Stephen Mitchell

To what extent do you feel that evidence must be measurable in some way?
All evidence should be measurable to a degree. You can count or measure pretty much anything – but subjectivity would then become a barrier. I do believe that being able to quantify your findings with data of some description is helpful. This stems from the design of a quality research question.

What does this look like for you?
In education, this would possibly be categorising information and creating %. Cross referencing demographic indicators with achievement outcomes to seek patterns, for example.

To what extent are you comfortable with the idea that an interpreted reality is still reality and can be used to change practice?
I am of the opinion that all information is interpreted reality. Our role as researches is to work to find commonality and shared understanding/interpretations with other research bodies and literature: a form of constructionism. This can then be used to drive change.

How do you feel about researcher objectivity versus the researcher as part of the research?
I was interested in the phrase mentioned: ‘procedural objectivity’. I’m not sure this is ever really possible; the researcher will always, for me, be part of the research. Through methodological construction, subconscious beliefs and in turn decision making will play a part in shaping the way individual studies are conducted. That’s not to suggest that there wouldn’t be parity of thought with other researchers. It’s also not to say that there would be.

The way in which discourse analysts might collect data (by directly experiencing but also video/audio recording) field notes allows for deeper interpretation; and possibly the opportunity to share with other researchers to seek parity in interpretation. Again, not a foolproof solution, but one which should allow for a greater degree of understanding to be achieved.

Fundamentally, the researcher is always part of the research – however, their role is to conduct research which can be generalised outwith their presence and, if possible, the society the research was conducted.

How can subjectivity be ‘harnessed’?
Removing any subjective research; removing the researcher from the ‘field’. Quantitative, with no mixed methodology options, perhaps.

How possible is it for interpretivism to have the range of knowledge of difference that ensures interpretation across a spectrum of experience?
I’m not sure it is fully possible. It certainly has got the capacity to draw generalisations. The challenge is that you interpret the actions of the society as their truth. This truth isn’t generalisable or transferable. I need to do some more reading and then come back to this question.