| Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools. |
‘Too Ambitious’What Happens when Funders Misunderstand the Strengths of Qualitative Research DesignDalhousie University, Canada, michael.ungar{at}dal.ca Differences in what makes for a good quantitative or qualitative research design often lead funders to misinformed evaluations of the strengths of exemplary qualitative research. Based on the author’s experience with numerous national funders in Canada and the US, problems getting qualitative research funded are discussed. Specifically, sampling issues will be looked at along a continuum, comparing monocular, homogenous sampling of marginalized voices more in keeping with positivist research principles familiar to funders to the polyocular, heterogenous innovation popular with qualitative researchers who seek multiple voices across multiple contexts. Successfully funded studies will be discussed as examples of how to convince funders to evaluate qualitative research on its own merits, as well as a number of unsuccessful grant applications that were evaluated with criteria that seemed paradigmatically incongruent with qualitative designs. Four strategies my colleagues and I have used will be highlighted. These strategies I call: dressing up; sleeping with the elephant; search but never find; and table scraps. The advantages specific to qualitative designs and sampling will be detailed in order to propose a template for funders to evaluate the merits of qualitative design.
Key Words: funding • mixed methods • research criteria • review process
Qualitative Social Work, Vol. 5, No. 2,
261-277 (2006) This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|||||||||||||||
 |
|
|
 |
|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
