WHICH QUALITATIVE APPROACHES SHOULD I USE?

by Simon Moss

Introduction

This handbook helps many individuals, from research candidates to experienced researchers, decide which philosophies, theories, approaches, and methods to apply to conduct qualitative research. In addition, this handbook offers some insights into how to learn about these techniques. The instructions are, perhaps, most useful after researchers have developed a preliminary research question—but have not finalized the research design and methods.

Ontology and epistemology

According to some scholars, researchers should first clarify their ontological and epistemological position. To achieve this goal, researchers first need to understand the definition of ontology and epistemology. In essence

· Ontology refers to the nature of reality. That is, do objects or concepts exist outside of our mind—the realist position—or not? Sometimes, researchers ask this question about a specific topic, such as whether IQ is real or not. Sometimes, researchers ask this question more broadly, about everything, such as whether all objects are real or merely constructions we develop to understand the world.

· Epistemology refers to the question of what is knowledge? How can we decide whether some belief is true or not? What do we mean when we assert that we know something? How should we develop knowledge?

So, what are the possible positions that researchers can adopt? Ontological positions or stances tends to range from realism to anti-realism. In contrast, epistemological positions or stances tend to be classified as either objectivist, constructivist, or subjectivist.

Objectivism

Constructivism

Subjectivism

Because objectivists tend to assume that realities exist independent of our consciousness—an ontological stance—they believe that researchers strive to uncover the true account of some phenomenon and reject false accounts. These researchers should attempt to circumvent the biases of individuals—to prevent false accounts.

Constructivists assume that people construct their own understanding of the world.

According to one variant, called social constructivism, language, culture, and social interactions all impinge on this understanding or construction. Gradually, individuals develop an understanding that, to some extent, is shared amongst members of some community or context.

Researchers should thus interact with participants to clarify the meanings that individuals develop that are usually concealed or implicit. For more information, see Appendix A

Unlike constructivists, subjectivists regard this understanding that people develop as specific to the individual—rather than perceived as a shared understanding. Consequently, subjectivists assume that knowledge is ambiguous, fragmented, and specific to particular events. Researchers should emphasize the unique perspective of each person.

So, when and how should you choose your ontological and epistemological position. Scholars have advocated a variety of perspectives.

· Some scholars maintain you should determine your ontological position, and then your epistemological position, before you choose your theories and approaches.

· Some scholars, such as Michael Crotty, maintain that researchers should clarify their epistemological position only. Crotty suggests the epistemological stance of researchers can be developed independently of ontology. Indeed, many researchers confuse the ontology and epistemology.

In practice, perhaps the most common approach is to delay this question until after you have clarified your theoretical perspective—discussed in the next section. That is, researchers will often naturally gravitate to one theoretical perspective, such as critical theory or symbolic interactionism. Each theoretical perspective tends to imply a specific ontology and epistemology. So, for now, disregard your ontological and epistemological position.

Phase 1: Clarify your paradigm

Some researchers differentiate six key paradigms or philosophies to research: positivism, post-positivism, interpretivism, pragmatism, critical theory, and postmodernism. These paradigms or philosophies to research stipulate not only the ontology and epistemology of researchers but also values, such as which objectives are the most valuable, called the axiology. For example, should research describe or challenge the status quo? The following table describes these six paradigms or philosophies of research.

Paradigm

Description

Positivism

Positivism embraces objectivism and thus assumes that systematic, standardized procedures should be applied to observe and measure phenomenon to uncover the true reality.

Post positivism

In contrast to positivists, post-positivists are more sensitive to how the values and knowledge of researchers—as well as other limitations—can bias or cloud these observations. This philosophy overlaps with an approach called realist

Interpretivism:

Embraces constructivism and tends to focus on how individuals interpret the world. Proponents want to understand the meanings that guide the choices of people. They do not believe that researchers can remain impartial and independent of their inquiry

Pragmatism

Blends positivism and interpretivism: Researchers shift from positivism to interpretivism to achieve their goals and to effect change. The aim is to solve a problem

Advocacy—such as critical theory

Assumes that political agendas have shaped and biased knowledge. To overcome this effect, researchers often consider marginalized or disadvantaged segments of society to address inequalities and offer a voice for these segments. Generally, adopts a constructionist epistemology

Postmodernism

Postmodernism rejects realism. Instead, postmodernists believe that no one ideology or narrative can be considered appropriate—but conducts researcher to characterize the fragmentation, ambiguity, and ambivalence in the world.

If you are conducting qualitative research, you are likely to adopt interpretivism, critical theory, or postmodernism. If you are combining qualitative and quantitative research, you are likely to adopt pragmatism. Regardless, within each class, researchers tend to specify the theoretical perspective they want to adopt within each paradigm or philosophy. The following questions help you achieve this goal.

How to choose a paradigm and theoretical perspective

Question to clarify paradigm and theoretical perspective

Options to consider

Interpretivism

· I would like to describe how people in a specific circumstance--such as individuals with a particular problem--experience, conceptualize, and perceive this problem: I want to convey their feelings and perceptions

If you answered yes, consider phenomenology

· I would like to understand more about how different groups, such as doctors and nurses, interact with each other--and their interpretations of these interactions

If you answered yes, consider symbolic interactionism

· I would like to integrate my own passions, insights, and intuitions into the data I collect

If you answered yes, consider intuitive enquiry

· I would like to analyse important writings, such as the writings of significant people or significant works—to uncover insights into our history, culture, and language

If you answered yes, consider hermeneutics

Pragmatism

· I would like to collect and analyse both quantitative data—that is, numbers—and qualitative data—that is words.

If you answered yes, consider pragmatism

Advocacy and critical theories

· I would like to show how the mainstream often subtly marginalize disadvantaged communities to sustain power

· I would like to disseminate the perspective of people who are often not granted enough opportunities to voice their concerns

If you answered yes to one or both of these questions, consider critical theory, sometimes called critical enquiry. Or you might want to consider one of the specific variants of critical theory, as illustrated in the next few questions

· I would like to show how the mainstream often subtly marginalize indigenous individuals or communities

· I would like to disseminate the perspectives of indigenous individuals who are not always granted opportunities to voice their concerns

If you answered yes to one or both of these questions, consider critical indigenous theory

· I would like to show how the mainstream often subtly marginalize other races or ethnicities

· I would like to disseminate the perspectives of races or ethnicities that are not always granted opportunities to voice their concerns

If you answered yes to one or both of these questions, consider critical race theory

· I would like to show how the mainstream often subtly marginalizes females

· I would like to show that women often acquire distinct knowledge and adopt a different perspective to men—a perspective that is often overlooked

If you answered yes to one or both of these questions, consider critical feminism or feminist standpoint theory

· I would like to show how the mainstream often subtly marginalize people who are not heterosexual

·

If you answered yes to one or both of these questions, consider queer theory

· I believe that European colonization and imperialism has generated research practices that are not suited to studying indigenous people and communities

· I would like my research to utilize indigenous knowledge and strength indigenous capacity

If you answered yes to one or both of these questions, consider decolonizing theory

Phase 2: Clarify your methodology

Once you choose a paradigm, your research question, purpose, and aim is likely to be clearer. But the paradigm does not offer any insight on how to collect data, analyze data, and coordinate these phases. To generate this insight, you need to ascertain your methodology. A methodology is a perspective or framework that helps you decide how to collect data, analyze data, and interpret data.

Typical examples include grounded theory, ethnography, phenomenology, and thematic analysis. Some of these methodologies, such as grounded theory, offer guidelines on how to collect data, analyze data, and coordinate these phases. Other methodologies, such as thematic analysis, primarily offer insights on how to analyze data—and may be called methods rather than methodologies.

To some extent, the paradigm you chose could shape the methodology you should adopt. For example, individuals who adopt symbolic interactionism often utilize grounded theory. Nevertheless, most methodologies can be utilized to explore most paradigms. So, to help you decide which methodology to adopt, consider these questions. You might want to read about several methodologies. But typically, your research would revolve around one—or perhaps two or three—methodologies only.

How to choose a methodology

Question to clarify methodology

Methodologies to consider

Case studies and ethnographic approaches

· I would rather observe and describe a particular setting—such as a community after a disaster, a person with an unusual illness, or a gang—than examine the effects of some intervention or change

· I would prefer to study a person or group that is unique or unusual than a person or group that is typical of some broader region or industry

· I would like to develop a strong rapport with the participants of my studies

· I would like to utilize several methods to collect data--rather than confine myself to only one or two methods

· I would like to observe individuals in their natural setting--such as people in an unusual organization

If you answered yes to at least four of these questions, consider a case study design

· I would like to immerse myself in a particular setting or culture—such as a remote community

· I want to observe and describe the values, beliefs, and practices of a particular setting or culture

If you answered yes to both questions, consider ethnography. If you have also adopted a critical paradigm, consider critical ethnography

· I would like to immerse myself in a setting that is common in society—such as a school, workplace, or some other common social institution

If you answered yes to this question, consider institutional ethnography.

· I want to understand how bodies, such as government agencies, develop and implement policies

If you answered yes to this question, consider policy ethnography

· I want to analyse and report my conversations with a colleague about an interest we share—such as working with violent clients

If you answered yes to this question, consider duo-ethnography

· I want to explore how the insights of past research could be applied to resolve a practical and ongoing problem—such as a problem in a school or community

· I would like to examine the effects of changing some setting or community—such as a workplace

If you answered yes to one or both questions, consider action research. If you also would like to develop the research questions and methods with the community or culture you want to study, consider participatory action research instead

· I want to solve a problem in a specific education setting

· I want to uncover knowledge, products, procedures, policies, or programs that could solve similar problems in other education settings

If you answered yes to one or both questions, consider educational design research

· I have experienced significant events or circumstances in my life—and the perspective I have gained could be helpful to other people or communities

· I would like to reflect upon these experiences systematically and share these reflections

If you answered yes to these questions, consider auto-ethnography

Content analysis and related techniques

· I would like to reduce my qualitative data to perhaps 2 to 8 broad categories—although perhaps each category could be divided into 2 to 8 specific themes

· I am not especially interested in the association between these categories or themes

If you answered yes to these questions, consider thematic analysis.

· During the analysis of data, I would like to develop a table in which all the possible codes are classified into clusters or categories

· I would like to systematically enter the data into this table

· Other researchers might also use this table to analyse these data

If you answered yes to these questions, consider the framework method.

· I would like to ascertain whether my qualitative data aligns to a preliminary set of categories I have already developed—perhaps from past theories. That is, I would like to uncover examples of these categories or deviations from these categories

If you answered yes to this question, consider directed content analysis.

· I would like to explore how often specific words—such as synonyms for death—are used, and then to understand when and why certain people utilize specific words

If you answered yes to this question, consider summative content analysis.

Grounded theory

· I am willing to adjust the questions I ask, and the methods I use, as my ideas develop. I do not feel the need to finalize the methods I will use before I collect data

· I would like to develop a theory that explains or characterizes a specific experience or change, such as changes in identity that people experience after their partner dies

If you answered yes to both questions, consider grounded theory. Researchers now often utilize constructivist grounded theory—especially if they embrace a constructivist epistemology.

Phenomenology

· I would like to adopt phenomenology—in which I explore how people experience, conceptualize, and perceive a specific circumstance, primarily to characterize the essence of this circumstance

· I will mainly use interviews to collect data—and interview fewer than 10 or so people in depth

· I want to report both the unique perspective of each person as well as commonalities

If you answered yes to these questions, consider interpretative phenomenological analysis

· I would like to integrate my own passions, insights, and intuitions into the data I collect

If you answered yes to these questions, consider intuitive inquiry

· I would like to explore how texts, documents, objects, and other materials interact with humans to shape some change, event, or phenomenon

If you answered yes to these questions, consider actor network theory

Narrative analysis

· I would like to analyse the stories people relate about some experience or event—stories derived from interviews, letters, biographies, field note, or other sources

· I want to understand how some event or experience evolves across time—to understand the process or sequence of events.

If you answered yes to these questions, consider narrative inquiry

Discourse analysis

· I would like to know how people use conversations and language to achieve social goals, such as convince or change another person

· I would like to analyse subtle patterns of behaviour during conversations, such as how people decide who should speak next, how people end a topic, what is the cause of silences, and so forth.

If you answered yes to either of these questions, consider conversation analysis.

· I would like to critically appraise the messages that mass media promulgate

If you answered yes to this question, consider media discourse analysis

Mixed method designs

If your research comprises both qualitative data and quantitative data, you need to apply what is called a mixed method design. A variety of taxonomies have been developed to differentiate the various mixed method designs. The following questions help you choose one from several common designs.

How to choose a mixed method design

Question to clarify mixed method design

Mixed method designs to consider

· I want to understand when and why a particular intervention or program is effective

If you answered yes to this question, consider realist evaluation

· I am likely to collect quantitative data before I analyse the qualitative data

· I am likely to collect qualitative data before I analyse the quantitative data

If you answered no to both questions, consider a concurrent or parallel mixed methods design

You will then need to decide whether the qualitative data and quantitative data explore separate research questions—or are designed to substantiate one another, called triangulation.

· I can collect qualitative data after analysing the quantitative data

· I would like to utilize qualitative data to explain the findings I generate from quantitative data or to help decide who I should test

If you answered yes to both questions, consider a sequential explanatory mixed methods design

· I can collect qualitative data before collecting quantitative data

· I will use the qualitative data to develop or adapt the questions I use to collect quantitative data

If you answered yes to both questions, consider a sequential exploratory mixed methods design

Phase 3: Clarify your methods to collect data

The methodology may partly, but not entirely, determine which methods you will use to collect data. For example, proponents of grounded theory often collect data from interviews; proponents of hermeneutics often collect data from texts, such as the bible. Nevertheless, regardless of the methodology, you can still use a variety of methods. Here are some examples to consider

· Spoken word

· Interviews

· Focus groups

· Written word

· Surveys

· Documents and archival records—such as webpages accessed using the Wayback Machine

· Correspondence

· Diary methods

· Visual methods

· Drawing

· Recording photos or videos

· Artifacts

· Social media

· Official media

· Physical remnants

· Observations

Phase 4: Sources of insight

Finally, you need to read about the paradigms, methodologies, and methods you plan to utilize. You will be able to derive some of this knowledge from CDU useful materials—especially in the section on choosing your research methodologies and methods. This table presents some additional material about select topics.

Sources of information

Topic

Sources

Paradigms

Symbolic interactionism

Introduction

· In Youtube, search “Major Sociological Paradigms: Crash Course Sociology #2”

Critical theory

Introduction

· In Youtube, search “Major Sociological Paradigms: Crash Course Sociology #2”

Methodologies

Auto-ethnography

Introduction and details

· Google “Performing autoethnography: An embodied methodological praxis”

Interpretative phenomenological analysis

Introduction and details

· Google “Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Theory, method and research”

Intuitive inquiry

Introduction and details

· Google “Intuitive inquiry: An epistemology of the heart for scientific inquiry”

Grounded theory: constructivist

Introduction

· Watch http://www.sxf.uevora.pt/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Charmaz_2006.pdf

Details

· Download the book available at http://www.sxf.uevora.pt/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Charmaz_2006.pdf

Framework method

Introduction

· Google “Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research”

Thematic analysis

Introduction and details

· Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.

Content analysis, including directed and summated

Introduction

· Google “Three approaches to qualitative content analysis”

Conversation analysis

Introduction

· In Youtube, search “Conversational Analysis FINAL”

Narrative inquiry

Introduction

· In Youtube, search “Introduction to Narrative Inquiry Connor Pratt”

Most researchers adopt one of six philosophical positions or at least a variant of these positions: positivism, post-positivism, interpretivism, pragmaticism, critical theory, and postmodernism. This appendix presents some additional insights about these philosophical positions.

Social constructionism

Interpretivism tends to assume that concepts and categories, such as race, gender, or even planets, are socially constructed. But what is social constructivism? What do scholars imply if they argue that concepts and categories are socially constructed? In essence

· many scientists assume that concepts, such as “Asian”, can be defined objectively

· however, scholars recognized that social experiences, values, and beliefs all affect how individuals define these concepts

· for example, if researchers want to believe their race is superior, they might exaggerate the degree to which the races are homogenous, enduring, and distinct

· this motivation could affect which research questions they pursue and which research methods they apply, potentially skewing the results.

The implication is that no single definition or perspective of each concept, such as “Asian”, is necessarily correct. Instead, researchers might adopt diverse perspectives, and each of these perspectives could be valuable. Indeed, social experiences, values, and beliefs could shape definitions or perspectives on more tangible concepts, such as “planet”. To illustrate,

· Pluto was previously defined as a planet

· but scientists discovered many other bodies that share properties with Pluto

· researchers did not want to define all these bodies as planets—partly because people cannot remember too many distinct planets

· so, they redefined planets

Consequently, how people in general, and researchers in particular, defined or conceptualized Pluto changed instantly. Social values—such as the preference to limit the number of planets—shaped how researchers defined Pluto. Yet, despite the effect of these social experiences, values, and beliefs, social constructionism does not imply that every definition or theory are equally valid. To illustrate

· theories in astronomy can explain so many observations and events

· theories of astrology cannot explain as many observations or events

· thus, although both theories are social constructions, researchers can still argue that astronomy is more valuable than astrology.