Case Study: Isabelle’s research dilemma

Submitted to: Ma’am Rushda

Submitted by: Khizar Mir 2173050

Question no. 1

How do you think Isabelle’s understanding of theory and method changed in adopting
the approach she chose?

Answer:
Isabelle turned out to be progressively mindful approaches to research other than the more
traditional one associated with Positivism. She considered this elective approach using amore
qualitative method that could be rigorous and have some practical relevance. She could see how
even the actual sciences which had impacted Positivism were not generally as 'logical' as they
expected.
This understanding she imagined from perusing the original work of Kuhn on Scientific
Revolutions. Thus, it was arguably more difficult for researchers to be critical of social scientists
merely on the grounds of being less rigorous and indeed systematic. She additionally contended
that examination on managers could be more legitimate and significant on the off chance that she
received more subjective approach.
Question no. 2
What particular knowledge and skills did she develop in preparing this research? Isabelle had
developed her knowledge and skills in conducting research.

Exploring life-narratives requires information and comprehension of top to bottom meetings and
cautious utilization of optional information. Before her in-depth interviews with managers on
how they adapted to pressure at work, she chose to talk with some relatives utilizing a procedure
spearheaded by Bertaux (1995). These functional family ancestry activities could sharpen one to
the interaction between the individual and the more extensive social design in which they are
implanted.
The other information and abilities created were moral concerns. Issues could emerge on the
grounds that there are expected threats with life-history interviews. Given that life-history is an
introspective process for the interviewee, this cycle may not generally be a Positive encounter, it
very well may be negative.
This interaction may then get hazardous for the interviewee. Considering one's encounters might
be loaded with quite a few mental traps. This requires cautious talking so the interviewee feels
that the experience has been an advantageous encounter. Equally, the vulnerability of the
participant in this kind of study requires the exercise of informed consent. As well as taking care
during the collection of the information, she needed to ensure that the Closing of the interview is
done with sensitivity.
This should then make it workable for the interviewee to contact the scientist sometime in the not
too distant future. Isabelle understood that leading such meetings, given the hypothetical,
methodological and moral issues included, required a mental 'development' on her part, if the
interaction was to be effective.