Qualitative Research: Making It Real
As you make your way through the readings and resources for this week’s Discussion, you begin to realize that social and political forces as well as scientific curiosity shaped the development of modern qualitative research. These readings also make it clear that qualitative research is not a single, homogenous endeavor. Rather, qualitative researchers:
come from a variety of disciplines,
engage their objects of study from multiple perspectives,
present their results in numerous formats,
extend scientific knowledge beyond the confines of the experiment or survey,
engage the audience to be self-reflective, and
potentially illuminate opportunities for social change.
This week’s course of study provides you with a contextual understanding of qualitative research, which will form the foundation for understanding the methods and rationale. These will also help you begin a thoughtful process for considering the choice of qualitative research as your methodology for your doctoral research.
For this Discussion, you will explore the foundations and history of qualitative research methods. You also will consider the unique characteristics that distinguish qualitative research from other forms of inquiry.
To prepare for this Discussion:
Review the Learning Resources related to qualitative research and consider the reasons researchers choose qualitative research methods for exploring a phenomenon of interest.
Use the Course Guide and Assignment Help in the Learning Resources to help you search for other books, encyclopedias, or articles that introduce and describe qualitative research.
By Day 3
Consider the statement:
Qualitative researchers study people in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them.
Using the Learning Resources and other academic sources you found, expand on this simple statement. In 3–4 paragraphs, explain several dimensions of this paradigm that make qualitative research interesting and unique. Be sure to use the terminology you are learning (including but not limited to “phenomena”, “constructivist,” and “naturalistic”), and provide historical context.
Be sure to support your main post and response post with reference to the week’s Learning Resources and other scholarly evidence in APA style.
Name: RSCH_8310_Week1_Discussion1_Rubric
Descriiption: RSCH 7310 Discussion 1 Week 1 Rubric – RSCH 6310 Discussion 1 Week 1 Rubric
Grid View
List View
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Discussion Posting Content
4.95 (45%) – 5.5 (50%)
Discussion posting demonstrates an excellent understanding of all of the concepts and key points presented in the text(s) and Learning Resources. Posting provides significant detail (including multiple relevant examples), evidence from the readings and other scholarly sources, and discerning ideas.
Postings are well organized, use scholarly tone, contain original writing and proper paraphrasing, follow APA Style, contain very few or no writing and/or spelling errors, and are fully consistent with graduate-level writing style.
4.4 (40%) – 4.94 (44.91%)
Discussion posting demonstrates a good understanding of most of the concepts and key points presented in the text(s) and Learning Resources. Posting provides moderate detail (including at least one pertinent example), evidence from the readings and other scholarly sources, and discerning ideas.
Postings are mostly consistent with graduate-level writing style. Postings may have some small organization, scholarly tone, writing, or APA Style issues, and/or may contain a few writing and spelling errors.
3.85 (35%) – 4.3 (39.09%)
Discussion posting demonstrates a fair understanding of the concepts and key points as presented in the text(s) and Learning Resources. Posting may be lacking or incorrect in some area, or in detail and specificity, and/or may not include sufficient pertinent examples or provide sufficient evidence from the readings.
Postings are somewhat below graduate-level writing style. Postings may be lacking in organization, scholarly tone, APA Style, and/or contain many writing and/or spelling errors, or show moderate reliance on quoting versus original writing and paraphrasing.
0 (0%) – 3.84 (34.91%)
Discussion posting demonstrates poor or no understanding of the concepts and key points of the text(s) and Learning Resources. Posting is incorrect and/or shallow, and/or does not include any pertinent examples or provide sufficient evidence from the readings.
Postings are well below graduate-level writing style expectations for organization, scholarly tone, APA Style, and writing, or show heavy reliance on quoting.
Peer Feedback and Interaction
4.95 (45%) – 5.5 (50%)
Response posting is excellent and fully contributes to the quality of interaction by offering substantive constructive critiques, suggestions, in-depth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes that draw from the readings and other scholarly sources.
Postings are well organized, use scholarly tone, contain original writing and proper paraphrasing, follow APA Style, contain very few or no writing and/or spelling errors, and are fully consistent with graduate-level writing style.
4.4 (40%) – 4.94 (44.91%)
Response posting is good and partially contributes to the quality of interaction by offering adequate constructive critiques, suggestions, in-depth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes that draw from the readings and other scholarly sources.
Postings are mostly consistent with graduate-level writing style. Postings may have some small organization, scholarly tone, writing, or APA Style issues, and/or may contain a few writing and spelling errors.
3.85 (35%) – 4.3 (39.09%)
Response posting is fair and partially contributes to the quality of interaction but offers insufficient constructive critiques or suggestions, shallow questions, or provides poor quality additional resources.
Postings are somewhat below graduate-level writing style. Postings may be lacking in organization, scholarly tone, APA Style, and/or contain many writing and/or spelling errors, or show moderate reliance on quoting versus original writing and paraphrasing.
0 (0%) – 3.84 (34.91%)
Student does not interact with peers (0 points) or the response posting does not contribute to the quality of interaction by offering any constructive critiques, suggestions, questions, or additional resources.
Postings are well below graduate-level writing style expectations for organization, scholarly tone, APA Style, and writing, or show heavy reliance on quoting.
Total Points: 11
Name: RSCH_8310_Week1_Discussion1_Rubric
Descriiption: RSCH 7310 Discussion 1 Week 1 Rubric – RSCH 6310 Discussion 1 Week 1 Rubric
