Researchers use a range of different qualitative research methods; each underpinned by different ontological and epistemological frameworks, and applied to a vast array of data forms, such as interviews, questionnaires and surveys. Qualitative method is often chosen for research studies in the disciplines of psychology, education and nursing, as it is designed to explore the human elements of a given topic, where specific methods are used to examine how individuals see and experience the world (Atkinson et al. 2001). The difference between qualitative and quantitative research lies with the ontology of reality, whether it is a social construct or is an objective reality, and this stance determines the epistemological framework of the research methodology (Guba & Lincoln 1989, 1994).
The choice of apposite methodology is generally agreed to be dependent on whether it will be effective in answering the research question (Holloway & Todres 2003; Holloway & Wheeler 2002). Grounded theory was chosen as opposed to phenomenology for this thesis as the objective was to go beyond describing or understanding a particular phenomenon as it is understood by participants (Koch 1995). The intention of the thesis was to understand the factors that influenced academics to describe the changes to their work life balance. Ethnography was not chosen as a methodology as the focus on cultural prescriptions (Sarantakos 1993) although considered in the research, particularly in the development of typology of academics and how they coped with change and work life balance, this was not the main focus of the research. Although theory development using ethnography has made a contribution to knowledge (Omery 1988), the development of theory using ‘grounded theory method’ was thought less likely to attract debate (Atkinson & Hammersley 1994).
Qualitative interview techniques do not have the same rigid structure as surveys and questionnaires, but are more iterative, flexible and continuous (Rubin & Rubin 1995). The continuous, flexible nature of qualitative interviewing allows for the information gathering process to be repeated, retested and redesigned to arrive at a closer and clearer model of the phenomenon that is investigated. A qualitative interview is an interaction between the
How academics respond, adapt and cope with the transformational changes in the
interviewer and the respondent where the interviewer has a general plan of inquiry but not necessarily a specific set of questions to be investigated (Babbie 2004). Although the interviewer is familiar with the research questions, the interview is essentially a smooth and natural conversation between the interviewer and the respondent. The interviewer establishes the general direction of the conversation but most of the talking is done by the respondent. An interviewer needs to listen carefully to answers to questions, interpret these in the light of the general inquiry, and then phrase another question that delves deeper into the relevant area of inquiry. The strength of qualitative research lies in the depth of understanding that it is able to deliver. The flexibility of investigation of this kind of research also adds to its attractiveness over more static research techniques that require fixed limitations. The weakness of qualitative research lies with its inappropriateness as a tool for arriving at statistical description for large populations. Compared to quantitative research methods, qualitative research measurements generally have more validity, a deeper focus on a specific area of research, rather than reliability; a confidence that the same result can be repeated (Babbie 2004). Finally, the role of the interviewer is an active one as the personal bias of the interviewer needs to be considered in the final analysis of the data. Interviewers address this by confronting their own biases, communicating with their fellow researchers, and making comparative evaluations.
The study of recorded human communications is termed content analysis (Krippendorff 2004). Content analysis is particularly suited to the study of in-depth modes of inquiry that examines the who, what, and how of a given phenomenon. Conventional sampling techniques, such as random, stratified and cluster sampling are employed in the use of content analysis. A coding process is also employed to transform raw data into a standardised form. The coding process involves the logic of conceptualisation, the mental process whereby notions or concepts are made more specific and precise, and operationalisation: specific operational procedures that result in empirical observations that mirror the real world (Babbie 2004). The main strength of content analysis is its ease and accessibility. Where there may be financial or safety concerns about what research method to employ, content analysis is unobtrusive, inexpensive and flexible in its execution. The disadvantage of content analysis is limited to the recorded information and this may affect validity and reliability. Once the information has been recorded, although it can be recoded differently to achieve greater consistency and increase validity, it cannot be easily replicated to achieve greater reliability.
How academics respond, adapt and cope with the transformational changes in the
Grounded theory, first presented by Glaser and Strauss (1967), attempts to derive theories from an analysis of patterns, themes and common categories discovered in observational data. Grounded theory derives its concepts of theory construction from the theoretical perspectives in classical sociological theory and cultural studies (Charmaz 1990). The early forms of the theory describe a naturalist approach to research with a positivist concern for a ‘systematic set of procedures’. Grounded theory attempts to overcome some of the problems associated with the loose use of content analysis by introducing rigour, scepticism and objectivity and clearly audited decision pathways. What distinguish content analysis from grounded theory are the positivist research procedures that include systematic coding important for achieving validity and reliability.
The early forms of Grounded theory (Glaser 1978; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin 1998) sought to construct theory about socially important issues through a process of data collection, and have been described as inductive in nature. Research topics emerge from the stories that are told by respondents and the researcher analyses the data by constant comparison. Initially comparisons are made with the researched data and then with the researcher’s interpretations translated into codes and categories and again with more data. This constant process of comparison of data grounds the researcher’s final theorising in the respondents’ experiences. Over time grounded theory has evolved depending on the ontological and epistemological beliefs resulting in several points of departure along a spiral of methodological development (Mills et al. 2006). The traditional form of grounded theory developed by Glaser (1967) that took a positivist position, evolved over time to take a relativist ontological position with the influence of Strauss and Corbin (1998). Where Glaser (1978) believed in a pre-existent reality and that the discovery of truth emerges from the data that represents reality, Strauss and Corbin (1998) believe that truth is enacted, it is a social construct.
Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1994, 1998) affirm the importance of a multiplicity of perspectives and view of reality and so extend and emphasise the range of theoretical sensitivity attended to in the analysis of human action and interaction (MacDonald 2001). Subsequently the analysis and reconstruction of theory is richer and more reflective of the research content. This is methodology reveals an interpretive position as it includes the perspectives and real life stories of the research participants (Strauss & Corbin 1994). The multiplicity of perspectives of theoretical sensitivity includes the researchers’ level of insight, how they respond to the respondent’s words and actions, and finally the researchers’ ability to reconstruct meaning from the research data (Strauss & Corbin 1994). This methodology differs from traditional grounded theory method where researchers are expected to enter the
How academics respond, adapt and cope with the transformational changes in the
research field with no pre conceived concepts, enabling them to respond to the raw data without it being filtered through pre-existing hypotheses and concepts (Glaser 1978). The theorising that Strauss and Corbin (1994) propose is an act of reconstruction from the data a position that systematically integrates a multiplicity of perspectives through statements of relationship, that are interpreted from given perspectives as adopted by researchers. With respect to the literature review, traditional grounded theorists state there is no need to review any of the literature in the area of study (Glaser 1992) for fear of importing pre-existing biases. This interpretation of grounded theory clearly separates the data from the participants and the researcher. With the evolved grounded theory, Strauss and Corbin (1998) posit that the literature plays an integral role in the researchers’ theoretical reconstruction. The literature provides examples of similar phenomena that can stimulate thinking and add to a richer comprehension of the data.
Finally for traditional grounded theorists’ coding is the fundamental analytic tool used to reveal an emergent grounded theory form the research (Mills et al. 2006). The three forms of coding, open, theoretical and constant comparative (Glaser 1992) describes the process that begins with developing codes that lead to categories and then theorising after constant comparisons of open and theoretical coding. Strauss and Corbin (1998) began by proposing a more complex coding method to reflect their concern for the interplay between social groups and the individual realities, eventually lead to a more simplified coding system called axial coding. Axial coding paradigm was design to provoke thinking about relationships between categories and their properties and dimensions but more so that it should not restrict the dynamic flow of events and complexity of relationships (Strass & Corbin 1998). Strauss and Corbin (1998) have a constructivist intent with their methodology and agree that the tools for increasing theoretical sensitivity should reflect a degree of flexibility and creativity. Finally the grounded theory characterised by Strauss and Corbin (1998) acknowledges the researcher as the author of theoretical reconstruction of the research.