[06/28/2024] What is Qualitative Research 3
Last updated
Last updated
Now, take a moment to revisit that question you brainstormed a moment agoâthe question you had as a child about the world in which you live. On a piece of paper, in a journal, or in another app, write out ways in which answering this question could showcase any of the five core qualitative tenets. As a reminder, those tenets are:
Qualitative research is naturalistic.
Qualitative data are expressed using words and images.
The researcher is the instrument.
Qualitative inquiry is contextual.
Qualitative research can be iterative.
One possible response to the question about the five core qualitative tenets might look like this:
As a kid, I was anything but a daredevil, so I found myself naturally intrigued by people who tested physical limits. I wondered, what is it like to do something risky, like summiting Mt. Everest or swimming across the English Channel? This is definitely naturalistic (Tenet 1: Qualitative research is naturalistic), as both feats take place in the real world and can, in no way, be replicated in a laboratory. In fact, doing so wouldnât make any sense. It would be really cool to observe daredevils as they undertake these feats, or to be able to watch video feeds. Collecting daredevilsâ stories through interviews or personal journals invites data in the form of words (Tenet 2: Qualitative data are expressed using words and images) and may also situate me as the research instrument (Tenet 3: The researcher is the instrument). I also realize that studying daredevils is highly contextual (Tenet 4: Qualitative inquiry is contextual). Things like weather, budget, and global events feature prominently into when these feats happen, so researchers would have to remain flexible if they aspire to observe or conduct timely interviews. And of course, such feats are repeated frequently, so that observations can be repeated with modifications as such modifications are deemed worthwhile (Tenet 5: Qualitative research can be iterative).
Letâs examine the core characteristics associated with qualitative research, with a case scenario designed to bring these tenets to life.
Note. Chandra, an undergraduate honors student pursuing a qualitative research project, considers how various qualitative tenets inform her impending work.
First, take a moment to review the following scenario.
In the fall of 2019, Chandra began her third year as an undergraduate honors student at You University. During this phase, she identified a topic for her psychology honors thesis. As a first-generation college student, she found herself intrigued by wonderings about how students like herselfâthose whose parents did not go to collegeâlearned how to learn. With her advisorâs guidance, she decided to investigate this question through qualitative interviews. Now, let us see how the core tenets of qualitative research may inform Chandraâs project.
Core Tenet
Description
Relation to Chandraâs Case
Naturalistic
Qualitative research arises from things we observe or experience in the real world, versus in a laboratory or under experimental conditions.
Chandraâs question arose from observations of the experiences shared between other first-generation college students and herself. By interviewing students in their natural habitat (e.g., on the college campus during the academic semester), she will invite participants to share authentic stories and scenarios detailing their own learning experiences.
Data as words and images
Qualitative research relies on the human narrative, so words and images, versus numbers, formulate the data that are later analyzed and interpreted.
Chandra will not be asking participants to take a survey, or to assign numbers or metrics to their responses. Instead, she will create a robust interview plan that invites participants to share narratives that will be transcribed into a textual record and analyzed.
Researchers are also instruments
The researcher is usually the instrument; they observe the world in search of answers, inviting others, through rigorous means, to share experiences and perspectives.
As mentioned, Chandra will create a rigorous interview protocol, yet she will serve as the âinstrumentââthe portal through which participantsâ narratives are elicited. As you will later learn in this module, serving as the âinstrumentâ requires a special set of skills, training, and practice.
Context-
specific
Qualitative research is highly contextual, meaning that our understanding of the world shifts with time, experience, and global events.
Chandra began her project in fall 2019, commencing face-to-face interviews in the winter of 2020. Yet once COVID-19 struck, the arc of her research also changed. By the time she resumed interviews, she acknowledged that the very questions she was asking would be informed, naturally, by studentsâ pandemic learning experiences. This demonstrates the context-specific nature of qualitative work.
Iterative
Finally, qualitative inquiry is iterative, which means that certain parts of the research process may be tweaked or revisited in order to improve the overall outcome. Moving back and forth through parts of the process is normal.
Given the impact of COVID-19 on learning, overall, Chandra and her advisor agreed it would be a huge mistake not to revise the interview protocol to include a question regarding studentsâ pandemic learning experiences. Here, interview questions were tweaked and revisited in order to enrich the overall study outcome.
Philosophical Underpinnings
Philosophy plays a role in (1) knowing oneself as a researcher and (2) planning to study phenomena or experiences through a qualitative study. Many students who are new to qualitative research do not anticipate learning about philosophy along the way. To Creswell (2013):
Philosophy means the use of abstract ideas and beliefs that inform our research. We know that philosophical assumptions are typically the first ideas in developing a study, but how they relate to the overall process of research remains a mystery. (p. 16)
We will begin our exploration by going deep, exploring the contours of an iceberg in order. This will form an analogy to guide your learning. In this respect, we will look at not just what is on the surface, but also at what lurks below. Whatâs underneath always affects whatâs on the top, whether we are aware of it or not.
The âtip of the icebergâ is likely a familiar phrase. Indeed, what is seen of an iceberg, to the visible eye above water, is a relatively small portion of the mammoth floating ice chunk. Most of the iceberg is actually under water, which is one of the reasons they can be so hazardous.
Now, letâs expand the analogy to research. When reading a typical research study, you might easily discover things like:
The research questions and hypotheses.
The method (techniques) used to address the question.
The strategies used to analyze data.
All of these things exist âabove the surface,â like the icebergâs tip.
Note. What lies below the surface of the research iceberg? A whole lot! ,This is a graphic image of an iceberg. Above the surface, the iceberg is labeled âmethodâ and below the surface the iceberg is labeled, from deepest to closest to the surface, âphilosophical foundations,â âtheory,â and âmethodology.â
Underneath what is visible are factors that invariably influence the research trajectory. We are going to focus deep down, looking at the philosophical foundations. This gets into researcher beliefs and values, for instance, or even biases about what constitutes rigorous research. Unchecked, such biases can jeopardize our understanding of how diverse research really can be. Letâs consider these examples:
Micah reads a qualitative research report for a Sociology class, noting that 14 individuals participated in interviews conducted by the author. âWhat on earth can anyone learn from just 14 people?â he wonders, rolling his eyes. âI mean, itâs hardly generalizable.â Frustrated, he tosses the study aside.
Carlotta, in her Anthropology 101 course, feigns interest in a lecture about a researcher who explores a hardly-known culture through careful, astute observation techniques. âWhy would someone spend time observing a new culture when they could simply create a survey and be done with the study much sooner? Seems like a waste of time.â
Such skepticism is common, yet the criticisms themselves extend deeper than the methods. Letâs find out why Micah and Carlotta think as they do by exploring philosophical tenets in the video that follows.
Letâs examine the philosophical underpinnings that inform qualitative research, with a case scenario designed to bring ontology, epistemology, and axiology to life.
Note. Chandra, an undergraduate honors student pursuing a qualitative research project, considers how various qualitative tenets inform her impending work.
First, take a moment to review the following scenario.
In the fall of 2019, Chandra began her third year as an undergraduate honors student at You University. During this phase, she identified a topic for her psychology honors thesis. As a first-generation college student, she found herself intrigued by wonderings about how students like herselfâthose whose parents did not go to collegeâlearned how to learn. With her advisorâs guidance, she decided to investigate this question through qualitative interviews.
Now, letâs peek âunder the hoodâ to observe how ontology, epistemology, and axiology inform Chandraâs qualitative investigation.
Philosophical Tenet
Description
Relation to Chandraâs Case
Ontology
This branch of philosophy explores the nature of reality. Realists say that things (and phenomena) exist separately from our experience or interpretations. Antirealists perceive that our experiences or interpretations give meaning to things.
Chandra seeks to understand how first-generation college students learn how to learn. If she perceives learning as an entity that exists separately from participantsâ experience, a realist ontology is evident. Alternatively, Chandra may understand learning as something that her participants co-construct, thus giving meaning to the phenomenon through their lived experiences. Note that these perspectives may reside on a continuum, with both ontologies supporting Chandraâs research. By the way, Chandra sees how prominent both ontological perspectives are in the learning literature that she uses to anchor her study.
Epistemology
This branch of philosophy explores knowingâhow it is that we come to know what we know. Some researchers utilize experimental methods, which control for intervening variables and place the researcher in an objective role. Other researchers utilize nonexperimental processes, where they and their participants co-create an understanding of the phenomenon.
Chandraâs research, which is qualitative, is grounded in an epistemology of subjectivity. Embracing the notion that multiple meanings will likely emerge, Chandra will create space within the interview context for participantsâ narratives and lived experiences to take center stage. Though common experiences may arise across interviews, the point is not to come up with one universal truth, but to understand the phenomenon with depth.
Axiology
This branch of philosophy explores valuesâthe role of values in the research process. Some scholars contend that all research on humans, whether quantitative or qualitative, is value-laden. Others may view research as value-free, though many psychologists would debate the existence of value-free inquiry. Many qualitative researchers see inquiry as value-bound, especially when it entails social justice aims (and brings to bear the influence of the researcherâs own positioning).
Chandra hadnât thought much about the role of values in research until she sought approval from her schoolâs institutional review board (IRB). Therein, she saw how value-laden her process was; she needed to respect participantsâ autonomy, do no harm in the process, and protect their confidentiality. As she reflected on her own positioning as a researcher, Chandra also came to see the value-bound nature of her inquiry; she hoped, ultimately, that the results of her study could be used to better the lives of first-generation college students.
Now, using what you have learned about ontology, epistemology, and axiology, we will examine how these philosophical foundations braid together to formulate interpretive frameworks.
An interpretive framework is a bundle of core philosophical assumptions that informs the research path. For some, interpretive frameworks provide rules, guidepoints, and direction for research. While there are dozens of frameworks to discover, Creswellâs (2014) primer elaborates on four common ones: postpositivism, constructivism, transformative, and pragmatism. These frameworks weave together assumptions regarding ontology (i.e., the science of being), epistemology (i.e., the science of knowing), axiology (i.e., the role of values), and more.
The self-assessment that follows is a preview of sorts to our discussion of interpretive frameworks. After you fill out the self-assessment, we will explore the frameworks in the context of what you learn about yourself. This is not a diagnosis; itâs merely a learning device. There are no right or wrong answers. If you struggle choosing between two responses, pick the one that is most reflective of your current beliefs, values, and experiences.
Thank you for taking the self-assessment. Now, we will explore the frameworks in the context of what you just learned about yourself! Then, youâll learn about real qualitative studies in psychology, which align with different interpretive frameworks.
As a reminder, weâre still under the surface of the water surrounding the iceberg. Interpretive frameworks package philosophical perspectives in ways that help inform and direct the research we ultimately do.
The first framework is postpositivism. Students in psychology are often most familiar with this interpretive framework. Herein, phenomena like disease can be examined through discovery, testing, and approximation. To know something, the researcher uses traditional approaches, such as experimental or quasi-experimental designs. Researchers work to ensure objectivity, generalizability, reliability, and validity. Methodologically, quantitative data tend to take precedence, though some qualitative studies can be postpositivist.
Each of the âAâ responses in the self-assessment describe facets of postpositivism:
As an emerging researcher, I aim to test hypotheses and present new claims.
I see my role as generally objective, deterministic, and removed from those being researched.
As an emerging researcher, I think values should be reflected in my expertise; I should follow a scientific, rational path.
I think a core goal is to generalize, so I would follow standards of quantitative rigor with an eye to ensuring validity and reliability. Experimental designs are desired.
In contrast to postpositivism is constructivism. Using qualitative methods, constructivists seek deep understanding of phenomena that cannot be easily measured or controlled, like the essence of falling in love, or the despair associated with grief. Constructivism assumes no one ârealityâ can be estimated; rather, multiple realities coexist. (Think, for instance, of the many ways you, and people you know, have experienced love or grief.) Constructivist researchers usually serve as the core instrument in data gathering through interviews and observations. Thus, careful attention is given to the researcherâs own values, biases, and beliefs.
Each of the âBâ responses in the self-assessment describe facets of constructivism:
As an emerging researcher, I realize there are multiple truths to be discovered; knowledge is something humans socially construct.
I see my role as co-constructing knowledge with participants.
As an emerging researcher, I think values (including my own positioning) must be made explicit and accessible to those being researched.
I think a core goal is depth; I would aim to evoke and describe lived experiences. Qualitative methods are desired.
Next is the transformative framework, which arose in part from researchersâ contention that postpositivism failed to address power, privilege, and advocacy. While constructivist methods invited multiple perspectives, the aim was on meaning-making, versus transformation and change. Transformative researchers integrate varied theoretical perspectives (e.g., feminist, critical, disability, queer), drawing from quantitative or qualitative methods. Further, they work closely with the communities served by the research agenda. Participants are often involved in some phase of the inquiry process: generating the questions, designing the study, analyzing results, and/or making meaning of findings. Inquiry is value-bound, collaborative, and change-directed.
Each of the âCâ responses in the self-assessment describe facets of the transformative framework:
As an emerging researcher, I am most concerned about notions of reality that are transformative; knowledge matters if it benefits marginalized or underrepresented groups.
I see my role as being an advocate to and/or member of the community being studied.
As an emerging researcher, I think values should reflect social justice ideals, such as equity.
I think a core goal is to create change. I may achieve these through qualitative and/or quantitative methods.
Finally, there is the pragmatist framework. The researcher tends not to focus on any one ontological or epistemological perspective, instead choosing the methods and strategies that best address a studyâs purpose. This does not mean, however, that the research is not value-laden; there is important focus paid to the consequences of research. Scholars Greene and Caracelli note that philosophical assumptions, â...can be mixed and matched, in conjunction with choices about methods, to achieve the combination most appropriateâ (p. 8). This means that both the method (i.e., qualitative, quantitative, or both) and the researcherâs own positioning are flexible.
Each of the âDâ responses in the self-assessment describe facets of pragmatism:
As an emerging researcher, I think of knowledge as what works at the timeâletâs stop questioning reality and deal with practice instead.
I see my role as one grounded in formulating real-world applications; I am less concerned about the researcherâsubject relationship.
As an emerging researcher, I think values generally reflect professional codes of ethics (e.g., APA), the mission statement of the sponsoring agency (e.g., NSF, NIH), and the intended outcome of the project.
I think a core goal is to improve practice. Bottom line: The method needs to match the question.
No one particular interpretive framework is better, or even more rigorous, than the others. Sadly, âparadigm warsâ have been fought between scholars. Let us return to the biases explored earlier:
Micah reads a qualitative research report for a Sociology class, noting that 14 individuals participated in interviews conducted by the author. âWhat can anyone possibly learn from 14 people?â he wonders, rolling his eyes. âI mean, itâs hardly generalizable.â Frustrated, he tosses the study aside.
Carlotta, in her Anthropology 101 course, feigns interest in a lecture about a researcher who explores a hardly-known culture through careful, astute observation techniques. âWhy on earth would someone spend time observing a new culture when they could simply create a survey and be done with the study much sooner? Seems like a waste of time.â
Possibly, Micah and Carlotta âgrew upâ in a postpositivist tradition; without an understanding of other worldviews, it is easy to allow bias to limit acceptance of alternative ways of conducting research. Though you may find yourself more drawn to, or experienced in, one genre over the other, good research in psychology requires use of each interpretive framework to understand the human experience.
It takes a lot of practice to fit ontology, epistemology, and axiology into the four interpretive frameworks that we have explored. The following graphic organizer categorizes the frameworks and pulls the pieces together. In case you wondered, it is absolutely possible for a study to fit into more than one framework. But for the purpose of this activity, we will see how scenarios align best with a specific interpretive framework.
Interpretive Framework
Ontological Assumption
Epistemological Assumption
Axiological Assumption
Postpositivism
Knowledge is âout thereâ in the world, independent of the researcher, to be found or discovered through experimental, quasi-experimental, or survey methods. Researchers test claims (hypotheses) and present new ones. A truth exists within the realms of probability.
To know something, postpositivist researchers rely on detachment from subjects, as well as positions of objectivity.
Values are often implicitâand should be reflected in the researcherâs expertise. IRB (human subjects) guidelines are upheld.
Constructivism
Multiple realities exist, and phenomena are shaped by those individuals experiencing them. Knowledge is something that humans construct.
The researcher helps to co-construct knowledge with participants. Subjectivities are embraced.
Values associated with the research agenda, and especially those of the researcher, are made explicit. Because the researcher is an âinstrumentâ of research, they seek to make their positionality (beliefs, biases) overt. IRB (human subjects) guidelines are upheld.
Transformative
Knowledge reflects the lived experiences of individuals, groups, and/or cultures that have experienced marginalization. Their realities are centered.
The researcher may invite multiple epistemologies into the study, often seeing themself as advocate or member of the community served. Participants may be co-researchers, involved in the meaning-making process.
The research is value-bound, meaning that values inform and are inseparable from the research process, the research team, and the participants. Values are aligned with the social justice ideals and agenda of the project. IRB (human subjects) guidelines are upheld.
Pragmatism
Knowledge reflects what works at the time; the researcher focuses less on ontology, per se, and more on practice.
The researcher may invite multiple epistemologies into the study, as long as the research is grounded in practice and real-world application.
While values may not be as overt, they should focus on project outcomes and reflect professional codes of ethics. IRB (human subjects) guidelines are upheld.
By now, you have learned a lot about qualitative research. Congratulations for making it this far! We began by exploring the core tenets of qualitative inquiry:
Qualitative research is generally naturalistic; it arises from things we observe or experience in the real world.
Qualitative research relies on the human narrative, so words and images, versus numbers, formulate the data that are later analyzed and interpreted
The researcher is usually the instrument; they observe the world in search of answers, inviting others to share experiences and perspectives.
Qualitative research is highly contextual, meaning that our understanding of the world shifts with time, experience, and global events.
Qualitative inquiry is iterative; parts of the research process may be tweaked along the way.
Then, we discovered the philosophical foundations underlying research in the social sciences: ontology, epistemology, and axiology. Remember, ontology is all about the nature of reality. Epistemology is about how we come to know something. Axiology surrounds the values, implicit and overt, that guide our work. Together, these philosophical foundations braid into interpretive frameworks: postpositivism, constructivism, transformative, and pragmatism.
Now, we will bring everything together in a straightforward, practical way. (We bet many of you are cheering from the sidelines!) We will move through three summaries of contemporary psychology studies. Not only will you learn about the diversity of questions that qualitative studies address, but you will also apply what you have learned. Each study showcases various tenets of qualitative inquiry, while bringing to light some of the interpretive frameworks we have reviewed.
Here is what will happen next: You will read summaries of three separate qualitative studies, all from different fields in psychology. Each summary is followed by a short self-test with three multiple-choice questions: one question testing your mastery of qualitative research tenets, one testing your mastery of philosophical foundations, and one testing your mastery of interpretive frameworks. If you are not sure of an answer, that is okay. We expect progress, not perfection.
Dr. Tricia R. Shalka is a higher education professor and researcher who investigates the impacts of traumatic experience(s) on college students. In the study summarized in the table below, Shalka sought to understand how studentsâ identity development is impacted by college trauma.
Summary
What were the research questions?
How do experiences of trauma affect identity and identity development? How is traumatic experience in college incorporated into self-definition of identity?
Why was the study done?
Shalka wrote that the topic of trauma has become more visible, and is reported to have been experienced by most college students. âThis prevalence of trauma in college populations underscores the need to understand the potential intersections of how these experiences impact desired outcomes of higher education, such as those related to student learning and developmentâ (p. 741). Specifically, Shalkaâs aim was to understand how identity development is impacted by college trauma.
Who participated?
There were 12 participants. Shalka used well-regarded qualitative sampling methods to recruit âa final sample that included variations in experiences of trauma as well as diverse backgrounds and experiences of participantsâ (p. 744).
How was the study done?
Participants engaged in three semi-structured interviews. The first interview focused on trust-building, while the latter âexplored participantsâ traumatic experiences and connections to identityâ (p. 744). As participants worked with the researcher to construct their sense of the trauma experience, they also completed two reflective activities between interviews designed to help them visually conceptualize identity.
Of note, Shalkaâs research interest arose from her own identification as a survivor of trauma. While this helped her empathize and establish rapport with participants, she also âreflected frequently on how [her] own positionality was impacting the projectâ (p. 747).
Where can I learn more?
Dr. Nisha Gupta is a liberation psychologist. (In case you are unfamiliar, liberation psychology, sometimes called liberation social psychology, is a branch of our discipline that explores the psychology of marginalized, oppressed communities through creativity, reflection, dialogue, and action. To learn more, see Comas-DĂaz and Torres Rivera, 2020.)
In the study summarized in the table below, Gupta explored the lived experiences of the LBGTQ closet.
Summary
What were the research questions?
What is the lived experience of being in the closet as a sexual minority? Can the closet be considered a kind of trauma, clinically speaking?
Why was the study done?
Gupta wrote, âMy objectives for this research were three-fold: first, I aspired to raise [awareness] among everyday citizens about the psychological impact of the LGBTQ closet, to evoke compassion and solidarity towards queer people, and reduce prejudices which sustain anti-LGBTQ norms and policies. Second, I sought to create artwork that could serve as an empathic reflection⌠Third, I sought to foster critical consciousness among psychotherapists of how the LGBTQ closet can manifest as a traumatic symptomologyâŚâ(p. 4).
Who participated?
Gupta recruited five adult participants who had been in the closet as sexual minorities. âAll participants had come out to at least some people in their lives at the time of participating in the study, a significant recruitment criterion for ethical reasonsâ (p. 6). Everyone provided informed consent.
How was the study done?
Gupta developed her own method, cinematic-phenomenological research, that allowed research findings to be shared not only in this research paper but also in a short film. To explore the participantsâ lived experiences, several forms of data were collected:
Participants wrote a âdescriptive anecdote about a painful experience of being in the closetâ (p. 6).
These writings were used to guide interviews with Dr. Gupta. These interviews drew from the therapeutic âfocusingâ technique to help participants locate points of trauma in their bodies. (In this way, the interviews were healing, empowering, and idea-generating.)
Where can I learn more?
You can access the research article to review the findings, or you can watch the 23-minute short film, Illuminate, that Dr. Gupta created at www.illuminatethecloset.com.
This study was co-written by Drs. Sally Rachel Kate Leonard and Carla Willig as follow-up to the first authorâs dissertation research. Dr. Leonard is a practicing psychologist; Dr. Willig is a professor with expertise in counseling psychology.
In the study summarized in the table below, Leonard and Willig explored the experience of living with very high empathy.
Summary
What were the research questions?
What is the lived experience of high empathy (HE)?
Why was the study done?
Leonard and Willig endeavored upon a subjective exploration of an objective phenomenon, high empathy (also called âhyper-empathyâ); they underscored the acceptance within their field that empathy can be validly measured using acceptable quantitative scales. They wrote, âThe hope is that [the research] might be used and applied to those with HE or those in a relationship with someone with HE [and] psychologists and therapists, as those likely to be living with high levels of empathy, might gain understanding of not only how to manage HE clients but also how to protect themselves and harness HE for the benefit of the clinical workâŚâ (p. 54). As an important note, the authors deliberately share their interpretive framework, pragmatism; they want to focus on the issue to be researched, without âbeing limited by methodsâ philosophical and methodological constraintsâ (p. 52). Their focus is on contributing to a gap in the clinical research literature.
Who participated?
Eight people participated. Those who were selected scored âover 70/80, for which the average is 41 for a man and 47 for a womanâ (p. 53) on the EQ.
How was the study done?
Each participant was given a semi-structured interview. (This means that the researchers followed a list of questions, but invited flexibility so as to follow the participantâs leads.) Both authors claim that they âhave hyper-empathy and thus became âinsider researchersâ seeking âinsider knowledgeââ (p. 54).
Where can I learn more?
To learn about the research findings, check out this article:
The results of this study are fascinating! To explore further, check out: Shalka, T. R. (2019). Saplings in the hurricane: A grounded theory of college trauma and identity development. The Review of Higher Education, (42)2, 739â764.
Gupta, N. (2020). Illuminating the trauma of the LGBTQ closet: A cinematic-phenomenological study and film about existential rights. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 19(3), 632â657.
Leonard, S. R. K., & Willig, C. (2020). The experience of living with very high empathy: A critical realist, pragmatic approach to exploring objective and subjective layers of the phenomenon. Counseling Psychotherapy Research, 21, 52â65.
