Hey all, hope everyone is doing ok getting through the end of the term and getting their proposal in. It's been a long week, so hopefully I'm not too incoherent.
Anyhow, in reading the Luker chapter on analysis this week I really noticed the similarity between discourse/content analysis and interview analysis. It seems like after an interview has been transcribed, the process is more or less the same, which is puzzling given that Luker seems to like interviews but is skeptical of content analysis.
The trouble seems to be about correlation vs. causality, which makes me wonder if many studies really get at causality? Is establishing correlation not worth something logically at least? The boolean analysis that Luker talks about does seem to get over the limitations of overly simplistic cause and effect models, though I'm not sure I buy that it is any more "veritable".