<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
<title>田野中的人們</title>
<link>http://blog.roodo.com/aswing1978/archives/5900343.html/</link>
<description><![CDATA[ &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 以前讀紀慧文的《十二個上班小姐的生涯故事》時，曾經思考過研究倫理的問題。後來因為寫論文而進入田野，也面臨過許多我自己的田野倫理問題；既然論文寫完了，原則上來講，那些問題應也一一被克服了。但上星期讀到學妹引用南洋姐妹會網站「給研究者的一封信」時，又再次想起紀慧文的論文和她接著帶來的倫理風暴。紀慧文這本書爭議很多 但應該要反省的是倫理 而不是那些話題]]>
	</description>
<language>zh-tw</language>
<generator>Roodo Blog System</generator>
<copyright>All Rights Reserved</copyright>
<atom:link href="http://blog.roodo.com/aswing1978/archives/5900343-comment.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
<item>
	<title>回應：田野中的人們</title>
	<description><![CDATA[It is a very common qustion to be addressed during the oral defence: "How objective the data you collected during the fieldwork?"
Actually, it is a trip coz we assume that we are not going to collect the objective data during data collection; instead, we strive to know the contextual issues as well as how they express and present themselves through the language/symbols they use.  In this connection, understanding and interpretation, rather than objectivity is of concern.  

So, the way in which the question is being addressed determines the quality of the one who ask the question.]]>
	</description>
	<link>http://blog.roodo.com/aswing1978/archives/5900343.html</link>
	<guid>http://blog.roodo.com/aswing1978/archives/5900343.html#comment-16283755</guid>
		<category>文章回應</category>
	<pubDate>Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:47:06 +0800</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>