Qualitative Dissertation Study Analysis LOCATE ANY QUALITATIVE Essay

Qualitative Dissertation Study Analysis LOCATE ANY QUALITATIVE DISSERTATION AND SUBMIT WITH ASSIGNMENT - Essay Example Twelve female season-ticket holders of university men’s basketball, with no recent attendance at a women’s basketball game, were interviewed using a semi-structured format† (Farrell, 2006, p. 1). The logic behind this selection of interview subjects was simple. If Farrell had analyzed women who do not like sports to determine why they do not watch women’s sports, it would have led to too obvious a conclusion: Women just do not like sports, women or men’s. However, it does seem possible that women who like sports like men’s sports, that there may be something about men’s sports in particular that would attract them in particular, such that talking to either fans of women’s sports or women who watch neither would be relevant as a control. Nonetheless, this choice of interview subject is designed to find people who not only like sports but also like them enough to buy a season-ticket pass to college games. Farrell (2006) pointed to research that identifies four different categories of research interest: characteristics of language, discovery of regularities, discerning meaning, and reflection. She also pointed out that qualitative and quantitative techniques are not strict binaries. For example, one quantitative technique, numerical and statistical analysis, is done on a fundamentally qualitative tool, a survey, by having people rank their beliefs from 1 to 7 or on any other scale. Farrell defined qualitative research, in line with Golafshani (2003), as â€Å"a naturalistic approach that seeks to understand phenomena in context-specific settings, such as a real world setting where the researcher does not attempt to manipulate the phenomenon of interest† (p. 61). Theoretical Background Farrell (2006) used social constructivism and critical theory for her interpretation, noting that many other approaches (positivism, pragmatism, interpretivism, postmodern techniques) are also equally viable. She defined s ocial constructivism thusly: â€Å"Social constructivism asserts that humans construct knowledge using collective social instruments such as language and cultural practices† (p. 62). A social constructivist argument would take it as a given that the category of â€Å"women† is not fixed, so there is no answer for â€Å"Why don’t women like women’s sports?† that has the form â€Å"Because that is what women do† or â€Å"Women are genetically programmed only to like male gladiatorial rituals†. If women do not like women’s sports, it must be a social factor: acculturation, values, the failure of women’s sports to appeal to their values or interests, etc. Farrell (2006) justified her use of critical theory thusly: The study of women in sport is, in essence, a study of gender struggles against male hegemonic values embedded in the construction of sport as a male preserve. Critical theory lends itself well to a more deliberate investigation of the power structures of sport in this study (p. 63). Indeed, critical theory’