Essentials of a Qualitative Doctorate

Immy Holloway, Lorraine Brown

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN:
  9781611321388
• eBook ISBN:
  9781315429434
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Research & Methodology in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

Have you been working toward a qualitative doctorate without a guide? Immy Holloway and Lorraine Brown are here to help. Breaking down the process step by step, this book gives essential advice on navigating the whole program. You'll first get some tips on selecting a research topic and writing a proposal. From there, you'll receive guidance on your research journey, all the way through the completion (and publication!) of your dissertation. Also included is a helpful recommended reading list broken down by research area. This book is an excellent resource for doctoral students of qualitative research and for those who are still considering whether to make the leap.

1. Perspectives on Qualitative Research

You have decided to do a qualitative doctorate. Why did you make this decision? Did you find that your research question demanded a qualitative approach? Did you prefer the qualitative approach to quantitative inquiry? Do you think that qualitative research is easier?

We discuss the last question first, because many researchers carry out qualitative inquiry believing that it is easy to do. If this is your reason, you will not be able to justify your research—but such justification is an important part of the rationale that you set out in your introduction and methodology chapters. In any case, a good piece of qualitative research is just as demanding as a quantitative study, although for different reasons, which will become clearer during the course of your dissertation.

Qualitative research will give you insight into various perspectives on a phenomenon, on behaviors and feelings, and it allows a deep exploration of different experiences. Researchers study people in their natural surroundings and build up relationships so they can learn to see the world from the participants’ point of view, on the basis of a common humanity and sometimes a shared culture, although they can never put themselves wholly into “other people’s shoes.” Richards and Morse (2007) give you an overview of the type of questions that require a qualitative approach—for instance, seeking knowledge in an area where little is known, where you wish to explore participants’ understanding in depth, when you are generating a theory or theoretical ideas.

Distinctions between Qualitative and Quantitative Perspectives

The dichotomy between qualitative and quantitative inquiry has been oversimplified, and the “paradigm wars” are ostensibly over. However, you will find that the debate still continues in academic settings—to the frustration of qualitative researchers. There is no room here to discuss these arguments. We instead focus on the nature of qualitative research, which has its base in the human sciences, such as anthropology, sociology, and psychology; indeed, it has its deeper roots in philosophy and history (see Willis, 2007). This methodology explores how people make sense of their perceived reality. Thus this approach cannot ever be completely precise, because human beings do not always act or think logically and in predictable ways.

Qualitative research differs from quantitative inquiry in

• its perspectives on the nature of being and reality;

• the type of knowledge that is being sought;

• the amount of knowledge that already exists in the area of study;

• the way the research question is approached;

• the collection and analysis of data;

• the presentation of findings.

These issues connect with the concepts of ontology, epistemology, and methodology. Researchers’ assumptions on how the social world can best be studied determine the way the research is shaped. Ontology concerns the nature of existence and reality. Epistemology refers to the theory of knowledge and deals with questions such as what counts as valid knowledge (see also Willis, 2007, p. 10). On these ideas researchers base their methodology—the principles in which their research methods and procedures are rooted. (Ontological, epistemological, and methodological issues are also discussed in Creswell [2007].) Table 1.1 summarizes some of the differences between qualitative and quantitative approaches.

Table 1.1 Some differences between qualitative and quantitative social research (These differences are not absolute, nor are they exhaustive; they are mainly at the end of a continuum between qualitative and quantitative research.) Source: Holloway and Wheeler (2010)

	Qualitative	Quantitative
Aim	Exploration, understanding, and description of participants’ experiences and life world Generation of theory from data	Search for causal explanations Testing hypothesis, prediction, control
Approach	Initially broadly focused Process oriented Context-bound, mostly natural settings Getting close to the data	Narrow focus Product-oriented Context free, often in laboratory settings
Sampling	Participants, informants Sampling units such as place, time, concepts Purposive and theoretical sampling Flexible sampling that can develop during the research	Respondents, participants (the term subjects is now discouraged in the social sciences) Randomized sampling Sample frame fixed before the research starts
Data collection	In-depth nonstandardized interviews Participant observation/fieldwork Documents, diaries, photographs, videos	Questionnaire, standardized interviews Tightly structured observation Documents
Analysis	Thematic or constant comparative analysis, latent content analysis; ethnographic, narrative analysis, etc.	Statistical analysis
Outcome relationships	A story, ethnography, a theory Direct involvement of researcher Research relationship close	Measurable and testable results Limited involvement of researcher with participant
Rigor	Trustworthiness, authenticity Typicality and transferability Validity	Researcher relationship distant Internal/external validity, reliability Generalizability

Essential Features of Qualitative Research

Chapter 10 includes a summary of the major traits of qualitative research that you need to take into account throughout your study, including the structure of the dissertation. You probably have already looked through several books on qualitative research, and maybe you have a Master’s that involved learning about qualitative research. At the end of this book you will find some references that can help you to continue to learn more about qualitative inquiry. In general, Richards and Morse (2007) advise that working, thinking, and reading qualitatively is crucial in qualitative research. Here, however, we discuss the essential characteristics of qualitative research.

Most qualitative research approaches share some traits at a similar level of importance:

1. primacy of data: inductive reasoning;

2. contextualization;

3. insider’s perspective;

4. thick description;

5. need for a storyline;

6. critical subjectivity;

7. reflexivity.

Primacy of Data: Inductive Reasoning

Qualitative research is—in its initial stages at least—inductive. Induction means that inquiry starts with empirical data that have priority for the researcher. Inductive reasoning proceeds from single examples, cases, or instances to more general principles, from specific observation to general ideas; researchers collect data without undue influence from preexisting theories. Thus true qualitative inquiry does not begin with a hypothesis—although it can develop theories or hypotheses from the data. Of course, researchers have their own particular knowledge bases and cannot simply set them aside (see the section on reflexivity toward the end of this chapter). Researchers’ data, however, have priority, and the study-related statements that researchers make are always grounded in the data; but researchers also employ deductive reasoning, often formulating working propositions and investigating them by collecting additional data. And sometimes researchers use deduction (though some would dispute this) when theoretical ideas and working propositions are developed and then examined.

In this short book, we cannot pursue the debate over inductive versus deductive reasoning in research. The philosopher Windelband (1848–1915) called the methods starting from individual cases and events idiographic (from the Greek idios, “private” or “self”) and those that seek lawlike generalities nomothetic (from the Greek nomos, “law”). These terms are still used to describe the differences between qualitative and quantitative methods, but the debate is more complex than can be covered here, as we said. A great number of books can tell you about induction, deduction, and abduction—for example, Mayan (2009), Alvesson and Sköldberg (2009), Schwandt (2007), and other books mentioned at the end of this text.

Contextualization (Contextuality)

All research is context-bound, located in temporal, social, and cultural space. Qualitative inquiry in particular needs contextualization, because it focuses on meaning, and meaning emerges through context. Researchers need situated understanding to be able to relate to participants and data, and one of the goals of qualitative research is to grasp a particular context (Willig, 2008). Thus the circumstances and settings in which the data are collected and analyzed become important. All participants, including the researcher, are steeped in their cultural and social context, and this context influences their beliefs and behaviors. The findings, too, are context-specific—hence the difficulty of generalizing from a qualitative study. Schwandt (2007) adds that a context even influences interpretations in that it affects the “form and direction” of interpretation of the researcher and the researched.

To achieve contextualization, researchers need context sensitivity and context intelligence: they should be aware not only of the wider context but also of the specific circumstances and conditions that influence or even determine the research, such as the background of the participants; the locations in which they live, work, and play; and even the physical setting of the inquiry and the researchers’ own assumptions. What time does an event occur? What is the setting in which the research takes place? Would the research be different in a different time and place?

You may know Stevie Smith’s poem “Not Waving but Drowning,”* which reminds scholars that actions and words might be misinterpreted if the context is not taken into account. Participants’ group membership, their gender and/or ethnic background, might affect the research data, findings, and interpretation. Even the relationship between you and the participants will shape the context.

Context changes meanings: for instance, you might interview a young woman in her own home about her spending habits with her husband and children present. But the questions posed and the answers given might be different in the context of a gym, for example, away from the domestic situation.

Insider’s Perspective

The insider’s, or emic, perspective helps researchers to put themselves in the shoes of the participants and to see the world—at least to some extent—from their point of view. This insider view is necessary for qualitative researchers to gain an understanding of the participants’ culture and setting and the sense they make of it. Harris (1976:336) states: “The way to get inside of people’s heads is to talk with them, to ask questions about what they think and feel, and this is what the qualitative researcher does.”

The term etic refers to the outsider’s (in this case the researcher’s) perspective, that which is observed from outside a group or a subculture. The researcher as analyst reflects on the emic point of view of the participants but also moves back and forth from the emic to the etic in order to take an analytic—and necessarily more abstract and theoretical—view of the data. Both approaches are needed in qualitative inquiry, but this type of inquiry finds its starting point in the emic perspective. Language, too, becomes an element of importance, both local language and the language of the researcher.

The terms emic and etic (originally coined by the linguistic anthropologist Pike in 1954) have their basis in anthropology, but other social researchers now use them frequently. However, in social science there is no clear agreement about the meanings of these terms; indeed, the original meanings seem to be lost in their present-day use. These concepts are discussed simplistically here: we describe only their overall meanings and their importance to qualitative inquiry and doctoral research.

Thick Description

Contextualization is closely linked to thick description. Geertz (1973) borrowed the term from the philosopher Ryle and used it in qualitative anthropological research as a tool for participant observation. Ponterotto (2006), examining its origins and developments, declares that it has now become a qualitative research in...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction: The Qualitative Doctorate
• Chapter 1: Perspectives on Qualitative Research
• THE INITIAL STAGE
• THE RESEARCH JOURNEY
• THE FINAL STAGE
• Appendix
• References
• Index
• About the Authors