Qualitative methods III: On different ways of describing our work

Abstract

In two previous reviews, we examined how human geographers currently report on projects involving their preferred qualitative methods – interviews and ethnographic observation. This final review steps back from specific techniques to evaluate some of the broader presentational conventions that typify this work. What can be inferred from where these geographers discuss data collection in their papers? Why do they develop new methods and what do they say about fieldwork failures? How often do they reflect on the provisional status of their findings? And what are the implications of how they define their purpose in working with qualitative material?

Multiple methods beyond triangulation: collage as a methodological framework in geography

“…McKendrick (ibid.,133) states that multimethod research 'is widely practiced, but is not openly discussed in methodological debates' in geography. As Hitchings and Latham (2020) pointed out in their recent review of qualitative methods for Progress in Human Geography, in-depth discussions of how we analyse and evaluate data remain overlooked in the discipline. This paper seeks to rectify this gap.…”

“…The writing process masks this messy cutting and pasting and re-working that actually goes into how we analyse our results in mixed methods research. We may feel pressured to hide our gaps and messiness to get through peer review and highlight our neatly packaged findings; discussing failures and inconsistencies in our data collection can feel like 'professional suicide' (Hitchings and Latham 2020). The smoothing out of the research process is common in most academic writing and this hides a lot of the realities of conducting research.…”

Thinking with method: qualitative research in human geography

“…The ideas presented in this editorial come from an on‐going conversation with Russell Hitchings. A more in‐depth exploration of some of the key themes discussed here can be found a series of progress reports on qualitative methods recently published in Progress in Human Geography (Hitchings and Latham, 2020a; 2020b; 2020c).…”

“…Reading through the most highly cited journals it would seem that human geographers think through theory rather than method. Questions about precisely how interviews were carried out and analysed, for example, or what was involved in an ethnography are frequently black boxed – treated as self‐evident, not worthy of detailed explanation (Hitchings and Latham, 2020a; 2020b; 2020c).…”

Rethinking d/Development

“…The paper is indebted to collaborations with colleagues from Brazil, China, Germany, India, Korea, New Zealand, Poland, the UK and elsewhere, seeking to maintain the rigour and reflexivity of this earlier research, while making a novel contribution to theorising the evolution of the d/D dialectic. But, to pause for a moment, inspired by Hitchings and Latham (2021), we acknowledge that this paper does not include a methodological description. There is some leeway for this, in that its identified purpose falls somewhere between their categories of 'making an argument' and 'applying or developing theory'; but in the spirit of explicit transparency, we recognise that we are effectively asking our readers to proceed on trust in our methods and interpretive integrity.…”