Methodology

Distinct from paradigms are methodologies that can be defined as the “principles, theories and values that underpin a particular piece of research” (Somekh and Lewin, 2005, p347). I now present my critique of the aims, strengths, and weaknesses of my chosen approach of a qualitative methodology.

3.5.1 Qualitative methodology

I believe that knowledge is a social construct and originates from the thoughts and feelings of individuals. Numerous authors have critiqued qualitative research and concluded that this approach investigates, in depth, how people think and feel (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison, 2004; Opie, 2004; McLeod, 2008). Qualitative research consists of several approaches that can be used to address questions about a particular interest, reflecting the positionality of the researcher. The aim is to describe meanings and how they are understood, together with patterns of human behaviour (Pope and Mays, 1995).

Qualitative methodologies have several strengths and weaknesses such as the flexibility to explore different perceptions and meanings of a phenomenon (Opie, 2004; Creswell, 2009; Mertens, 2010)29. Strengths described by these authors included the ability to examine issues in detail and in depth, presenting rich data that is both subtle and complex. Other advantages include the responsive nature of the research strategy to change that allows it to be restructured as new data emerges. A specific advantage with respect to my focus of enquiry was that qualitative research is suited to studying a small number of individuals in depth, in naturalistic settings, and lends itself to exploring how and why a phenomenon occurs (Pope and Mays, 1995).

Authors in the literature also described the limitations and weaknesses of qualitative research (Opie, 2004; Creswell, 2009; Mertens, 2010). These include the presence, competency, and personal biases of the researcher that can significantly influence the quality and direction of the research30. The quantity of data produced can be large and difficult to manage, making analysis and interpretation time consuming. Difficulties in managing the dataset may bring into question the rigour of the research that is influenced by the competence of the researcher. More importantly, as generalisation isn’t the aim

29 _{I acknowledge that quantitative methodologies also have strengths and} weaknesses. As this approach to research didn’t align with my researcher positionality I haven’t considered the merits and demerits of quantitative methodologies in my thesis.

30

The academic tension presented by my emotional connection to my research that may have resulted in bias is an issue I return to examine later in my thesis.

of qualitative research, results cannot be applied to a larger population (Pope and Mays, 1995).

3.5.2 Researching disability

As described in Chapter Two, historically, disability research has been driven by criticisms of the medical model of disability and its preoccupation with defining the incidence of disability in society (Danieli and Woodhams, 2005; Mallet and Runswick-Cole, 2014). Such research used quantitative methodologies and didn’t contribute to the removal of social barriers (Stone and Priestley, 1996; Danieli and Woodhams, 2005).

These criticisms resulted in a move by some researchers to use qualitative methodologies to research the thoughts and feelings of individuals and to challenge social oppression. Stone and Priestley (1996) claimed that research that is emancipatory in nature is often thought to be synonymous with a qualitative approach. Other authors have also found support from the disabled community for the use of qualitative methodologies. Kitchin (2000) found participants favoured qualitative methodologies as they enabled them to express their beliefs and opinions31.

I appraised the authors cited in my literature review who had researched the phenomena of sociality and friendship for persons with autism. All authors used a qualitative approach (e.g., Carrington, Templeton, and Papinczak, 2003; Chamberlain, Kasari, and Rotheram-Fuller, 2007; Davidson and Smith, 2009; Daniel and Billingsley, 2010; Moyson and Roeyers, 2011; Martin, 2015). My concern was to select an approach that maximised the strengths and minimised the weaknesses of the methodology, and was suitable for researching the meaning of sociality and friendship for persons with autism from their perspective. Whilst I acknowledge and recognise the academic uncertainties of different approaches, I decided, based on my understanding of methodology

31

I acknowledge that other authors have argued that emancipatory disability research can utilise quantitative or a plurality of methodologies (Miller and Gwynee, 1972; French and Swain, 1997; Vulliamy and Web, 1995; Barnes and Sheldon, 2007).

presented in this chapter, to select a qualitative approach to my enquiry that would allow me to answer my research questions as it: 1) aligned with my theoretical position; and 2) reflected my researcher positionality and the philosophical assumptions that I had made. The next issue I needed to address was my choice of research methods. In section 3.6, I present the rationale for my choice.

3.6 Methods

Methods are the tools that are used to collect and analyse data (Opie, 2004). In deciding on the appropriate methods that would allow me to describe the meaning of sociality and friendship for persons with autism from their perspective, I begin by examining the position and lived experience of persons with disabilities including autism in research. In examining and defining my methods, I’m once again using the term disability to reflect how this label is used in the literature on this subject.

Persons with disabilities are one of the most over-researched minority groups in western society and may experience research fatigue (Clark, 2008). The repeated demands on a minority group to participate in research projects has resulted in individuals disengaging from the process, no longer valuing its outcome, and in extreme instances withdrawing from projects (Clark, 2008). Other authors have also documented research fatigue of persons with disabilities (Kitchin, 2000; Iacano, 2006; Milton, 2014). I was, therefore, conscious of the need to choose research methods that didn’t impose any further demands on persons with autism to participate in research.

The main methods of data collection in qualitative research include interviews, focus groups, questionnaires, descriptive accounts, and observations (Opie, 2004). In not wanting to impose participatory research demands on persons with autism, I didn’t consider interviews, focus groups, questionnaires, or observations, all techniques that require interaction between the researcher and the researched. Descriptive narratives in the form of autobiographical accounts in the public domain are open to critique and review and don’t require the