Research method and approaches

A methodology is a framework of theoretical principles and guidelines underpinning the research. ‘Research methods should be appropriate to the research questions’ (Bryman, 2008, 395). On specifying the research questions, it is important that the research method and approaches are selected that are suited to the analysis of data. The main research methods associated with qualitative research, according to Bryman, are ethnography/participant observation, qualitative interviewing, focus groups, language- based approaches and the ‘collection and qualitative analysis of texts and documents’ (Bryman, 2008, 369). Qualitative research has three features worthy of attention. It is inductive of the ‘relationship between theory and research, whereby the former is generated out of the latter’ (Bryman, 2008, 366). It has an epistemological position because it interprets the social world and the participants in that social world (Bryman, 2008).

Whittaker (2009) describes interpretivism as a broad term that challenges the research methods of the natural sciences for not taking into account the viewpoints of participants, an important feature of qualitative research, as one must understand the meaning of what is being said (Whittaker, 2009, 9). The third feature is an ontological position which is constructionist and means that social outcomes are derived from interactions with ‘individuals , rather than phenomena ‘out there’ and separate from those involved in the construction’ (Bryman, 2008, 66). The methodology chapter should outline the researcher’s epistemological position or stance on the assumption of the legitimate knowledge in the body of the research (Whittaker, 2009). Sarantakos (2005) considers constructionism, interpretivism and relativism as the most common theoretical foundations of qualitative methodology. Construction theory focuses on the fact that reality is constructed when the human mind focuses on it. ‘The construction of reality is an active process of creating a world. The reality people experience in everyday life is a constructed reality – their reality – based on interpretation’ (Sarantakos, 2005, 37). The basic assumptions of constructionism are that ‘research

181 focuses on the construction of meanings’ and that meanings ‘emerge out of people’s interaction’ with their world; it is the people who construct the world they live in, (Sarantakos, 2005, 37). Constructed realities are presented in many forms and therefore cannot be regarded as coming from the one ‘source of knowledge about reality’ but as variations of reality (Sarantakos, 2005, 38).

The key process that facilitates construction and reconstruction is

interpretation. This involves reflective assessment of the reconstructed

impressions of the world and integration of action processes in a general context, which will constitute a new unit

(Sarantakos, 2005, 39).

Interpretivism is a framework within qualitative research (Sarantakos, 2005, 40) which explores the research through social traditions, histories, social norms and cultures. There are a number of criticisms of interpretivism, which conclude that it is difficult to monitor the intention, the reason and the motives of interpretivist inquiry. ‘Accounts of researcher and respondents may vary and be competing’ (Sarantakos, 2005, 41). Also ‘interpretivism fails to acknowledge the role of institutional structure, particularly division of interest and relations of power’, (2005, 41), in other words, the social construction of ‘gender’ and ‘power role’ norms that can interplay and impact on research, making the findings appear questionable. The meanings of norms and beliefs held in society are not addressed, nor are the different belief systems in different societies. The common theoretical foundations have many aspects in common, as all are based in the human/social side of the environment, in and through people which relate their beliefs and values. A qualitative paradigm is a framework of beliefs, values, and methods that underpins the whole body of the research.

One of the central concepts of qualitative research is that it is a perception of reality that is subjective, constructed, multiple and diverse and ‘resides in the minds of people who construct it’, although the ‘realities are different’ as people can experience the world differently: human beings are central and active members of their world (Sarantakos, 2005, 41). The differences between qualitative and quantitative approaches do not suggest differences in quality but in purpose. Both possess certain qualities that make them suitable for studying particular aspects of reality (Sarantakos, 2005, 49) and they can be used in research to effectively complement each other. A

182 quantitative approach in social science research is more scientifically based, as opposed to the reflectivity and analysis basis of qualitative research. When research is subjective as opposed to objective, this means the research approach uses judgments that influence the results, whereas objective research uses ‘instruments or standardised procedures that precisely measure something without human influence (Krueger & Casey, 2000, 200). Standardised procedures are used to analyse the qualitative data; the researcher must be careful:

to distinguish the findings from our interpretations and recommendations. We expect more subjectivity in the interpretations and recommendations. But these are also the parts of the study that are open to debate. People with different backgrounds and different experiences may very well come up with different interpretations and recommendations

(Krueger & Casey, 2000, 200).

Criticisms of qualitative research include that it is much harder to prove how objective and reliable the research is because of the very nature of the research.

4.5.4.1 Criticisms of the reliability of qualitative research

The following are criticisms of qualitative research particularly from quantitative researchers. Qualitative research is too subjective because the findings ‘rely too much on the researcher’s often unsystematic views about what is significant and important, and also upon the close personal relationships that the researcher frequently strikes up with the people studied’ (Bryman, 2008, 391). Qualitative research is too difficult to replicate because of the way the research has been conducted, and is even influenced by who conducts it. Furthermore, the topics or issues the researcher initially considered important may change, or could prove too difficult to repeat the same research, because variables change, as nothing remains static in social science. An example of a variable that may influence or change the research is the gender or age of the researcher. A male researcher may approach or understand the research from a different perspective to that of a female researcher. Or for example, a twenty year old researcher may think differently from a forty year old researcher regarding a certain situation. Or they may ask specific questions that are of interest to them because they have a different perspective (Bryman, 2008, 391). Qualitative research is more difficult to ‘generalise’. What is occurring in one area may not necessarily be occurring in another. Qualitative research findings are generalised to theory. ‘It is the quality of the

183 theoretical inferences that are made out of qualitative data that is crucial to the assessment of generalisation’ (Bryman, 2008, 391-392). The following principles help to ensure the research is reliable, valid and objective.

Objectivity is the research principle that requires that all the personal values and views of the investigator must be kept out of the research process. The purpose of this is to minimise personal prejudice and bias, to guarantee that social reality will be present as it is, and not as the investigator interprets it, imagines it or wants it to be

(Sarantakos, 2005, 92).

The concept of validity ensures that ‘the instrument measure what it is supposed to measure’ (Sarantakos, 2005, 91) and that it ensures ‘accurate results’. Reliability ensures that the instrument produces the ‘same results every time it is employed’ (Sarantakos, 2005, 91). Qualitative researchers ‘reject the notion of objectivity’ because in its very nature, qualitative research is grounded in ‘interpretivist epistemology’, so that, on the contrary, personal views and interpretation are ‘considered an advantage’ (Sarantakos, 2005:94). The epistemology underlying qualitative research is that the researcher is looking through the eyes of someone else and seeing the social world as they see it (Bryman, 2008). With regard to the validity and reliability of the transcripts, a small number of the interviewees requested their data to be returned for validation and /or to confirm what they said at their interview ‘read well’. Also the researcher sent back transcriptions to some participants to rule out possible language inferences, so that the transcriptions could be verified by the participants, particularly those whose first language was not English. This was to ensure that the tone and the implied content of the transcript were as intended.

Respondent validation has been particularly popular among qualitative researchers, because they frequently want to ensure that there is a good correspondence between their findings and the perspectives and the experiences of their research participants

(Bryman, 2008, 377).

One disadvantage of respondent validation is that it can cause ‘censorship’ as participants may restrict the use of the information they contributed (Bryman, 2008, 378). None of the research participants restricted the findings. The following section creates an understanding of the benefits of triangulation.

184

4.5.4.2 Triangulation

With regard to the validity of findings, triangulation is ‘often cited as one of the central ways of ‘validating’ qualitative research evidence’ (Ritchie, 2003, 43). It is a ‘three- point perspective on an event or phenomenon’ (Edwards & Talbot, 1999, 55). It can involve the ‘use of different methods and sources to check the integrity of, or extent, inferences drawn from the data’ (Ritchie, 2003, 43). Triangulation is viewing the research from either different methods or different views but basically, it is the corroboration or confirmation that the research is reliable and valid (Thomas, 2009, 111-112). It is a deepening of the ‘understanding of a subject through the combination of multiple readings’ (Lewis & Ritchie, 2003, 275). Some researchers suggest that triangulation is acknowledged as using a multi-method approach, that is using ‘different methods in different combinations’ to create more meaningful data (Fontana & Frey, 2005, 722). Other researchers (Richardson & St Pierre, 2005) suggest that triangulation in qualitative inquiry should be replaced by ‘crystallization’, to include the ‘incorporation of various disciplines as part of [a] mutli-faceted qualitative research design’ (Janesick, 2003, 67). Essentially, advocates of ‘crystallization’ see this entire concept ‘as a better lens through which to view qualitative research designs and their components’ (Janesick, 2003, 67). The idea of the crystal is that it has so many sides, shapes and angles that make it multi-viewable from so many perspectives. There are many perspectives on the concept of triangulation and there are also a number of criticisms. Triangulation does tend to give a fuller picture but it is not necessarily a more convincing one, particularly from an ontological perspective. One criticism Ritchie (2003) states is that:

there is no single reality or conception of the social world to ascertain and that attempting to do so through the use of multiple sources of information is futile. Second, it is argued on epistemological grounds, that all methods have a specificity in terms of data they yield and thus they are unlikely to generate perfectly concordant evidence

(Ritchie, 2003, 44).

Having said that, the advantages of using different methods outweigh the disadvantages. The following section concentrates on the advantages of using focus group research.

185