( I HAVE ATTACHED THE READINGS FOR THIS ASSIGNMENT.)Grounded Theory and Ethnography Assignment InstructionsEach qualitative design is slightly different from the others; these differences are import
CHAPTER FOUR :
Five Qualitative Approaches to Inquiry
We want to present a couple of scenarios. In the first, the qualitative researcher does not identify any specific approach to qualitative research he or she is using. Perhaps the methods discussion is short and simply limited to the collection of face-to-face interviews. The findings of the study are presented as a thematic workup of major categories of information collected during the interviews. Contrast this with a second scenario. The researcher adopts a specific approach to qualitative research, such as a narrative research approach. Now the methods section is detailed describing the meaning of such an approach, why it was used, and how it informed the procedures of the study. The findings in this study convey the specific story of an individual, and it is told chronologically, highlighting some of the tensions in the story. Details about the specific organization in which the individual’s story takes place provide important contextual information. Which approach would you find to be the most scholarly? The most inviting? The most sophisticated? We think that you would opt for the second approach.
We need to identify our approach to qualitative inquiry in order to present it as a sophisticated study; to offer it as a specific type so that reviewers can properly assess it; and, for the beginning researcher, who can profit from having a writing structure to follow, to offer some way of organizing ideas that can be grounded in the scholarly literature of qualitative research. Of course, this beginning researcher could choose several qualitative approaches, such as narrative research and phenomenological research, but we would leave this more advanced methodological approach to more experienced researchers. We often say that the beginning researcher needs to first understand one approach thoroughly and then venture out and try another approach before combining different ways of conducting qualitative research.
This chapter will help you begin the mastery of one of the qualitative approaches to inquiry as well as to distinguish among the five approaches. We take each approach, one by one, and provide a definition, discuss its origin, identify the key defining features of it, explore the various types of ways to use it, and provide procedures involved in conducting a study within the approach. Then we consider challenges that you will likely incur as you proceed and outline the emerging directions associated with the approach. Finally, a comparison of the five approaches across foundational considerations, data procedures, and research reporting is followed.
Questions for Discussion
What is the focus and definition for each approach (narrative research, phenomenological research, ground theory research, ethnographic research, and case study research)?
What are the origin and background influences for each approach?
What are the defining features of each approach?
What various forms can a study take within each approach?
What are the procedures for using the approach?
What challenges and emerging directions are associated with each approach?
What are some similarities and differences among the five approaches?
Deciding Among the Five Approaches
After the need for identifying an approach is established, the next pressing concern is deciding which among the five approaches is best suited for addressing your research focus (see Figure 4.1). Examining the research problem for each of the five approaches is essential for guiding the choice of which approach to further explore. A research focus represents a more general area of study interest such as a study objective or goal and is disguisable from a more specific research problem, referring to the issue or concern that leads to a need to conduct the study. Of course, gaining foundational knowledge about each approach is recommended, and the sections about each of the approaches can be read in any order. A researcher seeking to study a single individual may decide that learning about the approaches where the unit of analysis can be focused on the individual is advantageous and so may begin with the separate descriptions of narrative research, ethnography, and case study research and then use the final chapter section to help differentiate among them. Similarly, a researcher seeking to study groups of participants may explore the chapter sections differently. In sum, read the chapter in the order in which best fits your qualitative research learning needs.
Narrative Research
Definition of Narrative Research
Narrative research has many forms, uses a variety of analytic practices, and is rooted in different social and humanities disciplines (Daiute & Lightfoot, 2004). “Narrative” might be the phenomenon being studied, such as a narrative of illness, or it might be the method used in a study, such as the procedures of analyzing stories told (Chase, 2005; Clandinin & Connolly, 2000; Pinnegar & Daynes, 2007). As a method, it begins with the experiences as expressed in lived and told stories of individuals. Clandinin (2013) makes the case for the need for attending to the context in which the narrative is embedded, advising, “the focus of narrative inquiry is not only valorizing individuals’ experience but is also an exploration of the social, cultural, familial, linguistic, and institutional narratives within which individuals experiences were, and are, constituted, shaped, expressed and enacted” (p. 18). Writers have provided ways for analyzing and understanding the stories lived and told. Czarniawska (2004) defines it here as a specific type of qualitative design in which “narrative is understood as a spoken or written text giving an account of an event/action or series of events/actions, chronologically connected” (p. 17). The procedures for implementing this research consist of focusing on studying one or two individuals, gathering data through the collection of their stories, reporting individual experiences, and chronologically ordering the meaning of those experiences (or using life course stages). In the discussion of narrative research, we rely on an accessible book called Engaging in Narrative Inquiry (Clandinin, 2013) that revisits “what is it that narrative researchers do” (p. 18). We also bring into the data collection procedures and varied analytic strategies of Riessman (2008) and the seminal work written for social scientists called Narrative Inquiry (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000).
Figure 4.1 A Flowchart for Assessing Fit of Five Qualitative Approaches With Various Research Needs
Origin of Narrative Research
Narrative research originated from literature, history, anthropology, sociology, sociolinguistics, and education, yet different fields of study have adopted their own approaches (Chase, 2005). We find a postmodern, organizational orientation in Czarniawska (2004); a human developmental perspective in Daiute and Lightfoot (2004); a psychological approach in Lieblich, Tuval-Mashiach, and Zilber (1998); sociological approaches in Cortazzi (1993) and Riessman (1993, 2008); and quantitative (e.g., statistical stories in event history modeling) and qualitative approaches in Elliott (2005). Interdisciplinary efforts at narrative research have also been encouraged by the Narrative Study of Lives annual series that began in 1993 (see, e.g., Josselson & Lieblich, 1993), the Handbook of Narrative Inquiry (Clandinin, 2007), and the journal Narrative Inquiry.Narrative inquiry is distinctive with its own definitions and a well-established view as both a methodology and phenomena (Clandinin, 2007). With many recent books on narrative research, it continues to be a popular “field in the making” (Chase, 2005, p. 651).
Defining Features of Narrative Studies
Reading through a number of narrative articles published in journals and reviewing major books on narrative inquiry, a specific set of features emerged that define its boundaries. Not all narrative projects contain these elements, but many do, and the list is not exhaustive of possibilities.
Narrative researchers collect stories from individuals (and documents, and group conversations) about individuals’ lived and told experiences. These stories may emerge from a story told to the researcher, a story that is co-constructed between the researcher and the participant, and a story intended as a performance to convey some message or point (Riessman, 2008). Thus, there may be a strong collaborative feature of narrative research as the story emerges through the interaction or dialogue of the researcher and the participant(s).
Narrative stories tell of individual experiences, and they may shed light on the identities of individuals and how they see themselves.
Narrative stories occur within specific places or situations. Temporality becomes important for the researcher’s telling of the story within a place. Such contextual details may include descriptions of the physical, emotional, and social situations.
Narrative stories are gathered through many different forms of data, such as through interviews that may be the primary form of data collection but also through observations, documents, pictures, and other sources of qualitative data.
Narrative stories are analyzed using varied strategies. An analysis can be made about what was said (thematically), the nature of the telling of the story (structural), who the story is directed toward (dialogic/performance), or using visual analysis of images or interpreting images alongside words (Riessman, 2008). Other options for analysis involve foci on values, plot, significance, or character mapping and time (Daiute, 2014).
Narrative stories often are heard and shaped by the researchers into a chronology, although they may not be told that way by the participant(s). There is a temporal change that is conveyed when individuals talk about their experiences and their lives. They may talk about their past, their present, or their future (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000).
Narrative stories often contain turning points (Denzin, 1989) or specific tensions or transitions or interruptions that are highlighted by the researchers in the telling of the stories. Such incidents can serve as organizing structures for recounting the story including the lead-up and consequences. Daiute (2014) identifies four types of patterns (across narratives of one individual or two or more) for meaning-making related to similarities, differences, change, or coherence.
Types of Narratives
Narrative studies can be differentiated along two different lines. One line is to consider the data analysis strategy used by the narrative researcher, whereas the other is to consider the types of narratives. We see the choice between the two types of approaches, although up to the individual researcher, might be influenced (among other factors) by the nature of the experiences, the story-generating process, and the audience for the narrative. For example, if the experiences span much of a life, then it might make sense for the researcher to consider guiding the collection as part of a life history whereas the same story could also be analyzed using a thematic approach. The best guidance is finding a fit for the particular story function; Riessman (2008) outlines the variety of functions a narrative can serve from telling stories for individual and/or group identity formation to claiming a point aimed at mobilizing marginalized groups and initiate political action.
With a focus on the data analysis strategy, Polkinghorne (1995) discusses narrative in which the researcher extracts themes that hold across stories or taxonomies of types of stories, and a more storytelling mode in which the narrative researcher shapes the stories based on a plotline, or a literary approach to analysis. Polkinghorne (1995) goes on to emphasize the second form in his writings. More recently, Chase (2005) suggests analytic strategies based on parsing constraints on narratives—narratives that are composed interactively between researchers and participants and the interpretations developed by various narrators. Combining both of these approaches, we see an insightful analysis of strategies for analyzing narratives in Riessman (2008). She conveys three types of approaches used to analyze narrative stories: a thematic analysis in which the researcher identifies the themes “told” by a participant; a structural analysis in which the meaning shifts to the “telling” and the story can be cast during a conversation in comic terms, tragedy, satire, romance, or other forms; and a dialogic or performance analysis in which the focus turns to how the story is produced (i.e., interactively between the researcher and the participant) and performed (i.e., meant to convey some message or point).
Narrative researchers can select from various types of narratives for guiding the collection of stories. (see, e.g., Casey, 1995/1996). Here is a brief description of some popular approaches and an example for further reading.
A biographical study is a form of narrative study in which the researcher writes and records the experiences of another person’s life. An example of a biographical study is Ruohotie-Lyhty’s (2013) exploration of professional identity of two newly qualified language teachers in Finland. Through contrasting experiences (a painful and an easy beginning), the stories offer insights into the role of reflection on life experiences as a useful means of supporting identity development.
Autoethnography is written and recorded by the individuals who are the subject of the study (Ellis, 2004; Muncey, 2010). Muncey (2010) defines autoethnography as the idea of multiple layers of consciousness, the vulnerable self, the coherent self, critiquing the self in social contexts, the subversion of dominant discourses, and the evocative potential. They contain the personal story of the author as well as the larger cultural meaning for the individual’s story. An example of autoethnography is Ellis’ (1993) personal exploration of the family drama enacted in the aftermath of the author’s brother’s death in an airplane crash. Her story about childhood interactions with her brother, the crash, and the context for which he was traveling—to visit the author—their adulthood relationship, and the experience of going to the family home for the funeral followed by her return to her home as well as other issues shed light on her personal and professional life.
A life history portrays an individual’s entire life, while a personal experience story is a narrative study of an individual’s personal experience found in single or multiple episodes, private situations, or communal folklore (Denzin, 1989). An exploration of the life history of a Danish academic’s position and perspectives illustrates the complexity of internationalization (Fabricius, 2014).
An oral history consists of gathering personal reflections of events and their causes and effects from one individual or several individuals (Plummer, 1983). Narrative studies may have a specific contextual focus, such as stories told by teachers or children in classrooms (Ollerenshaw & Creswell, 2002) or the stories told about organizations (Czarniawska, 2004). Oral history may draw upon diverse research methods and be guided by interpretive framework such as social justice (Janesick, 2013). The framework may advocate for Latin Americans through using testimonios (Beverly, 2005), or report stories of women using feminist interpretations (see, e.g., Personal Narratives Group, 1989), a lens that shows how women’s voices are muted, multiple, and contradictory (Chase, 2005). It may be told to disrupt the dominant discourse around teenage pregnancy (Muncey, 2010) or to highlight the isolation and limited access to maternal care in a rural community (Orkin & Newberry, 2014).
Procedures for Conducting Narrative Research
Using the approach taken by Clandinin and Connelly (2000) as a general procedural guide, the methods of conducting a narrative study do not follow a lockstep approach but instead represent an informal collection of topics. Clandinin (2013) recently reiterated her stance by saying, “I highlight narrative inquiry as a fluid inquiry, not as set of procedures or linear steps to be followed” (p. 33). Riessman (2008) adds useful information about the data collection process and the strategies for analyzing data. See also Daiute (2014) for a set of practical techniques for conducting narrative research. See Figure 4.2.
Determine if the research problem or question best fits narrative research. Narrative research is best for capturing the detailed stories or life experiences of a single individual or the lives of a small number of individuals.
Select one or more individuals who have stories or life experiences to tell, and spend considerable time with them gathering their stories through multiples types of information. Clandinin and Connelly (2000) refer to the stories as “field texts.” Research participants may record their stories in a journal or diary, or the researcher might observe the individuals and record field notes. Researchers may also collect letters sent by the individuals; assemble stories about the individuals from family members; gather documents such as memos or official correspondence about the individuals; or obtain photographs, memory boxes (collection of items that trigger memories), and other personal–family–social artifacts.
Consider how the collection of the data and their recording can take different shapes. Riessman (2008) illustrates different ways that researchers can transcribe interviews to develop different types of stories. The transcription can highlight the researcher as a listener or a questioner, emphasize the interaction between the researcher and the participant, convey a conversation that moves through time or include shifting meanings that may emerge through translated material.
Embed information about the context of these stories into data collection, analysis, and writing. Narrative researchers situate individual stories within participants’ personal experiences (their jobs, their homes), their culture (racial or ethnic), and their historical contexts (time and place). Being context-sensitive is considered essential to narrative inquiry (Czarniawska, 2004).
Analyze the participants’ stories using the process of reorganizing the stories into some general type of framework called restorying. The researcher may take an active role and “restory” the stories into a framework that makes sense. This framework may consist of gathering stories, analyzing them for key elements of the story (e.g., time, place, plot, and scene) and then rewriting the stories to place them within a chronological sequence (Ollerenshaw & Creswell, 2002). Cortazzi (1993) suggests that the chronology of narrative research, with an emphasis on sequence, sets narrative apart from other genres of research. One aspect of the chronology is that the stories have a beginning, a middle, and an end. Similar to basic elements found in good novels, these aspects involve a predicament, conflict, or struggle; a protagonist, or main character; and a sequence with implied causality (i.e., a plot) during which the predicament is resolved in some fashion (Carter, 1993). Further, the story might include other elements typically found in novels, such as time, place, and scene (Connelly & Clandinin, 1990). The plot, or story line, may also include Clandinin and Connelly’s (2000) three-dimensional narrative inquiry space: the personal and social (the interaction); the past, present, and future (continuity); and the place (situation). This story line may include information about the setting or context of the participants’ experiences. Beyond the chronology, researchers might detail themes that arise from the story to provide a more detailed discussion of the meaning of the story (Huber & Whelan, 1999). Thus, the qualitative data analysis may be a description of both the story and themes that emerge from it. A postmodern narrative writer, such as Czarniawska (2004), adds another element to the analysis: a deconstruction of the stories, an unmaking of them by such analytic strategies as exposing dichotomies, examining silences, and attending to disruptions and contradictions. Finally, the analysis process consists of the researcher looking for themes or categories; the researcher using a microlinguistic approach and probing for the meaning of words, phrases, and larger units of discourse such as is often done in conversational analysis (see Gee, 1991); or the researcher examining the stories for how they are produced interactively between the researcher and the participant or performed by the participant to convey a specific agenda or message (Riessman, 2008).
Embed a collaborative approach in the collection and telling of stories. Clandinin & Connelly (2000) describe active involvement of participants as central to their work that is, “Narrative inquiry is a way of understanding experience; it is collaboration between research and participants, over time, in a place or series of places, and in social interactions with milieus” (p. 17). As researchers collect stories, they negotiate relationships, smooth transitions, and provide ways to be useful to the participants. In narrative research, a key theme has been the turn toward the relationship between the researcher and the researched in which both parties will learn and change in the encounter (Pinnegar & Daynes, 2007). In this process, the parties negotiate the meaning of the stories, adding a validation check to the analysis (Creswell & Miller, 2000). Within the participant’s story may also be an interwoven story of the researcher gaining insight into her or his own life (see Huber & Whelan, 1999). Also, within the story may be epiphanies, turning points, or disruptions in which the story line changes direction dramatically. In the end, the narrative study tells the story of individuals unfolding in a chronology of their experiences, set within their personal, social, and historical context, and including the important themes in those lived experiences. “Narrative inquiry is stories lived and told,” said Clandinin and Connolly (2000, p. 20).
Present the narrative in written form. Adapt the following general reporting structure as appropriate: an introduction to familiarize the reader with the participant(s) and the intended purpose for the story; research procedures to provide a rationale for use of a narrative and details about data collection and analysis; telling of the story to theorize about participant lives, with narrative segments; and patterns of meaning articulated around events, processes, epiphanies, or themes; and a final interpretation of the meaning of the story. It is not uncommon for researchers to find this process challenging “because it is at this point that we make our texts visible to public audiences, unknown audiences who may be far removed from the lived and told experiences of participants” (Clandinin, 2013, p. 50).
Challenges in Narrative Research
Given these procedures and the characteristics of narrative research, narrative research is a challenging approach to use. The researcher needs to collect extensive information about the participant and needs to have a clear understanding of the context of the individual’s life. It takes a keen eye to identify in the source material that gathers the particular stories to capture the individual’s experiences. As Edel (1984) comments, it is important to uncover the “figure under the carpet” that explains the multilayered context of a life. Active collaboration with the participant is necessary, and researchers need to discuss the participant’s stories as well as be reflective about their own personal and political background, which shapes how they “restory” the account. The issue of power relations is of principal concern in narrative inquiry (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000). Multiple issues arise in the collecting, analyzing, and telling of individual stories and building awareness of this responsibility is crucial (Czarniawska, 2004). Pinnegar and Daynes (2007) raise these important questions: Who owns the story? Who can tell it? Who can change it? Whose version is convincing? What happens when narratives compete? As a community, what do stories do among us?
Figure 4.2 Procedures for Conducting Narrative Research
Reflecting the embedded nature of these stories within the larger social, cultural, familial, linguistic, and institutional dimensions allows a more complex understanding to be attended to (Clandinin, 2013), yet is difficult to realize. An emerging area of promise for attaining more complex understandings is visual narrative inquiry whereby images are analyzed alongside textual data (Riessman, 2008). There are several ways that visuals are being integrated; key among them are telling the story with images, telling the story about the images, and using images to inform the story telling (whether they are found or made within the process). In addition, bridges will need to be considered with established visual-based methodologies; for example, the use of photovoice within narrative inquiry in research involving sensitive topics such as gender-based research with South African schoolgirls (see Simmonds, Roux, & ter Avest, 2015).
Phenomenological Research
Definition of Phenomenological Research
Whereas a narrative study reports the stories of experiences of a single individual or several individuals, a phenomenological study describes the common meaning for several individuals of their lived experiences of a concept or a phenomenon. Phenomenologists focus on describing what all participants have in common as they experience a phenomenon (e.g., grief is universally experienced). The basic purpose of phenomenology is to reduce individual experiences with a phenomenon to a description of the universal essence (a “grasp of the very nature of the thing,” van Manen, 1990, p. 177). To this end, qualitative researchers identify a phenomenon, an “object” of human experience (van Manen, 1990, p. 163). Recently van Manen (2014) describes phenomenological research as beginning “with wonder at what gives itself and how something gives itself. It can only be pursued while surrounding to a state of wonder” (p. 27). This human experience may be a phenomenon such as insomnia, being left out, anger, grief, or undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery (Moustakas, 1994). The inquirer then collects data from persons who have experienced the phenomenon and develops a composite description of the essence of the experience for all of the individuals. This description consists of “what” they experienced and “how” they experienced it (Moustakas, 1994).
Origins of Phenomenological Research
Phenomenology has a strong philosophical component to it. It draws heavily on the writings of the German mathematician Edmund Husserl (1859–1938; 1970) and those who expanded on his views, such as Heidegger, Sartre, and Merleau-Ponty (Spiegelberg, 1982). Phenomenology is popular in the social and health sciences, especially in sociology (Borgatta & Borgatta, 1992; Swingewood, 1991), psychology (Giorgi, 1985, 2009; Polkinghorne, 1989; Wertz, 2005), nursing and the health sciences (Nieswiadomy, 1993; Oiler, 1986), and education (Tesch, 1988; van Manen, 1990, 2014). Husserl’s ideas are abstract, and Merleau-Ponty (1962) raised this question: “What is phenomenology?” In fact, Husserl was known to call any project currently under way “phenomenology” (Natanson, 1973). van Manen (2014) adopted the phrase phenomenology of practice to describe the meaning-giving methods of phenomenology based on the primary literature of these scholars.
Writers following in the footsteps of Husserl also seem to point to different philosophical arguments for the use of phenomenology today (contrast, e.g., the philosophical basis stated in Moustakas, 1994; in Stewart and Mickunas, 1990; and in van Manen, 1990). Looking across all of these perspectives, however, we see that the philosophical assumptions rest on some common grounds: the study of the lived experiences of persons, the view that these experiences are conscious ones (van Manen, 2014), and the development of descriptions of the essences of these experiences, not explanations or analyses (Moustakas, 1994). At a broader level, Stewart and Mickunas (1990) emphasize four philosophical perspectives in phenomenology:
A return to the traditional tasks of philosophy. By the end of the 19th century, philosophy had become limited to exploring a world by empirical means, which was called scientism. The return to the traditional tasks of philosophy that existed before philosophy became enamored with empirical science is a return to the Greek conception of philosophy as a search for wisdom.
A philosophy without presuppositions. Phenomenology’s approach is to suspend all judgments about what is real—the “natural attitude”—until they are founded on a more certain basis. This suspension is called epoche by Husserl.
The intentionality of consciousness. This idea is that consciousness is always directed toward an object. Reality of an object, then, is inextricably related to one’s consciousness of it. Thus, reality, according to Husserl, is divided not into subjects and objects but into the dual Cartesian nature of both subjects and objects as they appear in consciousness.
The refusal of the subject–object dichotomy. This theme flows naturally from the intentionality of consciousness. The reality of an object is only perceived within the meaning of the experience of an individual.
An individual writing a phenomenology would be remiss to not include some discussion about the philosophical presuppositions of phenomenology along with the methods in this form of inquiry. Moustakas (1994) devotes over 100 pages to the philosophical assumptions before he turns to the methods. We rely on two books for our primary information about phenomenology: van Manen (2014), based on a human science orientation, and Moustakas (1994), taken from a psychological perspective. We also return to the seminal work of van Manen (1990) in our descriptions of methods and traditions within phenomenological
Defining Features of Phenomenology
There are several features that are typically included in all phenomenological studies:
An emphasis on a phenomenon to be explored, phrased in terms of a single concept or idea, such as the educational idea of “professional growth,” the psychological concept of “grief,” or the health idea of a “caring relationship.”
The exploration of this phenomenon with a group of individuals who have all experienced the phenomenon. Thus, a heterogeneous group is identified that may vary in size from 3 to 4 individuals to 10 to 15.
A philosophical discussion about the basic ideas involved in conducting a phenomenology. This turns on the lived experiences of individuals and how they have both subjective experiences of the phenomenon and objective experiences of something in common with other people. Thus, there is a refusal of the subjective–objective perspective, and for these reasons, phenomenology lies somewhere on a continuum between qualitative and quantitative research.
In some forms of phenomenology, the researcher brackets himself or herself out of the study by discussing personal experiences with the phenomenon. This does not take the researcher completely out of the study, but it does serve to identify personal experiences with the phenomenon and to partly set them aside so that the researcher can focus on the experiences of the participants in the study. This is an ideal, but readers learn about the researcher’s experiences and can judge for themselves whether the researcher focused solely on the participants’ experiences in the description without bringing himself or herself into the picture. Giorgi (2009) sees this bracketing as a matter not of forgetting what has been experienced but of not letting past knowledge be engaged while determining experiences. He then cites other aspects of life where this same demand holds. A juror in a criminal trial may hear a judge say that a piece of evidence is not admissible; a scientific researcher may hope that a pet hypothesis will be supported but then note that the results do not support it van Manen describes the processes of bracketing and reduction as phenomenological reflection.
A data collection procedures that typically involves interviewing individuals who have experienced the phenomenon. This is not a universal trait, however, as some phenomenological studies involve varied sources of data, such as poems, observations, and documents.
A data analysis that can follow systematic procedures that move from the narrow units of analysis (e.g., significant statements), and on to broader units (e.g., meaning units), and on to detailed descriptions that summarize two elements: “what” the individuals have experienced and “how” they have experienced it (Moustakas, 1994).
An ending for phenomenology with a descriptive passage that discusses the essence of the experience for individuals incorporating “what” they have experienced and “how” they experienced it. The “essence” is the culminating aspect of a phenomenological study.
Types of Phenomenology
Two approaches to phenomenology are highlighted in this discussion: hermeneutic phenomenology (van Manen, 1990, 2014) and empirical, transcendental, or psychological phenomenology (Moustakas, 1994). van Manen (1990, 2014) is widely cited in the health literature (Morse & Field, 1995). An educator, van Manen (1990) has written an instructive book on hermeneutical phenomenology in which he describes research as oriented toward lived experience (phenomenology) and interpreting the “texts” of life (hermeneutics; p. 4). Although van Manen does not approach phenomenology with a set of rules or methods, he discusses it as a dynamic interplay among six research activities. Researchers first turn to a phenomenon, an “abiding concern” (van Manen, 1990, p. 31), which seriously interests them (e.g., reading, running, driving, mothering). In the process, they reflect on essential themes, what constitutes the nature of this lived experience. They write a description of the phenomenon, maintaining a strong relation to the topic of inquiry and balancing the parts of the writing to the whole. Phenomenology is not only a description but it is also an interpretive process in which the researcher makes an interpretation of the meaning of the lived experiences.
Icelandic researchers offer an example of a hermeneutical phenomenology in their examination of the experience of spirituality and its influence on the lives of ten persons receiving palliative care and their well-being (Asgeirsdottir et al., 2013). Both the religious and nonreligious aspects were emphasized and implications for the function of a theological approach in palliative care are discussed.
Moustakas’s (1994) transcendental or psychological phenomenology is focused less on the interpretations of the researcher and more on a description of the experiences of participants. In addition, Moustakas focuses on one of Husserl’s concepts, epoche, or bracketing, in which investigators set aside their experiences, as much as possible, to take a fresh perspective toward the phenomenon under examination. Hence, transcendental means “in which everything is perceived freshly, as if for the first time” (Moustakas, 1994, p. 34). Moustakas admits that this state is seldom perfectly achieved. However, we see researchers who embrace this idea when they begin a project by describing their own experiences with the phenomenon and bracketing out their views before proceeding with the experiences of others.
Besides bracketing, empirical, transcendental phenomenology draws on the Duquesne Studies in Phenomenological Psychology (e.g., Giorgi, 1985, 2009) and the data analysis procedures of Van Kaam (1966) and Colaizzi (1978). The procedures, illustrated by Moustakas (1994), consist of identifying a phenomenon to study, bracketing out one’s experiences, and collecting data from several persons who have experienced the phenomenon. The researcher then analyzes the data by reducing the information to significant statements or quotes and combines the statements into themes. Following that, the researcher develops a textural description of the experiences of the persons (what participants experienced), a structural description of their experiences (how they experienced it in terms of the conditions, situations, or context), and a combination of the textural and structural descriptions to convey an overall essence of the experience. Transcendental phenomenology was used in the dissertation work to examine the experiences and perceptions of 13 developmental math students (Cordes, 2014). The essence of the participant experience involved descriptions of isolation, self-doubt, and clouding of success.
Procedures for Conducting Phenomenological Research
We use the psychologist Moustakas’s (1994) approach because it has systematic steps in the data analysis procedure and guidelines for assembling the textual and structural descriptions. The conduct of psychological phenomenology has been addressed in a number of writings, including Dukes (1984), Tesch (1990), Giorgi (1985, 1994, 2009), Polkinghorne (1989), and, most recently, Moustakas (1994). Pereira (2012) offers reflections on the rigour in phenomenological research from the perspective of a novice researcher. The major procedural steps in the process would be as follows (see Figure 4.3):
Determine if the research problem is best examined by using a phenomenological approach. The type of problem best suited for this form of research is one in which it is important to understand several individuals’ common or shared experiences of a phenomenon. It would be important to understand these common experiences in order to develop practices or policies, or to develop a deeper understanding about the features of the phenomenon.
Identify a phenomenon of interest to study, and describe it. Examples of a phenomenon include emotional states such as anger and social constructs such as professionalism. A phenomenon can also involve gaining understandings of a clinical descriptor—for example, what it means to be underweight or a professional descriptor like what it means to be a wrestler. Moustakas (1994) provides numerous examples of phenomena that have been studied. van Manen (1990) identifies the phenomena such as the experience of learning, the beginning of fatherhood, and riding a bicycle.
Distinguish and specify the broad philosophical assumptions of phenomenology. For example, one could write about the combination of objective reality and individual experiences. These lived experiences are furthermore “conscious” and directed toward an object. To fully describe how participants view the phenomenon, researchers must bracket out, as much as possible, their own experiences.
Collect data from the individuals who have experienced the phenomenon by using in-depth and multiple interviews. Polkinghorne (1989) recommends that researchers interview from 5 to 25 individuals who have all experienced the phenomenon. The participants are asked two broad, general questions (Moustakas, 1994): What have you experienced in terms of the phenomenon? What contexts or situations have typically influenced or affected your experiences of the phenomenon? Other open-ended questions may also be asked, but these two, especially, focus attention on gathering data that will lead to a textual and structural description of the experiences, and ultimately provide an understanding of the common experiences of the participants. Other forms of data may also be collected, such as observations, journals, poetry, music, and other forms of art. van Manen (1990) mentions taped conversations; formally written responses; and accounts of vicarious experiences of drama, films, poetry, and novels.
Generate themes from the analysis of significant statements. Phenomenological data analysis steps are generally similar for all psychological phenomenologists who discuss the methods (Moustakas, 1994; Polkinghorne, 1989). Building on the data from the first and second research questions, data analysts go through the data (e.g., interview transcriptions) and highlight “significant statements,” sentences, or quotes that provide an understanding of how the participants experienced the phenomenon. Moustakas (1994) calls this step horizonalization. Next, the researcher develops clusters of meaning from these significant statements into themes.
Develop textural and structural descriptions. The significant statements and themes are then used to write a description of what the participants experienced (textural description). They are also used to write a description of the context or setting that influenced how the participants experienced the phenomenon, called structural description or imaginative variation. Moustakas (1994) adds a further step: Researchers also write about their own experiences and the context and situations that have influenced their experiences. We like to shorten Moustakas’s procedures and reflect these personal statements at the beginning of the phenomenology or include them in a methods discussion of the role of the researcher (Marshall & Rossman, 2015).
Report the “essence” of the phenomenon by using a composite description. From the structural and textural descriptions, the researcher then writes a composite description that presents the “essence” of the phenomenon, called the essential, invariant structure (or essence). Primarily this passage focuses on the common experiences of the participants. For example, it means that all experiences have an underlying structure (grief is the same whether the loved one is a puppy, a parakeet, or a child).
Present the understanding of the essence of the experience in written form. The practice of phenomenological inquiry is considered by Max van Manen (2014) to be inseparable from the practice of writing. He goes on to explain that one of the challenges with writing is that “one must bring into presence a phenomenon that cannot be represented in plain words” (p. 370). There are numerous “ways” for communicating phenomenological research including by systematic exploration, meaning the phenomenon is placed in the context of existential (e.g., temporality or spatiality) or by organizing the account reflective of an ever-deepening understanding of the phenomenon experienced. A general reporting structure includes an introduction to familiarize the reader with the phenomenon and in some cases, a personal statement of experiences from the researcher (Moustakas, 1994); research procedures to provide a rationale for the use of phenomenology, and philosophical assumptions and details about data collection and analysis; a report of how the phenomenon was experienced with significant statements; and a conclusion with a composite description of the essence of the phenomenon.
Challenges in Phenomenology
A phenomenology provides a deep understanding of a phenomenon as experienced by several individuals. Knowing some common experiences can be valuable for groups such as therapists, teachers, health personnel, and policy makers. Phenomenology can involve a streamlined form of data collection by including only single or multiple interviews with participants. Using the Moustakas (1994) approach for analyzing the data helps provide a structured approach for novice researchers. It may be too structured for some qualitative researchers. On the other hand, phenomenology requires at least some understanding of the broader philosophical assumptions, and researchers should identify these assumptions in their studies. These philosophical ideas are abstract concepts and not easily seen in a written phenomenological study. In addition, the participants in the study need to be carefully chosen to be individuals who have all experienced the phenomenon in question, so that the researcher, in the end, can forge a common understanding. Finding individuals who have all experienced the phenomenon may be difficult given a research topic.
Figure 4.3 Procedures for Conducting Phenomenological Research
Bracketing personal experiences may be difficult for the researcher to implement because interpretations of the data always incorporate the assumptions that the researcher brings to the topic (van Manen, 1990, 2014). Perhaps we need a new definition of epoche or bracketing, such as suspending our understandings in a reflective move that cultivates curiosity (LeVasseur, 2003). Thus, the researcher needs to decide how and in what way his or her personal understandings will be introduced into the study. Indeed, the practice of engaging in phenomenological research has the potential for lasting effects on the researcher which merit further study as a phenomenon itself. van Manen (1990) describes the potential impact on the researcher, saying, “Phenomenology projects and their methods often have transformative effect on the researcher himself or herself. Indeed, phenomenological research is often itself a form of deep learning, leading to a transformation of consciousness, heightened perceptiveness, increased thoughtfulness” (p. 163).
A final challenge for phenomenological researchers is how (or for many if) a newer approach, interpretive phenomenology, fits within phenomenology. Smith, Flowers, and Larkin (2009) have led the development of interpretive phenomenological analysis as a qualitative research framework grounded in psychology and influenced by phenomenology and hermeneutics, as well as idiography. With a focus on the particular, a thorough and systematic approach to analysis examines “how a particular phenomena has been understood from the perspective of particular people, in a particular context” (Smith et al., 2009, p. 51). Interpretive phenomenological analysis involves a double hermeneutic as it integrates not only the participant’s sense of their lived experience but also the researchers’ attempt in understanding how the participant makes sense of their personal and social world (Smith et al., 2009).
Grounded Theory Research
Definition of Grounded Theory Research
While narrative research focuses on individual stories told by participants and phenomenology emphasizes the common experiences for a number of individuals, the intent of a grounded theory study is to move beyond description and to generate or discover a theory, a “unified theoretical explanation” (Corbin & Strauss, 2007, p. 107) for a process or an action. Participants in the study would all have experienced the process, and the development of the theory might help explain practice or provide a framework for further research. A key idea is that this theory development does not come “off the shelf” but rather is generated or “grounded” in data from participants who have experienced the process (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Thus, grounded theory is a qualitative research design in which the inquirer generates a general explanation (a theory) of a process, an action, or an interaction shaped by the views of a large number of participants.
Origins of Grounded Theory Research
This qualitative design was developed in sociology in 1967 by two researchers, Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss, who felt that theories used in research were often inappropriate and ill-suited for participants under study. They elaborated on their ideas through several books (Corbin & Strauss, 2007, 2015; Glaser, 1978; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss, 1987; Strauss & Corbin, 1990, 1998). In contrast to the a priori, theoretical orientations in sociology, grounded theorists held that theories should be “grounded” in data from the field, especially in the actions, interactions, and social processes of people. Thus, grounded theory provided for the generation of a theory (complete with a diagram and hypotheses) of actions, interactions, or processes through interrelating categories of information based on data collected from individuals.
Despite the initial collaboration of Glaser and Strauss that produced such works as Awareness of Dying (Glaser & Strauss, 1965) and Time for Dying (Glaser & Strauss, 1968), the two authors ultimately disagreed about the meaning and procedures of grounded theory. Glaser has criticized Strauss’s approach to grounded theory as too prescribed and structured (Glaser, 1992). More recently, Charmaz (2006, 2014) has advocated for a constructivist grounded theory, thus introducing yet another perspective into the conversation about procedures. Through these different interpretations and publications such as the SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007), grounded theory has gained popularity in fields such as sociology, nursing, education, and psychology, as well as in other social science fields. For a concise historical account, see also Kenny and Fourie (2014) and Bryant and Charmaz (2007).
Another recent grounded theory perspective is that of Clarke (Clarke, 2005; Clarke, Friese, & Washburn, 2015) who, along with Charmaz, seeks to reclaim grounded theory from its “positivist underpinnings” (p. xxiii). Clarke, however, goes further than Charmaz, suggesting that social “situations” should form our unit of analysis in grounded theory and that three sociological modes can be useful in analyzing these situations—situational, social world/arenas, and positional cartographic maps for collecting and analyzing qualitative data. She further expands grounded theory “after the postmodern turn” (Clarke, 2005, p. xxiv) and relies on postmodern perspectives (i.e., the political nature of research and interpretation, reflexivity on the part of researchers, a recognition of problems of representing information, questions of legitimacy and authority, and repositioning the researcher away from the “all knowing analyst” to the “acknowledged participant” (Clarke, 2005, pp. xxvii, xxviii). Clarke frequently turns to the postmodern, poststructural writer Michel Foucault (1972) to base the grounded theory discourse. In our discussion of grounded theory, we will be relying on Corbin and Strauss (2015), who provide a structured approach to grounded theory, and Charmaz (2014), who offers a constructivist and interpretive perspective on grounded theory.
Defining Features of Grounded Theory
There are several major characteristics of grounded theory that might be incorporated into a research study:
Grounded theory research focuses on a process or an action that has distinct steps or phases that occur over time. Thus, a grounded theory study has “movement” or some action that the researcher is attempting to explain. A process might be “developing a general education program” or the process of “supporting faculty to become good researchers.”
In a grounded theory study, the researcher seeks, in the end, to develop a theory of this process or action. There are many definitions of a theory available in the literature, but in general, a theory is an explanation of something or an understanding that the researcher develops. This explanation or understanding is a drawing together, in grounded theory, of theoretical categories that are arrayed to show how the theory works. For example, a theory of support for faculty may show how faculty are supported over time, by specific resources, by specific actions taken by individuals, with individual outcomes that enhance the research performance of a faculty member (Creswell & Brown, 1992).
The process of memoing becomes part of developing the theory as the researcher writes down ideas as data are collected and analyzed. In these memos, the ideas attempt to formulate the process that is being seen by the researcher and to sketch out the flow of this process.
The data and analysis procedures are considered to undertaken simultaneously and iteratively. The primary form of data collection is often interviewing in which the grounded theory researcher is constantly comparing data gleaned from participants with ideas about the emerging theory. The process consists of going back and forth between the participants, gathering new interviews, and then returning to the evolving theory to fill in the gaps and to elaborate on how it works.
The inductive procedures involved in data analysis are described in relation to the type of grounded theory approach. The procedures can be structured and follow the pattern of developing open categories, selecting one category to be the focus of the theory, and then detailing additional categories (axial coding) to form a theoretical model. The intersection of the categories becomes the theory (called selective coding). This theory can be presented as a diagram, as propositions (or hypotheses), or as a discussion (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Data analysis can also be less structured and based on developing a theory by piecing together implicit meanings about a category (Charmaz, 2006).
Types of Grounded Theory Studies
The two popular approaches to grounded theory are the systematic procedures of Anselm Strauss and Juliet Corbin (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, 1998; Corbin & Strauss, 2007, 2015) and the constructivist approach of Charmaz (2005, 2006, 2014). Important concepts of the approach associated with Strauss and Corbin involve the categories, codes, and codings and the systematic procedures guided by the constant comparison of data from the field with emerging categories. In contrast, in the contructivist approach, Charmaz emphasizes theory development resulting from a co-construction process dependent upon researcher interactions with participants and field.
In the more systematic, analytic procedures of Strauss and Corbin (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, 1998; Corbin & Strauss, 2007, 2015), the investigator seeks to systematically develop a theory that explains process, action, or interaction on a topic (e.g., the process of developing a curriculum, the therapeutic benefits of sharing psychological test results with clients). The researcher typically conducts 20 to 30 interviews based on several visits “to the field” to collect interview data to saturate the categories (or find information that continues to add to them until no more can be found). A category represents a unit of information that comprises events, happenings, and instances (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The researcher also collects and analyzes observations and documents, but these data forms are often not used. While the researcher collects data, she or he begins analysis. Our image for data collection in a grounded theory study is a zigzag process: out to the field to gather information, into the office to analyze the data, back to the field to gather more information, into the office, and so forth. The participants interviewed are theoretically chosen (called theoretical sampling) to help the researcher best form the theory. How many passes one makes to the field depends on whether the categories of information become saturated—usually considered to be reached when no new ideas are emerging—and whether the theory is elaborated in all of its complexity. This process of taking information from data collection and comparing it to emerging categories is called the constant comparative method of data analysis.
The researcher begins with open coding, coding the data for its major categories of information. Coding involves a data aggregating and meaning-making process described as “doing analysis and denoting concepts to stand for data” (Corbin & Strauss, 2015, p. 216). From this coding, axial coding emerges in which the researcher identifies one open coding category to focus on (called the “core” phenomenon) and then goes back to the data and creates categories around this core phenomenon. Strauss and Corbin (1990) prescribe the types of categories identified around the core phenomenon. They consist of causal conditions (what factors caused the core phenomenon), strategies (actions taken in response to the core phenomenon), contextual and intervening conditions (broad and specific situational factors that influence the strategies), and consequences (outcomes from using the strategies). These categories relate to and surround the core phenomenon in a visual model called the axial coding paradigm. The final step, then, is selective coding, in which the researcher takes the model and develops propositions (or hypotheses) that interrelate the categories in the model or assembles a story that describes the interrelationship of categories in the model. This theory, developed by the researcher, is articulated toward the end of a study and can assume several forms, such as a narrative statement (Strauss & Corbin, 1990), a visual picture (Morrow & Smith, 1995), or a series of hypotheses or propositions (Creswell & Brown, 1992).
In their discussion of grounded theory, Corbin and Strauss (2015) take the model one step further to develop a conditional or consequential matrix. They advance the conditional matrix as an analysis strategy to help the researcher make connections between the macro and micro conditions influencing the phenomenon and in turn identify the range of consequences that result from the interactions. This matrix is a set of expanding concentric circles with labels that build outward from the individual, group, and organization to the community, region, nation, and global world. In my experience, this matrix is seldom used in grounded theory research, and researchers typically end their studies with a theory developed in selective coding, a theory that might be viewed as a substantive, low-level theory rather than an abstract, grand theory (e.g., see Creswell & Brown, 1992). Although making connections between the substantive theory and its larger implications for the community, nation, and world in the conditional matrix is important (e.g., a model of work flow in a hospital, the shortage of gloves, and the national guidelines on AIDS may all be connected; see this example provided by Strauss & Corbin, 1998), grounded theorists seldom have the data, time, or resources to employ the conditional matrix. A further example explores the larger historical, social, political, cultural, and environmental conditions in which the Vietnam war combat experience took place and was survived by U.S. soldiers includes use of a consequential matrix (Corbin & Strauss, 2015).
A second variant of grounded theory is found in the constructivist writing of Charmaz (2005, 2006, 2014). Instead of embracing the study of a single process or core category as in the Strauss and Corbin (1998) approach, Charmaz advocates for a social constructivist perspective that includes emphasizing diverse local worlds, multiple realities, and the complexities of particular worlds, views, and actions. Constructivist grounded theory, according to Charmaz (2006, 2014), lies squarely within the interpretive approach to qualitative research with flexible guidelines, a focus on theory developed that depends on the researcher’s view, learning about the experience within embedded, hidden networks, situations, and relationships as well as making visible hierarchies of power, communication, and opportunity. Charmaz places more emphasis on the views, values, beliefs, feelings, assumptions, and ideologies of individuals than on the methods of research, although she does describe the practices of gathering rich data, coding the data, memoing, and using theoretical sampling (Charmaz, 2006, 2014). She suggests that complex terms or jargon, diagrams, conceptual maps, and systematic approaches (such as Strauss & Corbin, 1990) detract from grounded theory and represent an attempt to gain power in their use. She advocates using active codes, such as gerund-based phrases like recasting life. Moreover, for Charmaz, a grounded theory procedure does not minimize the role of the researcher in the process. The researcher makes decisions about the categories throughout the process, brings questions to the data, and advances personal values, experiences, and priorities. Any conclusions developed by grounded theorists are, according to Charmaz (2005), suggestive, incomplete, and inconclusive.
Procedures for Conducting Grounded Theory Research
In this discussion, we include Charmaz’s interpretive approach (e.g., reflexivity, being flexible in structure, as discussed in Chapter 2), and we rely on Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1998) and Corbin and Strauss (2008, 2015) to illustrate grounded theory procedures because their systematic approach is helpful to individuals learning about and applying grounded theory research. In so doing, we adopt the advice offered by Charmaz (2014): “Grounded theory guidelines describe steps of the research process and provide a path through it. You can adopt and adapt them to solve varied problems and to conduct diverse studies” (p. 16). See Figure 4.4.
Determine if grounded theory is best suited to study the research problem. Grounded theory is a good design to use when a theory is not available to explain or understand a process. The literature may have models available, but they were developed and tested on samples and populations other than those of interest to the qualitative researcher. Also, theories may be present, but they are incomplete because they do not address potentially valuable variables or categories of interest to the researcher. On the practical side, a theory may be needed to explain how people are experiencing a phenomenon, and the grounded theory developed by the researcher will provide such a general framework.
Focus the interview questions on understanding how individuals experience the process and identify the steps in the process (What was the process? How did it unfold?). After initially exploring these issues, the researcher then returns to the participants and asks more detailed questions that help to shape the axial coding phase, such as these: What was central to the process (the core phenomenon)? What influenced or caused this phenomenon to occur (causal conditions)? What strategies were employed during the process (strategies)? What effect occurred (consequences)? These questions are typically asked in interviews, although other forms of data may also be collected, such as observations, documents, and audiovisual materials. The point is to gather enough information to fully develop (or saturate) the model. This may involve 20 to 60 interviews.
Theory-building emerges through the simultaneous and iterative data collection, analysis, and memoing processes. In memoing, the researcher writes down ideas about the evolving theory throughout the data procedures in an effort to discover patterns (Lempert, 2007). The role of memoing as an essential habit for theory development is highlighted by Corbin and Strauss (2015): “Writing memos should begin with the first analytical session and continue throughout the research process” (p. 117) and “memos begin as rudimentary representations of thought and grow in complexity, density, clarity, and accuracy as the research progresses” (p. 117).
Structure the various analysis procedures as open, axial, and selective coding and follow traditions. In open coding, the researcher forms categories of information about the phenomenon being studied by segmenting information. Within each category, the investigator finds several properties, or subcategories, and looks for data to dimensionalize, or show the extreme possibilities on a continuum of the property.
In axial coding, the investigator assembles the data in new ways after open coding. In this structured approach, the investigator presents a coding paradigm or logic diagram (i.e., a visual model) in which the researcher identifies a central phenomenon (i.e., a central category about the phenomenon), explores causal conditions (i.e., categories of conditions that influence the phenomenon), specifies strategies (i.e., the actions or interactions that result from the central phenomenon), identifies the context and intervening conditions (i.e., the narrow and broad conditions that influence the strategies), and delineates the consequences (i.e., the outcomes of the strategies) for this phenomenon. Researchers are advised when focusing on a particular theory component (i.e., condition) the “explanation needs to remain at a conceptual level and use selected data fragments to provide supporting evidence” (Birks & Mills, 2015, p. 130).
In selective coding, the researcher may write a “story line” that connects the categories. Alternatively, propositions or hypotheses may be specified that state predicted relationships. A model can serve as a helpful visual representation of the relationships among categories.
Articulate a substantive-level theory for communication purposes. A substantive-level theory is written by a researcher close to a specific problem or population of people. The substantive-level theory may be tested later for its empirical verification with quantitative data to determine if it can be generalized to a sample and population (see mixed methods design procedures, Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). Alternatively, the study may end at this point with the generation of a theory as the goal of the research.
Present the theory as a discussion or model. Writing is intertwined into every aspect of conducting grounded theory research and how a grounded theory is presented depends on the audience and the process being explained (e.g., see Birks & Mills, 2015; Charmaz, 2014; Corbin & Strauss, 2015). A general reporting structure includes an introduction to familiarize the reader with the process (or action) that the theory is intended to explain, research procedures to provide a rationale for grounded theory and details about data collection and analysis, a theory description involving the major categories from open coding, conditions around core phenomenon from axial coding, and a proposition describing the interrelationships of categories in the model from selective coding. A model can be a useful to provide a summative, concise visual representation of the theory and conclude with a discussion of the theory and (if appropriate) connections and contradictions with extant literature, significance of findings, and implications and limitations.
Challenges in Grounded Theory Research
A grounded theory study challenges researchers for the following reasons. The investigator needs to set aside, as much as possible, theoretical ideas or notions so that the analytic, substantive theory can emerge. Despite the evolving, inductive nature of this form of qualitative inquiry, the researcher must recognize that this is a systematic approach to research with specific steps in data analysis, if approached from the Corbin and Strauss (2008, 2015) perspective. The researcher faces the difficulty of determining when categories are saturated or when the theory is sufficiently detailed. One strategy that might be used to move toward saturation is to use discriminant sampling, in which the researcher gathers additional information from individuals different from those people initially interviewed to determine if the theory holds true for these additional participants. The researcher needs to recognize that the primary outcome of this study is a theory with specific components: a central phenomenon, causal conditions, strategies, conditions and context, and consequences. These are prescribed categories of information in the theory, so the Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1998) or Corbin and Strauss (2008, 2015) approach may not have the flexibility desired by some qualitative researchers. In this case, the Charmaz (2006, 2014) approach, which is less structured and more adaptable, may be used.
Figure 4.4 Procedures for Conducting Grounded Theory Research
Grounded theory research continues to be applied across varied disciplines and to be influential across professions as diverse as health, engineering, education, and business (Charmaz, 2003). While some benefits for conducting grounded theory research are well established, including generating theory relevant to the context of the study and providing flexibility for addressing real-world issues (Corbin & Strauss, 2015), others may still need to be articulated. Wide adoption of grounded theory has resulted in greater attention and the emergence of guidance for researchers for some of the more abstract concepts—for example, memoing (Lempert, 2007).
Ethnographic Research
Definition of Ethnographic Research
Although a grounded theory researcher develops a theory from examining many individuals who share in the same process, action, or interaction, the study participants are not likely to be located in the same place or interacting on a frequent basis that they develop shared patterns of behavior, beliefs, and language. An ethnographer is interested in examining these shared patterns, and the unit of analysis is typically larger than the 20 or so individuals involved in a grounded theory study. An ethnography focuses on an entire culture-sharing group. Granted, sometimes this cultural group may be small (a few teachers, a few social workers), but typically it is large, involving many people who interact over time (teachers in an entire school, a community social work group). Thus, ethnography is a qualitative design in which the researcher describes and interprets the shared and learned patterns of values, behaviors, beliefs, and language of a culture-sharing group (Harris, 1968). As both a process and an outcome of research (Agar, 1980), ethnography is a way of studying a culture-sharing group as well as the final, written product of that research. As a process, ethnography involves extended observations of the group, most often through participant observation, in which the researcher is immersed in the day-to-day lives of the people and observes and interviews the group participants. Ethnographers study the meaning of the behavior, the language, and the interaction among members of the culture-sharing group.
Origins of Ethnographic Research
Ethnography had its beginning in comparative cultural anthropology conducted by early 20th-century anthropologists, such as Boas, Malinowski, Radcliffe-Brown, and Mead. Although these researchers initially took the natural sciences as a model for research, they differed from those using traditional scientific approaches through the first-hand collection of data concerning existing “primitive” cultures (Atkinson & Hammersley, 1994). In the 1920s and 1930s, sociologists such as Park, Dewey, and Mead adapted anthropological field methods to the study of cultural groups in the United States (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992). Scientific approaches to ethnography have expanded to include “schools” or subtypes of ethnography with different theoretical orientations and aims, such as structural functionalism, symbolic interactionism, cultural and cognitive anthropology, feminism, Marxism, ethnomethodology, critical theory, cultural studies, and postmodernism (Atkinson & Hammersley, 1994). This has led to a lack of orthodoxy in ethnography and has resulted in pluralistic approaches.
Many excellent books are available on ethnography, including Van Maanen (1988, 2011) on the many forms of ethnography; LeCompte and Schensul (1999) on procedures of ethnography presented in a tool kit of short books; Atkinson, Coffey, and Delamont (2003) on the practices of ethnography; Atkinson (2015) on ethnographic fieldwork; and Madison (2011) on critical ethnography. Major ideas about ethnography developed in this discussion will draw on Fetterman’s (2010) and Wolcott’s (2008a) approaches in addition to Wolcott’s (2010) companion “primer” on ethnographic lessons.
Defining Features of Ethnographies
From a review of published ethnographies, a brief list of defining characteristics of ethnographies can be assembled.
Ethnographies focus on developing a complex, complete description of the culture of a group—the entire culture-sharing group or a subset of a group. The culture-sharing group must have been intact and interacting for long enough to develop social behaviors of an identifiable group that can be studied. Key to ethnographic research is the focus on these discernible working patterns, not the study of a culture (Wolcott, 2008a).
In an ethnography, the researcher looks for patterns (also described as rituals, customary social behaviors, or regularities) of the group’s mental activities, such as their ideas and beliefs expressed through language, or material activities, such as how they behave within the group as expressed through their actions observed by the researcher (Fetterman, 2010). Said in another way, the researcher looks for patterns of social organization (e.g., social networks) and ideational systems (e.g., worldview, ideas; Wolcott, 2008a).
In addition, theory plays an important role in focusing the researcher’s attention when conducting an ethnography. For example, ethnographers start with a theory—a broad explanation as to what they hope to find—drawn from cognitive science to understand ideas and beliefs, or from materialist theories, such as techno-environmentalism, Marxism, acculturation, or innovation, to observe how individuals in the culture-sharing group behave and talk (Fetterman, 2010).
Using the theory and looking for patterns of a culture-sharing group involves engaging in extensive fieldwork, collecting data primarily through interviews, observations, symbols, artifacts, and many diverse sources of data (Atkinson, 2015; Fetterman, 2010).
In an analysis of this data, the researcher relies on the participants’ views as an insider emic perspective and reports them in verbatim quotes and then synthesizes the data filtering it through the researchers’ etic scientific perspective to develop an overall cultural interpretation. This cultural interpretation is a description of the group and themes related to the theoretical concepts being explored in the study. Typically, in good ethnographies, not much is known about how the group functions (e.g., how a gang operates), and the reader develops a new, and novel, understanding of the group.
This analysis results in an understanding of how the culture-sharing group works—how it functions, the group’s way of life. Wolcott (2010) provides two helpful questions that, in the end, must be answered in an ethnography: “What do people in this setting have to know and do to make this system work?” and “If culture, sometimes defined simply as shared knowledge, is mostly caught rather than taught, how do those being inducted into the group find their ‘way in’ so that an adequate level of sharing is achieved?” (p. 74).
Types of Ethnographies
There are many forms of ethnography, such as a confessional ethnography, life history, autoethnography, feminist ethnography, ethnographic novels as well as the visual ethnography found in photography, video, and electronic media (Denzin, 1989; Fetterman, 2010; LeCompte, Millroy, & Preissle, 1992; Pink, 2001; Van Maanen, 1988). Two popular forms of ethnography will be emphasized here: the realist ethnography and the critical ethnography.
The realist ethnography is a traditional approach used by cultural anthropologists. Characterized by Van Maanen (1988, 2011), it reflects a particular stance taken by the researcher toward the individuals being studied. Realist ethnography is an objective account of the situation, typically written in the third-person point of view and reporting objectively on the information learned from participants at a site. In this ethnographic approach, the realist ethnographer narrates the study in a third-person dispassionate voice and reports on what is observed or heard from participants. The ethnographer remains in the background as an omniscient reporter of the “facts.” The realist also reports objective data in a measured style uncontaminated by personal bias, political goals, and judgment. The researcher may provide mundane details of everyday life among the people studied. The ethnographer also uses standard categories for cultural description (e.g., family life, communication networks, work life, social networks, status systems). The ethnographer produces the participants’ views through closely edited quotations and has the final word on how the culture is to be interpreted and presented.
Alternatively, for many researchers, ethnography today employs a “critical” approach (Carspecken & Apple, 1992; Madison, 2011; Thomas, 1993) by including in the research an advocacy perspective. This approach is in response to current society, in which the systems of power, prestige, privilege, and authority serve to marginalize individuals who are from different classes, races, and genders. The critical ethnography is a type of ethnographic research in which the authors advocate for the emancipation of groups marginalized in society (Thomas, 1993). Critical researchers typically are politically minded individuals who seek, through their research, to speak out against inequality and domination (Carspecken & Apple, 1992). For example, critical ethnographers might study schools that provide privileges to certain types of students, or counseling practices that serve to overlook the needs of underrepresented groups. The major components of a critical ethnography include a value-laden orientation, empowering people by giving them more authority, challenging the status quo, and addressing concerns about power and control. A critical ethnographer will study issues of power, empowerment, inequality, inequity, dominance, repression, hegemony, and victimization.
Procedures for Conducting an Ethnography
As with all qualitative inquiry, there is no single way to conduct ethnographic research. Although current writings provide more guidance to this approach than ever (e.g., see the excellent overview found in Wolcott, 2008a; and for a concise description, see Jachyra, Atkinson, & Washiya, 2015), the approach taken here includes elements of both realist ethnography and critical approaches (see Figure 4.5). The steps we would use to conduct an ethnography are as follows:
Determine if ethnography is the most appropriate design for studying the research problem. Ethnography is appropriate if the needs are to describe how a cultural group works and to explore the beliefs, language, behaviors, and issues facing the group, such as power, resistance, and dominance. The literature may be deficient in actually knowing how the group works because the group is not in the mainstream, people may not be familiar with the group, or its ways are so different that readers may not identify with the group.
Identify and locate a culture-sharing group to study. Typically, this group is one whose members have been together for an extended period of time so that their shared language, patterns of behavior, and attitudes have merged into discernable patterns. This may also be a group that has been marginalized by society. Because ethnographers spend time talking with and observing this group, access may require finding one or more individuals in the group who will allow the researcher in—a gatekeeper or key informants (or participants).
Select cultural themes, issues, or theories to study about the group. These themes, issues, and theories provide an orienting framework for the study of the culture-sharing group. It also informs the analysis of the culture-sharing group. The themes may include such topics as enculturation, socialization, learning, cognition, domination, inequality, or child and adult development (LeCompte et al., 1992). As discussed by Hammersley and Atkinson (1995), Wolcott (1987, 1994, 2008a), and Fetterman (2010), the ethnographer begins the study by examining people in interaction in ordinary settings and discerns pervasive patterns such as life cycles, events, and cultural themes.
Determine which type of ethnography to use to study cultural concepts. Perhaps how the group works needs to be described, or a critical ethnography can expose issues such as power, hegemony, and advocacy for certain groups. A critical ethnographer, for example, might address an inequity in society or some part of it; use the research to advocate and call for changes; and specify an issue to explore, such as inequality, dominance, oppression, or empowerment.
Gather information in the context or setting where the group works or lives. This is called fieldwork (Wolcott, 2008a). Gathering the types of information typically needed in an ethnography involves going to the research site, respecting the daily lives of individuals at the site, and collecting a wide variety of materials. Field issues of respect, reciprocity, deciding who owns the data, and others are central to ethnography. Ethnographers bring a sensitivity to fieldwork issues (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995), such as attending to how they gain access, give back or reciprocate with the participants, and engage in ethical research, such as presenting themselves honestly and describing the purpose of the study. LeCompte and Schensul (1999) organize types of ethnographic data into observations, tests and measures, surveys, interviews, content analysis, elicitation methods, audiovisual methods, spatial mapping, and network research.
Generate an overall cultural interpretation of the group from the analysis of patterns across many sources of data. The researcher begins by compiling a detailed description of the culture-sharing group, focusing on a single event, on several activities, or on the group over a prolonged period of time. The ethnographer moves into a theme analysis of patterns or topics that signifies how the cultural group works and lives, and ends with an “overall picture of how a system works” (Fetterman, 2010, p. 10). Fetterman (2010) describes the function of thick description for the reader, stating “ideally the ethnographer shares the participant’s understanding of the situation with the reader. Thick description is a written record of cultural interpretation” (p. 125). This description includes verbatim quotes reflective of cultural concepts such as the social structure, kinship, political structure, and the social relations or function among members incorporating the views of the participants (emic) as well as the views of the researcher (etic).
Present the patterns of the culture-sharing group in written or performance formats. This is often accomplished by describing a working set of rules or generalizations as to how the culture-sharing group functions. This may also be referred to as a holistic cultural portrait. Writing ethnographies involves an interactive analysis and writing process often begun during fieldwork. A general reporting structure includes an introduction to familiarize the reader with the culture-sharing group, research procedures to provide a rationale for use of an ethnography, and details about data collection and analysis, providing a cultural interpretation using a variety of ways describing the patterns that emerge from an analysis of cultural. The final product is a holistic cultural portrait of the group from both the participants and the interpretation of the researcher that might also advocate for the needs of the group or suggest changes in society. Other products may be more performance based, such as theater productions, plays, or poems.
Figure 4.5 Procedures for Conducting Ethnographic Research
Challenges in Ethnographic Research
Ethnography is challenging to use for the following reasons. The researcher needs to have an understanding of cultural anthropology, the meaning of a social–cultural system, and the concepts typically explored by those studying cultures. Culture is an amorphous term, not something “lying about” (Wolcott, 1987, p. 41), but something researchers attribute to a group when looking for patterns of its social world. It is inferred from the words and actions of members of the group, and it is assigned to this group by the researcher. It consists of what people do (behaviors), what they say (language), the potential tension between what they do and ought to do, and what they make and use, such as artifacts (Spradley, 1980). Such themes are diverse, as illustrated in Winthrop’s (1991) Dictionary of Concepts in Cultural Anthropology. Fetterman (2010) discusses how ethnographers describe a holistic perspective of the group’s history, religion, politics, economy, and environment.
The time to collect data is extensive, involving prolonged time in the field. In much ethnography, the narratives are written in a literary, almost storytelling approach, an approach that may limit the audience for the work and may be challenging for authors accustomed to traditional approaches to scientific writing. There is a possibility that the researcher will “go native” and be unable to complete or be compromised in the study. This is but one issue in the complex array of fieldwork issues facing ethnographers who venture into an unfamiliar cultural group or system. Sensitivity to the needs of individuals being studied is especially important, and the researcher must access and report his or her impact in conducting the study on the people and the places being explored. Discussions abound about how funding often limits time for ethnographic fieldwork and how data shapes the generation of an ethnographic study.
Case Study Research
Definition of Case Study Research
The entire culture-sharing group in ethnography may be considered a case, but the intent in ethnography is to determine how the culture works rather than to either develop an in-depth understanding of a single case or explore an issue or problem using the case as a specific illustration. Thus, case study research involves the study of a case (or cases) within a real-life, contemporary context or setting (Yin, 2014). This case may be a concrete entity, such as an individual, a small group, an organization, or a partnership. At a less concrete level, it may be a community, a relationship, a decision process, or a specific project (see Yin, 2014). Stake (2005) states that case study research is not a methodology but a choice of what is to be studied (i.e., a case within a bounded system, bounded by time and place) whereas others present it as a strategy of inquiry, a methodology, or a comprehensive research strategy (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015; Yin, 2014). Similar to Stake (2005), Thomas (2015) argues, “Your case study is defined not so much by the methods that you are using to do the study, but the edges you put around the case” (p. 21).
We choose to view case study research as a methodology: a type of design in qualitative research that may be an object of study as well as a product of the inquiry. Case study research is defined as a qualitative approach in which the investigator explores a real-life, contemporary bounded system (a case) or multiple bounded systems (cases) over time, through detailed, in-depth data collection involving multiple sources of information (e.g., observations, interviews, audiovisual material, and documents and reports), and reports a case description and case themes. The unit of analysis in the case study might be multiple cases (a multisite study) or a single case (a within-site study).
Origins of Case Study Research
The case study approach is familiar to social scientists because of its popularity in psychology (Freud), medicine (case analysis of a problem), law (case law), and political science (case reports). Case study research has a long, distinguished history across many disciplines. Hamel, Dufour, and Fortin (1993) trace the origin of modern social science case studies through anthropology and sociology. They cite anthropologist Malinowski’s study of the Trobriand Islands, French sociologist LePlay’s study of families, and the case studies of the University of Chicago Department of Sociology from the 1920s and 1930s through the 1950s (e.g., Thomas and Znaniecki’s 1958 study of Polish peasants in Europe and America) as antecedents of qualitative case study research. Today, the case study writer has a large array of texts and approaches from which to choose. Yin (2014), for example, espouses both quantitative and qualitative approaches to case study development and discusses explanatory, exploratory, and descriptive qualitative case studies. Merriam and Tisdell (2015) advocate a general approach to qualitative case studies in the field of education. Stake (1995) systematically establishes procedures for case study research and cites them extensively in his example of “Harper School.” Stake’s (2006) most recent book on multiple case study analysis presents a step-by-step approach and provides rich illustrations of multiple case studies in Ukraine, Slovakia, and Romania. In discussing the case study approach, we will rely on Stake (1995) and Yin (2014) to form the distinctive features of this approach.
Defining Features of Case Studies
A review of many qualitative case studies reported in the literature yields several defining characteristics of most of them:
Case study research begins with the identification of a specific case that will be described and analyzed. Examples of a case for study are an individual, a community, a decision process, or an event. A single case can be selected or multiple cases identified so that they can be compared. Typically, case study researchers study current, real-life cases that are in progress so that they can gather accurate information not lost by time.
The key to the case identification is that it is bounded, meaning that it can be defined or described within certain parameters. Examples of parameters for bounding a case study are such the specific place where the case is located and timeframe in which the case is studied. On occasion, certain people involved in the case may also be defined as a parameter.
The intent of conducting the case study is also important to focus the procedures for the particular type. A qualitative case study can be composed to illustrate a unique case, a case that has unusual interest in and of itself and needs to be described and detailed. This is called an intrinsic case (Stake, 1995). Alternatively, the intent of the case study may be to understand a specific issue, problem, or concern (e.g., teenage pregnancy) and a case or cases selected to best understand the problem. This is called an instrumental case (Stake, 1995).
A hallmark of a good qualitative case study is that it presents an in-depth understanding of the case. In order to accomplish this, the researcher collects and integrates many forms of qualitative data, ranging from interviews, to observations, to documents, to audiovisual materials. Relying on one source of data is typically not enough to develop this in-depth understanding.
The selection of how to approach the data analysis in a case study will differ. Some case studies involve the analysis of multiple units within the case (e.g., the school, the school district) while others report on the entire case (e.g., the school district). Also, in some studies, the researcher selects multiple cases to analyze and compare while, in other case studies, a single case is analyzed.
A key to generating the description of the case involves identifying case themes. These themes may also represent issues or specific situations to study in each case. A complete findings section of a case study would then involve both a description of the case and themes or issues that the researcher has uncovered in studying the case. Examples of how the case themes might be organized by the researcher include a chronology, analyzed across cases for similarities and differences among the cases, or presented as a theoretical model.
Case studies often end with conclusions formed by the researcher about the overall meaning delivering from the case(s). These are called assertions by Stake (1995) or building “patterns” or “explanations” by Yin (2009). I think about these as general lessons learned from studying the case(s).
Types of Case Studies
The types of qualitative case studies are distinguished by the focus of analysis for the bounded case, such as whether the case involves studying one individual, several individuals, a group, an entire program, or an activity. They may also be distinguished in terms of the intent of the case analysis. Three variations exist in terms of intent: the single instrumental case study, the collective or multiple case study, and the intrinsic case study.
In a single instrumental case study, the researcher focuses on an issue or concern and then selects one bounded case to illustrate this issue. Stake (1995) describes his use of an instrumental case study as having “a research question, a puzzlement, a need for general understanding, and feel that we may get insight into the question by studying a particular case” (p. 3). Asmussen and Creswell (1995) used an instrumental case study to explore the issue of campus violence and using the single case of one institution to illustrate the reaction of the campus to a potentially violent incident. The findings from multiple sources of information advanced five themes (denial, fear, safety, retriggering, and campus planning) and assertions in terms of two overriding responses of the campus community to the gunman incident (mentioned briefly in Chapter 1 and explored further in Chapter 11): organizational and social–psychological. This case study should not be seen as an intrinsic case study because campus gun violence has occurred, unfortunately, on several higher education campuses.
In a collective case study (or multiple case study), the one issue or concern is again selected, but the inquirer selects multiple case studies to illustrate the issue. The researcher might select for study several programs from several research sites or multiple programs within a single site. Often the inquirer purposefully selects multiple cases to show different perspectives on the issue. Some researchers, like Lieberson (2000), argue for the use of a small group of comparison cases because of the potential to draw otherwise inaccessible conclusions. Yin (2009) suggests that the multiple case study design uses the logic of replication, in which the inquirer replicates the procedures for each case. As a general rule, qualitative researchers are reluctant to generalize from one case to another because the contexts of cases differ. To best generalize, however, the inquirer needs to select representative cases for inclusion in the qualitative study. A multiple case study focused on the relationship patterns and management practices across four UK nursing homes involving 406 managers and staff over 6 months (Anderson, Toles, Corazzini, McDaniel, & Colón-Emeric, 2014). The findings suggested the capacity for delivering better resident care resulted from positive interactions strategies and pointed to the need for positive staff engagement with one another as a prerequisite for care quality.
The final type of case study design is an intrinsic case study in which the focus is on the case itself (e.g., evaluating a program, or studying a student having difficulty; see Stake, 1995) because the case presents an unusual or unique situation. This resembles the focus of narrative research, but the case study analytic procedures of a detailed description of the case, set within its context or surroundings, still hold true. An intrinsic case study of Silk Road as an online drug marketplace explored an individual user’s “motives for online drug purchasing, experiences of accessing and using the website, drug information sourcing, decision making and purchasing, outcomes and settings for use and perspectives around security” (Van Hout & Bingham, 2013, p. 383). The findings point to differences in relationships, participation, and feelings of safety compared with more traditional online and street sources of drug supply and shed light on the utility of Silk Road to maximize consumer decision making and harm reduction.
Procedures for Conducting a Case Study
Several procedures are available for conducting case studies (see Merriam & Tisdell, 2015; Stake, 1995; Yin, 2009, 2014). This discussion will rely primarily on Stake’s (1995) and Yin’s (2014) approaches to conducting a case study (see Figure 4.6). For a concise description from a novice perspective, see also Baxter and Jack (2008).
Determine if a case study approach is appropriate for studying the research problem. A case study is a good approach when the inquirer has clearly identifiable cases with boundaries and seeks to provide an in-depth understanding of the cases or a comparison of several cases.
Identify the intent of the study and select the case (or cases). In conducting case study research, we recommend that investigators consider the intent and type of case study—single or collective, multisite or within-site, and focused on a case or on an issue (intrinsic, instrumental)—is most promising and useful. The case(s) selected may involve an individual, several individuals, a program, an event, or an activity (Stake, 1995; Yin, 2009) with an array of possibilities for purposeful sampling is available. Often we have found selecting cases that show different perspectives on the problem, process, or event preferable (called purposeful maximal sampling; see Creswell, 2012), but ordinary cases, accessible cases, or unusual cases are also desirable options.
Develop procedures for conducting the extensive data collection drawing on multiple data sources. Among the common sources of information are observations, interviews, documents, and audiovisual materials. For example, Yin (2014) recommends six types of information to collect: documents, archival records, interviews, direct observations, participant observation, and physical artifacts.
Specify the analysis approach on which the case description integrates analysis themes and contextual information. The type of analysis of these data can be a holistic analysis of the entire case or an embedded analysis of a specific aspect of the case (Yin, 2009). Through data collecting and analysis, a detailed description of the case (Stake, 1995) emerges in which the researcher details such aspects as the history of the case, the chronology of events, or a day-by-day rendering of the activities of the case. For example, the gunman case study in Chapter 11involved tracing the campus response to a gunman for 2 weeks immediately following the near-tragedy on campus. Then the researcher might focus on a few key issues (or analysis of themes, or case themes), not for generalizing beyond the case but for understanding the complexity of the case. One analytic strategy would be to identify issues within each case and then look for common themes that transcend the cases (Yin, 2009). This analysis is rich in the context of the case or setting in which the case presents itself (Merriam, 1988). When multiple cases are chosen, a typical format is to provide first a detailed description of each case and themes within the case, called a within-case analysis, followed by a thematic analysis across the cases, called a cross-case analysis, as well as assertions or an interpretation of the meaning of the case. Whether that meaning comes from learning about the issue of the case (an instrumental case) or learning about an unusual situation (an intrinsic case). As Lincoln and Guba (1985) mention, this phase constitutes the lessons learned from the case, and Stake (1995) describes them as assertions. Stake (1995) focuses some of the assertions on lessons learned about the case stating, “Having presented a body of relatively uninterpreted observations, I will summarize what I feel I understand about the case and how my generalizations about he case have changed conceptually or in level of confidence” (Stake, 1995, p. 123).
Figure 4.6 Procedures for Conducting Case Study Research
Report the case study and lessons learned by using case assertions in written form. Writing case descriptions involves a reflective process, and the sooner you begin, our experiences tell us, the easier it is to finish. Certainly the architecture for what works best for individual studies will emerge and be shaped differently by the study assertions. We adopt the advice forwarded by Stake (1995), “The report needs to be organized with readers in mind” (p. 122). A general reporting structure includes an entry vignette to provide the reader with an inviting introduction to the feel of the context in which the case takes place, an introduction to familiarize the reader with the central features including rationale and research procedures, an extensive narrative description of the case or cases and its or their context, which may include historical and organizational information important for understanding the case. Then the issue description draws from additional data sources and integrates with researcher’s own interpretations of the issues and both confirming and disproving evidence are presented followed by the presentation of overall case assertions. Finally, a closing vignette provides the reader with a final experience. Stake (1995) portrays the purpose of the closing vignette as way of cautioning the reader to the specific case context saying, “I like to close on an experiential note, reminding the reader that the report is just one person’s encounter with a complex case” (p. 123).
Challenges in Case Study Research
One of the challenges inherent in qualitative case study development is that the researcher must identify the case. The case selected may be broad in scope (e.g., the Boy Scout organization) or narrow in scope (e.g., a decision-making process at a specific college). The case study researcher must decide which bounded system to study, recognizing that several might be possible candidates for this selection and realizing that either the case itself or an issue, which a case or cases are selected to illustrate, is worthy of study. The researcher must consider whether to study a single case or multiple cases. As the use of multiple case studies increases, it is important to consider three issues: resource limitations, case selection, and cross-case analysis. First, it is not surprising given resource limitations (i.e., both time and financial) that the study of more than one case dilutes the overall analysis; the more cases an individual studies, the less the depth in any single case can be. Second, when a researcher chooses multiple cases, the issue becomes, “How many cases?” There is no one answer to this question. However, researchers typically choose no more than four or five cases. What motivates the researcher to consider a large number of cases is the idea of generalizability, a term that holds little meaning for most qualitative researchers (Glesne & Peshkin, 1992; Lincoln & Guba, 2000). Finally, “What guides the cross-case analysis?” In the analysis of single case studies we are guided by instrumental or intrinsic purposes; in multiple case studies, such explicit purpose identification upfront is not always made. Stake (2006) offers important guidance in this respect through the introduction of the term quitain. Stake (2006) describes the quitain as the “object or phenomenon to be studied” (p. 4) across the cases and argues the importance of its identification upfront to guide case selection.
Selecting the case requires that the researcher establish a rationale for his or her purposeful sampling strategy for selecting the case and for gathering information about the case. Having enough information to present an in-depth picture of the case limits the value of some case studies. In planning a case study, we have individuals develop a data collection matrix in which they specify the amount of information they are likely to collect about the case. Deciding the “boundaries” of a case—how it might be constrained in terms of time, events, and processes—may be challenging. Some case studies may not have clean beginning and ending points, and the researcher will need to set boundaries that adequately surround the case.
Among the concerns that have historically plagued case study research are focused on the rigor; certainly evidence of poor quality case study research exist, and it is with providing illustrative examples that we can continue to curtail such practices. Case study research has experienced growing recognition during the past 30 years, evidenced by its more frequent application in published research and increased availability of reference works (e.g., Thomas, 2015; Yin, 2014). Encouraging the use of case study research is an expressed goal of the editors of the recent Encyclopedia of Case Study Research (Mills, Durepos, & Wiebe, 2010). Engaging researchers are a focus of a number of publications aimed at guiding those new to the approach (e.g., Baxter & Jack, 2008; Flyvbjerg, 2006).
Comparing the Five Approaches
All five approaches have in common the general process of research that begins with a research problem and proceeds to the questions, the data, the data analysis and interpretations, and the research report. Qualitative researchers have found it helpful to see at this point an overall sketch for each of the five approaches. From these sketches of the five approaches, we can identify fundamental differences among these types of qualitative research. Finally, we compare the five approaches relating the dimensions of foundational considerations (Table 4.1), data procedures (Table 4.2), and research reporting (Table 4.3).
In Table 4.1, we present four dimensions for distinguishing among the foundational considerations for the five approaches. At a most fundamental level, the five differ in what they are trying to accomplish—their foci or the primary objectives of the studies. Exploring a life is different from generating a theory or describing the behavior of a cultural group. A couple of potential similarities among the designs should be noted. Narrative research, ethnography, and case study research may seem similar when the unit of analysis is a single individual. True, one may approach the study of a single individual from any of these three approaches; however, the types of data one would collect and analyze would differ considerably. In narrative research, the inquirer focuses on the stories told from the individual and arranges these stories often in chronological order; in ethnography, the focus is on setting the individuals’ stories within the context of their culture and culture-sharing group; in case study research, the single case is typically selected to illustrate an issue, and the researcher compiles a detailed description of the setting for the case. Our approach is to recommend—if the researcher wants to study a single individual—the narrative approach or a single case study because ethnography is a much broader picture of the culture. Then when comparing a narrative study and a single case to study a single individual, we feel that the narrative approach is seen as more appropriate because narrative studies tend to focus on a single individual whereas case studies often involve more than one case. The process of developing research question(s) can often be helpful for determining the suitability of the research problem for a specific approach. Moreover, although overlaps exist in discipline origin, some approaches have single-disciplinary traditions (e.g., grounded theory originating in sociology, ethnography founded in anthropology or sociology), and others have broad interdisciplinary backgrounds (e.g., narrative, case study).
The approaches employ similar data collection processes, including, in varying degrees, interviews, observations, documents, and audiovisual materials (see Table 4.2). The differences are apparent in terms of emphasis (e.g., more observations in ethnography, more interviews in grounded theory) and extent of data collection (e.g., only interviews in phenomenology, multiple forms in case study research to provide the in-depth case picture). At the data analysis stage, the differences are most pronounced. Not only is the distinction one of specificity of the analysis phase (e.g., grounded theory most specific, narrative research less defined) but the number of steps to be undertaken can vary (e.g., extensive steps in phenomenology, fewer steps in ethnography).
The research reporting of each approach, the written report, takes shape from all the processes before it (see Table 4.3). Stories about an individual’s life comprise narrative research. A description of the essence of the experience of the phenomenon becomes a phenomenology. A theory, often portrayed in a visual model, emerges in grounded theory, and a holistic view of how a culture-sharing group works results in an ethnography. An in-depth study of a bounded system or a case (or several cases) becomes a case study. The general structures of the written report may be used in designing a journal-article-length study. However, because of the numerous steps in each, they also have applicability as chapters of a dissertation or a book-length work. We discuss the differences here because the reader, with an introductory knowledge of each approach, now can sketch the general “architecture” of a study within each approach. Certainly, this architecture will emerge and be shaped differently by the conclusion of the study, but it provides a framework for the design issues to follow. For each approach, the introduction describes the particular focus of the research and common across the approaches, the introduction tends to familiarize the reader to the research problem and research question(s). The research procedures are subsequently outlined, often including a rationale for use of the approach and details related to the data procedures for the study.
Note the unique organizing framework related to each approach and specifically the variations in how the research outcomes can be presented. Providing in-depth descriptions is common across all the approaches, but how the descriptions are organized varies; whereas narrative research might use a chronology for telling stories, a phenomenology may use significant statements as the organizing structure for reporting how the phenomenon was experienced. Similarly, how a research report concludes also varies by the approach; whereas it is common practice for a closing vignette in a case study, a cultural portrait is commonly used in an ethnography referring to overall interpretations, lessons learned, and questions raised representing the essence. These structures should be considered as general templates at this time. In Chapter 5, we will examine five published journal articles, with each study illustrating one of the five approaches, and further explore the writing structure of each.
Chapter Check-In
What research problems are appropriate for each of the approaches?
List three different research problems that are of interest to you. Begin with identifying the research foci, and identify which approaches might be appropriate. Draft a research question that would be appropriate for each possible approach related to the research problem. Can you identify the subtle differences among the research questions?
What defining features can you identity in each of the five approaches within a qualitative journal article?
Examine a qualitative journal article that identifies its use of one of the five approaches, such as Huber and Whelan (1999) as a narrative study; Doyle, Pooley, and Breen (2012) as a phenomenology; Leipert and Reutter (2005) as a grounded theory; Miller, Creswell, and Olander (1998) as an ethnography; or Chirgwin (2015) as a multiple case study. Using the elements of “defining features” advanced in this chapter, review the article and locate where each defining feature of the particular approach appears in the article. Can you identify the absence of any defining features or the presence of any new defining features for any of the approaches?
Chirgwin, S. K. (2015). Burdens too difficult to carry? A case study of three academically able Indigenous Australian Masters students who had to withdraw. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 28, 594–609. doi:10.1080/09518398.2014.916014
Doyle, J., Pooley, J. A., & Breen, L. (2012). A phenomenological exploration of the childfree choice in a sample of Australian women. Journal of Health Psychology, 18, 397–407. doi:10.1177/1359105312444647
Huber, J., & Whelan, K. (1999). A marginal story as a place of possibility: Negotiating self on the professional knowledge landscape. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 381–396. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(98)00048-1
Leipert, B. D., & Reutter, L. (2005). Developing resilience: How women maintain their health in northern geographically isolated settings. Qualitative Health Research, 15, 49–65. doi:10.1177/1049732304269671
Miller, D. L., Creswell, J. W., & Olander, L. S. (1998). Writing and retelling multiple ethnographic tales of a soup kitchen for the homeless. Qualitative Inquiry, 4(4), 469–491. doi:10.1177/107780049800400404
What resources of one of the five approaches can you use to begin creating your study proposal?
Select one of the five approaches, and write a brief description of the approach, including a definition and the procedures associated with the approach. Include at least five references to the literature to ground your proposal. Can you include at least two new references?
Do you understand how to transform the study focus, procedures, and writing structure into each of the five approaches?
Access a proposed qualitative study that you would like to conduct. Begin with presenting it as a narrative study, and then shape it into a phenomenology, a grounded theory, an ethnography, and finally a case study. Compare differences across each approach related to the focus of the study and the data collection and analysis procedures. Can you discuss how the written report would be differently structured across the approaches?
Summary
In this chapter, we introduced each of the five approaches to qualitative research—narrative studies, phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, and case study. In each description we provided a focus and definition, some history of the development of the approach, defining features, and the major forms it has assumed as well as detailed the major procedures for conducting each approach. Finally, we discussed some of the major challenges in conducting each approach, emerging directions, and key resources. To highlight some of the differences among the approaches, we provided overview tables that contrast dimensions related to foundational dimensions of foundational considerations (research focus, unit of analysis, type of research problem, nature of disciplinary origins), data procedures (forms of data collection and strategies of data analysis), and research reporting (research outcomes and structure of written report). In the next chapter, we will examine five studies that illustrate each approach and look more closely at the compositional structure of each type of approach.
Further Readings
Several readings extend this brief overview of each of the five approaches of inquiry. In Chapter 1, we presented the key books that were used to craft discussions about each approach. Here we expand this list for each of the qualitative approaches in the chapter. The list should not be considered exhaustive, and readers are encouraged to seek out additional readings in the end-of-book reference list.
Narrative Research
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Jean Clandinin and Michael Connelly weave helpful references throughout the text, describing their own journey of becoming narrative researchers. Of particular help to the beginning narrative researcher is the final chapter on persistent concerns and the comprehensive discussion of ethics within narrative inquiry.
Czarniawska, B. (2004). Narratives in social science research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Barbara Czarniawska explores the various uses of narrative and its analysis in this important resource. Especially helpful is the use of her own research examples to illustrate concepts from conceptualization to telling of the stories.
Daiute, C. (2014). Narrative inquiry: A dynamic approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Colette Daiute provides essential scaffolding for undertaking what she calls dynamic narrative inquiry using examples, activities, and tips. Of particular note is how she builds on practices of daily life and makes connections to narrative research.
Phenomenological Research
Giorgi, A. (2009). A descriptive phenomenological method in psychology: A modified Husserlian approach. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.
Amedeo Giorgi uses illustrative research examples to offer practical steps for applying the descriptive phenomenological method. This is essential reading for those working in the psychology field.
Stewart, D., & Mickunas, A. (1990). Exploring phenomenology: A guide to the field and its literature (2nd ed.). Athens: Ohio University Press.
In this important work, David Stewart and Algis Mickunas provide an essential introduction to Husserl, Heidegger, and the various strands of phenomenology through the first half of the 20th century. Particularly helpful is the discussion about traditional challenges inherent to phenomenology.
Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Max Van Manen describes the phenomenological tradition as well as presents methods and processes for engaging in phenomenological research. Among the key contributions is Chapter 5 focused on writing phenomenology.
Grounded Theory Research
Birks, M., & Mills, J. (2015). Grounded theory: A practical guide (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Melanie Birks and Jane Mills use of figures and pedagogical features throughout helps the reader to make sense of the text. In particular, the critical thinking questions guide the reader in self-assessment of the material and the “window into grounded theory” feature provides important insights.
Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (Eds.). (2007). The SAGE handbook of grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Handbooks are often a logical starting place for researchers new to an approach, and Alan Bryant and Kathy Charmaz provide useful guiding practices for conducting grounded theory. Specifically, we found the chapters on historical development by the editors and memo-writing by Lora Lempert to be noteworthy.
Clarke, A. E. (2005). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the postmodern turn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Adele Clarke represents her thinking using illustrative maps to enhance visibility of complexity. A unique aspect is her conceptualization of a situation as including the missing data (e.g., environmental factors) in addition to what has typically been considered as context.
Ethnographic Research
Atkinson, P. (2015). For ethnography. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
At the heart of Paul Atkinson’s book is the use of field research in ethnographic studies. He provides easy-to-follow guiding principles for engaging in ethnographic fieldwork.
Madison, D. S. (2011). Critical ethnography: Method, ethics, and performance (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
D. Soyini Madison provides important insights about the role of theory in planning processes in a critical ethnography through the use of three case studies.
Wolcott, H. F. (2010). Ethnography lessons: A primer. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Harry Wolcott presents challenges and successes through his five-decade ethnographic career sprinkled with personal interactions with notable anthropologists. An important contribution is the ethical dilemmas experienced by himself and his students and lessons relevant for all qualitative researchers.
Case Study Research
Gomm, R., Hammersley, M., & Foster, P. (2000). Case study method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Robert Gomm, Martyn Hammersley, and Peter Foster have brought together authors to discuss practices and challenges in cases study research. Specifically, we found the chapters on generalizability by the Yvonna Lincoln and Egon Guba and case comparison by Stanley Lieberson to be noteworthy.
Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
This book offers a rare focus on multiple case studies, yet Robert Stake also includes a chapter on single cases. The book leads the reader through conducting an example of a multiple case study (and provides worksheets)—the multinational Step by Step Case Study Project.
Thomas, G. (2015). How to do your case study (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gary Thomas provides an easy-to-follow guide on how to read, design, and conduct case study research. Of particular note is his use of examples to illustrate how to focus the purpose of a case study.
CHAPTER 5:
5 Five Different Qualitative Studies
We have always felt that the best way to learn how to write a qualitative study is to view a number of published qualitative journal articles and to look closely at the way they were composed. If an individual plans on undertaking, for example, a grounded theory study, we would suggest that he or she collect about 20 grounded theory published journal articles, study each one carefully, select the most complete one that advances all of the defining characteristics of grounded theory, and then model his or her own project after that one. This same process would hold true for an individual conducting any of the other approaches to qualitative inquiry, such as a narrative study, a phenomenology, an ethnography, or a case study. Short of this ideal, we want to get you started toward building this collection by suggesting an exemplar of each approach as discussed in this chapter.
Each of these five published studies represents one of the types of qualitative approaches being discussed in this book. They are found in Appendices B, C, D, E, and F. The best way to proceed, we believe, is to first read the entire article in the appendix and then return to our summary of the article to compare your understanding with ours. Next, read our analysis of how the article illustrates a good model of the approach to research and incorporates the defining characteristics we introduced in Chapter 4. At the conclusion of this chapter, we reflect on why one might choose one approach over another when conducting a qualitative study and we include further examples for you to read in the end of chapter check in.
The first study, by Chan (2010), as found in Appendix B, illustrates a good narrative study of a single Chinese immigrant student, Ai Mei Zhang, as she participates in a Canadian middle school and as she interacts with her family. The second article, a phenomenological study by Anderson and Spencer (2002), located in Appendix C, is a study about individuals who have experienced AIDS and the images and ways they think about their disease. The third article is a grounded theory study by Harley et al. (2009) as found in Appendix D. It presents a study of the behavioral process among African American women to integrate physical activity into their lifestyle. It incorporates, appropriately, a theoretical framework that explains the pathways linking these key factors in the process together. The fourth article is an ethnographic study by Mac an Ghaill and Haywood (2015), as presented in Appendix E, about the changing cultural condition of British born, working-class Pakistani and Bangladeshi young Muslim men during the late 2000s. The identity formulation of the young Muslim men as members of a broader social community was influenced by the local experiences of growing up in a rapidly changing Britain. The final article is a qualitative case study by Frelin (2015), as shown in Appendix F. It describes and suggests three themes (e.g., trusting relationships, human relationships, and the students’ self-images) related to the relational practices of a teacher who negotiates educational relationships with students who have a history of school failure. These exemplars were chosen for their usefulness as a model of the defining features for each approach discussed in Chapter 4as well as for their disciplinary, geographical, and participant diversity.
Questions for Discussion
What stories are told in the sample narrative study?
What experience is examined in the sample phenomenological study?
What theory emerges in the grounded theory study?
What culture-sharing group is studied in the sample ethnographic study?
What is the case being examined in the case study?
How do the central features of the five approaches differ?
How does a researcher choose among the five approaches for a particular study?
A Narrative Study (Chan, 2010; see Appendix B)
Chan, E. (2010). Living in the space between participant and researcher as a narrative inquirer: Examining ethnic identity of Chinese Canadian students as conflicting stories to live by. The Journal of Educational Research, 103, 113–122. doi:10.1080/00220670903323792
This is the story of a Chinese immigrant student, Ai Mei Zhang, a seventh- and eighth-grade student at Bay Street School in Toronto, Canada. Ai Mei was chosen for study by the researcher because she could inform how ethnic identity is shaped by expectations from school and her teacher, her peers at school, and her home. Ai Mei told stories about specific incidents in her life, and the author based her narrative article on these stories as well as observations in her classroom. The researcher also conducted interviews with Ai Mei and other students, took extensive field notes, and sought active participation in Ai Mei’s school activities (e.g., Multicultural Night), a family dinner, and classroom conversations between Ai Mei and her classmates. The author’s overriding interest was in exploring the conflicting stories that emerged during this data collection.
The author introduced the study citing changing school demographics and the need for greater understanding of the lived experiences of immigrant and minority students’ daily transitions between home and school. The author identified Dewey’s (1938) philosophy of the interconnectedness between experience and education as the theoretical foundation for the study of a three-dimensional narrative inquiry space (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000). In this study, the author followed procedures by Clandinin and colleagues (2006) for describing the interwoven lives of children and teachers.
From a thematic analysis of these data, the author presented several conflicting stories: tensions in friendship because Ai Mei hid her home language at school because it was seen as a hindrance to accepted English, pressure to use the school Chinese language and to use her maternal language at home with her family, multiple conflicting influences of parental expectations for behavior and expectations from peers at school, and conflicts between family needs to help in the family business and teacher expectations to complete homework and prepare for tests and assignments. As a final element of the findings, the author reflected on her experiences in conducting the study, such as how the different events she participated in shaped her understanding, how opportunities arose to build trust, how her relationship with Ai Mei was negotiated, and how she developed a sense of advocacy for this young student. In the end, the study contributed to understanding the challenges of immigrant or minority students; the intersecting expectations of students, teachers, peers, and parents; and how the values of individuals in ethnic communities are shaped by these interactions. In a larger sense, this study informed the work of teachers and administrators working with diverse student populations, and serves as an example of a “life-based literary narrative” (Chan, 2010, p. 121).
This article presents well the defining features of a narrative study as introduced in Chapter 4 (Clandinin, 2013; Riessman, 2008):
The researcher collected stories from a single individual, a Chinese immigrant student, Ai Mei Zhang.
The researcher made explicit the collaborative nature of how the stories were collected and the relationship that built over time between the researcher and the participant in the study.
The researcher chose to focus on the experiences of this one individual and, more specifically, on the cultural identity of this student and how parents, peers, and teachers helped to shape this identity.
The researcher discussed the place or the physical and social context of Bay Street School where most of the incidents occurred that were reported in the narrative.
The researcher established an evidence base of information to explore this cultural identity through different forms of data such as personal observations, interviews, field notes, and attendance at events.
The researcher used a thematic analysis of reporting “what happened” to this individual student, her parents, and her school.
The researcher collected data over time from the fall of 2001 to June 2003, so there was ample opportunity to examine the unfolding events over time. The narrative, however, was not constructed to report a chronology of themes, and, in reading this account, it is difficult to determine whether one theme (e.g., hiding language in the new student orientation) occurred before or after another theme (e.g., mealtime conversation involving the school Mandarin language and the home Fujianese language).
The researcher highlighted specific tensions that arose in each of the themes (e.g., the tension between using Mandarin and Fujianese at home). The overall narrative, however, did not convey a specific turning point or epiphany in the story line.
A Phenomenological Study (Anderson & Spencer, 2002; see Appendix C)
Anderson, E. H., & Spencer, M. H. (2002). Cognitive representations of AIDS: A phenomenological study. Qualitative Health Research, 12, 1338–1352. doi:10.1177/1049732302238747
This study discusses the images or cognitive representations that AIDS patients held about their disease. The researchers explored this topic because understanding how individuals represented AIDS and their emotional response to it influenced their therapy, reduced high-risk behaviors, and enhanced their quality of life. Thus, the purpose of this study was “to explore patients’ experience and cognitive representations of AIDS within the context of phenomenology” (Anderson & Spencer, 2002, p. 1339).
The authors introduced the study by referring to the millions of individuals infected with HIV. They advanced a framework, the Self-Regulation Model of Illness Representations, which suggested that patients were active problem solvers whose behavior was a product of their cognitive and emotional responses to a health threat. Patients formed illness representations that shaped their understanding of their diseases. It was these illness representations (e.g., images) that the researchers needed to understand more thoroughly to help patients with their therapy, behaviors, and quality of life. The authors turned to the literature on patients’ experiences with AIDS. They reviewed the literature on qualitative research, noting that several phenomenological studies on such topics as coping and living with HIV had already been examined. However, how patients represented AIDS in images had not been studied.
Their design involved the study of 58 men and women with a diagnosis of AIDS. To study these individuals, the authors used phenomenology and the procedures advanced by Colaizzi (1978), which were later modified by Moustakas (1994). For over 18 months, they conducted interviews with these 58 patients and asked them the following: “What is your experience with AIDS? Do you have a mental image of HIV/AIDS, or how would you describe HIV/AIDS? What feeling comes to mind? What meaning does it have in your life?” (Anderson & Spencer, 2002, pp. 1341–1342). They also asked patients to draw pictures of their disease. Although only 8 of the 58 drew pictures, the authors integrated these pictures into the data analysis. The phenomenological components of this data analysis included the following:
Reading through the written transcripts several times to obtain an overall feeling for them
Identifying significant phrases or sentences that pertained directly to the experience
Formulating meanings and clustering them into themes common to all of the participants’ transcripts
Integrating the results into an in-depth, exhaustive description of the phenomenon
Validating the findings with the participants, and including participants’ remarks in the final description
This analysis led to 11 major themes based on 175 significant statements. “Dreaded bodily destruction” and “devouring life” illustrated two of the themes. The results section of this study reported each of the 11 themes and provided ample quotes and perspectives to illustrate the multiple perspectives on each theme.
The study ended with a discussion in which the authors described the essence (i.e., the exhaustive description) of the patients’ experiences and the coping strategies (i.e., the contexts or conditions surrounding the experience) patients used to regulate mood and disease. Finally, the authors compared their 11 themes with results reported by other authors in the literature, and they discussed the implications for nursing and questions for future research.
This study illustrated several aspects of a phenomenological study mentioned earlier in Chapter 4 by Moustakas (1994) and van Manen (1990, 2014):
A phenomenon—the “cognitive representations or images” of AIDS by patients—was examined in the study.
Rigorous data collection with a group of individuals through 58 interviews and incorporation of patients’ drawings were used.
The authors only briefly mentioned the philosophical ideas behind phenomenology. They referred to bracketing their personal experiences and their need to explore lived experiences rather than to obtain theoretical explanations.
The researchers talked about bracketing in the study. Specifically, they stated that the interviewer was a health care provider for and a researcher of persons with HIV/AIDS; thus, it was necessary for the interviewer to acknowledge and attempt to bracket those experiences.
The data collection consisted of 58 interviews conducted over 18 months at three sites dedicated to persons with HIV/AIDS, a hospital-based clinic, a long-term care facility, and a residence.
The use of systematic data analysis procedures of significant statements, meanings, themes, and a description of the essence of the phenomenon followed the procedures recommended by Moustakas (1994). The inclusion of tables illustrating the significant statements, meanings, and theme clusters showed how the authors worked from the raw data to the exhaustive description of the essence of the study in the final discussion section.
The study ended by describing the essence of the experience for the 58 patients and the context in which they experienced AIDS (e.g., coping mechanisms).
A Grounded Theory Study (Harley et al., 2009; see Appendix D)
Harley, A. E., Buckworth, J., Katz, M. L., Willis, S. K., Odoms-Young, A., & Heaney, C. A. (2009). Developing long-term physical activity participation: A grounded theory study with African American women. Health Education & Behavior, 36(1), 97–112. doi:10.1177/1090198107306434
This grounded theory study sought to develop a theory of the behavioral process of African American women that explains the pathways linking key factors together in the integration of physical activity into their lifestyles. It was premised on the problem that physical activity is of concern for particular subgroups, such as African American women who remain particularly sedentary. To this end, the researchers chose grounded theory because of the lack of knowledge regarding the specific factors and relationships that compose the process of physical activity behavioral evolution. The authors studied 15 women who met the criterion sampling of being between 25 and 45 years of age, completing at least some college or technical school beyond high school, and holding a commitment to physical activity. Participants were recruited through two local African American sorority alumni associations, and initial data were collected through face-to-face in-depth interviews guided by Spradley (1979). The data collection and preliminary analysis procedures can be considered as undertaken simultaneously as the researchers refined the interview questions that “were not eliciting the intended information and to reflect the categories and concepts that required further development” (p. 100). The purpose for the follow-up focus groups was to disseminate preliminary findings and gather feedback to inform refinement of the framework.
The data were analyzed using the Strauss and Corbin (1998) approach to grounded theory consisting of coding, concept development, constant comparisons between the data and the emerging concepts, and the formulation of a theoretical model. The authors then presented the theoretical model as a figure, and this model consisted of three phases in the behavioral process of integrating physical activity into lifestyle: an initiation phase, a transition phase, and an integration phase. The researchers advanced categories within each of these phases and also specified the context (i.e., African American social and cultural contexts) and the conditions influencing the physical activity integration. The authors then took one of the conditions, the planning practices for physical activity, and elaborated on these possibilities in a figure of the taxonomy of planning methods. This elaboration enabled the researchers to draw specific results for practice, such as the ideal number of physical activity sessions per week, and the maximum number of sessions per week. In conclusion, this grounded theory study advanced important lessons for future efforts at program design for physical activity for African American women.
This study met many of the defining features of a grounded theory study as discussed earlier in Chapter 4 by Charmaz (2014) and Corbin and Strauss (2015):
Its central focus was to understand a behavior process, and the theoretical model advanced three major phases in this process.
A theory emerged to suggest the framework of physical activity evolution for the African American women in the study.
The researchers did not specifically mention memoing or writing down their ideas as they interviewed the women and analyzed the data.
Their form of data collection and analysis was consistent with many grounded theory studies: the simultaneous collection and analysis of face-to-face interview data was followed by focus groups for validation and refinement purposes.
The researchers engaged in a structured approach to grounded theory of coding categories and developing a theoretical model that included context and conditions and used qualitative software. The authors mentioned few details of analytical and integration strategies informing the framework development (e.g., of open, axial, and selective coding and memoing).
The researchers provided a detailed description of the phases of the theoretical model and compared their model with existing theoretical models in the literature.
An Ethnographic Study (Mac an Ghaill & Haywood, 2015; see Appendix E)
Mac an Ghaill, M., & Haywood, C. (2015). British-born Pakistani and Bangladeshi young men: Exploring unstable concepts of Muslim, Islamophobia and racialization. Critical Sociology, 41, 97–114. doi:10.1177/0896920513518947
This ethnography study described the changing cultural conditions of a group of British born, working-class Pakistani and Bangladeshi young men over 3 years. The study involved Birmingham, England–born young men residing in an area representing the highest number of self-identified Muslims for a local authority in the United Kingdom. The authors focused on the group’s cultural reductive representations of Islam, the Muslim community and being a young Muslim man within the “urgent need to critically interrogate the assumed social separateness, cultural fixity and boundedness of religious, ethnic and national categories of difference that they [the group under study] claim are imputed to them” (p. 98). The participants were young men who were not only friends but also part of a broader social community described as attending the same youth and community organizations and colleges, sharing the same employers, and participating together in leisure activities. The study explored the group of 25 young men’s “geographically-specific local experiences of growing up in a rapidly changing Britain” (p. 99). The researchers described how access to the group was enabled by an established reputation for social commitment to the area and by previous work with families in the local community.
Ethnographic data collection methods provided insights into the young men’s growing up, family, schooling, social life, and local community through the use of in-depth group and life history interviews over a 3-year period. Further understandings were gleaned from observations, informal conversations, and interviews with parents and community representatives through snowballing sampling. Braun and Clarke’s (2006) thematic analysis guided the data analysis of each of the methods. From the integration of data sources, the authors described group members’ generational-specific experiences in relation to the racialization of their ethnicities and changes in terms of how they negotiated the meanings attached to being Muslim. The authors ended with a broad level of abstraction beyond the themes to suggest how the group made sense of the range of social and cultural exclusions they experienced during a time of rapid change within their city. In short, the authors identified a complex situation related to the group of Bangladeshi and Pakistani young men in terms of how they interacted and experienced ethnicity and demarcation of religion and cultural belonging. The authors cautioned readers to carefully consider ways to understand the young men’s own participation and the influence of local contexts and broader social and economic processes in identity formation.
Mac an Ghaill and Haywood’s ethnography nicely illustrates both core elements of an ethnographic study as mentioned in Chapter 4 (Fetterman, 2010; Wolcott, 2010) and aspects of a critical ethnography (Madison, 2011) as they call for further studies of marginalized groups (e.g., Goffman, 2014):
This ethnography was the study of a culture-sharing group and its members’ changing cultural condition as British-born, working-class Pakistani and Bangladeshi young men. This group had been intact for some time as a community.
The authors described the group in terms of its 25 members’ ideas of their generational-specific experiences. By looking for patterns in this group, the study provided an alternative representational space for critically exploring “debates about the racialization of religion, the central role that religion plays in the process of racialization, and Islamophobia as a contemporary form of the racialization of Muslims” (p. 110).
Consistent with critical ethnography, the author used a combination of materialist and postcolonial theoretical frameworks and young men’s accounts to explain the groups’ changing cultural condition.
The authors positioned themselves by describing their involvement in the broader social community and their role as participant observers of the group for 3 years. The author also engaged in fieldwork by conducting in-depth group and life history interviews with the young men. Further understandings were gleaned from observations, informal conversations, and interviews with parents and community representatives from snowball sampling.
From the participant (emic) data and the researcher’s field notes (etic data), a cultural interpretation was formed into thematic analysis. The group was described first in relation to the racialization of their ethnicities and changes in terms of how they negotiated the meanings attached to being Muslim. The description concluded with a broad level of abstraction beyond the themes to suggest how the group made sense of the range of social and cultural exclusions they experienced during a time of rapid change within their city.
Unlike other critical approaches, the study did not end with a call for social transformation. Instead, it called for further efforts to validate the findings such as member checking with group members. This is because the cultural interpretation constructed by the group members was primarily intended for themselves. We leave this study with a complex view of how the group of Bangladeshi and Pakistani young men interacted and experienced ethnicity, religion, and cultural belonging as dynamic.
A Case Study (Frelin, 2015; see Appendix F)
Frelin, A. (2015). Relational underpinnings and professionality—A case study of a teacher’s practices involving students with experiences of school failure. School Psychology International, 36, 589–604. doi:10.1177/0143034315607412
This qualitative case study described the practices of a teacher who negotiates educational relationships with students who have a history of school failure. The author provided a rationale for the use of a case study to “illustrate the complexities of building and sustaining educational relationships with upper secondary students who have experienced school failure” (p. 590). The author situated the need for the study within literature related to relational professionality and, more specifically, the influence of positive teacher–student relationships and challenges associated for students experiencing school failure. The case study procedures were guided by Stake (1995) and began with a detailed description of the relatively unstructured interviews and contextual observation of 11 teachers, preliminary data analysis and selection of “Gunilla,” a secondary schoolteacher working in the Swedish “Introduction Programme.” She was identified using purposeful sampling because of her ability to form positive relationships with students as well as having extensive teaching experiences of students who have not been accepted in the national upper secondary school program. The author described how the interviews were “focused on eliciting stories of practice and practical arguments whereas the observations served to highlight the context in which the teacher worked and to elicit new questions” (p. 593). The data analysis was guided by means of a cross-case analysis and constant comparisons (Charmaz, 2006); the qualitative software program, ATLAS.ti, aided the analysis.
Following a description of the teacher’s context for instruction, the results from the data analysis described Gunilla’s negotiations of relationships with students organized into three themes: trusting relationships, humane relationships, and the students’ own self-images. The case assertion related to the importance of connecting to students with experiences of school failure and the study conclusions advanced practical implications for school psychologists to support teachers in negotiating these student–teacher relationships.
This study met many of the defining features of a case study as discussed earlier in Chapter 4 by Stake (1995), Yin (2014), and Flyvbjerg (2006):
The case issue for the study was identified as one teachers’ practices of negotiating relationships with students who have a history of school failure.
The case described in this study was a bounded system, delimited by the participant (Gunilla), by time (limited to data collection), and by place (situated at an institution offering the Swedish Introduction Programme).
The intent was to report an instrumental case study. Thus, the focus was on exploring the issue of relational practices of a teacher to illustrate the complexity of negotiating educational relationships with students who have a history of school failure.
The data collection involved the use of interviews and observations to provide a detailed in-depth understanding of teacher practices. This is one area where the author could have drawn on more extensive, multiple sources of information.
Few details were provided about the data analysis other than it was guided by a constant comparison method (Charmaz, 2006).
The case context description reflected considerable effort as well as the presentation of the three themes. The authors presented some evidence of a chronology (i.e., establishing and then sustaining) to describe the negotiations of relationships with students.
The study concluded with the presentation of a cross-case assertion about the importance of connecting to students with experiences of school failure and advanced practical implications for school psychologists to support teachers in negotiating these student–teacher relationships. However, since this study presented a single case (Gunilla, the teacher) rather than multiple cases, an actual cross-case analysis of several teachers was not presented by the author.
Differences Among the Approaches
A useful perspective to begin the process of differentiating among the five approaches is to assess the central purpose or focus of each approach. As shown in Figure 5.1, the focus of a narrative is on the life of an individual, and the focus of a phenomenology is on a concept or phenomenon and the essence of the lived experiences of persons about that phenomenon. In grounded theory, the aim is to develop a theory, whereas in ethnography, it is to describe a culture-sharing group. In a case study, a specific case is examined, often with the intent of examining an issue with the case illustrating the complexity of the issue. Turning to the five studies, the foci of the approaches to qualitative research become more evident.
Figure 5.1 Differentiating Approaches by Foci
Central Features of Each Approach
The story of Ai Mei Zhang, the Chinese immigrant student in a Canadian middle school, is a case in point—one decides to write a narrative when a single individual needs to be studied as the research focus, and that individual can illustrate with experiences the issue of being an immigrant student and the conflicting concerns that she faced (Chan, 2010). Furthermore, the researcher needs to make a case for the need to study this particular individual—someone who illustrates a problem, someone who has had a distinguished career, someone in the national spotlight, or someone who lives an ordinary life (Clandinin, 2013). The process of data collection and analysis involves gathering material about the person, such as from conversations or observations to stories of individual experiences.
The phenomenological study, on the other hand, focuses not on the life of an individual but rather on understanding the lived experiences of individuals around a phenomenon, such as how individuals represent their illnesses (Anderson & Spencer, 2002). Furthermore, individuals are selected who have experienced the phenomenon, and they are asked to provide data, often through interviews (van Manen, 2014). The researcher takes these data and, through several steps of reducing the data, ultimately develops a description of the experiences about the phenomenon that all individuals have in common—the essence of the lived experience.
Whereas the phenomenological project focuses on the meaning of people’s experience toward a phenomenon, researchers in grounded theory have a different objective—to generate a substantive theory, such as the theory about how African American women integrate physical activity into their lifestyles (Harley et al., 2009). Thus, grounded theorists undertake research to develop theory about a process or action. The data collection method involves primarily interviewing and the collecting and analyzing processes are considered to be undertaken simultaneously and iteratively. Researchers use systematic procedures for analyzing and developing this theory, procedures such as generating categories of data, relating the categories in a theoretical model, and specifying the context and conditions under which the theory operated (Corbin & Strauss, 2015). The theory is then presented as a discussion or model generating an overall tone of a grounded theory study as one of rigor and scientific credibility.
An ethnographic design is chosen when one wants to study the behaviors of a culture-sharing group, such as the British-born, working-class Pakistani and Bangladeshi young Muslim men (Mac an Ghaill & Haywood, 2015). In an ethnography, the researcher studies an intact culture-sharing group that has been interacting long enough to have shared or regular patterns of language and behavior (Fetterman, 2010). A detailed description of the culture-sharing group is essential at the beginning, and then the author may turn to identifying patterns of the group around some cultural concept such as acculturation, politics, or economy and the like. The ethnography ends with summary statements about how the group functions and works in everyday life. In this way, a reader understands a group that may be unfamiliar, such as the young Muslim men that Mac an Ghaill and Haywood (2015) studied.
Finally, a case study is chosen to study a case with clear boundaries, such as the relational practices of a teacher who negotiates educational relationships with students who have a history of school failure (Frelin, 2015). In this type of instrumental case study, the researcher explores an issue, and a detailed understanding emerges from examining a case or several cases. It is important, too, for the researcher to have contextual material available to describe the setting for the case and draw upon multiple sources of information about the case to provide an in-depth picture of it. Central to writing a case study, the researcher describes the case in detail, and mentions several issues or focuses on a single issue that emerged when examining the case (Stake, 1995). Explanations that can be learned from studying this case or cases end a case study report.
Selecting Your Approach
Based now on a more thorough understanding of the five approaches, how do you choose one approach over the other? We recommend that you start with the outcome—what the approach is attempting to accomplish (e.g., the study of an individual, the examination of the meaning of experiences toward a phenomenon, the generation of a theory, the description and interpretation of a culture-sharing group, the in-depth study of a single case). In addition, other factors need also to be considered:
The audience question: What approach is frequently used by gatekeepers in your field (e.g., committee members, advisors, editorial boards of journals)?
The background question: What training do you have in the inquiry approach (e.g., courses completed, books read)? Or what resources are accessible to guide you in your work (e.g., committee members, books, workshops)?
The scholarly literature question: What is needed most as contributing to the scholarly literature in your field (e.g., a study of an individual, an exploration of the meaning of a concept, a theory, a portrait of a culture-sharing group, an in-depth case study)?
The personal approach question: Are you more comfortable with a more structured approach to research or with a storytelling approach (e.g., narrative research, ethnography)? Or are you more comfortable with a firmer, more well-defined approach to research or with a flexible approach (e.g., grounded theory, case study, phenomenology)?
Chapter Check-In
What defining features of one of the five approaches can you use to begin designing your qualitative study? Answer the following questions that apply to the approach you are considering.
For a narrative study: What individual do you plan to study? And do you have access to information about this individual’s life experiences?
For a phenomenology: What is the phenomenon of interest that you plan to study? And do you have access to people who have experienced it?
For a grounded theory: What social science concept, action, or process do you plan to explore as the basis for your theory? Can you interview individuals who have experienced the process?
For an ethnography: What cultural group of people do you plan to study? Has the culture-sharing group been together long enough for patterns of behavior, language, and beliefs to form?
For a case study: What is the case you plan to examine? Will the case be described because it is a unique case, or will the case be used to illustrate (and illuminate) an issue or a problem?
Do you understand the key differences among the five approaches?
Read qualitative journal articles that adopt different approaches across diverse fields, such as the narrative studies of Geiger (1986) and Nelson (1990), phenomenologies of Edwards (2006) and Padilla (2003), grounded theory studies of Brimhall and Engblom-Deglmann (2011) and Creswell and Brown (1992), ethnographies of Haenfler (2004) and Rhoads (1995), and case studies of Brickhouse and Bodner (1992) and Asmussen and Creswell (1995). Determine the defining features of the approach being used by the author(s), and discuss why the author(s) may have used the approach.
Asmussen, K. J., & Creswell, J. W. (1995). Campus response to a student gunman. Journal of Higher Education, 66(5), 575–591. doi:10.2307/2943937
Brickhouse, N., & Bodner, G. M. (1992). The beginning science teacher: Classroom narratives of convictions and constraints. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 471–485.
Brimhall, A. C., & Engblom-Deglmann, M. L. (2011). Starting over: A tentative theory exploring the effects of past relationships on postbereavement remarried couples. Family Process, 50(1), 47–62. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2010.01345.x
Creswell, J. W., & Brown, M. L. (1992). How chairpersons enhance faculty research: A grounded theory study. Review of Higher Education, 16(1), 41–62. Retrieved from https://www.press.jhu.edu/journals/review_of_higher_education
Edwards, L. V. (2006). Perceived social support and HIV/AIDS medication adherence among African American women. Qualitative Health Research, 16, 679–691. doi:10.1177/1049732305281597
Geiger, S. N. G. (1986). Women’s life histories: Method and content. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 11, 334–351. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3174056
Haenfler, R. (2004). Rethinking subcultural resistance: Core values of the straight edge movement. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 33, 406–436. doi:10.1177/0891241603259809
Nelson, L. W. (1990). Code-switching in the oral life narratives of African-American women: Challenges to linguistic hegemony. The Journal of Education, 172(3), 142–155.
Padilla, R. (2003). Clara: A phenomenology of disability. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 57(4), 413–423. doi:10.5014/ajot.57.4.413
Rhoads, R. A. (1995). Whales tales, dog piles, and beer goggles: An ethnographic case study of fraternity life. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 26, 306–323. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3195675
Summary
This chapter examined five different short articles to illustrate good models for writing a narrative study, a phenomenology, a grounded theory study, an ethnography, and a case study. These articles reflect many of the defining characteristics of each approach and should enable readers to see differences in composing and writing varieties of qualitative studies. Choose a narrative study to examine the life experiences of a single individual when material is available and accessible and the individual is willing (assuming that he or she is living) to share stories. Choose a phenomenology to examine a phenomenon and the meaning it holds for individuals. Be prepared to interview the individuals, ground the study in philosophical tenets of phenomenology, follow set procedures, and end with the essence of the meaning. Choose a grounded theory study to generate or develop a theory. Gather information through interviews (primarily), and use systematic procedures of data gathering and analysis built on procedures such as open, axial, and selective coding. Although the final report will be scientific, it can still address sensitive and emotional issues. Choose an ethnography to study the behavior of a culture-sharing group (or individual). Be prepared to observe and interview, and develop a description of the group and explore themes that emerge from studying human behaviors. Choose a case study to examine a case, bounded in time or place, and look for contextual material about the setting of the case. Gather extensive material from multiple sources of information to provide an in-depth picture of the case.
These are important distinctions among the five approaches to qualitative inquiry. By studying each approach in detail, we can learn more about how to proceed and how to narrow our choice of which approach to use. In the next chapter, we will see how to incorporate each of the five approaches into a scholarly introduction in a qualitative project.
Further Readings
Several readings extend this brief overview and comparison of articles for each of the five approaches. Here we continue to expand the list of books about each approach (see also Chapters 1 and 4). The list should not be considered exhaustive, and readers are encouraged to seek out additional readings in the end-of-book reference list.
Clandinin, D. J., Huber, J., Huber, M., Murphy, M. S., Murray Orr, A., Pearce, M., & Steeves, P. (2006). Composing diverse identities: Narrative inquiries into the interwoven lives of children and teachers. New York, NY: Routledge.
Through this book, the authors illustrate the usefulness of narrative research for capturing the complex interactions among children, families, teachers, and administrators within the school environment. This should be required reading for anyone engaging in narrative research with children.
Colaizzi, P. F. (1978). Psychological research as the phenomenologist views it. In R. Valle & M. King (Eds.), Existential phenomenological alternatives for psychology (pp. 48–71). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
This key resource introduces existential phenomenology as a philosophical and methodological approach within the field of psychology. Within this chapter, Paul Colaizzi advances procedures for conducting phenomenological analysis that remain relevant to this day.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2013). Strategies of qualitative inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Norman Denzin and Yvonna Lincoln take a new approach in this accessible version of a handbook on qualitative research. In particular, we find the case study chapter by Flyvberg to be helpful in delineating case study research from the other approaches.
Goffman, A. (2014). On the run: Fugitive life in an American city (fieldwork encounters and discoveries). Chicago IL: Chicago University Press.
Alice Goffman contributes an ethnography study of a group of young Black men in a poor community in West Philadelphia over 6 years. She also introduces a number of ethical issues that are worthy of further exploration for those engaging in ethnographic research.
Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
This book by James Spradley has enduring influence for how to conduct open-ended interviews useful across qualitative approaches. In addition to suggestions about how to phrases research questions he offers the reader useful guidance for comparing data during analyses
