Qualitative research is growing in Asia and globally. In an Asian context, this requires an awareness of a completely different set of norms, practices, and expectations than those covered by books from a western perspective. This handbook truly celebrates these differences. Spanning the full research process, from philosophy and ethics to design and methods and through data collection, management, analysis, and dissemination, it focuses specifically on the practicalities needed to conduct effective and culturally responsive research in the Asian context. This handbook extends beyond researchers actually in Asia and also speaks to researchers working with Asian participants, researching in Asian immigrant neighbourhoods, and studying the larger global topics like socioeconomic challenges, climate change, or technological advancement. This is the first book to focus specifically on qualitative research in the Asian context and includes diverse contributors from Asia such as the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, India, Oman, China, South Korea, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Hong Kong, and from other continents such as North America, South America, Africa, Europe, and Oceania. Section 1: Foundations of Qualitative Research in Asia; Section 2: Qualitative Research Designs; Section 3: Best Practices in Dealing with Qualitative Research Data; and Section 4: Other Qualitative Research Topics.

Asian Qualitative Research Ethics: Lessons for the West

Asian Qualitative Research Ethics: Lessons for the West

Asian qualitative research ethics: lessons for the west
Martin Tolich Jovito Anito Jr

The relationship between qualitative researchers and ethics committees and their codes is a fraught one, described in the social science literature in explicit metaphorical terms. Haggerty (2004) conceived of the troubled relationship as “ethics creep” – that is, “a dual process whereby the regulatory system is expanding outward to incorporate a host of new activities and institutions, while at the same time intensifying the regulation of activities deemed to fall within its official ambit” (p. 394). White (2007) described the processes of institutional review boards as “mission creep,” signifying a “more deliberate, sneaky, and nefarious ...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles