The qualitative analysis at comparison of variants

Understanding the theories underlining research practice, and the basic assumptions underpinning these theories allow for an in-depth understanding of the research process. This is important to clearly position research carried out. Ontological and epistemological positions are often not spelled out in research papers. They may not need to be spelled out, but need to be understood since they are at the basis of what is done, of the methods used.[1]

Definitions for qualitative research Qualitative research developed in social and human sciences as a reaction to the view that human beings can be studied in the same way objects are studied (Minichiello & Kottler, 2010). Qualitative research emerged from very different traditions, disciplines; as a result very diverse approaches to qualitative research developed. This makes understanding qualitatie research often confusing. There are also many definitions for qualitative research. One example is Qualitative research is multimethod in focus, involving an interpretive, naturalistic approach to its subject matter. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them. Qualitative research involves the studied use and collection of a variety of empirical materials – case study, personal experience, introspective, life story, interview, observational, historical, interactional and visual texts – that describe routine and problematic moments and meanings in individuals' lives. (Denzin & Lincoln 2004, p. 2)

Common features of qualitative research :

- Naturalistic – studies phenomena in their natural settings. People in their environment.

- Interpretative – focuses on understanding the way people interpret and make sense of their experiences and the world in which they live. Acknowledges the many ways to acquire knowledge, which can be complementary Inductive,Flexible,Inquisitive,Reflective

- Strengths of qualitative research .Takes context into account Alows for taking into account participants’ categories of meaning – is about people’s personal experiences – more adapted to needs of people studied Allows in depth study

Can examine complex issues:

- Dynamic (can account for and adapt to change)

- Can inductively generate a tentative but explanatory theory about a phenomenon

Criticism made to qual research -Bias caused by closeness between researcher and participant. The researcher can be seen to influence participants Subjective and therefore unscientific -Knowledge produced might not be general sable. It has little credibility with administrators because of prevailing scientific tradition, but also because the use of small samples does not easily allow for quantitative projections

Ontology -Refers to assumptions about the nature of things, the nature of reality.

Epistemology or theory of knowledge -Epistemology is about the nature of knowledge and how knowledge is produced. Epistemology has to do with how we believe we might discover knowledge and what constitutes knowledge. How do we know the world? What is the relationship between the inquirer and the known?

Objectivism is the epistemological view that things exist as meaningful independently of consciousness and experience, that they have truth and meaning residing in them as objects (objective truth and meaning therefore), and that careful (scientific?) research can attain that objective truth and meaning (Crotty, 1998, p 6).

Constructionism focuses on systems of representation, social practices, discourses, and the effects of ideology. Constructionists are concerned above all with the production and organization of differences, and they therefore reject the idea that any essential or natural givens precede the process of social determination (Fuss, 1989, p 3).

Subjectivism accepts that some basic reality exists, but knowlege of it, as well as of constructed reality, is entirely subjective and a matter of perspective, personal experience. Subjectivism aims to produce knowledge that will lead to social change (Goodrich, 2011)

The notion of paradigm is often linked to Kuhn (1962) who developed it for natural sciences. The concept was further developed for the social sciences by researchers like Guba and Lincoln, who distinguished three main paradigms: positivism, post-positivism and constructivism. Later they also added critical theory and participatory paradigms. Assumes there is an objective reality (ontology) Assumes people can know, explain describe this objective reality accurately (epistemology) Objective reality is perceived as separate from our knowlege of it – we can compare our claims against this objective reality to come up with truth.

Constructivist/interpretative paradigm -Assumes reality as we know it is socially constructed" (Mertens, 2005, p.12) through the meanings and understandings developed socially and experientially ( relativism ) (ontology) Assumes that we cannot separate ourselves from what we know (subjectivist). No separation between researcher and object of research. Reality cannot be separated from our knowlege of it. Who we are and how we understand the world is a central part of how we understand ourselves, others and the world (epistemology). No objective truth, but truth negotiated through dialogue. No theory or hypothesis to start. Constructivists generate or inductively develop a theory or pattern of meanings" (Creswell, 2003, p.9) throughout the research process.

Critical Theory -Reality has been shaped over time (society, politics, culture, economy, gender, ethnicity) to create structures that are seen as normal/ real (ontology) We cannot separate ourselves from our environment/what we research and this influences what we know (Subjectivist) (epistemology) E.g.reality constructed through language

Transformative- emancipatory paradigm -A more pragmatic form of critical theory – developed during the 80s and 90s to address issues of social justice and marginalised peoples (Creswell, 2003, p.9). Research needs to have a political agenda as well as an agenda to reform, change the lives of the participants, the institutions, and the researcher (Creswell, 2003).

Pragmatism -Pragmatism has no loyalty to a system of philosophy or reality. Truth is what works at the time – no duality here between reality and the experience/knowledge of reality. For pragmatists we need to stop questioning the link between the two. Focus is on the outcome of the research. What counts is the ‘research problem’ and all approaches can be applied to understanding the problem (Creswell, 2003, p.11), as well as on consequences of the research.

Mixed methods and paradigms -Mixed methods refers to research mixing quantitative and qualitative research methods. The discussion on this page seems to equate the choice of a particular method with a particular epistemological position, thus making them impossible to co-exist. In practice ‘aligning a particular epistemology and paradigm with a particular methodology is not necessarily straightforward or helpful’ (Goodrick, 2011, p 11). Treating the two main approaches as totally separate, denying the possibilities for working back and forth between these two extremes is problematic according to Morgan (2007), who advocates a more pragmatic approach, examining ‘what people can do with the knowledge they produce and not on abstract arguments about the possibility or impossibility of generalizability’ (Morgan, 2007, p 72). Mixed methods can be used within any paradigm, but are favoured by some, pragmatism, emancipatory. .

Validity in qualitative research -Questioning the possibility of a truth, a reality that can be measured has implications for how validity is conceived Validity in quantitative research (which assumes objective reality that can be measured) refers tointernal validity, which depends on the strength of the relation between cause and effect external validity, which refers to the possibility to generalize findings. Validity is a complex issues in qualitative research. Traditional standards cannot easily be applied. If there is no truth or only one that cannot be reached, and knowledge is subjective, criteria for validity can only be very generic or/and subjective. Lincoln and Guba (1985)adapted empiricist criteria for qualitative research.

Date: 2015-01-29; view: 910