Essentials of a Qualitative Doctorate (2012) by Immy Holloway & Lorraine Brown
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a doctoral candidate currently collecting data using qualitative methods, I reviewed Essentials of a Qualitative Doctorate with minor trepidation.Would Holloway and Brown's text provide reassurance of the qualitative path that I had followed or would I find that my doctorate, when measured up against the authors' suggested "essentials" (p.12) be somewhat lacking?These questions were, I felt, important to ask in the context of reviewing this book, as I have until now considered my doctorate to be a worthwhile and largely rewarding endeavour.Holloway and Brown promote their book as "an excellent resource for doctoral students of qualitative research and for those who are still considering whether to make the leap" (rear cover), therefore, I expected my questions to be easily answered.Holloway and Brown completed their doctorates "mainly for their own satisfaction" and used their experiences to capture "the most important aspects of the qualitative doctorate" in this book (p.12).The authors determine their intended audience for this book as "doctoral candidates writing their dissertations in English, and in English speaking countries" (p.11).In the introduction, they attempt to explain the differences between doctorates in the United States, the United Kingdom (UK), Australia, and any other nations that follow the British model.In Britain, students typically attend research and ethics sessions, however, these training sessions would not usually be formally assessed.In an attempt to provide a useful resource for all students who undertake qualitative studies, the authors choose to employ doctorate rather than PhD, acknowledging the existence of various forms of doctorates.The introduction does not offer an in-depth analysis of possible choices of where to study for a qualitative doctorate; it assumes rather that this choice has already been made.The book comprises 12 chapters, which are then sub-divided into four sections.In the first section, the authors introduce the essential qualities and framing of qualitative research, outlining its distinctions from quantitative research.The second section of the book is called the initial stage, and comprises Chapters 2 to 6: choosing a research topic; selecting a research approach; writing the research proposal; ethical considerations; and the role and location of the literature.In the third section, the research journey, Holloway and Brown contemplate the monitoring process, the qualitative research process, and potential problems in these processes through Chapters 7, 8, and 9.In the concluding section of the book, Chapters 10, 11, and 12 form the final stage, and attention is turned to writing up, examination and defense, and dissemination of the dissertation findings.Chapter 1 opens by reiterating, "you have decided to do a qualitative doctorate" (p.15), and subsequently directing students to consider why they have made this choice.Perspectives on the
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.070 | 0.117 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".