Criticisms Of Symbolic Interactionism Sociology Essay

Criticisms Of exemplary Interactionism Sociology EssayThis chapter bequeath outline the look into methods which atomic figure 18 commitd to let off procedures for collecting selective in constituteation. In addition, it discusses literature which underlies the methods and reasons for the chosen data aggregation procedures. The chapter presents an outline of look methodology (qualitative go about) and the tools for data collection which ar comm alone apply with each picky method. The chapter foc single-valued functions on the enquiry bandingting, instruments for data collection, data analysis, issues of validity and reliability, and ethical issues. This chapter allow for clearly desexualise the look for methods used to perform the conceive. The police detective will provide an news report as to the collection methods of the data and reading which was necessary to address the enquiry objectives. As such, all data sources, instruments for interrogation, data c ollection and analytical techniques, and research design, will be given over.Research designthither ar much or less(a) methodologies for collecting data, and it net be compile from numerous different sources. By research methodology, it is meant a set of techniques which be used in original areas of research activity (Nachmias and Nachmias, 1996.) Methodologies do non fall into categories of right and rail at it is the duty of the tec to seek the most appropriate method, jibe to the questions cosmos researched. Huberman and Miles, in 2002, in addition to Blaxter et al, in 2001, said that data smooth is qualitative when it is in word and puffs situations, circumstances of phenomenon, or individuals. Data are quantifiable if they are represented in the form of numbers, counts, or measurements which attack to provide precision to the observation set. Hence, the classification amid duodecimal and qualitative is most commonly used (Smeyers, 2002.)According to Den zin and capital of Nebraska (1994) two(prenominal) quantitative and qualitative accesses can be applied within any work of persuasion of research. The get down that all genuine knowledge is at last grounded in afferent experience is called the positivist approach. This approach also says that knowledge can only be advanced by experimentation and observation. The interpretivist approach, in contrast, holds that only through the standpoint of individuals who are part of the action organism investigated, can the loving world be understood (Cohen et al. 2008.) Therefore, the disposition of the problem macrocosm researched will rent a direct effect on the choice of research methods being employed. Also, virtual(a) consideration, such as funding and meter, may fix a tecs choices. Also, when applying the scientific method, the researcher must keep certain considerations in mind, such as the investigators own rentment in the usage of the issues, the precision of measur ing devices, condemnation constraints for throwing final results, tall(prenominal)y in designing experiments which adequately judge hypotheses, and the relative Gordianity of the subject being investigated.In 1994, Gable describe that literature marked a distinction amongst the two approaches, notwithstanding that the approaches are not mutually exclusive. Rather, sometimes researchers apply both. soft and quantitative approaches and techniques may be impressionualized as opposite poles on a continuum (Gable, 1994.) The differences mingled with the approaches are detailed on Table 4-1. Remenyi (1998) argued that the two approaches can be used together due to the complexity of answering how, wherefore, and what questions.Selection CriteriaDenzin and Lincoln (1994) defined qualitative research as followsThe word qualitative implies an tenseness on processes and significances that are not rigorously examined or mensural (if measured at all), in terms of quantitative, a mount, intensity or frequency qualitative researchers stress the cordially constructed nature of reality, the intimate relationship mingled with the researcher and what is studied and the situational constraints that shape inquiry. Such researchers emphasize the value-laden nature of inquiry. They seek answers to questions given mean (p. 124).Qualitative research sits within the phenomenological viewpoint, and involves at least some fundamental interaction between the researcher and the situation or individual which is being researched (Hussey and Hussey, 2003.) According to Morgan and Smircich (1980) the qualitative approach to research is not a set of techniques only when an approach. As such, the appropriateness of using it is based on the phenomena being studied, and the questions being asked. Additionally, Kirk and Miller (1986) set forth the following steps to describe the qualitative approach to research invention, discovery, rendering, and finally, explanation. Othe r views of the qualitative research approach note its possible design constraints. For example, an individuals own tale of attitudes, motivations, and behaviours, may be an influencing factor (Hakim, 2000.)Qualitative research has the problem of subjectivity. This is because the researcher is involved mortalally in the operation of the measurement tools (Walter and Gall, 1989.) There are some(prenominal) features which classify the nature and design of studies which use the qualitative approach, such as a holistic investigation of a particular phenomenon and the encountering of the direct it self in its natural setting (Walter and Gall, 1989.) The very nature of the qualitative approach allows for some flexibility and responsiveness to four-fold realities and complexity. Purposely selecting the sample, rather than selecting it randomly, can supporter the researcher avoid missing sample data which could new(prenominal)wise be considered as outliers, and hence unimportant. P urposive sampling can allow the researcher to enrich the outcome of their research by designing a athletic field which will include both non-typical and typical subjects (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 1998.)Hakim (2000) indicates that the validity of the data being compile has a direct effect on the cogency of the qualitative research itself. Data are usually collected in adequate detail so as to allow the results to be considered correct, complete, true, and credible accounts of the views and experiences of the participants. However, sample size continues to be a concern. A qualitative draw will normally have a lower number of participants, which cannot be taken as representative (Hakim 2000.) This fact re chief(prenominal)s even when a fair cross-section of subjects has be carefully assembled.Qualitative design methods usually include 1) a case trans juvenile providing data which describes the subject of the study b) a meta-analysis designed to analyse statistical outcomes of pre vious research from various(a) sources c) research analysis on germane(predicate) administrative depicts d) a record of strain throng discussions which serve to bring together a origin word of informants, serving the investigated issue and d) unstructured, semi-structured, or structured in-depth questions (Silverman,2000 Kruger, 2001).Qualitative research can be considered an independent field of inquiry, as it is concentrate oned on examine objects in their natural settings. It also endeavours to make sense of various phenomena in terms of their meanings as associate to a set field (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994.) This form of research examines activity which is situated, in which an opportunity is presents to both participate in, and wherefore reflect on, the knowledge production process (Flick, 2002.) Denzin and Lincoln (2003) state that the possible for the adaptation of phenmoena is presented by qualitative research which takes place in a natural setting. The use of m ulti-methods may be used to provide interpretation and focus on individuals (Denzin and Lincoln,1998.) Additionally, qualitative research usually includes call into questions, the practical components of a case study, a life story, observations, and personal experience. It can also involve descriptions of routines or moments which were problematic, and even the meaning in the lives of individuals (Denzin and Lincoln, 2003). Qualitative studies, then, are ultimately concerned with both how its participants fit into their environments, and how they make sense of their individual experiences. typic interactionismThe fundamentals of emblematical interactionism as a positioning have been mold by the work of Mead (1932 1934) who is acknowledged for his alternate views toward understanding benignantkind party (Blumer, 1969 Charon, 2004). Blumer (1969) expanded on Meads work to develop emblematic interactionism into a survey with a methodology to investigate and interpret the int eractions of individuals in a amicable linguistic context. Because we live in a complex, industrialized society, and come from different ethnic, racial, and affable class backgrounds, it is unrealistic to think that we all part the same sets of norms, beliefs, and values. the great unwashed will often have competing and conflicting beliefs rather than shared goals and interests. p referenceably of being the product of consensus, organized behavior may be the result of self-interested negotiations between two or to a great extent(prenominal)(prenominal) parties or the product of obsession on the part of to a greater extent than powerful individuals.Herman-Kinneys observation reflects the appropriateness of exemplary interaction as a suitable framework for this study realisation that amicable contexts are complex entities that involve complex interactions between individuals and assorts of individuals. The context of a university in Japan that employs individuals with a range of heathen and favorable attributes reflects Herman-Kinneys intention that populate within a specific context course conflicting beliefs and values, yet can function effectively as a root word. emblematicalalal interactionism provides greater scope to explore such complexity. While different perspectives have do significant contributions to our understanding of the concept of identity, a obtrusive absence from analysis of identity formation is the fantasy of the self as a separate concept to identity (Herman-Kinney, 2003 p.708 Beijaard et al., 2004). One of the fundamentals of symbolic interactionism is its emphasis on the notion of self and its relationship to the concept of identity. The notion of self tends to be overlooked in the literature on teacher identity largely because self and identity can tend to be used interchangeably. Other perspectives imply that an individual is a composite of multiple identities, a view shared by symbolic interactionism. Symbolic interactionism save contends that behind the multiple identities is the notion of self a core entity that in many an(prenominal) ways gives life to those multiple identities. This study is express mail to exploring the nature of professional identities and not the nature of self. However, the distinction needs to be do that symbolic interactionism views self and identity as two separate but related concepts.THE EMERGENCE OF SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISMSymbolic interactionism is a down-to-earth approach to the scientific study of human mathematical group life and human conduct. (Blumer, 1969 p.47)Symbolic interactionism is a perspective that emerged chiefly from the work of American tradition of pragmatism, doctrine and genial psychology (Fidishun, 2002 Charon, 2004 p.28). It challenged the mechanistic world view and dualistic arrogance of classic rationalism (Shalin, 1991 p.223). One of the most recognised challengers was Mead (1932 1934) who viewed human group life as the essenti al condition for the emergence of core attributes that mark an individual. Blumer (1969) identified the core attributes as consciousness, the mind, a world of objects, human beings as organisms possessing selves, and human conduct in the form of constructed acts. From these core attributes, Blumer (1969 p.6) proposed a number of basic ideas or root images to frame human societies human groups or societies, social interaction, objects, the human being as an actor, human action, and the interconnection of the lines of action. Together, these root images represent the way in which symbolic interactionism views human society and conduct.Symbolic interactionism is used in this study to focus on the interactions of teachers with objects in a specific context. Core to symbolic interactionist principles is a focus on social interaction and meanings that result from the process of interpreting these interactions. The significance of symbolic interactionism, according to Rosenberg and Turner (1981), is that it places emphasis on researching real-life events, such as the practice of teaching. deep down an educational context, Hargreaves (1995 p.11) argues that symbolic interactionism helps clarify why teachers (and others) do what they do and that it addresses the practical realities rather than holding citizenry to perspectives ideals or moral exhortation concerning human change and increment. Exploring the identity of teachers who teach English in the context of this study lends itself well to the principles of symbolic interactionism, due to the highly interactive nature of the context that is rich in symbols language, objects and social interactions.CORE IDEAS OF SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISMAs mentioned previously, symbolic interactionism emerged from the work of Mead who viewed human society differently from the traditionally held views of his time. Through his interpretation of Meads work of interpreting human society, Blumer developed collar premises that charact erise the fundamentals of symbolic interactionism. In his first of three premises, Blumer begins with the nature of meaning that human beings hold towards things that are socially defined.Human beings act toward things on the basis of the meanings that the thingshave for them (Blumer, 1969 p.2).According to Blumer, meaning is not implicit in humans at birth, instead emerges through social interactions and interpretations of those interactions. Meaning is realized in communication (Mead, 1932). Blumers explanation illustrates a divergence from traditional approaches to explain meaning. By traditional, Blumer referred mainly to the fields of psychology and sociology, which were predominant at the time of his writing. From a psychological perspective, factors such as attitudes and conscious or unconscious motives were featured in attempts to understand human conduct, while sociological perspectives relied on factors such as social position, social pressures and cultural prescriptions in its attempt to explain human conduct (Blumer, 1969 p.3). According to Blumer (1969 p.3), the meanings that things have for human beings are central in their own right. That is, instead of focusing on factors that are alleged to produce behaviour, meaning is the focus of analysis itself. The process of meaning refers to the act of interpretation, which has implications on our understanding of human beings, human action and human association (Blumer, 1969 p.79).Blumer argues that other research traditions6 bypass a focus on meaning. It is either taken for granted and pushed aside as unimportant or it is regarded as a more neutral link between the factors answerable for human behaviour and the product of such factors (Blumer, 1969 p.3). According to Blumer, these perspectives are more concerned with the behaviour of individuals and with the factors regarded as producing the behaviour. However, while differences remain between symbolic interactionism and other research traditions, s imilarities are becoming more common, such as both stress the importance of language, the dynamic character of social and cultural life, and the unstable relations of difference (Dunn, 1997 p.689).The source of meaning emerges from social interactions between individuals and things within social contexts and situations. Blumers (ibid p.3) explanation of things, or objects, reflects the down-to-earth nature of symbolic interactionism to include physical objects (such as classrooms, office space, textbooks), other human beings (such as a wife, an officemate), categories of human beings (such as friends, forethought, students, native English-speaking teachers of English, native Japanese-speaking teachers of English), institutions (such as university, government), guiding ideals (such as individual independence, approach to teaching, university policy), activities of others (such as demands from wariness or requests from colleagues),THE APPROPRIATENESS OF SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISMSymbol ic interactionism is concerned with people, the meaning that people have towards things, and that these meanings are subjected to a process of interpretation within social contexts. Woods provides a convincing argument, claiming that the emphasis is upon the construction of meanings and perspective, theadaptation to circumstances, the management of interests in the ebb and flow ofcountless interactions give uping many ambiguities and conflicts, the strategiesdevised to promote those interests, and the negotiation with others intereststhat is a common feature of all teaching situations. (Woods, 1996 p.7)Woods account of symbolic interaction reflects the complexity of social situations, viewing symbolic interaction as a perspective that offers flexibility to explore the mysteries of social interaction in educational contexts. Woods was attracted to symbolic interactionism because it offered the kind of intellectual equipment mandatory to explore some of the mysteries of social intera ction in the school (Woods, 1996 p.7). This study recognises that other research perspectives are equally suitable to explore the concept of professional identity. Symbolic interaction, however, allows meanings to be explored in the richness of the context individuals hailing from great cultural, educational and personal backgrounds. If identity is formed through relationships and interactions in a social context, a symbolic interactionist perspective is appropriate for exploring the negotiating of identities of EFL teachers in a Japanese higher education context. The nature of teaching English in higher education in Japan is highly interactive between students and colleagues within a context rich in symbols open to complex processes of interaction and interpretation.CRITICISMS OF SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISMSymbolic interactionism has changed considerably since its emergence as a perspective, becoming fragmented at times as a result of conflict from different schools of thought and int erpretation (Fine, 1993). It, however, is not without its imperfections or its critics, of which many emerged from within the perspective itself as well as from other research traditions. The criticisms toward symbolic interactionism were more intense earlier in its history than of late due to its perceived departure from scientific methodology that was dominant at the time of its emergence. Criticisms emerged at a time when qualitative research was seen to be unscientific, with positivist research dominating approaches to research (Meltzer et al., 1975). Rogers (1973) accused interactionists of examining human interaction in a vacuum, focusing on small-scale face-to-face interaction, with comminuted concern for its historical or social setting. Skidmore (1975) found that interactionists failed to explain why people consistently chose to act in given ways in certain situations. While the criticisms are valid, they were made at a time when symbolic interactionism had barely demoed itself as a theoretical perspective. There is an argument developing that the differences between symbolic interactionism and other perspectives are confining (Dunn, 1997).The criticism from within symbolic interactionism is characterised by the four main schools of thought that have been identified under the umbrella of symbolic interactionism the Chicago school, the Iowa/indium school, ethnomethodology, and dramaturgy. The differences are largely methodological, between preferences for more humanistic, qualitative approaches to researching social interactions and those that were more scientific and quantitative (Meltzer et al., 1975). Blumer (1969) argues the case for a distinctive methodology in the study of human behavior that made modern society more intelligible (Meltzer et al., 1975). Regardless of methodology or school of thought, however, symbolic interactionism encompasses both a qualitative and quantitative tradition, reflecting an approach that strives to understand hum an behavior, not to predict and control it, nor to have more statistical knowledge of it (Musolf, 2003 p.91).Kuhn (1964) argued symbolic interactionism should reflect quantitative methodology, stressing the importance of unity of method in all scientific disciplines. Reflecting on its short history at the time, Kuhn (ibid) identified a number of problems that stunted the growth of symbolic interactionism and its acceptance by other research traditions as a credible research perspective. One of the main issues was lack of scientific credibility, which characterised the schism between the two schools. Kuhn attempted to work Meads view on social behaviorism in an effort to establish a theory of self that was both testable and usable. Kuhns 20-point test to measure the self reflected the leaning toward scientific quantitative methodology of exploring self.According to Dunn (1997) there are critics who claim that symbolic interactionism provides little indication of sources of meanings. While these criticisms are valid, they were made not long after symbolic interactionism emerged as its own perspective and had yet to fully utilise the way in which other perspectives have developed over the past few decades. Dunn (1997) documents recent comparisons between symbolic interactionism and other research traditions to illustrate narrowing differences and shared fundamentals, such as importance of language. Likewise, Callero (2003) argues that recent sociological approaches to self within a symbolic interactionist paradigm reflect emphases on power, reflexivity, and social constructionism. Recent literature on teachers professional identities provides evidence that symbolic interactionism has survived the criticisms to prosper and prove it to be a suitable framework for this area of research (Swann, 1987 Beijaard et al., 2000).Methods of data collection uncomplicated dataThere are several types of collection methods involved in qualitative research.The Interview MethodTh e definition of an interview is the interchange, between two or more persons, of views on a topic of mutual interest. This enables both the discussion of individual points of view, and the brass of points of view (Cohen et al., 2008.) Cohen et al. note that the interview serves three distinct occasions 1) as the primary means for gathering information that direct affect research objectives 2) for the purpose of either testing a hypothesis, or suggesting a new one, also, as an explanatory method for the identification of variables and their relationships 3) for use in conjunction with other methods.The three types of interviews are unstructured, semi-structured, and structured. The unstructured interview contains questions which are open-ended, allowing the question to be adapted, according to the intelligence, beliefs, and understanding of the respondent. These interviews are more flexible and may be used for probing issues in greater depth than the other interview types, though it can take more time and involve greater difficulty to analyse (Kidder et al., 1986.) In the semi-structured interview, both open-ended and close-ended questions are employed. This means that not all questions are designed in advance. The semi-structured interview technique has some of the advantages of the other two techniques (Kidder et al., 1986.) This technique has the flexibility of allowing the interviewer to formulate new questions during the interview, as a result of the respondents answers to previous questions. This allows the interviewer to seek additional illumination and information. The interviewer usually has a framework of themes to be explored in a semi-structured interview (Blackman, 2002.)The structured interview, also known as the standardized interview, employs closed ended questions, and a standard sequence which is used in every interview. This approach has the aim of presenting the very same questions, in the very same order, in every interviewing session, a nd for every interviewee. Though this approach is not very flexible, its data is more easily analysed, and is considered to be more objective (Nachmias and Nachmias, 1996.) Blackman (2002) cites three essential characteristics which can be used to come apart between the unstructured and the structured interview. 1) A highly structured interview requires that all interviewers present the same set of questions to all interviewees, with use of limited look into questions being prohibited. 2) Structured interviews form the foundation for tighter analysis. 3) Interviewers are trained to use both a priori rules and a standardized rating form in order to strictly rate and score question responses.Researchers choose between several strategies when planning an interview, including (Thomas, 2003, p. 63)An approach of loose questioning, which is meant to elicit the respondents interpretation of a general situation or circumstance.An approach of tight-questions, using a limited number of opt ions (e.g. Yes/no, like/dislike) to discover a respondents preferences.An approach of converging-questions. This is designed to mix in the advantages of the loose method and the tight method. At first broad questions are asked, in an open-ended manner. These are followed up with additional questions to more thoroughly explore the interviewees opinions.An approach of response-guided questions. This approach includes the interviewer beginning with prepared questions, which are ad libitum follow-up by questions created as logical extensions of the given answer. This strategy allows the researcher to delve more deeply into the respondents opinions relating to the issues presented in the original question.Focus group interviewsA focus group is a special type of group which has more involved as its purpose than simply getting people to have a conversation. It is special in terms of its purpose, composition, size, and procedures, which guides, through interaction, to outcomes and data (C ohen et al., 2008.) Listening to information, and gathering information, is the purpose of this interview, as well as to understand peoples thoughts and feelings about particular issues (Krueger and Casey, 2000.) Focus groups can encourage an environment which allows participants to share their points of view and perceptions without pressure. Researchers may be able to identify patterns and trends from the group discussion. This may lead to a systematic and careful analysis (Krueger and Casey, 2000.) According to Cohen et al. (2008,) focus groups are good forOrienting to a specific field of focus.The development of topics, schedules, and themes which can be used in subsequent questionnaires or interviews. use of goods and services insights and data, collected from the group, to generate hypotheses.Producing and evaluating data relating to differing subgroups of a given population.Assembling feedback related to previous studies.Kruger and Casey (2000) specified some of the characteri stics of a focus group. A focus group involves a limited quantity of participants, so that every person has a chance to share participants should have similar characteristics, so that the researchers my procure the purpose of the study collection of qualitative data, of interest to the researcher, is the primary purpose of the focus group usually to discover the range of opinions between several groups the group must have a focused discussion the group should ultimately help to understand the topic of interest.Researchers (Krueger and Casey, 2000 and Cohen et al., 2008) indicate that the data which is collected from a focus group may be negatively influenced by two kinds of participant a) close friends who may inhibit free expression on a given topic b) participants who may be difficult to join with others. For this reason, it is considered more useful when the data is triangulated by using traditional interviewing forms, observation, documentation, and questionnaires (Cohen et al ., 2008.)Observation methodsObservation is routinely used in everyday life (Frank, 1999,) but it is multi- faceted as a scientific method (Wajnryb, 1992.) Bohem and Weinberg (1987) verbalize that techniques for observation are key to the developments in the sciences, and this is because data which is collected is more likely to lead to decisions, conclusions, and new ideas. Obaidat et al (2002) made the claim that many phenomena and ideas, which are the subjects of study interviews and questionnaires, are selected because of the need to test them and understand them by field researchers. So, observation is considered a prime tool for the gaining of both information and experience.According to Cohen et al (2008,) observation enables researchers to gain understanding of the context which is being investigated, to be more inductive and open-ended, and to see certain aspects which otherwise may have been missed. It also allows for the discovery of issues that participants may not have cherished to discuss in their interviews. While observation in a social context can easily be accomplished, scientific observation may require more detailed planning, and defined recording protocols (Summerhill and Taylor, 1992.) Cohen et al (2008) refer to observations in many settings physical, human, group or individual, gender, class, and even interaction in settings which may be formal or informal, planned or unplanned, verbal or non-verbal. Additional settings would include programme settings, such as school resources, curricula, and style.Secondary dataThe analysis of secondary data, involving the analysis of data collected by other institutions and researchers, will be part of the basis for this research. Additionally, by treating this undertaking with diligence and care, an efficient method or learning about research questions, which are both time saving and cost effective, will be gained. The major sources of secondary data, which are used in this research, areOfficial st ats. This comprises of statistics collected by various bureaus, departments, agencies, and the government. Because this information is easy to obtain and easy to comprehend, it is considered an important secondary data source.Scholarly Journals (Peer criticismed) As they contain reports of both original research and reports of experimentation, scholarly journals are important to this study. Experts review scholarly journals in order to check their accuracy, originality, and hence relevance.Literature Review Articles these articles review and arrange original research about a particular subject of interest.For this research the researchers consulted online databases and the library, in order to find the requisite relevant pieces of data to be used in this research.Data analysisQualitative research findings, methods, disciplinary orientation, and types of findings represent great diversity (Yardley 2000). Qualitative research has many traditions. These include, as a partial listin g, cultural ethnography (Agar 1996 Quinn 2005), institutional ethnography (Campbell and Gregor 2004), analyses for historical comparison (Skocpol 2003), case studies (Yin 1994), focus groups (Krueger and Casey 2000), interviews (in-depth) (Glaser and Strauss 1967 McCracken 1988 Patton 2002