Initial confusion and finding my way

Of all the works I read for this research, it was Crotty’s (1998) book, The foundations

of social research that – while challenging to grasp and apply – ultimately glued this

chapter together. As a novice qualitative researcher, I found so many of the terms and methods confusing. According to Mkansi and Acheampong (2012), this is not surprising given the abundant opposing philosophical concepts and approaches that doctoral students are confronted with in the literature on qualitative methodology. The more I read the more confused and less sure of myself I became. Initially, I relied heavily on the work of Denzin and Lincoln (1998, 2011), as I perceived these authors to be the gurus of qualitative research. These authors specify three aspects that define the qualitative research process, namely, ontology, epistemology and methodology. The first two terms presented a huge stumbling block, which I had to overcome. According to Mackenzie and Knipe (2006), my response to these philosophical constructs was similar to the confusion experienced by most postgraduate students in this regard.

The importance of these philosophical constructs to the qualitative researcher is fundamental however and they have to be understood. Creswell (2007, 2014) places emphasis on a researcher’s philosophy, design and methods as being the starting

point when conducting a research project. So, this is exactly where I thought I initially had to start – with my philosophy of science. At the time, I thought that explicating my ontology and epistemology would provide me with a logical flow towards my paradigm, methodology and methods. However, it did not turn out this way; rather it gave me the feeling that I was not working logically, as I had identified my research interest early on and had already expressed my desire to conduct my research from a qualitative stance. Consequently, my research aim did not stem from my philosophy of science but rather from an interest in a specific topic and, thus, my qualitative research journey evolved as I continued my reading of the literature on methodology.

I found some solace in the work of Saunders et al. (2016), in which the emphasis is placed on the research topic as a starting point. These authors propose that a researcher needs clarity what they are going to research and once this has been established an appropriate strategy can be chosen. This made me feel less lost and confirmed that my approach was not illogical. In a sense, I was creating my own methodological path, which seemed to be an appropriate research approach, as reflected in the words of Crotty (1998):

Not too many of us embark on a piece of social research with epistemology as our starting point. We typically start with a real-life issue that needs to be addressed, a problem that needs to be solved, a question that needs to be answered. We plan our research in terms of that issue or problem or question. What, then, is the aim and what are the objectives of our research? What strategy seems likely to provide what we are looking for? In this way our research question, incorporating the purposes of our research, leads us to methodology and methods (p. 13).

Braun and Clarke (2013) also maintain that the research design may be determined either by the epistemological commitments or the research question itself. It therefore dawned on me that I had to go back to the beginning. The beginning, for me, started with a topic and a frame of reference and thereafter a journey towards a qualitative research approach. The self (see Silverman, 2010) was therefore the start of my methodological path and thus I began slowly to find my way.

Describing one’s methodological path is an essential part of the research process, as Crotty (1998) explains that research is not research without the task of explication and explanation. Therefore, before making my evolving interest in the topic, my frame of reference and my leaning towards qualitative research explicit, it is important to demonstrate how I designed my methodological journey. Figure 2.1 is a model I constructed from reading both Creswell (2014) and Crotty (1998), in which I depict how I found my way through the methodological maze of doing research. The figure depicts my methodological path and the systematic framework that guided the research process and formed the basis for the structure of this chapter. My methodological path includes and starts with my research and methodological interest (discussed in section 2.2). It also reflects my philosophical assumptions and research paradigm, as well as the research approach, methodology and methods, which are described in the subsequent sections (2.3 to 2.8) of this chapter.

Figure 2.1: My methodological path

As I have tried to show, finding my way and designing a systematic methodological path did not come easily, but evolved from the initial confusion and uncertainty experienced by most novice researchers. The following photograph depicts the confusion and thought process that eventually inspired the development of my methodological path.

Photograph 2.1: The development of my methodological path

According to Kember (2018), many students are inspired by personal experiences to undertake a research degree, although these experiences are seldom recounted. In line with Kember (2018), in the following section I thus describe the way my personal experiences and insights led me to this research topic and the use of a qualitative research approach.