Perspectives on meaning in qualitative research

Noora J. Ronkainen, Michael McDougall
{"title":"Perspectives on meaning in qualitative research","authors":"Noora J. Ronkainen, Michael McDougall","doi":"10.36950/2024.2ciss001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A characterising trait of qualitative research, as opposed to quantitative research, is its assumed focus on meaning. For example, Smith and Sparkes (2016, p. 2) suggested that “To interpret phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them, qualitative researchers draw on a variety of empirical materials”. Although there might be an intuitive understanding of what “meaning” means, different traditions of qualitative research have unique ways of conceptualising where meaning is located and how it might best be studied. In this presentation, we will explore three qualitative traditions – phenomenology, narrative inquiry and cultural analysis – to explicate these different assumptions and how they influence the qualitative research process. Firstly, we will focus on phenomenological approaches to qualitative research which often emphasise the lived, pre-verbal experience of meaning before it is crystallised into words. From this perspective, the challenge for the qualitative research is to help the participants to explicate meanings of their experience through careful questioning. Secondly, we explore narrative approaches that consider meaning as created through storytelling and co-constructed with the researcher with particular audiences in mind. From this perspective, meaning is personal, but constructed from the cultural building blocks of example stories that are available to the storyteller. Finally, in cultural analysis, the focus is not on personal meaning, but rather the culturally shared webs of significance that make meaningful actions possible for cultural insiders. We conclude that explicating the types of assumptions that researchers draw on in the study of meaning can enhance the quality of qualitative research, and that the diverse perspectives often lead to complementary, enriching understandings of meaning in the world of sport and physical culture.\nReferences\nSmith, B., & Sparkes, A. C. (Eds.). (2016). Routledge Handbook of Qualitative Research in Sport and Exercise. Routledge.","PeriodicalId":415194,"journal":{"name":"Current Issues in Sport Science (CISS)","volume":"29 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Issues in Sport Science (CISS)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36950/2024.2ciss001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A characterising trait of qualitative research, as opposed to quantitative research, is its assumed focus on meaning. For example, Smith and Sparkes (2016, p. 2) suggested that “To interpret phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them, qualitative researchers draw on a variety of empirical materials”. Although there might be an intuitive understanding of what “meaning” means, different traditions of qualitative research have unique ways of conceptualising where meaning is located and how it might best be studied. In this presentation, we will explore three qualitative traditions – phenomenology, narrative inquiry and cultural analysis – to explicate these different assumptions and how they influence the qualitative research process. Firstly, we will focus on phenomenological approaches to qualitative research which often emphasise the lived, pre-verbal experience of meaning before it is crystallised into words. From this perspective, the challenge for the qualitative research is to help the participants to explicate meanings of their experience through careful questioning. Secondly, we explore narrative approaches that consider meaning as created through storytelling and co-constructed with the researcher with particular audiences in mind. From this perspective, meaning is personal, but constructed from the cultural building blocks of example stories that are available to the storyteller. Finally, in cultural analysis, the focus is not on personal meaning, but rather the culturally shared webs of significance that make meaningful actions possible for cultural insiders. We conclude that explicating the types of assumptions that researchers draw on in the study of meaning can enhance the quality of qualitative research, and that the diverse perspectives often lead to complementary, enriching understandings of meaning in the world of sport and physical culture. References Smith, B., & Sparkes, A. C. (Eds.). (2016). Routledge Handbook of Qualitative Research in Sport and Exercise. Routledge.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
关于定性研究意义的观点
与定量研究相比,定性研究的一个特点是其假定的对意义的关注。例如,Smith 和 Sparkes(2016 年,第 2 页)指出:"为了根据人们赋予现象的意义来解释现象,定性研究人员会利用各种经验材料"。尽管对 "意义 "的含义可能有直观的理解,但不同的定性研究传统对意义的定位以及如何对其进行最佳研究有着独特的概念化方式。在本讲座中,我们将探讨现象学、叙事探究和文化分析这三种定性研究传统,以阐释这些不同的假设及其如何影响定性研究过程。首先,我们将重点介绍现象学的定性研究方法,这种方法通常强调意义在转化为文字之前的生活体验和前语言体验。从这个角度看,定性研究面临的挑战是通过仔细提问帮助参与者阐释其经验的意义。其次,我们探讨了叙事方法,认为意义是通过讲故事创造出来的,是与研究者共同构建的,并考虑到了特定的受众。从这个角度看,意义是个人的,但却是由讲故事的人所掌握的范例故事的文化基石构建而成的。最后,在文化分析中,重点不在于个人意义,而在于文化共享的意义网,这些意义网使得文化内部人士采取有意义的行动成为可能。我们的结论是,说明研究人员在意义研究中借鉴的假设类型可以提高定性研究的质量,而且不同的视角往往会导致对体育和体育文化世界中意义的互补性和丰富性理解。(2016).Routledge Handbook of Qualitative Research in Sport and Exercise.Routledge.
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
From supercrip to techno supercrip Associations between daily movement behaviors, sleep, and affect in older adults: An ecological momentary assessment study Position statement regarding the current standing of exercise therapy in Austria (Positionspapier zur Situation der Trainingstherapie in Österreich) The Perceived Instrumental Effects of Maltreatment in Sport (PIEMS) scale: Translation, (cross-)validation, and short-form development of the German version Who’s better? Adaptive comparative judgment of dance performances
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1