileen Eckert]

Andrea and others:
I'm not putting anything in the dustbin. I'm describing what I mean when I 
use the term "trustworthy" research and why I use that instead of valid and 
reliable. You say validity and reliability have many faces depending on the 
type of research design. You use the terms valid and reliable to describe 
"good" ethnographic research; I don't use those terms because they have very 
specific definitions in the positivist research paradigm (and when I use the 
terms conventional and scientific, I am using them as synonyms of 
positivist) that do not match their uses in naturalistic research, and there 
are different terms available that avoid the confusion. You've provided your 
definition of valid and reliable and it matches to a great extent my 
description of trustworthiness. Now maybe we have the definitions clear.

Why would it be useful for everyone to know what kind of studies I admire? 
(By the way, I have mentioned the EFF field research, Shirley Wright's 
article of her programs accountability efforts, and the Smith and 
colleagues' article on working conditions of teachers in ABE.) I originally 
suggested that instead of just saying "the NRS doesn't meet our needs" 
people talk about what specifically it is that doesn't meet their needs and 
what would, and said that program-based research is ONE way to do that. 
Since then, I've been clarifying, expanding upon, describing, and learning 
myself about what *I* mean when I say that--but I am not saying anyone else 
has to share that meaning, despite inferences from others who think 
everything they read is meant to prescribe what they should do! I am not, I 
never said I was, and I do not intend to be the arbiter of what counts for 
program-based research.



>From: AWilder106 at aol.com
>Reply-To: nla at lists.literacytent.org
>To: nla at lists.literacytent.org
>Subject: Re: [NLA] research: long and technical
>Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 21:30:44 EDT
>
>Eileen,
>
>For heaven's sake, before you trash what I say and toss it in the 
>positivist
>dustbin, please read my latest email.  I describe there "valid and 
>reliable"
>research!  Your criteria match, as far as I can tell, the procedures 
>followed
>in the two research studies.  "Validity and reliability" has MANY FACES
>depending on the type of research design.  "Thick description" is a phrase
>taken from Christopher Geertz.  His "The Balinese Cockfight" is often cited
>as a model for thick description.  You might look at Purcell-Gates "Now We
>Read, We See, We Speak" for a superb example of "thick description," and  
>an
>example of how validity and reliability are played out in an ethnography of
>adult literacy.  .The book is a virtual roadmap for how to do this type of
>work, not just the research, but the teaching described.
>
>I would be interested to know what studies you are citing as examples of 
>the
>sort of work you admire, that would be very useful for all of us on this
>thread.
>
>Andrea
>_______________________________________________
>NLA mailing list: NLA at lists.literacytent.org
>http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/nla
>LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
>http://literacytent.org


_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

_______________________________________________
NLA mailing list: NLA at lists.literacytent.org
http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/nla
LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
http://literacytent.org