The Qualitative Paradigm:
The Qualitative Paradigm:
An Overview of some basic Concepts,
An Overview of some basic Concepts,
Assumptions, and Theories of Qualitative Research
Assumptions, and Theories of Qualitative Research
By Lisa Joniak, Ph.D. By Lisa Joniak, Ph.D.
A paradigm may be
A paradigm may be viewed as a set viewed as a set of of basic beliefsbasic beliefs (or metaphysics) that(or metaphysics) that deals with ultimates or first principles. It represents a
deals with ultimates or first principles. It represents a worldview worldview thatthat defines, for its holder, the nature of the “world,” the individual’s place in it, defines, for its holder, the nature of the “world,” the individual’s place in it, and the range of possible relationships to that world and its parts, as, for and the range of possible relationships to that world and its parts, as, for example, cosmologies and theologies do. The beliefs are basic in the example, cosmologies and theologies do. The beliefs are basic in the sense that they must be accepted simply on faith (however well argued); sense that they must be accepted simply on faith (however well argued); there is no way to establish their ultimate truthfulness. If there were, the there is no way to establish their ultimate truthfulness. If there were, the philosophical debates reflected in these pages would have been resolved philosophical debates reflected in these pages would have been resolved millennia ago.
millennia ago.
(Denzin 1994, p. 107) (Denzin 1994, p. 107) Author’s
Author’s Note: ThNote: This paper sis paper serves as erves as the starthe starting pointing point for a cout for a course in qurse in qualitativealitative research. The author provides a general overview of the qualitative paradigm and research. The author provides a general overview of the qualitative paradigm and then goes on to discuss four major theories used in qualitative inquiry.
then goes on to discuss four major theories used in qualitative inquiry. What is Qualitative Research?
What is Qualitative Research?
Over the past few decades a “methodological revolution” has spawned in Over the past few decades a “methodological revolution” has spawned in the social sciences (Denzin 1994). The field of quantitative research has made the social sciences (Denzin 1994). The field of quantitative research has made way for a more interpretative approach—the qualitative approach. As Denzin and way for a more interpretative approach—the qualitative approach. As Denzin and Lincoln explain:
Lincoln explain:
Where only statistics, experimental designs, and survey research once Where only statistics, experimental designs, and survey research once stood, researchers have opened up to ethnography, unstructured stood, researchers have opened up to ethnography, unstructured interviewing, textual analysis, and historical studies. Where “We’re doing interviewing, textual analysis, and historical studies. Where “We’re doing science” was once the watch-word, scholars are now experimenting with science” was once the watch-word, scholars are now experimenting with the boundaries of interpretation, linking research to social change, delving the boundaries of interpretation, linking research to social change, delving into characteristics of race, ethnicity, gender, age and culture to into characteristics of race, ethnicity, gender, age and culture to understand more fully the relationship of the researcher to the research. In understand more fully the relationship of the researcher to the research. In various disciplines in various guises, this implicit critique of the traditional various disciplines in various guises, this implicit critique of the traditional worldview of science and quantitative methods is taking place. All of these worldview of science and quantitative methods is taking place. All of these trends have fallen under the rubric of “qualitative research.” (Denzin 1994, trends have fallen under the rubric of “qualitative research.” (Denzin 1994, p.ix)
This is not to suggest that qualitative research is new, even though it is still This is not to suggest that qualitative research is new, even though it is still learning to fly.
learning to fly. Qualitative studies have been traced back to Qualitative studies have been traced back to the earlier part of thethe earlier part of the 20
20thth Century (Lindlof 1995, p. 8).Century (Lindlof 1995, p. 8).11 Deemed as “soft scientists,” qualitativeDeemed as “soft scientists,” qualitative
researchers fought to have their methodology recognized and appreciated by the researchers fought to have their methodology recognized and appreciated by the social scientific world (Denzin 1994; Lindlof 1995; Silverman 2000). Paving the social scientific world (Denzin 1994; Lindlof 1995; Silverman 2000). Paving the way for the tremendous development in qualitative inquiry, was the growing way for the tremendous development in qualitative inquiry, was the growing
dissatisfaction by academics to form a deeper understanding of their subject than dissatisfaction by academics to form a deeper understanding of their subject than mere numbers and statistical models could provide (Lindlof 1995, p. 9).
mere numbers and statistical models could provide (Lindlof 1995, p. 9). Accordi
According to Lindng to Lindlof, unliklof, unlike quantite quantitative reseative researchers, archers, who perwho perform tests form tests of of prediction and control, “qualitative inquirers strive to
prediction and control, “qualitative inquirers strive to understand understand their objects of their objects of interest (Lindlof 1995, p. 9). It is through the researcher’s insight that qualitative interest (Lindlof 1995, p. 9). It is through the researcher’s insight that qualitative research achieves its ultimate goal—understanding, or as it is sometimes called, research achieves its ultimate goal—understanding, or as it is sometimes called, verstehen. That special “something” that qualitative research provides comes verstehen. That special “something” that qualitative research provides comes out, not only in its product (verstehen), but also in
out, not only in its product (verstehen), but also in how how it was created. Paulyit was created. Pauly explains:
explains:
The “something” that qualitative research understands is not some set of The “something” that qualitative research understands is not some set of truisms about communication but the awful difficulties groups face in truisms about communication but the awful difficulties groups face in mapping reality. The qualitative researcher is an explorer, not a tourist. mapping reality. The qualitative researcher is an explorer, not a tourist. Rather than speeding down the interstate, the qualitative researcher Rather than speeding down the interstate, the qualitative researcher ambles along the circuitous back roads of public discourse and social ambles along the circuitous back roads of public discourse and social practice. In reporting on that journey the researcher may conclude that practice. In reporting on that journey the researcher may conclude that some of those paths were, in fact, wider and more foot-worn than others, some of those paths were, in fact, wider and more foot-worn than others, that some branched off in myriad directions, some narrowed along the that some branched off in myriad directions, some narrowed along the way, some rambled endlessly while others ran straight and long, and way, some rambled endlessly while others ran straight and long, and some ended at the precipice, in the brambles, or back at their origin. some ended at the precipice, in the brambles, or back at their origin. (Pauly 1991, p. 7)
(Pauly 1991, p. 7)
By taking the longer, more scenic path, qualitative researchers open up a By taking the longer, more scenic path, qualitative researchers open up a colorful, deep, contextual world of interpretations.
Tapping into this kaleidoscopic realm, requires qualitative researchers to Tapping into this kaleidoscopic realm, requires qualitative researchers to become familiar with their participants’ interpretations of reality. Utilizing the emic become familiar with their participants’ interpretations of reality. Utilizing the emic approach, where one becomes immersed with the data, the qualitative
approach, where one becomes immersed with the data, the qualitative researcher observes, records, and interprets the phenomena
researcher observes, records, and interprets the phenomena from thefrom the participants’ perspectives
participants’ perspectives. . Lindlof describes Lindlof describes the unique the unique relationship between therelationship between the qualitative researcher and participant:
qualitative researcher and participant:
Qualitative researchers appear to undertake the very suspect course of Qualitative researchers appear to undertake the very suspect course of seriously studying the sentiments of their human subjects. Rather than seriously studying the sentiments of their human subjects. Rather than treating people’s utterances about themselves and their world as treating people’s utterances about themselves and their world as inaccurate accounts of social reality, or as outcomes determined by inaccurate accounts of social reality, or as outcomes determined by environmental forces, or as manifestations of cognitive processes, the environmental forces, or as manifestations of cognitive processes, the qualitative researcher listens carefully to the utterances. The researcher qualitative researcher listens carefully to the utterances. The researcher moves about in the lives of certain people, and subjects and researcher moves about in the lives of certain people, and subjects and researcher become familiar to each other: they as something more (knowing, become familiar to each other: they as something more (knowing, authentic) than human subjects, and he or she as possibly something less authentic) than human subjects, and he or she as possibly something less (exalted, authoritative) than a researcher. (Lindlof 1995, 9)
(exalted, authoritative) than a researcher. (Lindlof 1995, 9)
Thus, qualitative and quantitative research are not merely different way of
Thus, qualitative and quantitative research are not merely different way of doing doing research, but different ways of
research, but different ways of thinking thinking . Before moving on to the ontological and. Before moving on to the ontological and epistemological principles and assumptions of qualitative research, some
epistemological principles and assumptions of qualitative research, some prefatory remarks on how qualitative inquiry is defined are in order.
prefatory remarks on how qualitative inquiry is defined are in order.
Defining Qualitative Research Defining Qualitative Research
The field of qualitative research resembles a patchwork quilt, built The field of qualitative research resembles a patchwork quilt, built piece-by-piece using perspectives and methods from just about every stop along the by-piece using perspectives and methods from just about every stop along the social scientific spectrum. According to Denzin and Lincoln, “the field of
social scientific spectrum. According to Denzin and Lincoln, “the field of qualitative research is defined primarily by a series of essential tensions, qualitative research is defined primarily by a series of essential tensions,
contradictions, and hesitations (Denzin 1994, p. ix). It is through these tensions contradictions, and hesitations (Denzin 1994, p. ix). It is through these tensions
and contradictions that the essence of qualitative inquiry emerged. Denzin and and contradictions that the essence of qualitative inquiry emerged. Denzin and Lincoln broadly define qualitative research:
Lincoln broadly define qualitative research:
Qualitative research is multimethod in focus, involving an interpretive, Qualitative research is multimethod in focus, involving an interpretive, naturalistic approach to its subject matter. This means that qualitative naturalistic approach to its subject matter. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them. Qualitative research involves the studied use and collection of a to them. Qualitative research involves the studied use and collection of a variety of empirical materials—case study, personal experience, variety of empirical materials—case study, personal experience, introspective, life story, interview, observational, historical, interactional, introspective, life story, interview, observational, historical, interactional, and visual texts—that describe routine and problematic moments and and visual texts—that describe routine and problematic moments and meanings in individuals’ lives. Accordingly, qualitative research deploys meanings in individuals’ lives. Accordingly, qualitative research deploys wide range of interconnected methods, hoping always to get a better fix on wide range of interconnected methods, hoping always to get a better fix on the subject matter at hand. (Denzin 1994, p. 2)
the subject matter at hand. (Denzin 1994, p. 2)
Thus, qualitative research can be used differently by a multitude of disciplines, Thus, qualitative research can be used differently by a multitude of disciplines, studying just about anything. Since qualitative research is made up of complex, studying just about anything. Since qualitative research is made up of complex, context-dependent variables, it may be helpful to examine and compare
context-dependent variables, it may be helpful to examine and compare
qualitative inquiry with quantitative (or non-qualitative) study. Treise (Table 1) qualitative inquiry with quantitative (or non-qualitative) study. Treise (Table 1) provides a useful outline comparing many of the qualitative characteristics and provides a useful outline comparing many of the qualitative characteristics and assumptions with the non-qualitative approach:
assumptions with the non-qualitative approach:
TABLE 1-Comparison of Qualitative and Non-Qualitative Approaches TABLE 1-Comparison of Qualitative and Non-Qualitative Approaches
Qualitative
Qualitative Approach Approach Non-Qualitative ApproachNon-Qualitative Approach 1. Assumes multiple and dynamic
1. Assumes multiple and dynamic realities, contextual
realities, contextual
1. Assumes single, stable reality, 1. Assumes single, stable reality, divisible/fragmentable
divisible/fragmentable 2. Seeks “understanding” through
2. Seeks “understanding” through “verstehen”
“verstehen”
2. Seeks external facts and causes 2. Seeks external facts and causes explanation; systematic association of explanation; systematic association of variables; prediction
variables; prediction 3. Natural setting, uncontrolled
3. Natural setting, uncontrolled observation observation 3. Controlled observation, 3. Controlled observation, experimentation experimentation 4.
4. Data Data precedes precedes theory theory 4. 4. Theory Theory precedes precedes datadata 5. Data are “valid, real, rich, deep,
5. Data are “valid, real, rich, deep, thick”
thick”
5. Data are “hard, reliable, thin, 5. Data are “hard, reliable, thin, replicable”
replicable” 6.
6. Process-oriented Process-oriented 6. 6. Outcome Outcome orientedoriented 7.
8.
8. Holistic Holistic orientation orientation 8. 8. Particularistic Particularistic orientationorientation 9. Said to be “grounded,
9. Said to be “grounded, discovery-oriented, exploratory, expansionist, oriented, exploratory, expansionist, descriptive” [The theory is grounded in descriptive” [The theory is grounded in the data.]
the data.]
9. Said to be “ungrounded, 9. Said to be “ungrounded, verification-oriented, confirmatory, reductionist” oriented, confirmatory, reductionist”
10.
10. Inductive Inductive approach approach 10. 10. Deductive Deductive approachapproach 11.
11. Researcher Researcher is is the the instrument instrument 11. 11. Relies Relies on on questionnaires, questionnaires, attitudeattitude scales
scales 12. Uses “insight” and sensitized
12. Uses “insight” and sensitized concepts
concepts
12. Uses statistical measures and tests 12. Uses statistical measures and tests 13.
13. “Meaning” “Meaning” is is central central concept concept 13. 13. Little Little or or no no role role for for interpretedinterpreted meaning
meaning 14.
14. Works Works with with research research “participant” “participant” 14. 14. Recruits Recruits research research “subjects”“subjects” 15. Dynamic nature of research
15. Dynamic nature of research precludes step-by-step instruction precludes step-by-step instruction
15. Research methods are well 15. Research methods are well documented and structured documented and structured
(Treise 1999) (Treise 1999)22 Treise’s chart nicely lays out some of the fundamental differences between
Treise’s chart nicely lays out some of the fundamental differences between qualitative and quantitative approaches. Here we can clearly see sharp qualitative and quantitative approaches. Here we can clearly see sharp differences in ontology and epistemology between the qualitative and differences in ontology and epistemology between the qualitative and non-qualitative camps. In the next section, we will examine the ontological and qualitative camps. In the next section, we will examine the ontological and epistemological assumptions of qualitative research.
epistemological assumptions of qualitative research. Qualitative Ontology & Epistemology
Qualitative Ontology & Epistemology As Treis
As Treise’s matrix se’s matrix shows, quhows, qualitative alitative researcresearchers assuhers assume multiple me multiple andand dynamic realities that are context-dependent. Therefore, qualitative researchers dynamic realities that are context-dependent. Therefore, qualitative researchers embrace an ontology that denies the existence of (or at least the efficacy of embrace an ontology that denies the existence of (or at least the efficacy of arguing for the existence of) an external reality. By external reality, we mean one arguing for the existence of) an external reality. By external reality, we mean one that exists outside and independent of our interpretations of it (Searle 1995, p. that exists outside and independent of our interpretations of it (Searle 1995, p. 154). As such, qualitative researchers value participant’s own interpretations of 154). As such, qualitative researchers value participant’s own interpretations of reality. These individual interpretations are deeply embedded in a rich contextual reality. These individual interpretations are deeply embedded in a rich contextual web that cannot be separated and generalized out to some mass population. web that cannot be separated and generalized out to some mass population.
Holstein and Gubrium maintain the importance of context when examining a Holstein and Gubrium maintain the importance of context when examining a subject, participant or even one’s self:
subject, participant or even one’s self:
If we are to study lives, including selves in social interaction, we must If we are to study lives, including selves in social interaction, we must study them from
study them from withinwithin the social contexts they unfold, not separate fromthe social contexts they unfold, not separate from them. … Human beings don’t settle their affairs with meaning once and for them. … Human beings don’t settle their affairs with meaning once and for all. Rather, they continually engage the interpretive process, including the all. Rather, they continually engage the interpretive process, including the interpretation of what they mean to themselves….The methodological interpretation of what they mean to themselves….The methodological directive here is to document the articulation and emergence of meaning directive here is to document the articulation and emergence of meaning in rich detail as it unfolds, not in lifeless analytic categories and statistical in rich detail as it unfolds, not in lifeless analytic categories and statistical tables. (Holstein 2000, p. 33)
tables. (Holstein 2000, p. 33)
Thus, qualitative inquiry assumes that reality is socially constructed by every Thus, qualitative inquiry assumes that reality is socially constructed by every unique individual, from within their own unique contextual interpretation. unique individual, from within their own unique contextual interpretation. Maintaining an internal, socially-constructed ontology effects the epistemic Maintaining an internal, socially-constructed ontology effects the epistemic foundations of qualitative research.
foundations of qualitative research.
Denzin and Lincoln demonstrate how a paradigm’s ontology invariably Denzin and Lincoln demonstrate how a paradigm’s ontology invariably affects its epistemology:
affects its epistemology:
The epistemological question
The epistemological question. What is the nature of the relationship. What is the nature of the relationship between the knower or would-be knower and what can be known? The between the knower or would-be knower and what can be known? The answer that can be given to this question is constrained by the answer answer that can be given to this question is constrained by the answer already given to the ontological question; that is, not just
already given to the ontological question; that is, not just any any relationshiprelationship can now be postulated. (Denzin 1994, p. 108)
can now be postulated. (Denzin 1994, p. 108)
That is, one’s views on the nature of reality, in turn, affect how they come to gain That is, one’s views on the nature of reality, in turn, affect how they come to gain knowledge of their reality. Since, qualitative researchers embrace internal reality, knowledge of their reality. Since, qualitative researchers embrace internal reality, they cannot embrace an objective epistemology. Therefore, qualitative
they cannot embrace an objective epistemology. Therefore, qualitative researchers, valuing participant’s
researchers, valuing participant’s ownown interpretations of reality, maintain thatinterpretations of reality, maintain that knowledge emerges from achieving a deep understanding of the data and the knowledge emerges from achieving a deep understanding of the data and the context it is embedded in. But how do we know that what we think we know is context it is embedded in. But how do we know that what we think we know is
really what we know? Let’s examine the trustworthiness criteria for qualitative really what we know? Let’s examine the trustworthiness criteria for qualitative research.
research.
Trustworthiness Criteria for Qualitative Inquiry Trustworthiness Criteria for Qualitative Inquiry
Qualitative research endures attacks on its unique and distinct approach Qualitative research endures attacks on its unique and distinct approach to examining the world and seeking understanding from it. The present section to examining the world and seeking understanding from it. The present section looks at alternative paths to producing research that merits attention, respect and looks at alternative paths to producing research that merits attention, respect and acceptance. Lincoln and Guba lay out the charges often thrown against
acceptance. Lincoln and Guba lay out the charges often thrown against naturalistic studies, including qualitative research:
naturalistic studies, including qualitative research:
The naturalistic inquirer soon becomes accustomed to hearing charges The naturalistic inquirer soon becomes accustomed to hearing charges that naturalistic studies are undisciplined; that he or she is guilty of that naturalistic studies are undisciplined; that he or she is guilty of “sloppy” research, engaging in “merely subjective” observations, “sloppy” research, engaging in “merely subjective” observations, responding indiscriminately to the “loudest bangs or brightest lights.” responding indiscriminately to the “loudest bangs or brightest lights.” Rigor, it is asserted, is not the hallmark of naturalism. Is the naturalist Rigor, it is asserted, is not the hallmark of naturalism. Is the naturalist inevitable defenseless against such charges? Worse, are they true? inevitable defenseless against such charges? Worse, are they true? (Lincoln 1985, pp 289-290)
(Lincoln 1985, pp 289-290)
Lincoln and Guba give a definitive “no” to both questions posed above. They start Lincoln and Guba give a definitive “no” to both questions posed above. They start by explaining that traditionally in the social sciences there have been four criteria by explaining that traditionally in the social sciences there have been four criteria used to evaluate the merit of research: internal validity, external validity, reliability used to evaluate the merit of research: internal validity, external validity, reliability and objectivity. Critics of qualitative research have long argued that there is no and objectivity. Critics of qualitative research have long argued that there is no merit to qualitative studies because they do not achieve internal and external merit to qualitative studies because they do not achieve internal and external validity. Perhaps, some have refuted, that is because validity criteria are validity. Perhaps, some have refuted, that is because validity criteria are
inappropriate measures for evaluating qualitative work. Deniz and Lincoln explain inappropriate measures for evaluating qualitative work. Deniz and Lincoln explain the traditional notions of validity and offer up the concept of trustworthiness as a the traditional notions of validity and offer up the concept of trustworthiness as a replacement:
Some analysts argue that
Some analysts argue that validity validity may be an inappropriate term in amay be an inappropriate term in a critical research context, as it simply reflects a concern for acceptance critical research context, as it simply reflects a concern for acceptance within a positivist concept of research rigor. To a critical researcher, within a positivist concept of research rigor. To a critical researcher, validity means much more than the traditional definitions of internal and validity means much more than the traditional definitions of internal and external validity usually associated with the concept. Traditional research external validity usually associated with the concept. Traditional research has defined
has defined internal validity internal validity as the extent to which a researcher’sas the extent to which a researcher’s observations and measurements are true descriptions of a particular observations and measurements are true descriptions of a particular reality;
reality; external validity external validity has been defined as the degree to which suchhas been defined as the degree to which such descriptions can be accurately compared with other groups. descriptions can be accurately compared with other groups. Trustworthiness
Trustworthiness, many have argued, is a more appropriate word to use in, many have argued, is a more appropriate word to use in the context of critical research. It is helpful because it signifies a different the context of critical research. It is helpful because it signifies a different set of assumptions about research purposes than does
set of assumptions about research purposes than does validity validity . (Denzin. (Denzin 1994, p. 151)
1994, p. 151)
Lincoln and Guba outline the assumptions of trustworthy qualitative research and Lincoln and Guba outline the assumptions of trustworthy qualitative research and contrast them with their non-qualitative counterparts.
contrast them with their non-qualitative counterparts.
TABLE 2-Comparison of Trustworthiness and Validity Criteria TABLE 2-Comparison of Trustworthiness and Validity Criteria
Qualitative Non-Qualitative Qualitative Non-Qualitative CREDIBILITY
CREDIBILITY Internal Internal ValidityValidity TRANSFERABILITY
TRANSFERABILITY External External ValidityValidity
DEPENDABILITY Reliability DEPENDABILITY Reliability CONFIRMABILITY Objectivity CONFIRMABILITY Objectivity (Lincoln 1985) (Lincoln 1985)33
Lincoln and Guba discuss each criterion and explicate steps qualitative Lincoln and Guba discuss each criterion and explicate steps qualitative
researchers can take to ensure that they are achieving results that are credible, researchers can take to ensure that they are achieving results that are credible, transferable, dependable, and can be confirmed. Here, we will briefly outline the transferable, dependable, and can be confirmed. Here, we will briefly outline the four criteria for trustworthiness and explain how each is achieved.
four criteria for trustworthiness and explain how each is achieved. 44 Credibility,Credibility, Lincoln and Guba maintain, can be achieved through five activities:
Credibility-5 Activities: Credibility-5 Activities:
1.
1. Activities that will Activities that will increase the probability increase the probability that credible findings that credible findings will bewill be produced:
produced:
•
• Prolonged engagement—the investment of sufficient timeProlonged engagement—the investment of sufficient time
to achieve certain purposes: learning the culture, testing to achieve certain purposes: learning the culture, testing for misinformation, building trust (Lincoln 1985, p. 301) for misinformation, building trust (Lincoln 1985, p. 301)
•
• Persistent observation—identifying and assessing salientPersistent observation—identifying and assessing salient
factors and crucial atypical occurrences (Lincoln 1985, p. factors and crucial atypical occurrences (Lincoln 1985, p. 304)
304)
•
• Triangulation—the use of different sources, methods,Triangulation—the use of different sources, methods,
theories and sometimes investigators to resist easy theories and sometimes investigators to resist easy interpretation of phenomena (Lincoln 1985, p. 305) interpretation of phenomena (Lincoln 1985, p. 305)
2.
2. Activity that provides Activity that provides an external an external check of check of the inquiry the inquiry process:process:
•
• Peer debriefing—helps keep the inquirer “honest,”Peer debriefing—helps keep the inquirer “honest,”
exposing him or her to searching questions by an exposing him or her to searching questions by an
experience protagonist playing devil’s advocate and tests experience protagonist playing devil’s advocate and tests working hypotheses emerging in the inquirer’s mind
working hypotheses emerging in the inquirer’s mind (Lincoln 1985, p. 308)
(Lincoln 1985, p. 308)
3.
3. Activity aimed Activity aimed at at refining working refining working hypotheses:hypotheses:
•
• Negative case analysis—refining hypothesis until itNegative case analysis—refining hypothesis until it
accounts for all known cases without exception (Lincoln accounts for all known cases without exception (Lincoln 1985, p. 309)
1985, p. 309) 4.
4. Activity for Activity for checking preliminary checking preliminary findings and findings and interpretations againstinterpretations against raw data:
raw data:
•
• Referential adequacy—testing archived data against rawReferential adequacy—testing archived data against raw
data, using external analysts (Lincoln 1985, p. 313) data, using external analysts (Lincoln 1985, p. 313) 5.
5. Activity providing for Activity providing for the direct the direct test of test of findings and findings and interpretations withinterpretations with the sources:
the sources:
•
• Member checks—data, analytic categories,Member checks—data, analytic categories,
interpretations, and conclusions are tested with members interpretations, and conclusions are tested with members of those stakeholding groups from whom the data were of those stakeholding groups from whom the data were originally collected (Lincoln 1985, p. 314)
Covering these five steps is not a necessary condition for achieving credibility, Covering these five steps is not a necessary condition for achieving credibility, but is a sufficient condition for credibility. Next, let’s look at Lincoln and Guba’s but is a sufficient condition for credibility. Next, let’s look at Lincoln and Guba’s transferability guidelines.
transferability guidelines.
Transferability is very different from it’s conventionalist counterpart Transferability is very different from it’s conventionalist counterpart external validity. Lincoln and Guba explain:
external validity. Lincoln and Guba explain:
…[T]he naturalist cannot specify the external validity of an inquiry; he or …[T]he naturalist cannot specify the external validity of an inquiry; he or she can provide only the thick description necessary to enable someone she can provide only the thick description necessary to enable someone interested in making a transfer to reach a conclusion about whether interested in making a transfer to reach a conclusion about whether transfer can be contemplated as a possibility….Clearly, not just any transfer can be contemplated as a possibility….Clearly, not just any descriptive data will do, but the criteria that separate relevant from descriptive data will do, but the criteria that separate relevant from irrelevant descriptors are still largely undefined….The naturalist inquirer is irrelevant descriptors are still largely undefined….The naturalist inquirer is also responsible for providing the widest possible range of information for also responsible for providing the widest possible range of information for inclusion in the thick description…(1985, p. 316)
inclusion in the thick description…(1985, p. 316)
Lincoln and Guba stress that it is not the qualitative researcher’s “responsibility to Lincoln and Guba stress that it is not the qualitative researcher’s “responsibility to provide an
provide an index index of transferability; itof transferability; it isis his or her responsibility to provide thehis or her responsibility to provide the datadata base
base that makes transferability judgments possible on the part of potentialthat makes transferability judgments possible on the part of potential
appliers” (Lincoln 1985, p. 316). In fact, it is impossible for a researcher to know appliers” (Lincoln 1985, p. 316). In fact, it is impossible for a researcher to know whether or not his or her data is transferable to some other study in the future whether or not his or her data is transferable to some other study in the future because he or she is ignorant of the specific context in which the subsequent because he or she is ignorant of the specific context in which the subsequent study is taking place. Therefore, qualitative researchers must provide the tools study is taking place. Therefore, qualitative researchers must provide the tools (data) for future researchers to determine whether or not transferability applies. (data) for future researchers to determine whether or not transferability applies.
Dependability and confirmability are primarily achieved through the use of Dependability and confirmability are primarily achieved through the use of audit trails. In an inquiry audit, the auditor examines both the dependability of the audit trails. In an inquiry audit, the auditor examines both the dependability of the process and the confirmability of the product (Lincoln 1985, p. 316-318). Finally, process and the confirmability of the product (Lincoln 1985, p. 316-318). Finally, Lincoln and Guba wisely note that the procedures they outline for achieving Lincoln and Guba wisely note that the procedures they outline for achieving credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability are merely
achieving trustworthiness, not
achieving trustworthiness, not thethe way. Thus, researchers should resist regardingway. Thus, researchers should resist regarding these criteria as “prescriptions” of how qualitative inquiry
these criteria as “prescriptions” of how qualitative inquiry must must be done, insteadbe done, instead utilize and build on these guides as the context and phenomena require.
utilize and build on these guides as the context and phenomena require.
Theories of Qualitative Research Theories of Qualitative Research
The theories presented here are by no means the only theories qualitative The theories presented here are by no means the only theories qualitative researchers employ.
researchers employ.55 Producing an exhaustive list of theories qualitativeProducing an exhaustive list of theories qualitative
researchers utilize would be a daunting task, perhaps an impossible one given researchers utilize would be a daunting task, perhaps an impossible one given the complexity and multidimensionality of the qualitative process. The present the complexity and multidimensionality of the qualitative process. The present section looks at four theories that mesh well with the basic tenants and
section looks at four theories that mesh well with the basic tenants and
assumptions of the qualitative paradigm: symbolic interactionism, semiotics, assumptions of the qualitative paradigm: symbolic interactionism, semiotics, phenomenology, and ethnomethodology.
phenomenology, and ethnomethodology.66 While examining each of theseWhile examining each of these
theories, take note at how each one is interconnected with the others and how all theories, take note at how each one is interconnected with the others and how all of the theories fit into the qualitative paradigm.
of the theories fit into the qualitative paradigm. Symbolic Interactionism
Symbolic Interactionism
Simply put, symbolic interactionism is a theory about how meanings are Simply put, symbolic interactionism is a theory about how meanings are produced by agents through their interactions with symbols. According to Blumer, produced by agents through their interactions with symbols. According to Blumer, symbolic interactionism:
symbolic interactionism:
…does not regard meaning as emanating from the intrinsic makeup of the …does not regard meaning as emanating from the intrinsic makeup of the thing that has meaning, nor does it see meaning as arising through a thing that has meaning, nor does it see meaning as arising through a coalescence of psychological elements in the person. Instead, it sees coalescence of psychological elements in the person. Instead, it sees meaning as arising in the process of interaction between people. The meaning as arising in the process of interaction between people. The meaning of a thing for a person grows out of the ways in which other meaning of a thing for a person grows out of the ways in which other persons act toward the person with regard to the thing. Their actions persons act toward the person with regard to the thing. Their actions operate to define the thing for the person. Thus, symbolic interactionism operate to define the thing for the person. Thus, symbolic interactionism sees meanings as social products, as creations that are formed in and sees meanings as social products, as creations that are formed in and
through the defining activities of people as they interact. This point of view through the defining activities of people as they interact. This point of view gives symbolic interactionism a very distinctive position, with profound gives symbolic interactionism a very distinctive position, with profound implications…(1969, pp. 4-5)
implications…(1969, pp. 4-5)
The symbolic interactionist’s view of meanings, namely as socially constructed The symbolic interactionist’s view of meanings, namely as socially constructed realities, meshes well with the ontological and epistemological assumptions of realities, meshes well with the ontological and epistemological assumptions of the qualitative paradigm. Symbolic interactionists believe that there are no the qualitative paradigm. Symbolic interactionists believe that there are no objective or inherent meanings embedded in a text, but that meanings are objective or inherent meanings embedded in a text, but that meanings are socially constructed creations. Through our interactions with texts we create socially constructed creations. Through our interactions with texts we create meaning. Thus, like the qualitative researcher, the symbolic interactionist meaning. Thus, like the qualitative researcher, the symbolic interactionist
believes that the only knowable world is the one we interpret and interact with. believes that the only knowable world is the one we interpret and interact with. Both the qualitative researcher and the symbolic interactionist embrace internal Both the qualitative researcher and the symbolic interactionist embrace internal reality (and deny the existence or the efficacy of arguing for the existence of an reality (and deny the existence or the efficacy of arguing for the existence of an external reality) and share understanding (through multiple, creative, and
external reality) and share understanding (through multiple, creative, and
contextual interpretations and insight) as the ultimate goal or product of epistemic contextual interpretations and insight) as the ultimate goal or product of epistemic inquiries.
inquiries.
Holstein and Gubrium recount that there are two branches of symbolic Holstein and Gubrium recount that there are two branches of symbolic interactionist thought:
interactionist thought:
Over the years, two streams of symbolic interactionist thinking—the Over the years, two streams of symbolic interactionist thinking—the so-called Chicago and Iowa schools—took this in different directions. Blumer called Chicago and Iowa schools—took this in different directions. Blumer (1969), who taught at the University of Chicago, became the central figure (1969), who taught at the University of Chicago, became the central figure of the more process-oriented Chicago school, while Manford Kuhn (1960, of the more process-oriented Chicago school, while Manford Kuhn (1960, 1964) and his associates…at the University of Iowa were the leading 1964) and his associates…at the University of Iowa were the leading proponents of the more structured Iowa school. (2000, p. 32)
proponents of the more structured Iowa school. (2000, p. 32)
Let’s take a look at Blumer’s, Chicago-style symbolic interactionism because, as Let’s take a look at Blumer’s, Chicago-style symbolic interactionism because, as qualitative researchers, we are primarily interested in the process, the
meaning creation. Blumer asserts that symbolic interactionism “rests on three meaning creation. Blumer asserts that symbolic interactionism “rests on three simple premises”:
simple premises”: 1.
1. Human beings act Human beings act toward things on toward things on the basis of the basis of the meanings that thethe meanings that the things have for them.
things have for them.
Whatever those “things” may be, tables, persons, or representations via the Whatever those “things” may be, tables, persons, or representations via the
television, the meaning we ascribe to those things comes from what those things television, the meaning we ascribe to those things comes from what those things mean to us, not in the things themselves.
mean to us, not in the things themselves. 2.
2. The meaning of The meaning of such things is such things is derived from, or arises derived from, or arises out of, the out of, the socialsocial interaction that one has with one’s fellows.
interaction that one has with one’s fellows.
We are not islands. We do not stand alone in our interactions and meaning We are not islands. We do not stand alone in our interactions and meaning creation. An essential component to our meaning creation process is our creation. An essential component to our meaning creation process is our interaction not only with the things, but with our social system—friends, family, interaction not only with the things, but with our social system—friends, family, culture, organizations, work—all play a role in shaping how we act towards culture, organizations, work—all play a role in shaping how we act towards things. Mead describes the social self:
things. Mead describes the social self:
The unity and structure of the complete self reflects the unity and structure The unity and structure of the complete self reflects the unity and structure of the social process as a whole; and each of the elementary selves of of the social process as a whole; and each of the elementary selves of which it is composed reflects the unity and structure of one of the various which it is composed reflects the unity and structure of one of the various aspects of that process in which the individual is implicated. In other aspects of that process in which the individual is implicated. In other words, the various elementary selves which constitute, or are organized words, the various elementary selves which constitute, or are organized into, a complete self are the various aspects of the structure of that into, a complete self are the various aspects of the structure of that complete self answering to the various aspects of the structure of the complete self answering to the various aspects of the structure of the social process as a whole; the structure of the complete self is thus a social process as a whole; the structure of the complete self is thus a reflection of the complete social process. The organization and unification reflection of the complete social process. The organization and unification of a social group is identical with the organization and unification of any of a social group is identical with the organization and unification of any one of the selves arising within the social process in which that group is one of the selves arising within the social process in which that group is engaged, or which it is carrying on. [Morris, 1967 #140, p. 144]
engaged, or which it is carrying on. [Morris, 1967 #140, p. 144]
Thus, if we are to discover how one creates meaning and interacts with different Thus, if we are to discover how one creates meaning and interacts with different symbols, we must not only examine the individual, but also the social structures symbols, we must not only examine the individual, but also the social structures
that individual belongs to. Now, on to Mead’s third and final premise for symbolic that individual belongs to. Now, on to Mead’s third and final premise for symbolic interactionism:
interactionism:
3. These meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretative 3. These meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretative process used by the person in dealing with the things he encounters.
process used by the person in dealing with the things he encounters. (Blumer,
(Blumer, 1969, 1969, p. p. 2)2)
This meaning making process is continual. That is, human beings do not simply This meaning making process is continual. That is, human beings do not simply interpret meaning for a particular thing and move on. Instead, we revisit that interpret meaning for a particular thing and move on. Instead, we revisit that thing, our interpretation, and how it fits within our worldview and adjust our thing, our interpretation, and how it fits within our worldview and adjust our
interpretative meanings accordingly. Holstein and Gubrium contend that Blumer interpretative meanings accordingly. Holstein and Gubrium contend that Blumer is cautioning us in this third premise:
is cautioning us in this third premise:
The caution is explicitly directed at those symbolic interactionists who, The caution is explicitly directed at those symbolic interactionists who, while they would accept the first two premises, are remiss on the third, while they would accept the first two premises, are remiss on the third, employing highly structured methods that don’t permit the interpretive employing highly structured methods that don’t permit the interpretive process to continually show through. Blumer urges us to view the human process to continually show through. Blumer urges us to view the human being in social interaction as incessantly involved in meaning-making. The being in social interaction as incessantly involved in meaning-making. The methodological directive here is to document the articulation and methodological directive here is to document the articulation and emergence of meaning in rich detail as it unfolds, not in lifeless analytic emergence of meaning in rich detail as it unfolds, not in lifeless analytic categories and statistical tables. (2000, p 33)
categories and statistical tables. (2000, p 33)
Thus, the meanings we create are not set in stone. Again, this corresponds well Thus, the meanings we create are not set in stone. Again, this corresponds well with the epistemological assumptions of the qualitative paradigm. Qualitative with the epistemological assumptions of the qualitative paradigm. Qualitative researchers seek understanding of phenomena, within its unique context. If that researchers seek understanding of phenomena, within its unique context. If that context should change, the researcher is obligated to reevaluate his or her notion context should change, the researcher is obligated to reevaluate his or her notion of the phenomena and adjust her understanding of it accordingly.
of the phenomena and adjust her understanding of it accordingly. Semiotics
Semiotics
Symbolic interactionism examines the creation of meaning through Symbolic interactionism examines the creation of meaning through
interaction with symbols; semiotics takes that examination to the level of science. interaction with symbols; semiotics takes that examination to the level of science. Semiotics, according to Denzin and Lincoln, “provides a set of assumptions and Semiotics, according to Denzin and Lincoln, “provides a set of assumptions and
concepts that permit systematic analysis of symbolic systems” (Denzin 1994, p. concepts that permit systematic analysis of symbolic systems” (Denzin 1994, p. 466). Like symbolic interactionism and the qualitative paradigm, semiotics
466). Like symbolic interactionism and the qualitative paradigm, semiotics embraces the view that meaning is not inherent in any sign (or text). Lindlof embraces the view that meaning is not inherent in any sign (or text). Lindlof explains the ontological assumptions of semiotics:
explains the ontological assumptions of semiotics:
Semiotics, in particular, has encouraged a view of texts as inherently Semiotics, in particular, has encouraged a view of texts as inherently ambiguous and unstable. The meaning of an interpersonal or ambiguous and unstable. The meaning of an interpersonal or technologically mediated text depends on its relationships to other texts, technologically mediated text depends on its relationships to other texts, the competencies and interests of its interpreters, and the cultural the competencies and interests of its interpreters, and the cultural conditions in which it is produced and read. The notion that meanings are conditions in which it is produced and read. The notion that meanings are continually constructed lies at the center of interpretive approaches in continually constructed lies at the center of interpretive approaches in communication. This argument implies something very important: that
communication. This argument implies something very important: that how how we describe the world constitutes
we describe the world constitutes what what we describe. (Lindlof 1995, p. 24)we describe. (Lindlof 1995, p. 24)
Thus, semiotics maintains that the construction of meanings depends, in part, on Thus, semiotics maintains that the construction of meanings depends, in part, on the context of the sign in relation to the interpreter and the culture in which both the context of the sign in relation to the interpreter and the culture in which both are situated. Visually, the process looks like the following:
are situated. Visually, the process looks like the following:
Sign Sign
which, in turn affects context which, in turn affects context
meaning meaning Agent/ Agent/ Interpreter Interpreter context
context Culture/Culture/ Society Society
Here we see a sign (a smiley face), which “is essentially incomplete” until it has Here we see a sign (a smiley face), which “is essentially incomplete” until it has an “interpretant” or a context that an agent (or interpreter) creates meaning (or an “interpretant” or a context that an agent (or interpreter) creates meaning (or content from the sign (embedded in its interpretant) (Denzin 1994, p. 466). Now, content from the sign (embedded in its interpretant) (Denzin 1994, p. 466). Now,
just as w
just as we learnee learned in symbod in symbolic interaclic interactionism, agtionism, agents are ents are not islannot islands; they dds; they do noto not stand alone. Interpreters work, live and create meaning within a particular culture stand alone. Interpreters work, live and create meaning within a particular culture or society. In fact, many individuals create meaning in several different societies. or society. In fact, many individuals create meaning in several different societies. For example, one agent who belongs to the National Organization for Women For example, one agent who belongs to the National Organization for Women (NOW) and the Catholic Church may view the text of abortion differently within (NOW) and the Catholic Church may view the text of abortion differently within the two distinct contexts. Thus, the culture one is immersed in affects the context the two distinct contexts. Thus, the culture one is immersed in affects the context in which an agent creates meaning about the sign. The creation of meaning by in which an agent creates meaning about the sign. The creation of meaning by the agent is a mental activity, which, as we shall see in the next section, depends the agent is a mental activity, which, as we shall see in the next section, depends on a “primitive phenomenology” (Denzin 1994, p. 467).
on a “primitive phenomenology” (Denzin 1994, p. 467). Phenomenology
Phenomenology
The philosophy of phenomenology seeks to define the basic nature of the The philosophy of phenomenology seeks to define the basic nature of the signs we interpret (Lindlof 1995, p. 32). Many report that the work of Husserl signs we interpret (Lindlof 1995, p. 32). Many report that the work of Husserl served as cornerstone for the interpretative theory of phenomenology
served as cornerstone for the interpretative theory of phenomenology (Moustakas 1994);
(Moustakas 1994); (Lindlof 1995). (Lindlof 1995). Husserl argues Husserl argues that “human that “human consciousnessconsciousness orders the ways by which we apprehend the physical nature of the world” (Lindlof orders the ways by which we apprehend the physical nature of the world” (Lindlof 1995, p. 32). Moustakas elaborates:
1995, p. 32). Moustakas elaborates:
Husserl’s phenomenology is a Transcendental Phenomenology. It Husserl’s phenomenology is a Transcendental Phenomenology. It emphasizes subjectivity and discovery of the essences of experience and emphasizes subjectivity and discovery of the essences of experience and provides a systematic and disciplined methodology for derivation of provides a systematic and disciplined methodology for derivation of knowledge. Husserl’s approach is called “phenomenology” because it knowledge. Husserl’s approach is called “phenomenology” because it utilizes
utilizes only only the data available to consciousness—thethe data available to consciousness—the appearanceappearance of of objects. …It is logical in its assertion that the only thing we know for objects. …It is logical in its assertion that the only thing we know for certain is that which appears before us in consciousness, and that very certain is that which appears before us in consciousness, and that very fact is a guarantee of its objectivity. (1994, p. 45)
fact is a guarantee of its objectivity. (1994, p. 45)
Here, we see a slight ontological shift from reality being completely loose and Here, we see a slight ontological shift from reality being completely loose and interpretative to phenomenological assumptions of objectivity. By carefully interpretative to phenomenological assumptions of objectivity. By carefully
following the systematic strategies, phenomenologists contend that agents can following the systematic strategies, phenomenologists contend that agents can scientifically comprehend “the essence of lived experience” (Lindlof 1995, p. scientifically comprehend “the essence of lived experience” (Lindlof 1995, p. 236).
236).
Lindlof delineates the three steps need for reaching understanding of Lindlof delineates the three steps need for reaching understanding of human experience. First, the analyst must become aware ”of all the
human experience. First, the analyst must become aware ”of all the preconceptions (including biases, prejudices, and other prior personal preconceptions (including biases, prejudices, and other prior personal
conceptions) he or she holds about the object of study” (Lindlof 1995, p. 236). conceptions) he or she holds about the object of study” (Lindlof 1995, p. 236). Owning up to one’s subjective baggage aids in the deconstruction of the text Owning up to one’s subjective baggage aids in the deconstruction of the text (Lindlof 1995, p. 236). Next, the researcher must “bracket” the text, confronting it (Lindlof 1995, p. 236). Next, the researcher must “bracket” the text, confronting it without his or her preconceived notions, only on its own terms (Lindlof 1995, p. without his or her preconceived notions, only on its own terms (Lindlof 1995, p. 236). This step allows the analyst to view the object in its reduced state. Finally, 236). This step allows the analyst to view the object in its reduced state. Finally, the researcher builds data clusters about the text and synthesizes these groups the researcher builds data clusters about the text and synthesizes these groups into a cohesive structure (Lindlof 1995, p. 236). By grouping and synthesizing, into a cohesive structure (Lindlof 1995, p. 236). By grouping and synthesizing, phenomenologists contend that essence of an object is brought to the surface phenomenologists contend that essence of an object is brought to the surface (Lindlof 1995, p. 236).
(Lindlof 1995, p. 236).77 Lindlof notes that the three-step strategy employed by theLindlof notes that the three-step strategy employed by the phenomenological studies can also be utilized in ethnomodological research, phenomenological studies can also be utilized in ethnomodological research, which leads us to our final theory.
which leads us to our final theory. Ethnomethodology
Ethnomethodology
The field of ethnomethodology grew out of the seeds of phenomenology The field of ethnomethodology grew out of the seeds of phenomenology (Denzin 1994, p. 264). Both ethnomethodology and phenomenology are built on (Denzin 1994, p. 264). Both ethnomethodology and phenomenology are built on the principles of eidetic science. According to Lindlof, an eidetic science defines the principles of eidetic science. According to Lindlof, an eidetic science defines essential objects and relationships of society not through consensual meanings, essential objects and relationships of society not through consensual meanings, but through the things themselves (Lindlof 1995, p. 35). For example, if
ethnomethodologists want to understand the true essence of “beauty” they might ethnomethodologists want to understand the true essence of “beauty” they might begin by conducting interviews with people on what constitutes beauty, but
begin by conducting interviews with people on what constitutes beauty, but ultimately would strip these interpretations away to examine the essence of ultimately would strip these interpretations away to examine the essence of “beauty” itself in order “to account for their existence as” and entity “in human “beauty” itself in order “to account for their existence as” and entity “in human discourse” (Lindlof 1995,
discourse” (Lindlof 1995, p. 35). p. 35). Lindlof explains the Lindlof explains the basis of basis of ethnomethodology:ethnomethodology: In simple terms, ethnomethodology seeks to understand how the In simple terms, ethnomethodology seeks to understand how the taken-for-granted character of everyday life is accomplished. The
for-granted character of everyday life is accomplished. The methodology methodology in the term refers not to scientific methodology, but to the methods people in the term refers not to scientific methodology, but to the methods people use to construct sensible, orderly ways of doing things use to construct sensible, orderly ways of doing things ….Ethnomethodologists are fascinated with how “appearances” are able ….Ethnomethodologists are fascinated with how “appearances” are able to sustain participants’ complete belief in their reality. (Lindlof 1995, p. 36). to sustain participants’ complete belief in their reality. (Lindlof 1995, p. 36).
Thus, ethnomethodology looks at both participants’ and the essence of the Thus, ethnomethodology looks at both participants’ and the essence of the phenomena under study in constructing understanding into how agents engage phenomena under study in constructing understanding into how agents engage in a text and create meaning from that object.
in a text and create meaning from that object. All four th
All four theories seories stress the tress the importancimportance of conte of context in meaext in meaning crening creation andation and interpretation. As such, symbolic interactionism, semiotics and phenomenology interpretation. As such, symbolic interactionism, semiotics and phenomenology and ethnomethodology embrace an internal ontology, which assumes the only and ethnomethodology embrace an internal ontology, which assumes the only reality that exists is the one we interpret through our interactions with symbols, reality that exists is the one we interpret through our interactions with symbols, culture and ourselves. Finally, all four theories accept a similar epistemic stance culture and ourselves. Finally, all four theories accept a similar epistemic stance of knowledge creation. Knowledge is not gained through discovery of objective of knowledge creation. Knowledge is not gained through discovery of objective truths, but created through understanding of a phenomena/text/object within a truths, but created through understanding of a phenomena/text/object within a particular context. Moreover, understanding is not immutable, but rather fluid in particular context. Moreover, understanding is not immutable, but rather fluid in nature.
nature. Conclusion Conclusion
The goal of the present analysis was to outline the major tenants, The goal of the present analysis was to outline the major tenants,
assumptions, and theories of the qualitative paradigm. Qualitative research has assumptions, and theories of the qualitative paradigm. Qualitative research has endured many criticisms from the conventional, non-qualitative camp and has endured many criticisms from the conventional, non-qualitative camp and has clawed its way to the status it currently enjoys, though resistance and complete clawed its way to the status it currently enjoys, though resistance and complete acceptance have yet to be achieved. In recent years there has been a surge in acceptance have yet to be achieved. In recent years there has been a surge in qualitative studies, as more and more researchers turn an interpretative ear to qualitative studies, as more and more researchers turn an interpretative ear to the ideas and ways of qualitative science (Denzin 1994; Lindlof 1995). Future the ideas and ways of qualitative science (Denzin 1994; Lindlof 1995). Future trends in qualitative research are interdisciplinary in nature. Qualitative
trends in qualitative research are interdisciplinary in nature. Qualitative
researchers are teaming up with other disciplines, methodologies and theorists, researchers are teaming up with other disciplines, methodologies and theorists, exemplifying the dynamic, complex nature of reality through their investigations exemplifying the dynamic, complex nature of reality through their investigations of it. In fact, there is a growing acceptance of multi-paradigmatic research, of it. In fact, there is a growing acceptance of multi-paradigmatic research,
combining both qualitative and quantitative elements. One can conclude that it is combining both qualitative and quantitative elements. One can conclude that it is indeed an exciting time to be a qualitative researcher.
Denzin, N. K. a. Y. S. L., Ed. (1994). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Denzin, N. K. a. Y. S. L., Ed. (1994). Handbook of Qualitative Research.
Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.
Holstein, J. a. J. G. (2000). The Self We Live By: Narrative Identity in a Holstein, J. a. J. G. (2000). The Self We Live By: Narrative Identity in a
Postmodern World. New York, Oxford University Press. Postmodern World. New York, Oxford University Press.
Lincoln, Y. a. E. G. (1985). Establishing Trustworthiness. Naturalist Inquiry. Lincoln, Y. a. E. G. (1985). Establishing Trustworthiness. Naturalist Inquiry.
Newbury Park, CA, Sage. Newbury Park, CA, Sage.
Lindlof, T. R. (1995). Qualitative Communication Research Methods. Thousand Lindlof, T. R. (1995). Qualitative Communication Research Methods. Thousand
Oaks, Sage. Oaks, Sage.
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological Research Methods. Thousand Oaks,
CA, Sage. CA, Sage.
Pauly, J. (1991). “A Beginner's Guide to Doing Qualitative Research.” Journalism Pauly, J. (1991). “A Beginner's Guide to Doing Qualitative Research.” Journalism
Monographs Monographs 125125..
Searle, J. (1995). The Construction of Social Reality. New York, The Free Press. Searle, J. (1995). The Construction of Social Reality. New York, The Free Press.
Silverman, D. (2000). Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook. Silverman, D. (2000). Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook.
Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.
Treise, D. (1999). A Slightly Exaggerated Comprison of Some Characteristics Treise, D. (1999). A Slightly Exaggerated Comprison of Some Characteristics and Assumptions of Qualitative and Non-qualitative Approaches to the and Assumptions of Qualitative and Non-qualitative Approaches to the World.
World.
1
1Denzin and Lincoln outline five developmental stages of qualitative inquiry. SeeDenzin and Lincoln outline five developmental stages of qualitative inquiry. See
their
their Handbook of Qualitative ResearchHandbook of Qualitative Research, pages 1-3., pages 1-3.
2 2
This chart served as a handout in a graduate seminar the author took with Dr. This chart served as a handout in a graduate seminar the author took with Dr. Debbie Treise in spring 1999. The author continues to use this helpful and simple Debbie Treise in spring 1999. The author continues to use this helpful and simple handout as a guide to the principles and assumptions of qualitative research and handout as a guide to the principles and assumptions of qualitative research and here shares it with other qualitative enthusiasts.
here shares it with other qualitative enthusiasts.
3
3Lincoln and Guba do not present these criteria in a chart; however, the author Lincoln and Guba do not present these criteria in a chart; however, the author
finds comparison tables useful guides and has taken the liberty to construct one finds comparison tables useful guides and has taken the liberty to construct one here.
here.
4
4For a more detailed discussion please see Lincoln and Guba’s chapter onFor a more detailed discussion please see Lincoln and Guba’s chapter on
“Establishing Trustworthiness” in
“Establishing Trustworthiness” in Naturalistic Inquiry Naturalistic Inquiry ..
5
5Denzin and Lincoln list several other theories (they call them researchDenzin and Lincoln list several other theories (they call them research
strategies) including: ethnography, life history, oral history, case study, strategies) including: ethnography, life history, oral history, case study, participant observation, field research/study, naturalistic study, ecological participant observation, field research/study, naturalistic study, ecological descriptive study, descriptive study, microethnography, interpretive research, descriptive study, descriptive study, microethnography, interpretive research, action research, narrative research, historiography, and literary criticism. Again, action research, narrative research, historiography, and literary criticism. Again, even this list, the authors note, is not exhaustive.
