1999 Qualitative Research Basics Issues

Qualitative questions for essay and short answer terms

What research methodology helps us get to the descriptive data that reflects directly to our research topics as we orient to do so?

Qualitative Research Methodologies

Which authors did pioneering work on functionality in clinical aphasiology, by a concern regarding various methodological and theoretical limitations in current practice?

Hollands (1982), Darley (1991), Kearns & Thompson (1991), Lyon (1992), Wertz (1987)

Who attempted to employ additional research methodologies to obtain more authentic, functional, and naturalistic data on aphasia and this can be applied to other topics in the field as well?

LeDorze & Brassard (1995), Parr (1994).

In addressing this need for more employment of additional research methodologies to obtain more authentic, functional, and naturalistic data in the field, what various researchers have called for the application of qualitative research methodologies designed within the social sciences to assist the more traditional quantitative research approaches in adding to our knowledge of aphasia and other topics in the field and its impact in authentic settings?

Damico et al., (1995), Elman (1995), Holland (1994)

What is the purpose of more direct focus on qualitative research methodologies?

Authors, such as Damico et al., (1995), Elman (1995), and Holland (1994) have stated that although qualitative and quantitative research methodologies have been used to provide descriptive and numeric data to achieve a holistic and verifiable picture of aphasia, its impact and what can be done about it, it doesn't give us enough of a more interpretative, explicated, analytical description. Therefore, these authors have called for more qualitative research methodologies to assist with these more traditional quantitative methodologies in adding to our knowledge of these topic areas and their impacts in authentic settings versus controlled settings, which allows us to see how real human people do and react doing real human things.

What is the definition of qualitative research?

Qualitative research may be viewed as a set of systematic and interpretive practices designed to seek answers to questions that stress how social actions and social experiences are created and sustained. It is a complex research paradigm with a long and well-established history according to Vidich & Lyman (1994).

How have qualitative research methodologies been used in the past to allow us to study complex social phenomenon?

Since the early twentieth century, the fields of anthropology and sociology have used a number of qualitative research methods to study the complexities of cultures, societies, and interactional dyads and much of what we know and apply regarding such complex phenomena as language and cognitive development has been gathered primarily through qualitative research methods.

How does qualitative research operate as an analytic paradigm?

As an analytic paradigm, qualitative research does not favor one single methodology over any other. The choice of data collection procedures and preferred methods of analyses depend upon the social phenomena under investigation, the questions that are asked and the contexts within which the phenomena exist (Nelson et al. 1992).

What happens when this qualitative research paradigm is used?

Whenever this research paradigm is utilized, it produces a bricolage - a kind of pieced-together but carefully constructed set of practices and strategies that provide solutions to a problem in a concrete situation (Levi-Strauss 1966).

What is this bricolage that qualitative research produces whenever it is utilized?

This bricolage may manifest itself in many ways; subsumed under the rubric of qualitative research there are a number of traditions of inquiry (e.g. bibliographic study, case study, conversation analysis, ethnography, ethnomethodology, grounded theory, historical methodology, interactional analyses, phenomenology) that utilize numerous types of naturalistic data collection strategies (e.g. observation, interviewing, artificial analysis, analysis of texts).

How are the selections of any of the traditions of inquiry and data collection strategies to study social phenomena guided by?

It is important to recognize, however, that the selections of any of these traditions of inquiry and data collection strategies to study social phenomena are guided by careful deliberation. Just as with quantitative research methods, qualitative researchers must have a defensible rationale for what tradition of inquiry is selected and how the data are collected. That is, the choice of methodological practice must be ‘pragmatic, strategic, and self-reflexive’ (Nelson et al. 1992:2).

What are five general objectives that social scientists address when employing the methodologies of qualitative research?

1. Taking a learning role

2. Understanding procedural affairs

3. Presenting a detailed view

4. Focusing on the individual

5. Understanding the mundane

What does it mean to ‘take a learning role’ in qualitative research?

Qualitative research is designed to enable the social scientist to take the role of a learner (Silverman 1993). Rather than having to start with a significant amount of prior knowledge (at least enough to formulate a testable hypothesis), the researcher can start with a lack of knowledge about the phenomenon under investigation. All that is needed is an interest in the phenomenon, an opportunity to investigate and an appropriate qualitative methodology. The researcher studies the phenomenon and asks, ‘what’s going on here?’; the qualitative researcher adopts a learning role (i.e. finding out about the phenomenon) rather than a testing role (i.e. testing or subjecting a hypothesis to possible falsification). In other words, qualitative research asks ‘what’ and ‘how’ questions and replace the ‘why’ questions.

What is the key to qualitative research and its learning function?

The key to qualitative research and its learning function is to recognize that the methodologies in this paradigm are oriented to the understanding of various social actions and how they are accomplished (Denzin 1970, Garkinkel 1967, Geertz 1973). In other words, these authors are saying you situate your methodology based on the different social actions or social phenomena and how they are accomplished in natural, authentic contexts. Unlike in quantitative research where you are forcing the social action or social situation or phenomena you are studying to orient to your own methodology and contexts versus you orienting to its contexts and choosing a methodology that fits.

What does it mean to ‘understand procedural affairs’ in qualitative research?

Consistent with qualitative research and its learning function, the second objective of social science is to examine social phenomena as procedural affairs (Fielding, 1988, Garfinkel, 1967). That is, ‘how’ questions (e.g. ‘how do individuals with a language disorder compensate for their deficits’ or ‘what do individuals with a language disorder do to compensate for their language disorder during communication’) replace ‘why’ questions (e.g. ‘why do individuals with a language disorder use compensatory strategies’). Indeed, the understanding of how things function is central to the analysis of social action in qualitative research. Said another way, rather than focusing on the relationship between variables (as is seen in quantitative research), it is an interest in the mechanisms or processes by which social action is accomplished that is the major focus of inquiry (Hammersley and Atkinson 1983, Sacks 1992).

What does it mean to ‘present a detailed view’ in qualitative research?

Because of the interest in the ‘how’ or ‘what’ of social action, the third objective of qualitative research is to present a detailed view of the social actions or phenomena under investigation. Rich description of the behaviors, the contextual elements and the various actions are needed if we are to determine ‘what’s going on here?’ or ‘how is this social activity accomplished?’ (Agar 1986, Sacks 1992, Spradley 1980).

Why is the reliance of quantitative research not sufficient?

Due to the complexity of the phenomena under investigation, the reliance on numerical data, predetermined categories or classificatory schemes, or even reduced summaries of behavior is often insufficient by itself. Thick and detailed description that can lead to rich and productive interpretation of the social activities and elements of interest is needed (Creswell 1998, Denzin 1989, Geertz 1973, Hammersley and Atkinson 1983). Quantitative research does not get us to this thick and detailed description.

What does it mean to ‘focus on the individual’ in qualitative research?

Due to the belief in the social sciences (at least the ethnomethodological versions) that social action and social institutions of all kinds are created and maintained by individuals, it is necessary to focus on the individual or the dyad rather than a larger social conception or institution (Heritage 1984). Since ‘macro’ or ‘global’ social structures arise and are sustained from ‘micro’ or ‘local’ social actions, the micro features of social life - manifested in the immediate actions of the individuals - are of primary concern to qualitative researchers (Garkinkel 1967, Goodwin 1981, Heritage 1984).

What does it mean to ‘understand the mundane’ in qualitative research?

Finally, since we are social creatures and because social action is what we accomplish and operate within on a daily basis, it is the objective of qualitative social research to describe and understand the mundane (Creswell 1998, Heritage 1984). That is, the routine or everyday activities and actions of individuals as they go about their daily lives. It is within these activities that we find the roots of society and the phenomena that define us as social in nature. Consequently, the qualitative researcher is oriented to data collection, description and analysis of the mundane rather than the behaviors that may appear to be unusual or exotic. Hence, in qualitative research, we want our participants to get so comfortable with us that they eventually show us how they truly live out and go about their day to day lives versus not showing their authentic selves because they are ‘putting on a show’. This is where the questions and phenomenon are born out of.

Why do we need to understand the objectives of social science research and these five objectives before employing qualitative research?

Once we recognize that the agenda of social science research is based upon (at least) these five objectives, we can better understand the design characteristics that both make up qualitative research and that give it the strength needed to address social phenomena. Hence, we need to understand the reasoning and basics of qualitative research and the aims of social sciences in employing qualitative research so that we can understand the design characteristics that make up qualitative research and that give it the strength needed to address and understand social phenomena.

What are the strengths of qualitative research?

1. Qualitative research is designed to study phenomena in natural settings

2. Qualitative research sustains a preference for open and relatively unstructured research designs

3. Qualitative research is designed to use the researcher as the key instrument of data collection

4. Qualitative research is designed to collect descriptive data (most often using words or pictures rather than numbers)

5. Qualitative research is designed to orient to a more focused description than a broader one

6. Qualitative research is designed to focus on the process of accomplishing social action rather than the product of social action as the outcome of the analysis

7. Qualitative research is designed to focus on the participants’ perspectives to achieve a deeper understanding of the data

What does it mean by ‘qualitative research is designed to study phenomena in natural settings’?

A foundational concept in the social sciences is that the behavioral phenomena or the behaviors that we are observing that make up social actions are always contextually situated (Bateson 1972, Duranti and Goodwin 1992, Glaser and Strauss 1967, Lincoln and Guba 1985). Consequently, these phenomena cannot be adequately studied without attending to the variables that act to influence them. This ‘field focus’ is essential if we want to understand what the actual social actions are and how they operate.

Why can’t we adequately study a social phenomena without attending to or observing the variables that influence these behaviors?

We can’t adequately study a social phenomenon without attending to or observing the variables that influence these behaviors. This is how we come to apply this clinically as well. For instance, when we study or asses and treat a behavior that a child with autism presents with, we not only study the behavior itself, but the context, people, and other factors that may be influencing the manifestation of this behavior as well. We need to be participant observers within the field we are observing if we want to get a true and adequate understanding of what the social actions are and how they operate within the context. This is why we need interpretative adequacy and interpretative adequate data.

What does it mean by qualitative research believe the social phenomenon or behavior isn’t just influenced within the individual but the context as a whole?

It is not sufficient to consider competence only invested in the individual, rather, the recognition and establishment of communicative competence rises from the dyadic interaction; it is the interactional context that best determines communicative competency. Qualitative research is a particular tradition in social science that fundamentally depends on watching people in their own territory (Kirk and Millar, 1986:9).

What does it mean by ‘qualitative research sustains a preference for open and relatively unstructured research designs’?

In order to collect and analyze natural, dynamic and complex data, it is important to have the flexibility to adjust the methods of both data collection and analysis to fit the needs of the research at any specific time (Bryman 1988, Spradley 1980). This included the ability to shift the methods of data collection, to shift the focus of the research, to maintain a preference for descriptive categories developed specifically for the actual data, and the opportunity to return to data collection even after analysis has commenced. Without the flexibility, the descriptiveness and attention to the myriad variables that make up any range of social phenomena would not be possible.

An example of ‘qualitative research sustains a preference for open and relatively unstructured research designs’

In investigating the work of compensatory strategies, we may employ an open stance regarding our conceptions of compensatory strategies. Rather than utilizing a priori concepts and categorizations of compensatory strategies based on theoretical, deductive reasoning rather than from observation, we may employ several qualitative approaches to discover how our participations with language disorders compensated for their problems during social interactions. As the investigation proceeds, we may investigate and focus on the phenomena as they are revealed. As a result of these efforts, we may formulate a complex and socially functional definition of compensatory strategies, and a description of how these strategies operate. Without the preference for an open and relatively unstructured research design, however, these data and findings would not be possible. This is an example of how instead of focusing on specific strategies to target the behavior, you remain open to being flexible to using relatively unstructured research design, modifying your data collection methods and analysis procedures as you go about your observing the social phenomena.

What does it mean for ‘qualitative research to be designed to use the researcher as the key instrument of data collection’?

If open and relatively unstructured research designs are to be used, it is essential that the data collection be oriented toward such an open stance. Consequently, there must be a system in place that can focus on different variables or switch the focus of data collection as the situations warrant (Eisner 1991, Maxwell 1996). Therefore, a researcher trained in numerous data collection strategies - one who can collect complex social data and perform on-line analysis - is needed to make the necessary adjustments so that authentic and effective research can continue.

What is the difference between qualitative and quantitative research in regards to controlling variables being studied?

It must be remembered that unlike experimental paradigms where variables are controlled, in qualitative research the data collection occurs in the natural setting and the variables are not controlled. Rather, they must be adjusted to if the research is to be effective. Typically, this is not possible without using the researcher as the primary data collection instrument (Denzin 1989). As discussed by Meehl (1954), the best data collection instrument is frequently the well-trained researcher. Hence, quantitative research makes the social phenomena or variables being studied fit the data collection and methodology. Whereas, qualitative research actually changes the methods and data collection methods to fit the social phenomena being studied.

What does it mean for ‘qualitative research to be designed to collect descriptive data (most often using words or pictures rather than numbers)?’

Since an understanding of the function of social actions and the importance of sufficient detail is necessary to address social phenomena that are complex in nature, actual descriptions of social action in terms of strategies, activities, devices, behaviors and knowledge systems rather than using predetermined categories or numbers enables a better understanding of those behaviors and patterns of interaction. This focus on specific and detailed description of phenomena is the reason that this research is described as ‘qualitative’ as opposed to ‘quantitative’ research. Using quantitative data is certainly legitimate and often beneficial in qualitative research, but it should be used in accordance with actual descriptions of the social phenomena (Fielding and Fielding 1986, Kirk and Miller 1986, Ragin 1987).

What does it mean for ‘qualitative research to be designed to orient to a more focused description than a broader one?’

Qualitative research analysis tends to work with a few cases and more variables (real social action in all of its complexity) while quantitative research analysis tends to work with a few variables (predetermined dependent/independent measures) and many cases (Guba and Lincoln 1994, Ragin 1987). This enables a focus on the inter-dependence of social actions with the context and provides for sufficient time and focus to understand the complexity of social phenomena in context (Guba and Lincoln 1994).

An example demonstrating the advantages of using qualitative as a focused description to the understanding of the social actions of individuals with autism.

Using conversation analysis, the author described the co-construction of maladaptive behaviors by a low-functioning individual with autism and his interactional partners. Due to the detailed analyses conducted, the complexity of the collaborative interaction is richly described. The data demonstrate that by viewing these maladaptive behaviors as strengths of the child with autism (e.g. a child giving you a ball to show that she is trying to initiate conversation) and capitalizing on these strengths (e.g. using the child with autism giving you a ball as a way to communicate and capitalizing on that and given the child strategies to continue or even transition the conversation), that were deeply embedded within the talk and participation frameworks of others, the child with autism was able to establish interaction and communication far beyond what might be expected given his level of severity. In this example, the author was able to gather and describe the complexity richly and thoroughly for just one participant.

What is the benefit of focusing on fewer subjects rather than many subjects in qualitative research?

While the focus on fewer subjects might not be appropriate to research designs oriented to statistical predication (e.g. experimental or quantitative research), the application of statistical measures is less relevant within the qualitative paradigm where the objective is exploration of a social phenomenon in detail rather than testing hypotheses. In qualitative research the objective is less about the application of statistical measures and testing a hypothesis and more about the exploration of a social phenomenon and the inter-dependence and interaction between the social phenomenon and the context.

What does it mean by ‘qualitative research is designed to focus on the process of accomplishing social action rather than the product of social action as the outcome of the analysis?’

The data analyses are oriented to how things happen rather than the fact that they happen. Consequently, the analyses performed are nearly always oriented to the mechanisms of action and the processes that occur to manifest the phenomenon under investigation (Eisner 1991, Garfinkel 1967, Moustakis 1990, Sacks 1992). The importance of the focus on process (i.e. how social action is accomplished) can be demonstrated by an example. We can describe how individuals with language impairments and autism - at different levels of severity - are able to overcome their language disorders to establish successful communicative interactions with their conversational partners and environments. Qualitative research explores the process of how things happen versus what happened or the fact that they happened to get closer to an understanding of phenomenon. Qualitative research allows you to study different participants of various severity due to the focus on the process versus quantitative research only focuses on studying individuals of very few severities.

What does it mean by ‘qualitative research is designed to focus on the participants’ perspectives to achieve a deeper understanding of the data?’

Since social action is situationally constrained and based upon the activities and meanings brought to these actions by the participants, qualitative research is oriented to how the participants understand and react to what is happening in the social settings. To ensure appropriate interpretation of the data collected, it is important that the researcher incorporate the conceptual frameworks of the participants into the analyses. A number of studies have been conducted that illuminate the importance of the client’s perspective. An example may be Briton and Fujiki’s case study article about children and family’s perspectives/feelings with living with a language disorder. This emphasis on the emic perspective has a history in anthropology (Agar 1986, Harre 1980, Pike 1967) and, according to some authors (e.g. Bryman 1988), this design characteristic is the sin qua non (necessity) of qualitative research.

What are some weaknesses of qualitative research?

1. Qualitative research is labor-intensive

2. Qualitative research involves experience-based learning

3. Qualitative research operates from a different set of methodological assumptions

4. Qualitative research may be open to abuse

What does it mean for ‘qualitative research to be labor-intensive’?

To a greater extent than most experimental and quasi-experimental methodologies, qualitative research requires more personal and intensive effort from the principal researcher. This primarily is due to the necessity of examining the phenomenon of interest in great detail to understand how the phenomenon functions (i.e., focus on procedural affairs). Consequently, there is nearly always the need to collect a corpus of naturalistic data that must be transcribed and then carefully analyzed in minute detail to discover objects and items of significance. In such instances, it is possible to spend hours on the collection, transcription and analysis of a data sample that might run only 15 minutes in length. Further, there is always the need to verify the authenticity of one’s findings through methods like data triangulation (Flick 1992) and analytic induction (Fielding 1988, Silverman 1993) which requires even more time and effort.

What is the difference in labor-intensity between quantitative and qualitative research?

Of course, experimental and quasi-experimental research also requires significant time commitments. The kinds of activities, however, are usually different and less labor intensive. For example, rather than carefully analyzing a sample in detail to discover and then describe the interactional strategies that are present, quantitative researchers may employ a predetermined classification system that requires identification and counting of specific behaviors. Even when collecting data from a large number of subjects, this research activity is less effortful. Additionally, since the qualitative researcher is used as the primary instrument of data collection and analysis, much of the labor cannot be assigned to a research assistant. Unlike experimental and quasi-experimental research, the qualitative researcher must perform most of the required tasks.

What does it mean by ‘qualitative research involves experience-based learning?’

Another weakness of most qualitative research is that the beginning researcher must gain extensive hands-on experience to learn many of the nuances of the research strategies. Hence, the open and flexible nature of the qualitative methodologies linked with the necessity for detailed and verifiable analysis typically makes the ‘qualitative apprenticeship’ more demanding both in terms of time and effort.

What does it mean by ‘qualitative research operates from a different set of methodological assumptions?’

Since the objectives of qualitative research are different from those of quantitative research, the design characteristics and the methodological assumptions of qualitative research are also different from most experimental approaches. While this is actually a strength of the research paradigm when dealing with complex social phenomena, it can also be a weakness if the consumers and practitioners of qualitative research don’t employ these different assumptions to understand and evaluate the research. When this occur, the logic of the research will not be transparent, and this will result in problems.

What are two examples of the weakness of ‘qualitative research operating from a different set of methodological assumptions?

1. Establishing the credibility of findings

2. The clinical utility of qualitative research

What does it mean by ‘establishing the credibility of findings’?

This first example revolves around the credibility of qualitative research and its findings. That is, can the methods, the data, and the results of the research be trusted. Traditionally in experimental and quasi-experimental research, this question is addressed through the discussion of the internal and external validity of the research design (Campbell & Stanley, 1966). Care is taken to control potential variance by controlling all aspects of the research design (Kerlinger 1973) and by employing the principle of replication (Sidman 1960). It is reasoned that if the study (or at least stages of the study) should be replicable by independent investigators. If this is the case, then research bias or error is less likely. Therefore, within quantitative research methodologies, the logic of replication and the control tactics needed to establish such replication helps guide the evaluation of research credibility. This logic is often manifested by the continued emphasis on the standardization of experimental design, reliability and verifiability (Smith 1970).

When attempting to ‘establish the credibility of findings’, why is this difficult to do in qualitative research?

Within the qualitative research paradigm, however, the logic of replication as a check on credibility is not always possible. There are several reasons for this. First, due to the objectives of qualitative research, it is essential that data be collected in naturalistic settings and that the contextual variables are considered during analysis rather than eliminated or controlled. Consequently, the contextual variation that would be referred to as ‘extraneous’ variance in experimental studies (Kerlinger 1973) will be present and may interfere with statistical measurement of reliability or the opportunity for exact replication.

Why is ‘categorization’ inappropriate in qualitative research when trying to ‘establish the credibility of findings?’

Since, social data are the focus of the research, the variables are often quite complex and not simple to categorize. Indeed, categorization is often inappropriate. To consistently categorize data, the researcher has to reduce the complexity and the uniqueness of the phenomenon to reach a consensus of classification. In effect, there is a trade off between the power of detailed and unique description (which may later result in a deeper understanding of the phenomena) and the convenience of grouping data (Lincoln & Guba 1985). While the logic of replication is appropriate when employing statistical analysis in quantitative research, it is not always a desirable practice when the thick description and rick interpretation of qualitative research are the goals of the research (Denzin 1970, 1989). Instead, different sets of methodological assumptions are employed.

How is credibility established in qualitative research?

Within qualitative research, the methodological assumptions revolve around the objectives of descriptiveness and explanatory adequacy, not predictability. Consequently, what Kirk & Miller (1986) term ‘quixotic reliability’ (i.e. the type of reliability targeted in experimental contexts where the data collection method yields an unvarying measurement) is less of an issue than are the dependability and authenticity of the data collected (Denzin 1989, Moustakis 1990, Wolcott 1994). To address authenticity, data triangulation rather than procedures to increase reliability are required (Denzin 1989, Fielding & Fielding 1986, Flick 1992). This means that controlling the context and the discovery procedures are not a priority. Rather, by employing different data collection and analysis procedures across occurrences and locations (i.e. triangulation), the researcher can compare and contrast the different data obtained across the different events over different occasions. This helps ensure that the data is authentic. Then, by comparing and contrasting the variety of data while describing the phenomena of interest, the authenticity of the interpretation is ensured. In effect, the credibility and robustness of findings are assured through repeated observation and analysis of specific social activities.

When is establishing ‘reliability’ necessary in qualitative research?

Just as with experimental research, however, reliability cannot be ignored during some stages of the qualitative process (Kirk & Miller 1986, Silverman 1993). When classification systems are employed, when coding responses to questions, or when data extracts or data transcriptions are used and not made available to consumers of the research, the lack of reliability indices is an appropriate criticism. For example, during text analysis that employ a set of analytic categories (predetermined or constructed anew) or when identifying specific behaviors for analysis, inter-rater reliability is necessary (Bryman 1988, Silverman 1993).

What is ‘dependability’ and when is it required in qualitative research?

During participant observation within the ethnographic tradition, a particular form of reliability - termed ‘dependability’ - is required (Hammersley and Atkinson 1983, Silverman 1993). In this case, the researcher must detail the relevant context of observation and keep four kinds of notes so that others will know precisely what type of context was observed and if various problems and biases occurred (e.g. Spradley 1980). This will allow another researcher to enter similar types of settings to establish a general form of replication (Maxwell 1996, Wolcott 1994). While not the degree of replication and statistical reliability required in experimental research, it does enable another researcher to verify important aspects of the previous research; such general forms of replication often are required in qualitative studies.

What are ‘methodological assumptions’ in qualitative research?

Given the different methodological assumptions, however, it is important that researchers focusing on social phenomena not be so obsessed with validity, reliability, and generalizability that they fall prey to being obsessed with repeatedly relying on certain methods. That is, ‘the slavish attachment and devotion to method that so often overtakes the discourse in the education and human services’ (Janesick 1994: 215). It is important to recognize that the essence of qualitative research pivots on its descriptive and explanatory power not the strict adherence to procedural constraints.

What is the ‘clinical utility of quantitative research'?’

A second illustration of the differences in the methodological assumptions of qualitative versus quantitative research involves the clinical utility of the research and its findings. That is, how easily and safely can the research results be applied to instances in the ‘real world’. In quantitative research, this issue is based on statistical logic whereby large numbers of dependent variables are collected from a randomly selected sample of subjects, the data are recorded and predictive statistics are employed to determine how significant the findings are and how appropriate it is to apply these findings to cases outside of the experimental or quasi-experimental setting.

What is the ‘clinical utility of qualitative research?’

In qualitative research, however, the significance and utility of the findings are based on the awareness and operation of underlying principles/mechanisms that give rise to complex observable variables (Glaser & Strauss 1967). Instead of statistical representativeness or mathematical (statistical logic), therefore, the issue of clinical utility (i.e. can the findings be applied to other subjects or populations) are couched in terms of the generalizability of cases to theoretical (or underlying operational) propositions rather than to statistical populations or universes (Bryman 1988). That is, in qualitative research the application of findings is not determined by the number of subjects or the mathematical probabilities regarding the recurrence of behavior but, rather, by an understanding of the underlying themes, mechanisms and bases for human social action (Silverman 1993). Once understanding is achieved through qualitative methods, these foundational mechanisms are extended to other instances and individuals and predictions and generalizations are made. This is the ultimate description and understanding of social phenomena as procedural affairs.

What is the importance of recognizing the different methodological assumptions in qualitative research?

As illustrated by the two examples, ‘establishing the credibility of findings’ and ‘the clinical utility of qualitative research’, many of the assumptions and practices of experimental and quasi-experimental research cannot be applied to qualitative research; different methodological assumptions are required. Despite these differences, qualitative research has been successful because - like quantitative research - there is a focus on ensuring the credibility and utility of results, albeit with different strategies. However, if the qualitative researcher does not recognize and draw attention to these differences in the operating logic of the qualitative paradigm, then the credibility and the practical utility of this research and its findings may be weakened.

What does it mean by ‘qualitative research may be open to abuse?’

This weakness revolves around the issue of individual research projects or reports and how well they are implemented. Since qualitative research sustains a preference for open and relatively unstructured research designs, this research may be open to abuse from practitioners with less experience or understanding of the methodologies and from unethical researchers. The potential for abuse is most often noted in two types of problems: a lack of methodological rigor and the lack of verification of findings.

What does it mean by ‘the lack of rigor in data collection and analysis?’

This problem typically arises from statements that data collection and analysis procedures in qualitative research can be adapted to meet the needs of the ongoing research. To an extent, this point is true and it is a strength of the paradigm. Indeed, to investigate complex social phenomenon openness and flexibility are essential. However, openness is not the same as lack of rigor, nor is flexibility a justification for methodological anarchy. Within the literature and practice of qualitative research, there are a number of specific data collection and analysis techniques that have proven effective for investigating complex social phenomena (e.g. Creswell 1998. Denzin & Lincoln 1994, Silverman 1993); these analytic procedures must be used appropriately to meet the acceptability criteria of qualitative practice. While it is true that procedures may be switched, modified and combined to create triangulation during data collection or to vary the level of data analysis, acceptable methods are required. As with any research approach, qualitative research must be rigorous, critical, and objective in handling data and all methodological decisions must be well-conceived and defensible (Creswell 1998, Denzin 1970, Guba & Lincoln 1994).

‘The absence of verification of findings’ as another result from poor application or abuse of qualitative methodologies!

The second problem that might result from poor application or abuse of qualitative methodologies involves the lack of verification of the findings. This is a serious problem that is never acceptable in qualitative research. To deny verification of one’s findings cuts to the very heart of the credibility of the one’s results (Hammersley 1992, Popper 1959, Silverman 1993). While various qualitative methodologists prefer to use different terminology (e.g. Creswell, 1998, Eisner 1991, Hammersley 1992, Janesick 1994) and often criticize adopting experimental concepts like validity to discuss this issue (e.g. Agar 1986, Fielding & Fielding 1986, Guba & Lincoln 1994), the credibility of results is always a concern.

What is the purpose of ‘verification methods in qualitative research?’

When discussed, verification methods in qualitative research revolve around relating or comparing multiple data types to support or contradict various interpretation. According to Eisner there must be a ‘confluence of evidence that breeds credibility’ and enables the researcher to create a ‘compelling whole’ for his or her conclusions (1991:110). Always the interpretation must be supported. In effect, just as with other forms of scientific investigation, qualitative researchers must create a warrant for their inferences (Fielding & Fielding 1986). Hence, qualitative research uses and compares multiple types of data to support or contradict its interpretations in order to create a compelling story and the interpretation must be adequately interpreted and supported.

What is the purpose of various applications of ‘refutability’ or ‘falsifiability’ and more specifically, ‘analytic induction?’

When discussing this issue, various applications of the criterion of refutability or falsifiability are advocated as the most acceptable tactic to support research findings or conclusions (Hammersley 1992, Popper, 1959). Referred to as ‘analytic induction’ (Fielding 1988, Silverman 1993) or ‘strip analysis’ (Agar 1986), the process may be described as follows: based on the initial research, the social or cultural phenomenon is described or defined; a hypothesis about how it operates is formulated and then the researcher takes a small body of naturalistic data and examines it in light of the hypothesis. When this examination occurs, the question asked is ‘does the hypothesis relate to this data or not?’ If the data is consistent with expectations, a practical certainty is created and the hypothesis is sustained. If the data is not consistent with expectations, the hypothesis is rejected and reformulated until it can account for the deviant cases. In many ways, this type of ‘constant comparative method’ (Kirk & Miller 1986) as used in qualitative research is equivalent to statistical testing in experimental research except it is more stringent (Bryman 1988, Fielding 1986, Kirk & Miller 1986). This is because with this qualitative method, there is no room for random error variance, all exceptions are eliminated by revising the hypothesis until all the data fit.

What does it mean by ‘the problem is poor application of qualitative research?’

While it is true that this fourth weakness of qualitative research does exist, the problem is not with the concept and value of the paradigm. Rather, the problem is poor application of qualitative research. Clearly, if we are to advance the acceptability of this research paradigm in clinical aphasiology, we must require appropriate application. Engaging in qualitative research cannot be used as a smoke-screen for muddled thinking, weak research design, lazy researchers, or fear of statistics. Such poor application is not tolerated in quantitative research and should not be tolerated in qualitative approaches. Many criteria for judging the quality of qualitative research have been formulated (e.g. Bryman 1988, Creswell 1998, Denzin & Lincoln 1994, Silverman 1993) and can be applied by those concerned about this issue.

Who is Michael H. Agar?

Michael H. Agar was a prominent American anthropologist and linguist known for his significant contributions to ethnography, qualitative methodology, and applied social research. He is best known for developing the "professional stranger" concept, emphasizing that ethnographers should enter new cultural settings as learners rather than experts. He is also known for ‘strip analysis’. In other words, he is known for ethnography.

Who is James Spradley?

James Spradley was an influential American anthropologist and professor known for developing systematic, rigorous methods for ethnographic research, particularly within qualitative studies. He is best recognized for creating structured approaches to interviews and participant observation designed to understand cultural meanings from the insider's perspective, famously documented in The Ethnographic Interview (1979) and Participant Observation (1980). He is also known for the Spradley matrix. In other words, he is known for ethnography.

Who is Braun & Clark?

Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke are prominent qualitative researchers and psychologists recognized globally for developing a robust, 6-step framework for Reflexive Thematic Analysis (TA). Their work, focusing on a systematic yet flexible approach to identifying patterns in qualitative data, provides foundational methods for psychology and social science research. In other words, they are known for thematic analysis.

Who is John W. Creswell?

John W. Creswell, PhD, is a world-renowned expert in qualitative and mixed methods research, currently a professor of family medicine and senior research scientist at the University of Michigan. He is best known for developing frameworks for five qualitative approaches—narrative, phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, and case study—and authoring numerous, highly influential textbooks on research design. In other words, he was known for mixed methods research and qualitative research in general.

Who is Norman Denzin?

Norman Denzin (1941–2023) was a pioneering American sociologist and Distinguished Emeritus Professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, widely regarded as the "father of qualitative research". He founded the International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry and authored over 30 books, shaping modern interpretive, autoethnographic, and critical research methods. In other words, he is known for sociology/interpretive qualitative research?

Who is Yvonna S. Lincoln?

Yvonna S. Lincoln is a renowned American academic, author, and Distinguished Professor Emerita at Texas A&M University, specializing in higher education administration and qualitative research methods. She is best known for her foundational work on "Naturalistic Inquiry" and for editing the influential SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. In other words, she is known for sociology/interpretive qualitative research?

Who is Kathy Charmaz?

Kathy Charmaz was a renowned American sociologist and Professor Emerita at Sonoma State University, internationally recognized for developing Constructivist Grounded Theory. She significantly advanced qualitative research methods, focusing on the social construction of illness, chronic pain, and the sociology of the body. In other words, she was known for grounded theory.

Who is Barney Glaser?

Barney Glaser (1930–2022) was an influential American sociologist and co-founder of the Grounded Theory methodology, a systematic qualitative research method developed in the 1960s with Anselm Strauss. He advocated for generating theory directly from data through constant comparison, rather than testing existing theories. In other words, he is known for grounded theory.

Who is Anselm Strauss?

Anselm Strauss was a highly influential American sociologist and professor at the University of California, San Francisco, best known for co-developing grounded theory with Barney Glaser and for pioneering work in medical sociology, particularly regarding chronic illness, death, and dying. He was a key figure in symbolic interactionism and a prolific author who shaped qualitative research methods used across nursing, sociology, and social work. In other words, he is known for grounded theory.

Who is Juliet Corbin?

Juliet Corbin is a renowned qualitative methodologist and nursing scholar best known for her foundational contributions to Grounded Theory. Collaborating with Anselm Strauss, she refined systematic, step-by-step methods for analyzing qualitative data, most notably in their influential textbook, "Basics of Qualitative Research," which guides researchers in developing theory from data. In other words, she is known for grounded theory.

Who is Max van Manen?

Max van Manen (born 1942) is a renowned Dutch-born Canadian educator, author, and Professor Emeritus at the University of Alberta. He is a leading figure in human science research, specifically known for his work in hermeneutic phenomenology, pedagogy, and "pedagogical tact". His influential texts, including Researching Lived Experience (1990) and Phenomenology of Practice (2014), are widely used in qualitative methodology. In other words, he is known for phenomenology.

Who is Clark Moustakas?

Clark Moustakas (1923–2012) was a prominent American psychologist and co-founder of humanistic psychology, best known in qualitative research for developing a structured, transcendental phenomenological methodology. He authored influential texts, notably Phenomenological Research Methods (1994) and Heuristic Research, providing practical frameworks for analyzing subjective human experiences, including textural-structural descriptions and a six-phase heuristic process. In other words, he was known for phenomenology.

Who is Harry F. Wolcott?

Harry F. Wolcott (1929–2012) was a renowned educational anthropologist and professor emeritus at the University of Oregon, celebrated as a master ethnographer in qualitative research. He is best known for his influential, practical, and witty guides on conducting fieldwork, writing qualitative research, and transforming qualitative data into insightful analysis. In other words, he is known for ethnography.

Who is Clifford Geertz?

Clifford Geertz was a towering American anthropologist and a key figure in interpretive social science, widely renowned for introducing the concept of "thick description" to qualitative research. He argued that culture is a "web of significance" spun by humans, requiring researchers to interpret the subjective meanings behind social actions rather than just observing behaviors. In other words, he is known for ethnography.

Who is Robert Yin?

Robert K. Yin, PhD, is a renowned American social scientist, author, and President of COSMOS Corporation, recognized as a leading expert in case study research and qualitative methodology. His seminal work, Case Study Research: Design and Methods, is a staple in social science, focusing on rigorous, evidence-based research design. Yin is known for promoting a structured, practical approach to qualitative inquiry. In other words, he is known for case study.

Who is Robert E. Stake?

Robert E. Stake (born 1927) is a pioneering American educational psychologist and Professor Emeritus at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, renowned for developing responsive evaluation and advanced case study methodology. He champions a qualitative, naturalistic approach to studying education, emphasizing the "how things work" through direct observation and interpretation of personal experience. In other words, he is known for case study.

Who is Michael F. Connelly?

Michael F. Connelly is a renowned Canadian academic and a pioneering figure in qualitative research, specifically known for developing "narrative inquiry" alongside D. Jean Clandinin. As a professor emeritus at OISE/University of Toronto, he introduced the concept of studying human experience through stories, viewing it as a three-dimensional, lived, and told experience. In other words, he is known for narrative inquiry.

Who is Jean D. Clandinin?

Jean D. Clandinin is a renowned professor emerita at the University of Alberta and a pioneer in qualitative research, specializing in narrative inquiry. She is recognized for developing methods to study experience as lived and told stories, particularly in teacher knowledge, education, and social sciences. In other words, she is known for narrative inquiry.

Who is Kurt Lewin?

Kurt Lewin (1890–1947) was a pioneering German-American psychologist recognized as the founder of modern social psychology and a key figure in developing action research. He focused on group dynamics, experiential learning, and understanding human behavior through a "field theory" that emphasizes the interaction between individuals and their environment. 

Who developed conversation analysis (CA) in qualitative research?

Conversation analysis (CA) in qualitative research was primarily produced by sociologist Harvey Sacks in collaboration with Emanuel Schegloff and Gail Jefferson during the 1960s and 1970s. Influenced by Harold Garfinkel’s ethnomethodology and Erving Goffman’s studies of social interaction, they developed a rigorous method for analyzing the sequential structure of everyday talk. 

• Harvey Sacks: Developed the initial framework for studying "natural" conversational data, focusing on how social order is achieved.

• Emanuel Schegloff: Collaborated with Sacks on key concepts such as turn-taking and conversational structure.

• Gail Jefferson: Developed the complex, widely used transcription system (Jefferson transcription system) that allows for detailed analysis of audio/video recordings.

• Contextual Influences: The methodology was heavily shaped by Harold Garfinkel (ethnomethodology) and Erving Goffman (micro-sociology of interaction).