Ethnography and Case Study
I am a fan of ethnographic methods and the presentation of data through case studies. I think a large part of what I like about this type of work is that I enjoy writing, specifically this hybrid genre of creative non-fiction and academic argument building.
As the authors say, ethnography and case studies as forms of research are relatively recent in the field of L2 writing, resulting from the "social turn" about 20 yrs ago. To me it seems like the underlying philosophy and orientation of sociocultural approaches naturally lead to ethnography and case study.
I agree with the authors that a benefit of case study research is the small sample size because it enables researchers to reveal differences that would be lost in bigger, less detailed research (pp. 55-56). This benefit is in some ways the flip side of something often cited as a major pitfall of these approaches --the issue of generalizability. In all honesty, generalizability in the scientific sense is not something I care about. The concept itself is rooted in a completely different ontological/epistemological framework. Polio and Friedman state that "...standard criteria for generalizability are grounded in post positivist assumptions..." (p. 64).
I feel like generalizability regularly being called out as a disadvantage of this type of work reveals a bias/hierarchy for postpositivist orientations and quantitative methods.
As the authors say, ethnography and case studies as forms of research are relatively recent in the field of L2 writing, resulting from the "social turn" about 20 yrs ago. To me it seems like the underlying philosophy and orientation of sociocultural approaches naturally lead to ethnography and case study.
I agree with the authors that a benefit of case study research is the small sample size because it enables researchers to reveal differences that would be lost in bigger, less detailed research (pp. 55-56). This benefit is in some ways the flip side of something often cited as a major pitfall of these approaches --the issue of generalizability. In all honesty, generalizability in the scientific sense is not something I care about. The concept itself is rooted in a completely different ontological/epistemological framework. Polio and Friedman state that "...standard criteria for generalizability are grounded in post positivist assumptions..." (p. 64).
I feel like generalizability regularly being called out as a disadvantage of this type of work reveals a bias/hierarchy for postpositivist orientations and quantitative methods.
Comments
Post a Comment