Qualitative Research in Geography: An Overview

Qualitative Research in geographics An OverviewGeography seems to be one of those disciplines that shifts its interest from one perspective to another without necessarily changing its central research questions. Qualitative methods have long been apply within the discipline of human geography. However, it was not until recently that they have reverse sufficiently established that some consider them to have gone in like manner far (Marshall, 2001), as the last decade has undoubtedly seen an expansion in soft trifle in both terms of the types of work and the topics addressed. This move will address the fact that we have moved from a breaker point when papers were prefaced with legitimisations of qualitative work to a time when we are beholding debates within qualitative methods over establishing orthodox approaches and standards. This will be make thorough a reflection on current re-evaluations of the most special K methods mainly interviewing and ethnography and where the y are developing.Qualitative approaches have long had a strong association with cultural, mixer and radical geographies, in part as a reaction to quantified social geography. For example, in terms of the geographies of gender, feminist critiques of masculinist approaches were picked up and an argument some empathy amplified the concern with qualitative methods. This besides could be reversed, labelling qualitative work with a feminist softness as opposed to unverbalized science. This debate though, has matured, from quick over-assumptions that qualitative work was generally soft, to considering its weaknesses and strengths in a more balanced fashion (Raju et al., 2000). Qualitative research has also had to grappling hook with the argument that simply listening to, giving voice to and representing the silenced is not enough.There is now a maturity about qualitative methods in geography, hardly also that there comes with this a certain conventionality of approaches. In delving de eper into this discussion it is important to consider the continued debates about the framing of qualitative, and oddly ethnographic, work, after the so-called crisis of representation and work in the performative vein, as qualitative research is very much torn between a constructivist approach and a longing to convey a real sense of the field.Geography has followed anthropology by dint of these debates on ethnography and representation, responding to the question how is unruly experience transformed into an authoritive pen account? (Besio and Butz, 2004 433). There has been a backlash against what are described as excesses of reflexivity in some responses to this question. For instance, Bourdieu (2003) called for a renewed objectivity via morphological reflexivity in a participant observation. He argues for a ain understanding of reflexivity, to address the pedantic and social structures that drive research agendas, which for geography in non-western settings would show how academic research practices have relied extensively on remnant colonial discourses and structures of domination for access to research unresolveds, efficacy of entropy collection and legitmation (Bourdieu, 2003 288).Katz points out that in the field and in their private readings, ethnographers make do a culture of evaluation which is masked by the fractious, even righteously indignant commentary that characterises rhetoric about ethnographic piece of writing (2002 64). Katz argues that as ethnographers, we must do more than claim we need to show (2002 68). However, Besio and Butz (2004) suggest an alternate reflexivity, taking Marie Louse Pratts definition of autoethnography. Where instead than being about reflecting on ones possess practice it refers to the subject or dominated peoples self-representation to colonisers terms while rest faithful to their own self-understandings. This tradition is not just framing topical anesthetic knowledges Gold (2002) looks to a globa lised religious movement that is utilize its self-representations and indeed academic work in its self-constitution. This makes the important point of not separating ethnography from writing not privileging oral research over written material but rather seeing productions of various representations as moments for situated reading and interpretations by all actors. If we thus move to models of representation as intervention rather than corresponding to prior reality, we might look for new ways of producing and mind truth.Besio and Butz (2004) provide their own critique of transcultural representation. They point out that this is not an automatic process but something that has to be worked at and may all be achieved in specific circumstances. The apocalyptic tones of this debate seem accompaniment to anthropology with its habitual re- definition of fieldwork as residential participant observation as opposed to the more plural practices of qualitative methods in geography.These r eflexive studies sneak questions about how the usual methods fit these new topics. Meth (2003) suggests that reflective, discursive diaries root offer a discontinuous writing, allowing people to change their minds and priorities, kernel that they are not dominated by what happened in the morning to begin with an interview. Moreover, they offer different and possibly easier routes for respondents to express themselves, especially their emotions, and reflect upon their own world-views. Alternately, Harper (2002) provides a history of the photo-elicitation interview where pictures push peoples normal frames of acknowledgement to form the basis for deep discussions of values.The use of pictures in presenting material raises the issue of how visual and verbal colligate to each other, whether they could turn to to different ways of knowing rather than just being tempered as different kinds of evidence (Rose, 2003). As Basio and Butz (2004 444) note, the visual in ethnographic has g enerally not been used intrinsically for interpreting and representing ethnographic info and culture but either as just more data or subordinated to a textualising metaphor. Whatmore (2003 89) notes the spoken and written word constitute the primary form of data, whereas the world speaks in some voices through many different types of things that refuse to be reinvented as univocal witnesses. This comes back to the center field of a new kind of programmatic writing which is suggestive of nothing slight than a drive towards a new methodological avant garde that will radically refigure what it is to do research (Latham, 2003 2000).It is normally at this point, as we engage elegant approaches, that policy-orientated researchers voice concerns about a turn away from commitments to engaging frequent people and offering them a voice. This seems to me to be a false opposition of committed, real world versus inaccessible, theoretical research.It might be a good idea to end this repor t by returning our heed to the rich yet ambiguous and messy world of doing qualitative research. As Thrift notes Through fieldwork is often portrayed as a authorised colonial encounter in which the fieldworker lords it over her/his respondents, the fact of the matter is that it unremarkably does not feel much like that at all. More often it is a curious mixture of humiliations and intimidations mixed with moments of insight and even recreation Thrift, 2003 106), where knowledge is coproduced by building fragile and temporary commonplaces (2003 108, see also Tillman-Healy, 2003).This seems to be a good summary of the qualitative work currently being done in human geography. It remains inspired by ethical and political concerns, and practitioners are deeply concerned by the righteous and political implications of their work. Some of the old taken-for-granteds about fieldwork have been replaced, but it is ostensive to wonder what questions have not been asked. While researchers have struggled to populate their work with real subjects rather than research objects, there have never been less attempts to talk about materialities in practice if not in topic. However, it does not seem that this entails a rejection of work that has been, is being and will be done, nor a turn from engaged and practical work but that it does raise issues about the investment in specific notions of what research is, what evidence is and how the two relate to each other.ReferencesBasio, K. Butz, D. (2004) Autoethnography a limited endorsement. Professional Geographer, 56, 432 438.Bourdieu, P. (2003) Participant observation. Journal of the kingly Anthropological Institute, NS9, 281 294.Gold, L. (2002) Positionality, worldview and geographical research a personal account of a research journey. Ethics, Place and Environment, 5, 223 237.Harper, D. (2002) Talking about pictures a case for photo-elicitation. optic Studies, 17, 13 26.Katz, J. (2001) From how to why on luminous desc ription and casual reference in ethnography (part 2). Ethnography, 3, 63 90.Latham, A. (2003) Research, performance, and doing human geography some reflections on the diary-photograph, diary-interview method. Environment and Planning A, 35, 1993 2018.Marshall, G. (2001) Addressing a problem of capacity. Social Sciences, 47, 1 2.Meth, P. (2003) Entries and omissions using solicited diaries in geographical research. Area, 35, 195 205.Raju, S., Atkins, P., Townsend, J. Kumar, N. (2000) Atlas of women and men in India, London, International Books.Rose, G. (2003) On the need to ask how, exactly, is geography visual? Antipode, 35, 212 221.Thrift, N. (2003) Practising ethics, in Whatmore, S. Using social theory, London, Sage, 105 121.Tillman-Healy, L. (2003) Friendship as method. Qualitative Inquiry, 9, 729 749.