Constructivist paradigms

Constructivist paradigms will generate a rich description of viewpoints, beliefs and meaning (Corbetta, 2003; Hannes, 2011; Murphy & Dingwall, 1998). Within a constructivist paradigm there are two main approaches, (inductive and deductive) with a third (abductive) emerging.

To explain further, a deductive approach is concept-driven and tests existing theories and models; inductive approaches look at similarities in the data and generate themes from these (Creswell, 2014). Inductive tells a story and purely describes the phenomenon as it emerges from the data whereas deductive explains a phenomenon in the context of the world and existing concepts and theories thus translating easily back to the practice setting.

There are limitations to both (Graneheim, 2017); Inductive is at risk of describing situations rather than analysing and exploring in more depth, and deductive may not identify new or emergent themes which did not fit the explanatory or theoretical model. A third approach, an abductive approach promotes movement backwards and forward between inductive and deductive. The latter approach suggests a more flexible and in-depth approach to qualitative research (Udo, 2014).

Chapter 3: Methods 91

Common to all approaches is the acknowledgement of the importance of the role of the researcher and context of the study in shaping those views and producing the final report.

Epistemologically, the researcher’s relationship to the research process will shape the research design and interpretation of results (Findlay & Gough, 2003). This subjectivity is a key difference between constructivist and positivist paradigms and the ability to explain concepts and theories through the analytical lens of the researcher is unique to this approach (Kumsa, Chambon, Yan, & Maiter, 2015).

Within constructivist paradigms there are three main methodologies namely phenomenology, ethnography and grounded theory. Following a brief overview and critique of these, a fourth paradigm, the generic approach, will be argued as a methodology suitable for this study.

Common approaches to qualitative research

A phenomenological approach is a conscious experience from the first person or subjective point of view. It offers a reflective and deep exploration of a real world experience (Creswell, 2014). This qualitative methodology provides an in-depth exploration of self, perception of the world and others, linguistic activity, social interaction and culture. In summary, it is the exploration of lived experiences and how they are perceived, or explained, by the research participant.

Ethnography provides a broader approach within which qualitative research is structured and is built upon the social science specialism, anthropology (Murphy & Dingwall, 1998). This is the study of cultures and behaviours within society, and ethnography is the study of culture groups in their natural setting over a long period of time. It is therefore a descriptive account of social life and culture within research setting. This approach should not be interpreted beyond the case it describes; instead it is a form of story-telling which provides a snapshot of the participants lives, culture, thoughts and feelings (Karen & Reilly, 2009). It is a method of

92 Chapter 3: Methods

deep research involving large amounts of time observing, recording and interpreting the culture and behaviours of the group.

Finally, grounded theory methodology is iterative and involves generating theories from the data collected. It is complex and starts with general broad questions from which themes emerge and form tentative links with theory (Draper, 2001). The data obtained and themes emerging from the data inform subsequent interviews. Data collection ends when the researcher concludes that there are no new themes emerging from the data and thus ‘saturation’ has been reached.

Generic qualitative approaches

Generic qualitative approaches are research that is not guided by an explicit set of philosophical assumptions in the form of the known qualitative methodologies, rather the approach is guided by the research question posed (Caelli, Ray, & Mill, 2003). Thorne (2004) suggests that this methodology has genuinely practical application and bridges the theory practice gap (Auta, Strickland-Hodge & Maz, 2017). Therefore, a generic approach encourages new ways of looking at recurring problems, has the potential to develop research innovation and promote excellence in constructivist paradigms by being more flexible and practical, however there is some scepticism towards this research approach.

This scepticism appears to be as a result of (1) lack of philosophical underpinning to support methodology, (2) lack of literature to support the research approach and (3) opacity in relation to methods adopted (Caelli, et al, 2003). In the next section these criticisms are acknowledged but rebutted, arguing that the emphasis should be on the robustness of the methods rather than the philosophy underpinning the methodology. Instead, articulation of a transparent and ethical research process, contextual to the research question and demonstrates robustness, credibility and validity during research design, data collection and analysis takes precedence over the pursuit of a specific research methodology will be argued.

Chapter 3: Methods 93

3.3.3.2.1 Limitations of generic constructivist paradigms

Generic qualitative approaches have been criticised as being ‘…not good science’ and, without a philosophical underpinning for research, are a mismatch of different methodologies (Kahlke, 2014). However, grounding oneself in a research methodology that makes linear theoretical assumptions about the research approach may not be a logically sound approach either. To propose any methodology is fundamentally correct may be a difficult philosophical stance to adopt. For example, phenomenology assumes that one in-depth subjective viewpoint will describe a phenomenon most accurately, and, acknowledging it does provide an in-depth description and interpretation of that situation, it does not allow for the consideration of cultural and societal perspectives that ethnography may do. Neither of these approaches appear to put any emphasis on ‘data saturation’, where data collection is halted when there are no new concepts emerging, which is a fundamental feature of grounded theory methodology.

Adopting a more generic methodology requires consideration of all research methodologies, contextualisation to the proposed research study and, deliberation as to which of these is best suited to addressing the research question. This process may not be as rigorous if a strong philosophical stance is adopted where certain rules and assumptions are made and without consideration of alternatives. In addition, some commentators suggest that the myriad of philosophical approaches associated with qualitative research adds to the confusion and scepticism associated with constructivist paradigms (Smith, Bekker, & Cheater, 2011; Thorne, 2011; J. Williams, 2013). They purport that less emphasis on philosophical standpoint and more on alignment to research questions and aims may result in greater understanding of constructivist paradigms.

A lack of literature to support this research approach also attracts criticism. Caelli (2003) argues that a robust research framework is built upon its use by a well-established research community whose experience is reported in the literature. Without this, it is argued, quality of

94 Chapter 3: Methods

the research may be compromised, resulting in lack of rigour and invalidating results.

However, a body of literature supporting this approach can be found (Auta et al, 2017; Caelli et al, 2003; Cooper & Endacott, 2007; Kahlke, 2014; Kennedy, 2016; Smith et al, 2011;

Williams, 2013), suggesting that support is growing for this approach.

3.3.3.2.2 Rigour and constructivist paradigms

Like any craft or skill, there are certain rules and guidance that are best practice and will help others to develop that skill. Best practice in qualitative research is structured and transparent whilst preserve flexibility and creativity.

Therefore, a well-designed research framework consisting of broad assumptions about the nature of knowledge, theoretical framework, methodology and methods and techniques or procedures used to analyse and gather data will improve external validity of qualitative research (Cresswell et al, 2007). These rules are not dissimilar to quantitative research and a number of commentators have proposed frameworks (Caelli et al, 2003; Kennedy, 2016; Tracy, 2010), however the gold standard for measurement of rigour is that proposed by Lincoln and Gubba (Brown, Elliott, Leatherdale, & Robertson-Wilson, 2015). They propose five main criteria:

credibility, confidence in the findings, transferability, such as, applicability of findings to other situations, dependability, and confirmability (Draper, 2001). These concepts have similarities to quantitative research in that they suggest that credibility is aligned to validity, transferability to objectivity, dependability and confirmability. Although there may be similarities, the differences lie in how these criteria are met when using a constructivist research approach.

These differences will be outlined in the section below.

Chapter 3: Methods 95

Credibility

Credibility is a key marker in both qualitative and quantitative research and, although reached through different means, it has the same goal, that is, to make the results believable and give readers sufficient trustworthy evidence to act on the findings of the research.

Credibility in constructivist research is characterised by its richness, relevance and methods used to collect and analyse data and is achieved through detailing methods of sampling and data collection, triangulation of results or third party verification of findings during data analysis (Bourgeault, 2010).

Unlike positivist paradigms, there is no absolute number or statistical calculation that determines sufficient sample sizes producing significant results. Therefore, the amount of data, number of participants and length of interviews are dependent on the aim of the research.

However, if the length of interview is insufficient to allow for the generation of rich exploratory and explanatory data, credibility of results may be called into question. Moreover, credibility of findings is determined by the sample population, the uniqueness of the data, the types of questions asked and the level of verification of the data once collected. Whether a population is conveniently sampled, according to pre-set criteria, or selected by a named informant and how this is justified and aligned to the research question is an important factor when assessing the quality of a constructivist paradigm (Draper, 2001). For example, if the researcher is exploring the perceptions of parents, sampling only mothers may skew the result and introduce bias as the male parent group have been excluded.

When analysing qualitative data choosing, organising and analysing data in qualitative research is led by inductive analysis (Straus and Corbin, 2008), patterns and emergent themes come from the data rather than being derived from an external source, for example, literature or research aims. However, data presented in this way may produce irrelevant results unrelated to the research question and may affect the transferability of findings. A more structured

96 Chapter 3: Methods

approach consists of three main questions that should be posed when analysing qualitative research: (1) ‘what is the data telling me’, (2) ‘what is it I want to know’, (3) ‘what is the relationship between what the data is telling me and what I want to know’ (Caelli et al, 2003).

These three questions provide a focussed approach to data analysis that answers the research question and identifies new themes emerging from the data. Once data has been analysed by the researchers, confirming those results through third party verification is important.

Dependability and confirmability

Verification of the data by an independent party, for example, a second researcher or research participants, will improve the dependability and confirmability of the results. Tracy (2010) describes multiple approaches to meeting these two quality criteria including thick description, multivocality and impartiality. This verification of data typically occurs in all research approaches and confirms the methods adopted in data analysis were accurate and were free from bias. The most frequently used method to confirm findings and create dependable results is triangulation. This is a method of collecting data from a number of different sources, or using different methods to collect the same information (Moran-Ellis et al, 2006). For example, ethnographic studies may be combined with semi-structured interviews to confirm or dispel emergent themes from the initial stage of the study, or interviews with parents and carer on the same subject may be a feature of qualitative research. Equally, qualitative methodology may be employed to triangulate quantitative findings.

Transferability

Acknowledging the researcher’s relationship with the process (reflexivity) is an intrinsic aspect of transferability. Reflexivity, rather than being viewed as bias, is regarded as a strength within contemporary qualitative research as it allows the unique understandings of the researcher to be transparent within the study findings (Findlay & Gough, 2003). Berger (2015) argues that researchers focus on self and its role in the creation of knowledge, and

Chapter 3: Methods 97

how the researcher’s bias, values and attitudes may shape the interpretation of the data. To ignore the subjective position of the researcher is to reject the key protagonist in the research process.

Furthermore, allowing researchers to position themselves in this way and acknowledge the challenges, support and unexpected results of the study will generate discussion within the readership. If readers can identify similarities between the researcher and their own experiences, contextualisation and testing of results in their own cultures may happen more readily (Berger, 2015). This transparency within a sufficiently robust study will produce verifiable results that will not only have relevance to the academic community, but demonstrate new knowledge and future areas of clinical research. Moreover, answering the questions posed will have relevance to clinical practice by directing resources to support those most in need and ultimately have an impact on health outcomes.

However some are concerned that applied research is tainted and risks introducing bias and interfering with the research process (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Karen & Reilly, 2009). This view suggests that research is for research sake, an end rather than a means to an end. This viewpoint preserves the craft and art of methodology grounded research and has specific relevance to the academic community. However, a balance between strict alignment to theoretical qualitative approaches and building robust evidence to inform practice is vital for healthcare research.

In summary, positivist and constructivist approaches are at opposing ends of the methodological spectrum particularly in relation to objectivity and interpretation of truth;

however, the principles of rigour, relevance and transferability apply to both. The difference is in how rigour is presented and evaluated and whether the methodology adopted answers the research questions. Taking an ideological stance and claiming one approach is superior to another, does not acknowledge the strengths of problem focussed research.

98 Chapter 3: Methods