Opis
My particular criticism is focused on the data collection and analysis. About the interviews used, we are given practically no information at all. Where, when, who, how, why, what? None of these famous 6 companions to explanation and description are deployed to explain or justify the methods employed. Grounded Theory is a “style”, and is left, as always sadly, as self-explanatory, self-justificatory and self-sufficient. We know nothing of the interviews, we are informed they were machine-transcribed and nothing else. Evidently, they must have been translated into English at some point, also machine-translated? Presumably only the distilled coded phrases or thematic codes were translated, or am I mistaken? Thus, in the densely packed paragraphs of data, presented in clean packages allowing no ambivalence, we have – what? The words of anonymous interviewees from somewhere? A city, we are told towards the end of the paper. The fact that the majority of the interviewees have a migration background and speak the language of the author only as L2 is also only revealed close to the end of the paper and almost as an afterthought. To sum up, the methods employed here resemble those used almost universally in research using interview data and the analysis of ‘naturally occurring speech’. The analysis takes place on data created in research group discussion. This is not sound.
[frg. tekstu]
