Qualitative inquiry growth

Intellectualisation of anti-qualitative inquiry

The traditional positivistic view of research "as the creation of true, objective knowledge, following a scientific method" (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2000:1) has been thoroughly criticised. However, many empirically orientated social scientists still conceive that "from what appears or is presented as data, facts, the unequivocal imprints of 'reality', it is possible to acquire a reasonably adequate basis for empirically grounded conclusions and, as a next step, for generalizations and theory-building". Alvesson and Sköldberg, in contrast, assert "the ambiguous, unstable and context-dependent character of language, the dependence of both observations and data on interpretation and theory (interpretation-free, theory-neutral facts do not, in principle exist), and the political-ideological character of the social sciences". They argue further that knowledge cannot be separated from the knower and that data and facts are the results of interpretation or constructions.

'Empiricists' advocate the capability of empirical research to reveal reality directly—regarding research as a matter of collecting data, processing and analysing it. Data and theory are seen as indisputably separate, with the value of theory established by testing against data or emerging from data. Such 'empiricists' objected the emergent methodological conceptions and methods of social sciences.

Alvesson, M. & Sköldberg, K. 2000. Reflexive Methodology—new vistas for qualitative research. London: Sage.

What does reflective research entail?

Reflection is about interpreting own suppositions (and practices), by looking at own perspectives from those of others, and by subjecting own assumptions to critical review (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2000, paraphrased). It should be evident that reflective research involves at least two levels, namely researching and paying much attention to own theoretical suppositions about practices—"careful interpretation and reflection" (p. 5)—often interpretation is scant and occurs after data collection and categorisation in the research process; whereas reflection is seldom mentioned and usually limited to conclusions, limitations of the study and technical matters.

Reflection is firstly aimed at a heightened awareness of theoretical suppositions, of language and of pre-understanding; but secondly aimed at the innermost of practitioners, of narrative and of the context. Reflective research is about systematic reflection on numerous levels—an "interpretation of interpretation" (p. 6). The process of reflective research comprises the (re)construction of reality in which practitioners perform, critically interpreting and reflecting.

Reflection involves thinking about the prevailing conditions and the way in which underlying theory, cultural values and political perspectives impacts on interaction. "Reflection is difficult" (p. 245), because it requires pondering about premises of thoughts.

Alvesson, M. & Sköldberg, K. 2000. Reflexive Methodology—new vistas for qualitative research. London: Sage.

Situated intuitive enquiry

Accepted research methods might be fit for purpose, but do not lend them to the study of the short-lived, transitory, fleeting, evanescent, transient, momentary, brief, indefinite and irregular. The methodological rule-following is counter-intuitive. The world we live in is vague, diffuse, unspecific, slippery, emotional, ephemeral, elusive and indistinct—it changes like a kaleidoscope or does not have much of a pattern at all. Occasionally and in specific locations/situations it is feasible to map or make a chart of what is occurring—and occasionally the charting contributes to momentary stability. However, we need to "find ways of knowing the indistinct and the slippery without trying to grasp and hold them tight" (p. 3).

Law, John. 2004. After method—mess in social science research. London: Routledge.

Research designs

An outline of research designs:

Qualitative designs

• Single case study
• Multiple case studies
• Participatory action research (PAR)
• Content analysis
• Textual analysis
• Discourse analysis
• Narrative analysis
• Life history/ies

Quantitative designs

• Cross-sectional surveys
• Cross-cultural or cross-national studies
• Experimental designs
• Quasi-experimental (field) designs
• Predictive (statistical) modelling
• Secondary data analysis

Evaluation research

• Implementation evaluation
• Experimental outcome studies
• Qualitative evaluation

Theoretical (non-empirical) studies

• Conceptual analysis
• Theory / model building
• Philosophical analysis
• Literature reviews

Source: Mouton, J. 2001. How to succeed in you master's and doctoral studies. Pretoria: Van Schaiks

Taxonomy of research

The practice and science of classification is called taxonomy—the term originates from Greek τάξις, taxis (meaning 'order', 'arrangement') and νόμος, nomos ('law' or 'science'). A taxonomy or taxonomic scheme comprises units, known as taxa (singular taxon), which are arranged in a hierarchical structure of super-type (see the dimensions column on the left below) and subtype (see column on the right below) relationships—also called generalisation-specialisation relationships, or less formally, parent-child relationships. The subtype by definition has the same properties, behaviours, and constraints as the super-type plus one or more additional properties, behaviours, or constraints.

Dimension	Type
Goal	Explanatory — ideographic Descriptive — nomothetic Predictive
Target	Individuals Groups/teams Organisations Communities/societies
Topic	Conditions Orientations — overt Actions (behaviour) — covert
Time	Cross-sectional (diachronic) Longitudinal (synchronic) Cyclical
Control	Experimental Correctional Observational
Application	Basic research Applied research Action research Contract research
Data generating	Non-empirical (theoretical) Empirical (qualitative and/or quantitative)

Source: University of Johannesburg, Department of Industrial Psychology and People Management — I recently had the privilege of attending a study leaders' workshop.

The butterfly research design

A research design forms a whole—that is all the elements or parts are logically belonging. I like to think of a butterfly as metaphor. Imagine the anatomy of a butterfly (or moth) sitting on a flower or against a surface:

Source: http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/butterflies/allabout/

• The issue to be researched or problem to solve through research, forms the body (head, thorax and abdomen)
• The legs represent the research objectives, stemming from the central research problem (the hypothesis in quantitative research).
• The forewing brings to the research a synthesis of the existing body of knowledge regarding the specific problem or issue at hand.
• The hind-wing represents the chosen research methodology in order to operationalise the planned research.
• The antenna serves as introduction (written last) to enable the reader to 'feel' what the research design is about.

Research proposals are used by higher education institutions to ascertain if the researcher (student) has conceived an executable research plan that will enable the student to carry out her research. It is a requirement in the interest of both the student and the institution.

Now imagine the butterfly opening its wings and fly:

 

The research report, thesis or article again forms a whole. The big difference is a second set of wings now completes the metaphor:

• The second forewing represents the presentation of the data in an understandable way and analysis of the data.
• The second hind-wing represents findings of the research carried out and a discussion thereof.
• The wings and six legs of a butterfly are attached to the thorax (the middle section its body), emphasising the logical interconnectedness.
• The veins on the wings suggest the essential logical flow of arguments. Note further that swallow-tail butterflies are stronger flyers, suggesting presentation that is well summarised at the end of various sections reflect stronger logical argument.
• The antenna, composite eye and proboscis represent the title, abstract and key terms (written last)—giving the reader a glance about the thesis or article. The proboscis is used to extend the reach of the butterfly, for example to drink nectar, which serves as metaphor for increasing the search ability for a research article by means of key terms.

Novice researchers often follow research proposal guidelines as a step-by-step guide and end up with a dissected butterfly—unable to fly and show off its beauty.

Action research

Some literature questions if action research can really be regarded as research. However, Kemmis (1997) asserts that internationally, theorists have fostered the development of action research as a notion—it is seen as a means of connecting theory and practice, conducting research and improving practice. Action research is "a form of [collective and collaborative (Kemmis 1997)] self-reflective enquiry undertaken by participants in social situations in order to improve the rationality and justice of their practices, their understanding of these practices, and the situations in which the practices are carried out" (Harmse 2003: 89). Action research is research with a social agenda to meet the needs of people (Van Willigen 2002). Improved practice and understanding of practice, as well as improvement of the situation are commonly derived from action research (Erasmus 2003). By definition, an action research/learning set consists of six- ten people who meet regularly (Erasmus 2003; Hammond 2002; Kalliath & Kalliath 2003; Seale, Wikinson & Erasmus 2005).

Action research typically starts with someone notices an area of concern or problem—refer to the middle tier of Brown's (2001:514) Participatory Action Research Scandinavia Style co-generative research model in the sketch below. The inquirers, both insiders to the problem and outsiders to the problem, engage as participants in an action research process are reflected in the top tier. The double-headed arrows in the model illustrate the interactivity of the tiers of the action research process. The bottom tier of the model contains the action research triangle of knowledge, which is theory-action-evaluation. The double-headed arrows illustrate simultaneous action. Theory is generated by each of the participants as they grapple with the problem or area of concern at hand.

Action research is often characterised by learning derived from spiral cycles that may include analysis, fact-finding, conceptualisation and critical reflection (Van Willigen, 2002), [reconnaissance], planning, participating in execution or collaborative-acting, observing (more fact-finding), evaluative or new critical reflecting (Erasmus 2003), then re-planning, [repetition] further action, further observations and again reflecting (Kemmis 1997). However, Zuber-Skerritt (2003) cautions that there is not a prescriptive recipe for action research because of the dynamic nature of real-life challenges. Louw (2003) refers to the four "moments" of action research: (i) planning, (ii) acting, (iii) observing and (iv) reflecting. The plan is about intentional action, but it must be sufficiently flexible to accommodate unforeseen circumstances. To acting takes place in a real world, is deliberate and critical. Observing implies collecting data about action, and documenting in order to have material to reflect on. Reflecting is about recalling the action and evaluating the action with the view to taking remedial action. Kemmis (1997) highlights three domains that apply to each point or phase, namely: language and discourse, activities and practices, and social relationships and forms of organisation.

Burnard (1996) suggests that both action and reflection are human attributes, but that the secret is to increase the amount of conscious reflection in order for it to become second nature. Owing to work pressures and simply having to get on with things, we often cannot afford to reflect. Burnard suggests setting aside time to reflect about what we have done and learn from the experience. Brown (2001:504) regards action research as a lived experience in which the researcher not only investigates the subject at hand but, but also document an account of the way in which the investigation both shapes and is shaped by the investigator. Such an approach calls for researcher accountability in respect of practices, outcomes and ethical responsibility, that is, the how, what and why of enacting practice.

Based on Argyris, Brown (2001) draws the distinction between Model I and II behaviour. Whereas actions based on Model I behaviour entail unquestioned acceptance of assumptions, Model II behaviour encourages inquiry and testing. Model I is about what feels intuitively right, or "seat of the pants" actions (p 504), that arise without reflecting on process or outcome and "unilateral control over others" (p 507). This kind of behaviour is espoused by few but practised by many. Model II behaviour leads to informed improvement of practice and results in collaborative relations, greater risk taking and freedom of choice.

Over time, action research has developed into varied degrees of participation by the persons involved in the research. Whereas in traditional research the researcher plans the "what" and "how" of the research and imposes the plan on the subjects, action research usually entails full participation of all those who take part in the process. According to Brown (2001:505), the purpose of action research "is to create and evaluate change that works for all the research participants". Action research employs the knowledge and talents of the various participants in order to yield an outcome relevant or beneficial to all involved. The participants "come together as equals in a process to craft research from inception to evaluation" (Brown 2001:506).

Kurt Levin, a social psychologist who fled the repressive German regime of the 1940s and settled in the United States of America, is credited with originating action research. Levin introduced a simple model of change to achieve a particular goal, namely unfreeze, change and refreeze. Another early proponent of action research was the Tavistock group, which formed in Great Britain after World War II. This group strived to humanise work settings through psycho-analytical and psychological principles. The Tavistock Institute was established in 1947 and was instrumental in getting people to look at the world of work from beyond a Tayloristic perspective so that workers could be acknowledged as contributing, thinking, feeling human beings rather than as cogs in a factory assembly line.

Brown (2001:509) recommends John Heron's model of cooperative inquiry and suggests that "the researcher can produce valid inferences only when honouring full participation of all actors in the inquiry process". Heron emphasised that persons in reciprocal relationships use the full range of their sensibilities to inquire together and "coequal partnerships".

Brown (2001:510) further regards research as a simple everyday process of "a problem, an inquiry process, and an explanation allowing for understanding the problem, culminating in 'actions that attempt to resolve the problem being investigated'". However, Stringer cautioned about a linear 'look-think-act' and put forward a spiral notion, in which they all happen simultaneously, yet move forward to a higher point. While one participant carries out part of some action, another gathers data and also reflects on the information in order to inform the next action level. Glittenberg (2001) emphasises the empowerment of participants in action research.

Evaluation plays a very important part in action research. Evaluation is a continuous activity during action research. Glittenberg (2001) points out that evaluation starts on the first day of an action research process and ends on the last day when the participants agree that it is complete. The question, "What are we learning?" (p. 529) evaluates the process and the question "What have we learned?" evaluates the outcomes.

The content of this post originates from a published article (Groenewald, 2009) about an action research project undertaken during the fourth quarter of 2008.

References:

Brown, C. L. 2001. Action research, the method. In: Munhall P.L. (Ed.) (2001). Nursing research: a qualitative perspective (pp. 503-522). 3rd edition. Sudbury, Mass: Jones and Bartlett.

Burnard, P. 1996. Acquiring interpersonal skills - a handbook of experiential learning for health professionals. 2^nd edition. London: Chapman & Hall.

Erasmus, E. 2003. The development of needs-based skills programmes for academics (pp. 43-86). In Speedy, R. (ed.) 2003. Women using action learning and action research — the South African context. Lismore, NSW: Southern Cross.

Glittenberg, J. 2001. Building a snowman while you study snow in the middle of an avalanche. In: Munhall P.L. (Ed.) (2001). Nursing research: a qualitative perspective (pp 523-533). 3rd edition. Sudbury, Mass: Jones and Bartlett.

Hammond, M.J. 2002. Feedback on Assessment: Developing a Practitioner Handbook. EDUCATION-LINE database, 04 September 2002.

Groenewald, T. 2009. Lessons derived from a work‐integrated learning monitoring pilot at a distance higher education institution. Asia‐Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 10(2), 75‐98.

Harmse, M. 2003. The development of outcomes-based curricula (pp 87-102). In Speedy, R. (ed.) 2003. Women using action learning and action research — the South African context. Lismore, NSW: Southern Cross.

Kalliath, P. & Kalliath, T. 2003. Applying action learning concepts to role transition in a dyadic group setting. In the proceedings of the sixth world Congress on Action Learning, Action Research, Process Management (ALARPM) and tenth congress on Participatory Action Research (PAR) held in 22-24 September 2003 in Pretoria, South Africa.

Kemmis, S. 1997. Action research (pp. 173-179). In Keeves, J.P. (ed.) 1997. Educational research, methodology, and measurement: an international handbook. 2nd edition. Oxford: Elsevier Science, Pergamon.

Louw, I. 2003. Reasons for student underachievement in mathematics 1, Faculty of Engineering (pp. 213-241) In Speedy, R. (ed.) 2003. Women using action learning and action research — the South African context. Lismore, NSW: Southern Cross.

Seale, I., Wilkinson, A.C. & Erasmus, M.A. 2005. A step-up action-research model for the revitalisation of service learning modules. Acta Academica Supplementum, 2005(3): 203-229.

Van Willigen, J. 2002. Applied anthropology: an introduction. 3rd edition. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

Zuber-Skerritt, O. 2003. Action learning and action research in higher education (pp. 337-367). In Speedy, R. (ed.) 2003. Women using action learning and action research — the South African context. Lismore, NSW: Southern Cross.

Narratives and life-stories

From the personal subjective life-story emerges meaning—an expression of self understanding; which is a reach source of data for the qualitative researcher, whose goal is to make meaning from the narrative. Robert Atkinson's The Life Story Interview addresses:

• Introductory remarks about all humans having stories; the importance of suspending all judgement as researcher; and the unique standards of validity and reliability— internal consistency, corroboration and persuasion.
• Important pre-interview preparation issues, such as deciding who to interview; approaching the story-teller; making an appointment/s—depending the breath of the life-story; functioning audio-recording equipment; and an appropriate space within to interview.
• About the life-story interview itself: start by recapping the purpose and obtaining informed consent; let the interviewee start where s/he prefers, listen attentively and ask open ended questions for clarification; the interviewer merely guides the reflective-journey; anticipate emotions; respect boundaries; show gratitude for sharing; explain what will follow after the interview; and mark the recording clearly.
• Transcribing is about transforming the recorded telling into a readable narrative; re-listen and do a quality self-check, where after the storyteller must edit the text.
• The interpretation is about making/finding meaning, however, suspend any theoretical assumptions.
• In conclusion and for publication purposes the researcher reverse the process: undertake a literature review and syntheses; substantiate the research design; present the results—the meaning derived from the story/ies; explain the findings; draw conclusions and make recommendations about further research; and add the references.

A four-dimensional narrative analysis model, consisting of holistic versus categorical approaches and content versus from, intersect to form a matrix of four cells, rendering four modes of interpretation.

Life course research

The art and craft of life course studies captivated my attention during January 2010, from a learning-by-experience perspective. Looking back, I recognise the qualitative research growth I derived:

• Lifespan research should take into consideration both past experiences and future expectations. Concepts such as events, timing, impact and distinctive cohort experiences must be kept in mind when organising data. Appropriate research design; historic data collection; four key elements and a number of general principles of life course enquiry are captured.
• The life course inquiry into the sequence of socially defined events or transactions and roles enacted over time should be mindful of the sociology of aging and generations cohorts.
• Matilda Riley's escalator metaphor—people moving diagonally upwards and across—conveys different life experiences of cohorts.
• Robert K Merton's five decades (1948 to 1987) of life course research is captured in a checklist
• Raymond Lee cautions that simply asking may be influenced by extraneous factors, which may affect the truthfulness of the data. He encourages the observation of 'foot prints'. I elaborate on this by short notes on triangulation and crystallisation of data to enhance validity/truthfulness.

Laddering down

"Laddering is a qualitative marketing research technique, which seeks to understand why people buy and use products and services", states Focus Group Tips. According to The Internet Encyclopaedia of Personal Construct Psychology, Dennis "Hinkle [1965] described a method for which Bannister and Mair (1968) coined the term laddering".

The laddering process initially involved "asking why a person would prefer to be described by one pole of a personal construct rather than the other. The construct "ladder" usually ends up with a statement of the values that underlie a person's construing of their personal world". Bannister and Mair (1968) referred to "laddering down" to yield more subordinate or concrete constructs. This method was later described in greater detail by Landfield (1971) who called it pyramiding.

"Thomas J. Reynolds and Jonathan Gutman developed and introduced laddering in 1988, based on Gutman’s Means-End Theory of 1982. They describe product attributes, consequences, and values. Product attributes produce consequences that produce personal meaning (values) for product users."

"There are four levels to the features-benefits-emotions chain. They are,

1. Features
2. Functional benefits
3. Higher Order benefits
4. Emotional Benefits

Each level links to the next level. Each level influences buying behavior."

Qualitative research as precursor

Rather than polarisation of quantitative and qualitative research designs Munhall (2001, pp. 37-38) argues for a holistic epistemology, which “incorporates the qualitative and quantitative methods of research”. She argues that a holistic epistemology “does not represent a conciliatory effort at compromise but rather a belief in a cyclical continuum that begins with discovery and moves toward verification” (p. 38). The figure below illustrates Munhall’s qualitative-quantitative cyclical (spiral) continuum. She supports her view with a quotation from Johnson (1978, p. 9) who states that research often begins at the wrong end, namely “engaging in experimental research before the variables significant to that research have been determined”. Boyd (2001, p. 69) shares this view by stating that “qualitative research as a precursor to quantitative study”. Munhall (2001) argues further that for a research undertaking to be authentic a foundation from which to identify variables and develop instrumentation must be in place. The qualitative enquiry renders such a foundation.

 

Figure: The knowledge development spiral commencing with qualitative research. (Source: Munhall, 2001, p. 57).

A popular view is that research is about the solving of problems. However, Munhall (2001, p. 47) asserts that “before you can solve a problem, you need to understand the many facets of ‘a’ problem”. She states that “qualitative research methods seek to be of the liberating, illuminating, and emancipatory kind” (p. 44). She offers the example of phenomenological research and supports her argument by referring to Van Manen who states that ‘phenomenology does not problem solve’, but rather explore ‘meaning’. Munhall (2001, p. 43) states that “if we did understand the meaning of specific phenomena, might we not have a basis for problem solving?”

References:

Boyd, C.O. (2001). Philosophical Foundations of Qualitative Research. In: Munhall P.L. (Ed.) (2001). Nursing research: a qualitative perspective (pp. 65-89). 3rd edition. Sudbury, Mass: Jones and Bartlett.

Johnson, D.E. (1978). State of the art of theory development. In theory development: what?, why?, how? New York: National League for Nursing.

Munhall P.L. (2001). Epistemology in nursing. In: Munhall P.L. (Ed.) (2001). Nursing research: a qualitative perspective (pp. 37-64). 3rd edition. Sudbury, Mass: Jones and Bartlett.

Phenomenological Research Design

Every blog need to start somewhere. I prefer to start this blog with this post retracing my DPhil dissertation research design, which had been published and subsequently translated into Afrikaans:

• Groenewald, T. 2004. A phenomenological research design — illustrated. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3 (1).
• Groenewald, T. 2004. 'n Fenomenologiese navorsingsontwerp geïllustreer, translated by N Van der Linde. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3 (1).

On 14 March 2018 I received an email from the director of the International Institute for Qualitative Methodology (IIQM), advising that the International Journal of Qualitative Methods (IJQM) "is publishing a Special Issue featuring updates on the top 20 papers (a combination of most downloaded and/or most cited) from the past 20 years" and that my paper has been selected for inclusion. This email invited me submit a reflection on the paper, which I did: 'Reflection/Commentary on a Past Article: A Phenomenological Research Design Illustrated' - https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918774662