The teaching of qualitative analysis in the social sciences is rarely undertaken in a structured way. This handbook is designed to remedy that and to present students and researchers with a systematic method for interpreting qualitative data', whether derived from interviews, field notes, or documentary materials. The special emphasis of the book is on how to develop theory through qualitative analysis. The reader is provided with the tools for doing qualitative analysis, such as codes, memos, memo sequences, theoretical sampling and comparative analysis, and diagrams, all of which are abundantly illustrated by actual examples drawn from the author's own varied qualitative research and research consultations, as well as from his research seminars. Many of the procedural discussions are concluded with rules of thumb that can usefully guide the researchers' analytic operations. The difficulties that beginners encounter when doing qualitative analysis and the kinds of persistent questions they raise are also discussed, as is the problem of how to integrate analyses. In addition, there is a chapter on the teaching of qualitative analysis and the giving of useful advice during research consultations, and there is a discussion of the preparation of material for publication. The book has been written not only for sociologists but for all researchers in the social sciences and in such fields as education, public health, nursing, and administration who employ qualitative methods in their work.

Qualitative analysis for social scientists

Scientific work is heterogeneous, requiring many different actors and viewpoints. It also requires cooperation. The two create tension between divergent viewpoints and the need for generalizable findings. We present a model of how one group of actors managed this tension. It draws on the work of amateurs, professionals, administrators and others connected to the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology at the University of California, Berkeley, during its early years. Extending the Latour-Callon model of interessement, two major activities are central for translating between viewpoints: standardization of methods, and the development of 'boundary objects'. Boundary objects are both adaptable to different viewpoints and robust enough to maintain identity across them. We distinguish four types of boundary objects: repositories, ideal types, coincident boundaries and standardized forms.

and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39

Scientific work is heterogeneous, requiring many different actors and viewpoints. It also requires cooperation. The two create tension between divergent viewpoints and the need for generalizable findings. We present a model of how one group of actors managed this tension. It draws on the work of amateurs, professionals, administrators and others connected to the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology at the University of California, Berkeley, during its early years. Extending the Latour-Callon model of interessement, two major activities are central for translating between viewpoints: standardization of methods, and the development of `boundary objects'. Boundary objects are both adaptable to different viewpoints and robust enough to maintain identity across them. We distinguish four types of boundary objects: repositories, ideal types, coincident boundaries and standardized forms.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/285080.pdf

Institutional Ecology, `Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39:

We may not be able to make you love reading, but archaeology of knowledge will lead you to love reading starting from now. Book is the window to open the new world. The world that you want is in the better stage and level. World will always guide you to even the prestige stage of the life. You know, this is some of how reading will give you the kindness. In this case, more books you read more knowledge you know, but it can mean also the bore is full.

The archaeology of knowledge

An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (2nd ed.

We are honored to be the guest editors for this special issue centered on work in the tradition of Anselm Strauss. Because afestsclwift for Anselm with papers by most of his close colleagues and students was already published (Maines 1991). we have devoted this special issue to work by the “next generation” of interactionists working with Straussian approaches. The one exception is the paper by Isabelle Baszanger, who edited a volume of Anselm’s collected papers in French (Baszanger 1992a). Because she provides such an insightful and provocative overview of Anselm’s scholarly work, Baszanger’s introductory paper for that volume appears here in English.’ This allows us as editors to dwell instead on Anselm’s contributions to life itself as teacher, advisor, and friend. Both of us were Anselm’s students during the early 1980s. And, for both of us. finding Anselm and his work was an intellectual homecoming, a long-awaited coming in from the academic cold. We know many others have shared this intense and life-shaping experience, many without ever having met the truly exceptional man who was Anselm Strauss. Some of their papers are included here. We know, too, that for those who did meet him, a fundamental part of this was meeting Fran Strauss--often the smiling person opening the door to a new world. Their lives together were team efforts always, and the wholes were always considerably greater than the sum of the parts. Before we introduce the papers in this special issue, we want to briefly comment on the breadth of Anselm’s connections and the wide international network he and Fran created and maintained down to the last moments of his life, which Fran nurtures still. Ans’elm was an exceptionally generative teacher and colleague. His was an intellectual generosity, always available-his own poor health permitting. He relished helping people who were stuck in their work-especially with their (often belated) analysis of (too much) data, often collected without following the first precept of grounded theory: start analyzing immediately!

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/si.1998.21.4.341

On Coming Home and Intellectual Generosity

Regions of the Mind

Les objets-frontiere decrits dans l’article original de 1989 (Star et Griesemer) comportent trois elements : la flexibilite interpretative, la structure des besoins et des arrangements du processus de travail et de l’informatique et la dynamique a l’œuvre entre des utilisations mal structurees des objets et d’autres plus adaptees. L’utilisation de ce concept a surtout concerne la flexibilite interpretative qui, souvent, a ete confondue avec le mouvement d’aller et retour entre les aspects bien et mal structures des arrangements. Les objets-frontiere ne sont pas utiles a n’importe quel niveau d’echelle, non plus sans la sans prise en compte du modele dans son ensemble. Cet article examine ces aspects de l’architecture des objets-frontiere. Il presente egalement une des facons dont les objets-frontiere sont apparus en tant que concept dans les travaux anterieurs de Star. La conclusion portera sur des considerations methodologiques, notamment sur la facon d’etudier les systemes d’objets-frontiere et les infrastructures.

Ceci n'est pas un objet-frontière !

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.5153/sro.92

Anselm Strauss: An Appreciation

/pdf/methodes-de-recherche-en-sociologie-des-sciences-travail-3wxx0sg646.pdf

Susan Leigh Star

Papers

On Coming Home and Intellectual Generosity

Regions of the Mind

Ceci n'est pas un objet-frontière !

Anselm Strauss: An Appreciation

Méthodes de recherche en sociologie des sciences : travail, pragmatisme et interactionnisme symbolique