Descriptive and interpretive approaches to qualitative research (original) (raw)
Related papers
Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) has become a popular methodological framework in qualitative psychology. Studies based in IPA focus on examining how individuals make meaning of their life experiences. A detailed analysis of personal accounts followed by presenting and discussing the generic experiential themes is typically paired with researcher's own interpretation, which is an expression of double hermeneutics in practice. IPA relies draws upon phenomenology, hermeneutics, and idiography. This paper presents fundamental principles behind IPA and offers guidelines for doing a study based on this framework. Qualitative methodology frameworks in psychology For many decades, the mainstream experimental psychology relied on quantitative methodology based on a model, which involved testing theories by deriving hypotheses from them, which could then be checked in practice via an experiment or observation. The researcher was looking for disconfirmation (falsification) of theory, and by eliminating claims which were not true he or she was believed to move closer to the truth. In contrast to this approach, we have observed a growing development of qualitative research methodologies 2 , based on a different epistemological view. Qualitative researchers are mainly concerned with meaning (e.g., how individuals make sense of the world, how they experience events, what meaning they attribute to phenomena). In other words, they are more preoccupied with the quality of experience, rather than causal relationships. While quantitative studies are generally more concerned with counting occurrences, volumes, or the size of associations between entities (which requires the reduction of phenomena to numerical values in order to carry out statistical analyses), a great deal of qualitative research aims to provide rich descriptive accounts of the phenomenon under investigation. In qualitative research, data is usually collected in naturalistic settings (at home, school, hospital). Both participants' and researchers' interpretation of phenomena is taken into account in the process of analysis. An important part of qualitative methodology is epistemological reflexivity, which refers to questions such as: How does the research question define and limit what can be found? How does study design and method of analysis affect 1 This paper was written in English by the two authors and then translated into Polish by the first author. 2 Silverman (1993:1) explains the difference between "methodology" and "method": whereas the former refers to 'a general approach to studying research topics', the later denotes 'a specific research technique' (e.g., an in-depth interview, focus group, participatory observation, etc.).
Qualitative Research in Psychology, 4, 364-366., 2006
Keywords in qualitative methods’ is a reassuringly compact (195 page) paperback which sets out in alphabetical order from Access Negotiations to Writing entries explaining 62 concepts relevant to qualitative research. Each entry follows a structure of concept definition, distinctive features, examples, evaluation, associated concepts (within the book), and key readings (with a *indicating the, presumably, key-key readings). The book does not set out to be an encyclopaedia but aims ‘to provide some practical assistance’ (p. 1), seeks ‘to be helpful rather than authoritative (p. 3), and values ‘brevity over exhaustiveness’ (p. 3). In general, I did think the book fulfilled these aims. I used it as a resource for a paper I was writing, found it helpful, and thought most entries usefully concise and appropriately structured. However, I also agree that such a wide-ranging authored, not edited, work cannot be authoritative in all areas and found it to lack a certain coverage. But first, more about what I liked. Qualitative research methods have a long a varied history across several academic disciplines and, as a psychologist, I found it particularly educational to read such a wide ranging text which presented my area of expertise from a different perspective. The panel of advisors is drawn from sociology, education, psychology, criminology, anthropology, geography, and linguistics. The stated emphasis is ‘anthropology and sociology first and foremost’ (p. 3) followed by (I’m not sure if the order is significant) ‘education, geography, linguistics, management science, psychology, public health and nursing studies’ (p. 3), with an explicit de-emphasis on ‘commercial research practice’ (p. 4). It was, therefore, refreshing to have familiar concepts explained through a different disciplinary eye using unfamiliar examples and to meet approaches that I had not come across in psychology....
Qualitative Research Methods: Glossary
2011
• Data analysis–the examination of research data.• Data collection–the systematic process of collecting data.• Deduction–arriving at logical conclusions through the application of rational processes eg theory testing. Quantitative research tends to be deductive.• Documentary research–the use of texts or documents as source materials (eg historical reports, newspapers, diaries).
Criteria for Evaluation of Qualitative Research
I prepared my memo after most of the memos prepared for the workshop were posted. This was so that I could develop a sense of the center of gravity within our group, and work toward framing our task in a way that may be compatible with our general sense of what we want to do. Thus, you will see that my reflections were nourished by your own. 1) Debates about the evaluation of qualitative research within each of the fields represented at the workshop are contingent on the ecological environment in which they develop. In political science, much of the recent writings on the question have been framed in response to the challenges raised by King, Keohane and Verba's very influential Designing Social Inquiry. In anthropology, Clifford and Marcus's Writing Culture has generated a huge cycle of collective reflection on how the identity and the position of the researcher affects his work, which has framed the discussion about reliability in validity in terms almost incompatible with how the question is framed in psychometrics for instance (instead of bracketing the identity of the researcher, the challenge is to fully understand its impact on research). In sociology, a multimethod dicipline par excellence, we are now going through a phase where more scholars are concerned with the similarities between the evaluation of qualitative and quantitative research, as a growing number of students are being trained for "multi-methods," at least in top departments. Yet, the repercussions of a long-lasting disciplinary split between quantoids and qualtoids continue to be felt.
Advancing The Dialogue On Qualitative Methods
Qualitative & Multi-Method Research, 2006
I thank my colleagues for their serious and careful reading of Alexander George's and my book, and Jack Levy and John Gerring for organizing this symposium. Publishing a book is always something of a Rohrshach test—you offer up your "ink blots" and wait to see which of the points you were less sure of or committed to will be pounced upon or embraced, which of the arguments you felt the most defensible will garner praise or come in for unexpected criticism, and what patterns will emerge. I am pleased that there seems to be considerable convergence among the critiques on important issues that our book got right, and interested to find a bit more divergence on what it could have done better or differently. Given that research methods are fraught with trade-offs, to achieve any consensus is an accomplishment, and clarifying which points lack consensus helps advance the discourse on research methods. Thus, like our critics, I will focus only briefly on the considerable area...