Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 14:03:09 +0000
From: "J.F.Myles" <j.f.myles-AT-durham.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Research methods (was: Bourdieu-The Rules of Art)


deborah
i agree with your points. bourdieu comes across as being quite strict about
methodology, but then seems to shift around, i.e. indulgence in
structuralist analysis in State Nobility, the concern with indexicality of
interview discourse in 'Understanding' TCS 13/1996: 13-37.

There are three stages to field research, if we take the master at his word,
although these are not distinct: examine capitals as objective structure of
field, then look at positions/stances (adoptions in struggles, strategies,
the action dimension of the approach), then go on to theorize rels between
habitus and field.

In regard to qualitative methods and the field approach we are, as the
saying goes, pretty much on our own. perhaps it lends itself best to
quantitative methods and then move on to the 'second break' (back to more
qualitative principles). if one starts with qualitative principles/methods
one has to reverse the process, start to objectify  the subjective. i did
this through a number of methods: discouurse analysis of intermediaries
views on the art field and others within it, how much they were earning,
what schools they went to. all this would make a qualitative researcher turn
in his/her grave(ity).
john

Deborah Kilgore wrote:

> "J.F.Myles" wrote:
> >
> > what specifically do you want to know? i have just completed a phd at
> > lancaster university which compares the art fields in manchester and
> > london. i used qualitative methods which sets up a distinct series of
> > methodological problems before one can begin to say that field data is
> > being generated. measuring capital levels and 'fixing' cultural
> > intermediaries of various types in the first, objectifying move of the
> > field approach is difficult. start with bourdieu's comments on the
> > field approach in an invitation to reflexive sociology, decide if you
> > are using quantitative or qualitative methodology, each presents a
> > series of distinct epistemological problems for the field approach.
> > john
> >
>
> don't tease us!  how did you mitigate these problems?
>
> i am studying an educational effort within a women's prison with
> bourdieu's habitus/field/capital as a framework, and use a combination
> of my own qualitative inquiry and the quantitative work of others to
> explain the logic of the prison and its impact on the learning process
> and the participants.
>
> it seems to me that Bourdieu sets us up to be eclectic in our research
> methods, as the _strict_ allegiance to any one will be problematic --
> see Logic of Practice for example, for his indictment of both
> subjectivism and objectivism to the extreme.  i think rather we must be
> rigorous as B. certainly is, but not closed to varieties of research
> approaches.
>
> on the other hand, i do not know that B. is helpful in the arguments
> that occur within a paradigm.  for example, some interpretivists like
> myself are of the more "objective" variety, accounting for our
> intervention in participants' lives but trying not to insinuate
> ourselves fully.  others are more autobiographical; the two camps can't
> stand each others' approaches...
>
> ***********************
> Deborah Kilgore
> Texas A&M University
> Fue tan bello vivir cuando vivias!
> How lovely it was to live while you lived!
> - Pablo Neruda, from "Final"
> **********************************************************************
> Contributions: bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> Commands: majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> Requests: bourdieu-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu



**********************************************************************
Contributions: bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Commands: majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Requests: bourdieu-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu