| Abstract: | It did not take us long to discover that the “field” of qualitative research is far from a unified set of principles promulgated by networked groups of scholars. In fact, we have discovered that the field of qualitative research is defined primarily by a series of essential tensions, contradictions, and hesitations. These tensions work back and forth among competing definitions and conceptions of the field. Further, these tensions exist in a less‐than‐unified arena. We discovered that the issues and concerns of qualitative researchers in nursing are decidedly different from those of researchers in cultural anthropology. Symbolic interactionist sociologists deal with questions that are different from those of interest to critical theorists in educational research. Nor do the disciplinary networks of qualitative researchers necessarily cross each other, speak to each other, or read each other. (Denzin and Lincoln 1994:ix It is an interesting time to be leaning over the fences of American farms. There are discussions, even arguments, in the land about whether farmers ought to change the way they farm …There have been arguments like this heard before …T]he basic question about farming splits into many smaller ones. The answers multiply and become contradictory. Hence this effort to sort the questions onto different shelves, the answers into different bins …There is only one new idea developed here: there are really no new ideas in arguments about agriculture. (Wojcik 1989:ix, x, xii) |
