Using what you have learned about your topic from your literature search, you are working towards formulating a research purpose and question. Note that in the Learning Resources for this week, the language of qualitative research is incorporated into how the research purpose and question is formulated. Here are some basic do’s and don’ts.
Examine differences, effects, or impact
Broad, open-ended questions
For example, in the ongoing scenario for each of the weeks of this course, the qualitative research question is formulated based on:
DO: The purpose of this study is to understand the narratives of childcare and support in families in impoverished communities.
DO: What is the meaning of a “well-behaved child” to early childhood caregivers in impoverished neighborhoods?
While as in this example, the research question is formulated based on quantitative information
DON’T: The purpose of this study is to examine the demographic and family factors that predict the use of childcare services in impoverished communities.
DON’T: What are the differences in early childhood social skill acquisition between children that do receive childcare services and those that do not?
For this Discussion, you will examine qualitative research as it relates to qualitative design considerations.
To prepare for this Discussion:
Review the Learning Resources and the Fundamentals of Qualitative Research Methods: Developing a Qualitative Research Question video and consider the basic guidelines for qualitative research design.
Use the Course Guide and Assignment Help found in this week’s Learning Resources and search for a qualitative research article. (Note: This article should be the research article you are using for your Major Assignment 1.)
Review the qualitative research article you found and identify each of the components of the research design and consider what is present and what is missing.
Identify what the authors did to document positionality, reflexivity, and bias.
Twentieth century psychoanalyst Erich Fromm defined humans as, “the only animal for whom his own existence is a problem which he has to solve” (Fromm, 1947). This “problem” has been constantly defined or reinterpreted from biological, philosophical, evolutional, and sociological perspectives. However, the key factor linking these varying viewpoints together is the presence of a linguistic system that allows us to even form these differing perspectives. This essay will suggest that the complexity that exists within our language- our syntax, grammar, design, symbolism, and semantics- divides and elevates the human species from non-human animals (NHA). Human language is perhaps one of the most distinctive behavioural adaptations on the planet as it has differentiated itself from the idea of simple communication between organisms to a prerequisite for the development of human culture. There is a biological basis to the complexity of human language- the Forkhead box protein P2 gene (FOXP2) in humans contributes to the ability of fine control of the larynx and mouth needed for articulate speech production (Enard et. al, 2002). FOXP2 has been shown to regulate language-like behaviours in birds, mice, and chimpanzees. These vocalizations aid in providing a communicative structure to social groups, such as identifying members, facilitating group movement, or signaling danger, but lack in grammatical or syntactic complexity. When human and chimpanzee lineages diverged 4.6-6.2 million years ago, the substitution of two amino acid changes in humans, from those in NHA, appear to contribute to the human ability of normal spoken language (Enard et. al, 2002). Linguist Noam Chomsky, built upon this idea of a contributing genetic factor to human language suggesting “that our language is the result of the unfolding of a genetically determined program” which begins with an innate ability to understand grammatical structures, coined as “Universal Grammar” (Deacon, 1997). Chomsky suggests that “language acquisition devices” in developing brains aid children in navigating subject-object rules, appropriate syntax, and pragmatic semantics of all human languages. The appeal in the idea of Chomsky’s language “organ” is that it eliminates the discontinuity between human and NHA communication styles offering a single-step evolutionary account for the failure of other species in acquiring language, an ultimate discrepancy in separating humans from NHA. While parallels can be made between certain facets of linguistics between humans and NHA, such as learned dialects of birdsong with differing human vernaculars, these parallels exhibit a superficial resemblance to language learning in NHA and lack coordinated rules that exist within the human language system- the syntax, grammar, design, symbolism, and semantics- that drive our existence forward (Deacon, 1997).>GET ANSWER