ethnographic studies and interviews

In both ethnographic studies and interviews, a researcher collects primary data only, but they collect both primary and secondary data in content analysis. Also, ethnographic study and interviews require the researcher to be in the field of data collection while it is not necessary with data for content analysis. For instance, the researcher observes French Elitism in the St. Paul school setting, found in week seven readings (Khan, 2011), or interviews Filipino Americans about their experiences in the USA (Ocampo, 2016), they are at the site of the events unline in content analysis where data is collected from women’s sports data covered in televised media (Musto et al., 2017). However, data for ethnographic studies is collected by the researcher from an insider perspective (naturalistic data), while data for an interview is collected from an outsider perspective (reported data). Data in either of the three cases are prone to various types of bias. For instance, interviewers can give non-factual answers, or the researcher can misinterpret some information especially nonverbal cues from a different culture, similar to what can happen in ethnographic studies. As such, interviews and ethnography studies face selection, observation, and confirmation bias (Frey, 2018). Content analysis is prone to selection and publication bias based on its nature–derived data, especially where there are no tools for ascertaining its absolute validity.

My judgment of the three readings is that the researchers used appropriate methods to collect the data for answering each research question and that their methodologies were logical. For instance, in-person observation while living with the French for many years was the idea for Khan (2011) to experience French culture, which eliminates prejudices in the data collection. This is exemplified where Khan (2011) initially thinks students at St. Paul are different due to their elitism, but in the end, he described how individual student made their way to success based. He also conducted an informal interviews by letting students tell their stories, which enables an ethnographic researcher to code data regarding the history and background of culture through lived experiences of the subjects.

Also, Ocampo’s (2016) interview with Filipinos and Latinos was an excellent way to understand their lived experiences, with additional resources such as body language and behavior, which influence the correctness of analysis in qualitative studies. For instance, Ocampo (2016) is determined to identify how the experiences of Filipinos and Latinos shape their identity, which is contested by race, ethnicity, and panethnicity. Eileen is one of the participants who contribute to the research heavily and although Ocampo (2016) and through her conversations, pick up details about struggles of her identity and her attitude towards Asians. He can also indirectly identify the value of education for Filipinos and that of families from Latinos based on what they talk about most and what sparks their emotions. For instance, Eileen keeps on stressing about her struggle through education and she celebrates the slightest success in her career. Such data regarding how her emotions change are best collected in an interview as Khan (2016) did.

I also think data collected in 25 years of a longitudinal study for Musto et al. (2017) is large and mature enough to come up with generalizable conclusions. This is one of the reasons systematic reviews and meta-analyses are valued in medical research because they help gather a considerable size of data from different sources, analyze them and come up with conclusive findings (Ganeshkumar & Gopalakrishnan, 2013). For instance, Musto et al.’s (2017) study analyzed data within 25 years and found that although women are generally marginalized in sports and sports media, the landscape is changing and that important factors include dominance, high production values, and celebratory delivery. Such conclusions are generalizable and would be difficult to do in an interview.

References

Frey, B. (2018). Interviewer Bias. The SAGE Encyclopedia Of Educational Research, Measurement, And Evaluation, 1(4). https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506326139.n347

Ganeshkumar, P., & Gopalakrishnan, S. (2013). Systematic reviews and meta-analysis: Understanding the best evidence in primary healthcare. Journal Of Family Medicine And Primary Care, 2(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.4103/2249-4863.109934

Khan, S. (2011). 3. The Ease of Privilege. Privilege, 77-113. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400836222-004

Musto, M., Cooky, C., & Messner, M. (2017). “From Fizzle to Sizzle!” Televised Sports News and the Production of Gender-Bland Sexism. Gender &Amp; Society, 31(5), 573-596. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243217726056

Ocampo, A. (2016). The Latinos of Asia: How Filipino Americans Break the Rules of Race (1st ed.). Stanford University Press.