B33. Puzzling things that might appear in your personal logs:

  1. Why shouldn't we use case study to study behavior?
  2. Isn't all case study really qualitative research?
  3. What is with these "issues" anyway? Why would an issue question be better than aninformation question for conceptual structure?
  4. Isn't the job of research to find answers and make recommendations?
  5. Even though we cannot purge our thinking of all subjectivity, does it make sense to make research interpretations in areas where we know we have strong biases or persuasions?
  6. With naturalistic generalization, what is to prevent a reader from drawing any conclusion he or she wants to?
  7. Do we close our minds by starting with foreshadowing issues?
  8. So how do you procede differently if your case is instrumental or intrinsic?
  9. How can interpretive data be respectable among people who expect aggregative findings?
  10. Is coding likely to obscure the mind-blowing single event?
  11. Do patterns of behavior contribute to the understanding of the case or only to our confidence that we are properly interpreting the case?
  12. Why is it important to try to identify an informant?
  13. Why do most case researchers prefer observation data over interview data?
  14. How much of the case report should be narrative description of the case?
  15. Does description of contexts really help develop vicarious experience?
  16. Doesn't the immediate circumstance distract us from finding the typical behavior or critical nature of the case?
  17. With triangulation are we looking for confirmation of what we have already seen or new interpretations of it?
  18. What does one accomplish by opening and closing the report with a vignette?
  19. Is it a better report if most of the attention is given to emic issues?
  20. If you quote the interviewee exactly, doesn't it read bad? How much doctoring of the transcript is acceptable? If, in member check, the interviewee agrees, is it okay to make up things?
  21. Does it really help the reader to have multiple realities presented rather than the reality that makes most sense to the researcher?
  22. How does it change things to present the findings as assertions rather than interpretations?