U7A1-60 - Scientific Knowledge, Contributions and Methodology - See Details

Qualitative Research Approaches in Psychology

Content created by: William H. Percy, Kim Kostere, Sandra Kostere

Version 3.0 effective December 2015

Capella University

225 South Sixth Street, Ninth Floor

Minneapolis, MN 55402

Table of Content

Introduction 5

References 6

Generic Qualitative Inquiry 7

Differentiating Generic Qualitative Inquiry 7

Differentiating Generic Qualitative Inquiry from Phenomenological Inquiry 8

Description of Generic Qualitative Inquiry 9

Generic Qualitative Data Collection 10

Data Analysis in Generic Qualitative Analysis: Thematic Analysis 10

Inductive Analysis 11

Inductive Analysis Step-By-Step 11

Theoretical Analysis 12

Theoretical Analysis Step-By-Step 13

Thematic Analysis with Constant Comparison 14

Thematic Analysis with Constant Comparison Step-By-Step 14

Thematic Analysis in a Mixed Methodology Study 15

References related to Generic Qualitative Inquiry, Mixed Methodology and Thematic Analysis 15

Ethnography 17

Data collection in ethnography 17

Data analysis in ethnography: Ethnographic thematic analysis and exemplary life histories 17

References related to ethnography 19

General introductions to ethnographic research: 19

Detailed treatments of ethnographic methodology and issues: 20

Case Study 21

Data collection in case studies 21

Data analysis in case studies 22

Data analysis using Thematic Analysis in case studies………………………………………………………….22

The type of questions typically used to guide a case study 23

References related to case study 23

General Introductions to Case Study Research 23

Detailed Treatments of Case Study Methods and Issues 23

Grounded Theory 25

Data collection methods in grounded theory research 25

Grounded theory data analysis methods and procedures: Coding 26

The type of questions typically used to guide a study using Grounded Theory 28

References related to Grounded Theory 28

General introductions to Grounded Theory: 28

Detailed treatments of Grounded Theory methodology and issues: 29

Phenomenology 30

Goals of phenomenological psychological research 31

Phenomenological Data Collection Methods: The Reduction 32

Phenomenological Data Collection Methods 32

Phenomenological Data Analysis 33

Preliminary steps 33

Steps in generic model of phenomenological data analysis: 34

Acceptable Models of Phenomenological Analysis 34

The type of questions typically used to guide a study using Phenomenological Research 35

References related to Phenomenological Research 35

General introductions to Phenomenological Research: 35

Specific References on Phenomenological Research 36

Heuristics 38

Goals of Heuristic Inquiry 38

Data Collection and Analysis Methods in Heuristic Inquiry 38

The type of questions typically used to guide a study using Heuristic Research 40

Procedural Requirements for Using Heuristic Research in the Psychology Specialization 40

References related to Heuristic Research (Heuristic Phenomenological Research) 41

General introductions to Heuristic Research (Heuristic Phenomenological Research) 41

Specific References on Heuristic Inquiry 41

Appendix A: Three Models of Phenomenological Analysis 43

References 47

Appendix B: Flow chart of Keen’s version of transcendental phenomenological data analysis 49

APPENDIX C: Flow chart of Generic thematic analysis of Qualitative Data 50

Appendix D: Moustakas’ Description of Data Analysis in Heuristic Research 52

References 53

Appendix E: Examples of Topics, Research Questions, and Open-Ended Guiding Questions 54

Appendix F: Handout: Charmaz Approach to Grounded Theory 56

Reference 57

The faculty of the School of Psychology at Capella University require that all dissertation designs meet the highest standards of rigor and consistency. To ensure that dissertations using qualitative designs meet such standards, there are five approaches that the faculty consider appropriate to guide a qualitative inquiry in general psychology. The faculty have chosen these approaches because

• they can be applied to research topics and questions typically studied in psychology;

• they have clear, linear, and rigorous data collection and data analysis procedures;

• they are well-supported in the standard methodology literatures used in our courses;

• they are found in qualitative studies published in many peer-reviewed journals in psychology and human science research; and

• they are presented to learners at Residencies and Colloquium.

The approaches supported by the psychology faculty are as follows: generic qualitative inquiry, ethnography, case study, grounded theory, phenomenology and heuristics. Although there are other approaches to qualitative research available to the researcher, many lack the rigor and clear procedures for data collection and data analysis that the faculty consider appropriate for a doctoral dissertation in psychology.

Qualitative research often collects data through open-ended face-to-face interviews. For dissertations at Capella it is recommended that such interview are face-to-face and not conducted by the phone or by using Skype unless there is a reason not to conduct the interviews face-to-face. Interviews with participants who are determined to be more than minimal risk must be conducted face-to-face. An exception to this rule is phenomenology and heuristics in which the interviews should be conducted face-to-face. “The more presence, the better the data. Face-to-face interviews are best because all sorts of non-verbal data are also present and can be detected. Skype is next best because there are at least facial expressions as well. With phone there are only verbal manifestations. I would say that anything less than face-to-face would have to be justified. What is the reason that a researcher cannot meet with the participant face-to-face? The impoverished means can be used if the alternative is ‘no data’ but it's best to have the best data collecting situations whenever possible” (A. Giorgi, personal communication, January 12, 2015).

Qualitative software has become a popular tool that can be used during the data analysis process in a qualitative study. While the software does not conduct the analysis it can be useful in storing and organizing the data during the analysis. The following are examples of such programs: Atlas.ti, MAXQDA, and NVivo. Software is accepted to be used in the analysis in conducting a qualitative dissertation at Capella but are not used in phenomenology or heuristics. “There is no software for a phenomenological method nor would I accept one if someone tried to design one. A computer cannot intuit meanings and cannot adopt a phenomenological attitude. It can only organize what has already been prescribed for it. However the method is a discovery oriented method and thus only a human can intuit meanings that are discovered. Also, only a human can assume a psychological attitude. The method is iterative and painstaking. If you’re not comfortable with that, don’t use the method.” (A. Giorgi, personal communication, December 14, 2006.

The sample size for a qualitative study conducted for dissertations in psychology at Capella should have a sample size of 8-15 participants and data saturation should be met in the study (Corbin and Strauss, 2008).

The sections that follow briefly describe each approach and provide primary and secondary sources for further review. Interested learners should review the texts presented in PSY7630 – Qualitative Analysis, PSY7635- Advanced Qualitative Analysis as well as the handouts available at Residential Colloquia on qualitative research design.

Following the four main sections and the “alternatives” section are six Appendixes:

• Appendix A describes in detail three acceptable models for data analysis in phenomenological research.

• Appendix B offers a flow chart for one of those models (the Stevick-Colaizzi-Keen model)

• Appendix C offers a flow chart of a generic approach to “thematic analysis,” the underlying data analysis method for many qualitative approaches.

• Appendix D describes Clark Moustakas’ approach to data analysis in heuristc research.

• Appendix E offers examples of topics, research questions, and guiding open-ended questions for common kinds of research problems using qualitative methodologies.

• Appendix F Charmaz Constructivist Grounded Theory

Corbin, J., Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Many dissertations report people’s subjective opinions, attitudes, beliefs, or experiences of things in the outer world. Such psychological things cannot be measured in the statistical sense, and require qualitative methods. Sometimes, the other more focused approaches (ethnography, case study, grounded theory, phenomenology or heuristics) are not appropriate for one reason or another. In those cases, researchers should consider a more generic qualitative inquiry approach.

Suppose a researcher were interested in investigating one of the following:

1. People’s attitudes, opinions, or beliefs about a particular issue or experience;

2. Workers’ feelings about their supervisors’ performance;

3. The reflections of women who left the convent on their “life journey”;

4. Senior managers’ reflections on experiences that have had significant impacts on them during their careers;

5. Clients’ descriptions of their experiences of psychotherapy;

6. Children’s reports of their experiences being placed in special education classes.

Each of these topics calls for qualitative inquiry, but none of the five acceptable approaches would be suitable. Why not?

• Ethnography (see next section) focuses on the investigation of the network of social groupings, social customs, beliefs, behaviors, groupings, practices, etc., that define a “culture.” None of these topics focuses on that unit of analysis (social-cultural).

• Case studies are in-depth investigations of a “single case,” using multiple methods and multiple sources of data. A single case is defined by having clearly recognizable boundaries that differentiate the case from any other collection of instances. None of the groups of people above constitute a “case” in that sense.

• Grounded theory uses data from people to develop an explanation (theory or emergent theory) or a story line that described the theory for the process in question developed over time. They are descriptive, not explanatory. For example if a researcher studying successful management style is investigating the managers’ experiences in fact wanted to develop a theory of what experiences contribute to successful leadership style, that topic might qualify as grounded theory. Grounded theory is often used to study a process.

• Phenomenology investigates the “lived experience” of various psychological phenomena. Many of the phenomena this approach tackles include attitudes, beliefs, opinions, feelings, and the like. However, the phenomenologist’s interest is in the inner dimensions, textures, qualities, and structures (“essences”) of those cognitive processes, not in the external content or referents that may trigger the cognitive processes.

• Heuristics is a research model that places special emphasis on knowing through the self, by becoming one with the topic and experiencing it, as it exists in the world. Heuristics is used to investigate lived experience. In heuristic research the researcher must have had the experience under inquiry and is a participant in the study. All participants (including the researcher) in a heuristic study are called co-researchers.

The most difficult distinction to make here is probably with phenomenology. Let’s take a moment for a more careful review of the differences.

Phenomenology studies the inner essence of cognitive processing – what structures (temporality, spatiality, etc.) and textures (what are the felt qualities of the thoughts?) are found across the reports of many persons’ similar experiences? If a group of people describe how, in everyday life, they feel when they experience anger at work, the phenomenologist listens to what they all do similarly when processing their anger without thinking about it. Here is a common example, taken from an analysis in progress:

All the participants reported that anger feels big, expansive, magically powerful. They tend to feel themselves puff up, get hot, and start to believe they can change the problem by shouting or being harsh. They get very present-centered – nothing else matters when angry. Curiously, most also obsess about the past and past angers at the same time. “It’s like being in a time warp,” one said. Another said, “Tunnel vision. Only see one thing, but it feels timeless.”

The phenomenological interest is in the internal subjective structures of the experiencing itself.

On the other hand, examples 1-6 described above focus on the actual content of their reports (what do they actually think about the issue? What are the experiences?). An attitude/opinion study would be uninterested in the subjective psychological experiencing, only in the content of that experience – what the experience was about. In any of the examples, if someone reported that anger was part of the experience, we would be interested in the fact that someone was angry, not in what that experience of anger (“being angry”) was like.

A second difference is that phenomenology investigates pre-reflective conscious experiencing, often referred to as “lived experience.” Contrast the term experiencing (phenomenology’s interest) with experiences (the focus of our topics above). Experiencing addresses the inward and ongoing act of taking in and making sense of a phenomenon – how does one do this? What is the structure of one’s cognitive processing? Experiences, on the other hand, focus our attention outwardly – What was experienced? What happened? To what does the belief point to in the outer world?

Consider this example: Suppose we want to know something about a political campaign. The phenomenological question to ask the voters might be something like this: What is it like for you experiencing this campaign? The opinion researcher, on the other hand, would more likely ask something like: Do you prefer X or Y in this campaign? Which of the following do you consider the most important issue? Please rank order your preferences in the race? What stands out as the most interesting thing about this campaign?

Or consider this example: Suppose we are studying prisoners’ experience in prison. If our interest focuses on their daily experiences (routines, assault experiences, everyday interactions with the prison staff, and the like) – these would call for generic qualitative inquiry. If our interest is in how the prisoners actually experience these things – what being a prisoner is like subjectively speaking, on the inside – we might choose a phenomenological approach.

The first question to ask yourself, after deciding on your general topic, is what you really want to know about your topic. If your focus is outward – on the content of opinions or attitudes, on the actual-world experiences and happenings, on the thoughtful description and reflection of historical occurrences in people’s past—you might want to select generic qualitative inquiry as your methodological approach rather than phenomenology or one of the other acceptable approaches.

To sum up, if the researcher is interested more in the actual outer-world content of their questions (the actual opinions themselves, the life experiences themselves, the participants’ reflections themselves) and less on the inner organization and structure of the participants’ experiencing processes, then phenomenology would not be appropriate, but a more generic qualitative analysis would be. Let’s turn our attention to what this generic qualitative approach is.

Generic qualitative inquiry investigates people’s reports of their subjective opinions, attitudes, beliefs, or reflections on their experiences, of things in the outer world. It can be selected as the methodological approach when:

1. The research problem and question require a qualitative or mixed-methods methodology. In fact, the generic qualitative approach is well suited to mixed methods studies, because its data usually can be re-structured as quantitative to relate to the statistical side of the study (Creswell, 1995; Tashakkori, Teddlie, 1998)

2. Ethnography, case study, grounded theory, phenomenology or heuristics is inappropriate because the focus of the study, the content of the information desired, or the kind of data to be obtained do not fit those approaches. These other approaches—particularly case study and grounded theory—can be used in mixed methods studies, but often their data cannot be as easily reformulated to integrate with the quantitative data.

3. The researcher has a body of pre-knowledge/pre-understandings (categories or sub-categories of information) about the topic that he or she wants to be able to more fully describe from the participants’ perspective. For instance, suppose that prior research has shown that employee morale correlates strongly and positively with their wage bracket, but nothing more is known than that. A dissertation researcher could ask what the employees actually think and feel about being in various wage brackets (sub-question one) and how those feelings and ideas influence their morale (sub-question two). Asking these two questions may expand the previous knowledge—that the two categories are related—with the qualitative employee-perspective information.

Generic qualitative inquiry is a useful approach when attempting a survey research that includes qualitative elements in a mixed design. Indeed, this approach is appropriate when a fully qualitative survey approach is desired. Actually, researchers considering any study of people’s subjective “take” on actual external happenings and events should consider generic qualitative inquiry as their approach.

Data collection in this approach typically uses data collection methods that elicit people’s reports on their ideas about things that are outside themselves. However, its focus on real events and issues means it seldom uses unstructured data collection methods (such as open-ended conversational interviewing from phenomenology, participant and/or non-participant field observation from ethnography, and the like). Instead, it requires semi- or fully-structured interviews, questionnaires, surveys, content- or activity-specific participant observation, and the like. The core focus is external, real-world, as opposed to internal, psychological, and subjective. (Even the attitudes and opinions in opinion polling are valued for their reflection on the external issues.)

By and large, generic qualitative data collection seeks information from representative samples of people about real-world events and processes, or about their experiences. We want less to “go deep” and more to get a broad range of opinions, ideas, or reflections. Occasionally, a small, non-representative, but highly informed sample can provide rich information about the topic. For instance, a few experienced nurses can often provide rich, accurate, and helpful information about common patient reactions to certain procedures, because part of a nurse’s role is to observe patients’ experience and reactions carefully. More often, however, the sampling in this approach aims for larger representation of the population in mind. Although this is not a hard-and-fast rule, generic qualitative data collection typically uses larger samples than other qualitative approaches use, because larger samples tend to be more widely representative. Nor is external generalization (reliability) necessary, because the data are sometimes not quantifiable. However, as with all qualitative inquiry, if the sample is transparently and fairly representative of the target population or is clearly information-rich about the topic, readers may be persuaded to apply the findings to similar people or situations outside the sample itself.

Most generic qualitative studies rely on the following data collection methods:

• Semi- or fully-structured (closed-ended) interviews, either oral (the most common method) or written (uncommon). In these qualitative interviews, the questions are pre-structured based on the pre-knowledge of the researcher, although there may be opportunities for “tell me more” kinds of questions.

• Questionnaires. Usually these mix scaled or quantitative items (e.g., Likert-type scales asking preferences or degrees of agreement) with opportunities for qualitative comments; this approach requires mixed-methods designs. Again, the researcher will build these questionnaires and their items from pre-knowledge about the topic.

• Written or oral surveys. The standard opinion or voter poll is a good example, but survey research has its own rather deep literature and can be much more sophisticated that simple opinion or voter surveying. Once again, the items in the survey will be constructed on the basis of pre-knowledge about the topic.

Developed by Sandra Kostere, PhD, LP

“[T]hematic analysis involves the searching across a data set – be that a number of interviews or focus groups, or a range of texts – to find repeated patterns of meanings" (Braun & Clark, 2006, p. 86).

Thematic analysis is a process used to conduct an analysis of qualitative data. While it does not represent a complete research methodology, it does offer a method of data analysis that is flexible and compatible with many approaches to qualitative research and mixed methodology in particular generic qualitative analysis.

Thematic analysis can be used to analyze data collected through a qualitative survey to investigate subjective experiences of objective things. For example, many qualitative surveys investigate things such as "your experience being a leader," or "your experience of receiving treatment for X disorder," or "your experience searching for a higher-paying faculty job." The survey might ask both closed and open-ended questions, thus requiring some kind of qualitative analysis. For this, thematic analysis is frequently the basis.

A thematic analysis can also be used to conduct an analysis of the qualitative data in some types of case study and in the qualitative component of mixed methodology studies. Really, thematic analysis is a generic approach to analyzing people’s reports that may form the basis for many different kinds of qualitative interpretation.

There are three main types of generic thematic analysis: inductive analysis, theoretical analysis, and thematic analysis with constant comparison. These three models of thematic analysis are acceptable for use in psychological research at Capella University. Researchers are free to propose other approaches that make use of thematic analysis principles (such as content analysis), provided that the mentor or member(s) of the dissertation committee have background in the procedures. Taylor and Bogdan (1998) wrote:

Since this is an inductive and intuitive process, there are no simple procedures or techniques for this kind of analysis. You many find it helpful to ask yourself questions like: “What do these quotes or observations have in common?” ‘What's going on here?" “What does this tell me about how people view their world?” “How do these themes relate to each other?” (p. 156).

Inductive analysis is data driven and does not attempt to fit the data into any preexisting categories. The researcher sets aside all pre-understandings. The data collected from each participant (interviews, observations, open-ended questionnaire, etc.) are analyzed individually. Once the data from all participants have been analyzed, the repeating patterns and themes from all participants are synthesized together into a composite synthesis, which attempts to interpret the meanings and/or implications regarding the question under investigation.

1. Review and familiarize yourself with the data collected from each participant (interviews, journals, field notes, records and documents). Read the documents and highlight intuitively any sentences, phrases, or paragraphs that appear to be meaningful. During this process the researcher immerses him/herself in each participant’s data individually.

2. Review the highlighted data and use your research question to decide if the highlighted data are related to your question. Some information in the transcript may be interesting, but not relate to your question.

3. Eliminate all highlighted data that are not related to your question. However, start a separate file to store unrelated data. You may want to come back and reevaluate this data in the future.

4. Take each piece of data and code it. The code can be very simple, like a serial number or an address – simply a way to keep track of individual items of data.

5. Cluster the items of data that are related or connected in some way and start to develop patterns. For each distinct pattern you discern, describe it in a phrase or statement that sums it up. If feasible or useful, assign a second level code to the patterns too. Note that the words describing the patterns are no longer the words of the participants, but your own. In psychological research, attempt to make these words meaningful to psychologists.

6. As you start to see patterns, identify items of data that correspond to that specific pattern. Place them in the previously assembled clusters (see 5) that manifest that pattern. Direct quotes taken from these data (transcribed interviews, field notes, documents, etc.) will elucidate the pattern. (The name or descriptor of your pattern thus is a more abstract phrase, whereas the data themselves are direct words from participants.)

7. Take all the patterns and look for the emergence of overreaching themes. Themes are “patterns of patterns.” This process involves combining and clustering the related patterns into themes. As you see meaningful themes across patterns, assign a yet-more-abstract descriptor to the theme. Use standard psychological language and terms. This will be a third level of abstraction, supported by the patterns, in turn illustrated by the direct data.

8. After all the data have been analyzed, arrange the themes in a kind of matrix with their corresponding supportive patterns. (The patterns are used to elucidate the themes, just as the word data are used to support and illustrate the pattern descriptors). In the matrix, include the codes or descriptors for each of the data clusters. Thus, the supporting layers of words/text can easily be accessed when discussing an individual theme in your final report.

9. For each theme, write a detailed abstract analysis describing the scope and substance of each theme.

10. (Complete this process for each participants’ data)

11. Then combine the analysis of data for all participants including patterns and themes that are consistent across the participants’ data.

12. Finally, the data are synthesized together to form composite synthesis of the data collected regarding the question under inquiry.

Theoretical analysis is employed in a situation in which the research has some predetermined categories (themes) to examine during the data analysis. In this situation, the research may use his/her pre-understandings when conducting the data analysis. However, in this case the research also remains open to the possibilities of new themes emerging from the thematic analysis. The theoretical thematic analysis is driven by theory and the themes that are predetermined are usually located in the research question. Thus, the research question will have identified concepts from theories on the topic under inquiry. The data collected is analyzed individually and patterns that emerged from the data will be organized under the appropriate preexisting themes keeping in mind that new patterns and themes may also emerge from the data during the data analysis process.

Researchers might approach this analysis in two phases: In the first phase, after preparing the data (steps 1-4 below), one works on assigning the data units to the pre-determined themes derived from previous research and theory and carries out the analyses as described in steps 5 through 13. Then, in phase two, return to the data and work with data units and patterns that did not seem to fit the pre-determined categories, again following steps 5-13. The themes derived from this analysis will likely not be found in previous research but may contribute to it.

1. Read, review, and familiarize yourself with the data collected from each participant (interviews, journals, field notes, records and documents). Re-read the documents and highlight intuitively any sentences, phrases, or paragraphs that appear to be meaningful. Keeping in mind the predetermined categories (themes) that are related to the theory and research question posed as well as remaining open to any new patterns and themes that are related to the research question and have emerged from the data analysis. During this process, the researcher immerses him/herself in each participant’s data individually.

2. For each participant review the highlighted data and use your research question to decide if the highlighted data are related to your question. Some information in the transcript may be interesting, but not relate to your question.

3. Eliminate all highlighted data that are not related to your question, however, start a separate file to store unrelated data. You may want to come back and reevaluate these data in the future. 

4. Take each item of data and code or give a descriptor for the data. The descriptor or name will often be a characteristic word from within the data.

5. Cluster the items of data that are related or connected in some way and start to develop patterns.

6. Patterns that are related to a preexisting theme are placed together with any other patterns that correspond with the theme along with direct quotes taken from the data (transcribed interviews, field notes, documents, etc.) to elucidate the pattern.

7. Any patterns that do not relate to preexisting themes should be kept in a separate file for future evaluation of the meanings as they relate to the overall topic.

Repeat steps 1-7 for all participants.

1. Take all the patterns and look for the emergence of overreaching themes. This process involves combining and clustering the related patterns into the preexisting themes.

2. After all the data have been analyzed, arrange the themes to correspond with the supporting patterns. The patterns are used to elucidate the themes.

3. Now revisit the patterns that did not fit the preexisting categories and remain open to any new patterns and themes that are related to the research topic and have emerged from the data analysis.

4. For each theme, the researcher needs to write a detailed analysis describing the scope and substance of each theme.

5. Each pattern should be described and elucidated by supporting quotes from the data.

6. Finally, the data is synthesized together to form composite synthesis of the question under inquiry.

Thematic analysis with constant comparison can be either inductive analysis or theoretical analysis. The difference is that the data collected are analyzed as they are collected. The analysis begins during the collection of data. The first participant’s data are analyzed and as each subsequent participant’s data are analyzed, they are compared to the previously analyzed data. The analysis constantly moves back and forth between current data and the data that have already been coded and clustered into patterns. Patterns and themes will change and grow as the analysis continues throughout the process.

1. Review and familiarize yourself with the data collected from the first participant (interviews, journals, field notes, records and documents). Read the documents and highlight intuitively any sentences, phrases, or paragraphs that appear to be meaningful.

2. Review the highlighted data and use your research question to decide if the highlighted data are related to your question. Some information in the transcript may be interesting, but not relate to your question.

3. Eliminate all highlighted data that are not related to your question, however, start a separate file to store unrelated data. You may want to come back and reevaluate this data in the future. 

4. Take each set of data and code or name the data.

5. Cluster the sets of data that are related or connected in some way and start to develop patterns.

6. Complete this process for the first participants’ data. The researcher will code and cluster the first participant's data and as each subsequent participant’s data are analyzed, they are compared to the previously analyzed data. Throughout this process, each participant’s data are reviewed and analyzed, and the researcher is comparing and contrasting the data being analyzed with the data that have been previously analyzed in the study. Thus, a constant comparison emerges.

7. Throughout this process, data that correspond to a specific pattern are identified and placed with the corresponding pattern and direct quotes are taken from the data (transcribed interviews, field notes, documents, etc.) to elucidate the pattern.

8. Throughout the process, take all the patterns and look for the emergence of overreaching themes. This process involves combining and clustering the related patterns into themes.

9. Patterns and themes may tend to shift and change throughout the process of analysis.

10. After all the data have been analyzed, arrange the themes to correspond with the supporting patterns. The patterns are used to elucidate the themes.

11. For each theme, the researcher writes a detailed analysis describing the scope and substance of each theme.

12. Each pattern should be described and elucidated by supporting quotes from the data.

13. The data is synthesized together to form composite synthesis of the question under inquiry.

Frequently, thematic analysis is the analytic method-of-choice in analyzing the qualitative portion of the data collected in a mixed methodology study. There are a number ways to develop a research design using mixed methods, below are a number of mixed methodology designs common to the field of psychology. An excellent source for more about mixed methods studies is Creswell (2003, 2008 in press)

• Sequential studies (or what Creswell, 2003, calls two-phase studies): The researcher first conducts a qualitative phase of a study and then a quantitative phase, or vice versa. The two phases are separate.

• Parallel/simultaneous studies: The researcher conducts the qualitative and quantitative phase at the same time.

• Equivalent status designs: The researcher conducts the study using both the quantitative and qualitative approaches about equally to understand the phenomenon under study.

• Dominant-less dominant studies: The researcher conducts the study "within a single dominant paradigm with a small component of the overall drawn from an alternative design" (Creswell, 1995, p.177).

• Designs with multilevel use of approaches: Researchers use different types of methods at different levels of data aggregation. For example: data could be analyzed qualitatively at the student level, qualitatively at the class level, quantitatively at the school level and qualitatively at the district level (Tashakkori, & Teddlie, 1998, p. 18).

Aronson, J. (1994). A pragmatic view of thematic analysis. The Qualitative Report, 2, (1). Retrieved January 20,2003, from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/index.html

Bogdan, R., & Taylor, S. (1975). Introduction to qualitative research methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101.

Creswell, J. (2008 in press). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Creswell, J. (1995). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Percy, W., Kostere, K. & Kostere, S (2015). Generic Qualitative Research in Psychology. The Qualitative Report 2015 Volume 20, Number 2, Article 5, 76-85 http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR20/2/percy5.pdf

Taylor, S., & Bogdan, R. (1998). Introduction to qualitative research methods (3rd ed.). New York: John Whiley &Sons, Inc.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Ethnography is a descriptive research approach designed for in-depth investigation and description of cultures, cultural groups, large organizations and groupings, and their features. Ethnographers immerse themselves in the culture or organization they are studying, becoming a part of the culture in order to learn about it “from the inside out.” Consequently, this approach often requires longer timeframes for data collection, and ethnographers frequently return a number of times to the sites of their investigations to obtain more data. As a result, many doctoral learners avoid ethnographic studies because of the typical long time-commitments. However, ethnography can be a fruitful approach, even in shorter periods, for understanding the customs, culture, belief systems, and implicit “rules” of organizations and large groups.

Ethnography is based in the anthropological tradition of research. In this approach, the researcher would spend a long time becoming immersed in the culture of the population being studied. Keep in mind that the culture being studied could be a corporate “culture,” such as that of Microsoft or a small start-up company; or the culture of a particular group of people operating in a specific social environment, such as that of a third grade classroom among the students, teachers, teacher’s aides, and so on. An important aspect of this research approach is that the participants (culture) are studied in their natural habitat and social contexts. Individuals are not the unit of analysis for ethnography, although they may be sources of valuable data. Thus, qualitative research questions in social psychology and group psychology often are well-answered by ethnographic research.

Typically, ethnographers collect data while in the field. Their data collection methods can include participant observation, naturalistic observation, writing field notes, conducting unstructured or structured interviews (sometimes audio or videotaped); reviewing documents, records, photographs, videotapes, maps, genograms, and sociograms; or even interviewing focus groups. Any accessible and dependable source of information about the behaviors, interactions, customs, values, beliefs, attitudes and practices of the culture members can be a source of data.

It is worth remembering that the time-world of cultural groups is longer than it is for individual persons, so data collection may need to spread over a longer time in order to “capture” the true flavor of the culture. In addition, because field research methods need to adapt to the demands of the field, ethnography allows for flexibility in the design of its methods to accommodate the challenges of the field. But for both these reasons – the longer time-world of the culture or group and the occasional need to change data collection methods to meet challenges in the field – IRB complications can be introduced and must be addressed, further lengthening the time of the ethnographic study.

Ethnography shares with the other four approaches a core method of data analysis, namely thematic analysis. The other approaches may use different terms or specify slightly different procedures, but the core analytic method is quite similar. We describe it briefly here in its ethnographic form, and we’ll describe it briefly in its other forms when outlining the other approaches. Learners are advised to master the general method regardless of the approach they select.

Once the data are collected by observations, interviews (audio taped and transcribed), field notes, or any other sources, patterns of experience (recurring words, phrases, descriptions, etc.) are identified and listed. These patterns are derived from direct quotes and paraphrases of recurring ideas emerging from the data. These patterns form the first level of thematic analysis.

Next, the researcher identifies data that correspond to the identified patterns. If, in a study of the culture of a corporation, a pattern is noted such as “males defer to hierarchically superior males, but not to hierarchically superior females,” examples that confirm this – that show it is both recurring and an accurate description of events - are located in the data (transcripts, notes, etc.) and annotated with the listed pattern (as quotes along with citation of their source).

Now, the researcher combines and catalogues related patterns into themes. Themes are defined as descriptive meaning units derived from the patterns. For example, if along with the earlier example this pattern emerged: “males repeatedly initiate flirting behavior with females regardless of the females’ rank and the females return the flirtation, even when they dislike it,” two themes or meaning units might be constructed as follows: “Males impose rank-dominance on subordinate males” and “males impose sexual-dominance on all females.”

Finally, at the highest level of abstraction, themes that emerge from the patterns (which emerged from the original data) are synthesized together to form a comprehensive representation of the element of the culture that is being investigated. The above meaning units or themes might constellate with other descriptive themes of the male and female interactions in the organization into a rich and textured description of the rules, customs, attitudes, and practices around gender in that organization.

This distillation of the practice of thematic analysis is adapted from Taylor and Bogdan (1984) and Aronson (1994).

In writing ethnographic reports, one common – though by no means required - presentation practice is to construct “life stories” of representative or exemplary participants in the culture, group, or organization. Perhaps a more accurate term would be “culture stories” or “organization stories.” The objective is not to single out the individuals for study, but to use their experiences to exemplify key themes and unique perspectives found in the data. These representative life stories are not standard biographies or life histories as might be found in biographical research but instead life histories capture the person’s own feelings, views and perspectives regarding the culture, group, or organization and research question under inquiry.

These life or organizational stories are created in a process not unlike thematic analysis. Here, however, the stories of the participants’ experience in the culture, group, society, or organization are culled for the initial patterns of recurring experiences, behaviors, etc. These in turn are organized into themes or meaning units which in a robust way exemplify important aspects of the larger culture, society, group, or organization. Finally, as in thematic analysis, the meaning units are woven into a richly evocative description of the meaning of the persons experience in this culture which stands for many others’ similar experiences. In effect, the life story (or the organization story, if you will) of the exemplar “stands for” the essence of the ethnographic description of what it means to be a member of this culture, group, or organization.

The type of questions typically used to guide an ethnographic study

• What are the behavioral patterns of…?

• What is the culture of ……?

• Descriptive questions about values, beliefs, and practices of members of the cultural under inquiry.

A number of useful texts discuss methods of ethnographic data collection, data analysis, and writing the results. We recommend that these or similar texts and articles form the basis of the discussion of methodology and methods in both the Prospectus and in the dissertation (e.g., in the section of Chapter Two’s literature review on methodological issues related to the project). The following list contains excellent general introductions to ethnography, as well as more detailed treatments by practitioners:

Agar, M.H. (1986). Speaking of ethnography. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Camic, P.M., Rhodes, J.E. & Yardley, L. (Eds.) (2003). Qualitative research in psychology: Expanding perspectives in methodology and design. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Creswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. See the sections on ethnography in Chapters 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, and the Appendix E by Henry Wolcott.

Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions, 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Denzin, N.K. (1997). Interpretive ethnography: Ethnographic practices for the 21st century. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.) (2000). Handbook of qualitative research, 2nd edition. See pp. 851-869.

Morse, J., & Richards, L. (2002). Read first for a users guide to qualitative methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods, 3rd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage., See the sections in Chapter 3 on ethnography and ethnomethodology (a related approach); and Chapters 6 and 7 on field work and qualitative interviewing.

Schensul, J. & LeCompte, M.D. (Eds.) (1999). Ethnographer’s toolkit, 7 Vols. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira

Stewart, A. (1998). The ethnographer’s method. Qualitative Research Methods Series, Vol 46. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Taylor, S, J. & Bogdan, R. (1984). Introduction to qualitative research methods: The search for meaning. 2nd edition. New York: John Wiley.

Thomas, J. (1993). Doing critical ethnography. Qualitative Research Methods Series, Vol 26. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Aronson, J. (1994). A Pragmatic View of Thematic Analysis. The Qualitative Report, 2, Number 1. Retrieved January 20, 2003, from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/index.html

Becker, H. & Geer, B. (2000). Participant observation and interviewing: A comparison. In Filstead, W.J. (Ed.). Qualitative methodology. Chicago: Markham.

Chambers, E. (2000). Applied ethnography. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.).

Emerson, R.M., Fretz, R.I., & Shaw, L.L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Fetterman, D. M. (2010). Ethnography: Step-by-step (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Goffman, E. (1989). On fieldwork. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 18, 123-132

Hodder, I. (2000). The interpretation of documents and material culture. In Denzin and Lincoln (Eds.).

Jorgensen, D.L. (1989). Participant observation: A methodology for human studies. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

LeCompte, M.D. & Goetz, J.P. (1982). Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research, 51, 31-60.

LeCompte, M.D. & Schensul, J. (1999). Designing and conducting ethnographic research. Ethnographer’s toolkit, Vol 1. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.

Spradley, J.P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Case study is the in-depth study – using multiple methods and data sources – of a single case. By single case study we do not mean a case study of one person but instead we mean a study of a single topic/research question. Sometimes a number of cases are studied and reported together. The “case” in a case study is the object of study. A case study is an exploration of a “bounded system” over time. The phrase “bounded system” means that the target to be studied is easily distinguished for other instances of the same phenomenon: it has a clear boundary differentiating it from all others. Think of a “case of measles” (that is, patients who have the measles), or a “case of homicide” (a single incident of murder, including the victim, the murderer, the police, the attorneys – anyone and anything relevant to the particular murder event). In those cases, the boundary is clear – it encircles all the information about the patient and his disease or the victim and the circumstances of the murder.

One could study a single case (in which a single instance is investigated in depth) or multiple cases (in which a number of instances of the target are studied and then compared with one another). For example, a single case study might investigate a single treatment program (the bounded system being that program and no other) or a new way of teaching reading in a school system (the bounded system being that particular school and those teachers and students using the new reading program). Or one could do a multiple case study of three different alcohol treatment programs, all “cases” of alcohol treatment, and compare them on many variables. In both instances, the boundary would encompass all the information, personnel, and contexts relevant to the subject.

Case studies have roots in sociology (primarily the University of Chicago Department of Sociology from the early 1900’s until 1935); in medicine (case study is a common way to present evidence of emerging illnesses or treatments before more focused studies can be done; for instance, Freud presented his new ideas about hysteria and his new ideas about treatment by means of richly detailed case studies); and in psychology (Piaget’s first findings about childhood cognitive development were presented as case studies of his own and others’ children). Program evaluations often are framed as case studies. When a subject is not well described in the scientific literature, or is newly emergent, descriptive case studies are often the best way to generate a lot of information about the case on which to base future more tightly focused studies. It is because of the highly descriptive nature of the approach coupled with the fact that the subject is usually not previously well-studied, that case studies seek numerous sources and types of information about the case, including its various contexts.

Case studies always include multiple sources of information, because the case includes multiple kinds of issues. For instance, the measles case will involve issues of nutrition, immunization, previous health status, age, exposure to others with measles, and so on, and data will be sought to explicate all those issues. Likewise, a case study of a treatment program would obtain and analyze information about the participants, the nature of their problems, the kinds of treatment provided, the physical (and psychological) setting and contexts that influence outcomes, the outcomes of the program, the background and training of the staff, and so on.

 In addition to multiple information sources, every case study provides an in-depth study of the context of the case: its setting (e.g., the kind of business structure and office complex for the treatment program; the family nutrition and cleanliness style of the measles case). The setting and context are an intrinsic part of the case.

Consequently, because cases contain many kinds of information and of contexts, case study uses many different methods of data collection. These can include the full range of qualitative methods – surveys, scales, and other instruments; interviews and field observations; reviews of documents, records, and other materials; evaluation of audiovisual materials; descriptions of contexts and collateral materials; and so on. A well-designed case study does not rely on a single method and source of data, because any true case (bounded system) will have many characteristics and it is not known ahead of time which characteristics are important. Determining that is the work of the case study.

Two types of data analysis for a case study are sometimes referred to (for example, Patton, 2005): holistic analysis, in which the information about the entire case is analyzed; and embedded analysis, in which information about a specific but limited aspect of the case is analyzed. For example, in a case study of learners’ experiences with online education, if all aspects of the experience are studied – the nature of the online platform, the IT support structure, the type of educational company providing the online learning, the quality and training of the teachers, the nature of the curriculum, the demographics of the learners, the costs and benefits perceived by the learners, the work load of the faculty, and so on and so forth – the analysis is said to be holistic.

However, if out of that mass of data only one aspect is analyzed and reported – for example, the learners’ perceptions of the learning platform and of the instructors’ competence – this would be an embedded analysis. A case study dissertation would most likely be a holistic analysis of a case or set of cases.

There is no consensus format for case study data analysis, but a common series of steps can be found in many sources. The following description is adapted from Creswell (1998) and Stake (1995).

• The opening step of data analysis – sometimes referred to as description – involves creating a detailed description of the case as a whole and of its setting(s) and contexts. The objective is both clarity and detail, creating a rich and textured picture of the case and its settings.

• The case study researcher looks at single instances in the described data and draws meaning from each without (yet) looking for multiple instances. This process pulls the described data apart and puts them back together in more meaningful ways. This may be called direct interpretation.

• Next, the researcher seeks a collection of meaning-rich instances from the data, aggregating these into categories of meaning, giving rise to the term categorical aggregation.

• By analyzing the categories (and the underlying instances and data of the various categories), the researcher will identify themes – common statements of recurring description and patterns of meaning - and connections between or among the themes. These themes will be developed using verbatim passages and direct quotes from the data to elucidate each theme. At this point, data from the case itself are used, without being compared yet with data and themes from other cases; this is within-case analysis.

• The same steps are followed for each case in the series, so that each is analyzed within itself. (For instance, if the study investigates ten cases of multiple sclerosis in young married people, each person’s data are analyzed separately first, as a single case, before taking the next step)

• Then, the researcher will develop a thematic analysis across cases (across case analysis) as well as interpretations of the integrated meaning of all the cases in the study.

• In the final, interpretive, phase, the researcher develops naturalistic generalizations from the data as a whole and reports on the lessons learned from the case study.

Data analysis using Thematic Analysis in case studies

A thematic analysis can also be used to conduct an analysis of the qualitative data in some types of case study

1. Read the data transcript and underline any sentences, phrases, or paragraphs that appear to be meaningful. Do not make any interpretations yet!

2. Review the underlined data and decide if the underlined data is relevant to the research question.  (Some information in the transcript may be interesting but does not relate to the research question)

3. Cross out all data that is not related to the research question.

4. From the underlined sentences that are left, following the elimination of data not related to the question, take each underlined sentence or groups of sentences (expressions or meaning units) that focus on one idea and name or code each.

5. Cluster the sets of data (expressions or meaning units) that are related or connected in some way and start to develop patterns. Now you start the interpretation, but only with the understanding that the codes or the patterns may shift and change during the process of analysis.

6. After you have developed your patterns, title (name) each pattern.

7. Write a brief description of each pattern. Use direct quotations from the transcript to show the reader how the patterns emerged from the data.

8. Take all the patterns and look for the emergence of overreaching themes. This process involves combining and clustering the related patterns into themes.

9. After all the data has been analyzed, arrange the themes to correspond with the supporting patterns. The patterns are used to elucidate the themes.

10. For each theme, the researcher needs to write a detailed analysis describing the scope and substance of each theme. (Complete this process for each participants’ data)

11. Each pattern should be described and elucidated by supporting quotes from the data. Then the research develops a synthesis of the participants data combining the patterns and themes to represent a whole of the experience under inquiry. (Within case analysis)

12. Then combine the analysis of data for all participants including patterns and themes that are consistent across the participants’ data. (Cross case analysis)

13. Finally, the data is synthesized together to form composite synthesis of the question under inquiry.

Case study asks questions that involve an intense study of individuals or an organization. The case to be studied is often chosen due to its uniqueness. The case is a study of individuals regarding a research subject – a group of persons, a program, an event, or an activity. What are the contexts of the case? What are its boundaries? What is involved? What happens? When does it happen? What is like to be in the case?

A number of useful texts discuss methods of case study data collection, data analysis, and writing the results. We recommend that these or similar texts and articles form the basis of the discussion of methodology and methods in both the Prospectus and in the dissertation (e.g., in the section of Chapter Two’s literature review on methodological issues related to the project). The following list contains excellent general introductions to case studies, as well as more detailed treatments by practitioners:

Camic, P.M., Rhodes, J.E. & Yardley, L. (Eds.) (2003). Qualitative research in psychology: Expanding perspectives in methodology and design. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Creswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. See the sections on case study and Appendix F by Asmussen and Creswell.

Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions, 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.) (2000). Handbook of qualitative research, 2nd edition.

Filstead, W.J. (Ed.), (2000). Qualitative methodology. Chicago: Markham.

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative inquiry and research methods, 3rd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Taylor, S, J. & Bogdan, R. (1984). Introduction to qualitative research methods: The search for meaning. 2nd edition. New York: John Wiley.

Boyle, J., & McKay, J. (1995). “You leave your troubles at the gate”: A case study of the exploitation of older women’s labor and “leisure” in sport. Gender and Society, 9, 566-575.

Hamel, J. (1993). Case study methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Hill, B., Vaughn, C., and Harrison, S.B. (1995, September/October). Living and working in two worlds: Case studies of five American Indian women teachers. The Clearinghouse, 69(1), 42-48.

Merriam, S. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Stake, R. (1994). Case studies. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 236-247). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Yin, R. K. (2008). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Grounded Theory is a qualitative research approach that attempts to develop theories of understanding based on data from the real world. Grounded Theory (Strauss, Corbin, 1990, 1998; Corbin & Strauss, 2008) has its origins in symbolic interactionism, taking the perspective that reality is negotiated between people, always changing, and constantly evolving. The key word is “theory,” which in science means an explanatory statement or model based on research evidence. Unlike some other forms of qualitative inquiry, grounded theory attempts to go beyond rich description (which it also strives for) to an explanation of the phenomena of interest.

The second key word is grounded. This implies that the explanation is derived from the “ground,” the actual experiences, words, behaviors, and other data obtained from people directly involved or engaged in the topic. For example, if one wished to derive a grounded theory about the effects of childhood abuse on adult functioning, one would gather many kinds of data from persons who had grown up amid child abuse, and would build the theory of how it affects adult development on the information obtained from those people. Another unique feature of grounded theory is its tendency to “return” to the ground by taking preliminary insights back to the participants and asking them to further comment on and refine the researcher’s conclusions.

The primary tools of discovery are interviews and observations. However, grounded theory goes beyond the descriptive and interpretive goals and is aimed at building theories. The ultimate goal of this approach is to derive theories that are grounded in (based on) reality, that is, grounded in the data collected from people actually involved in the issues under investigation. A grounded theory is one that is uncovered, developed, and conditionally confirmed through collecting and making sense of data related to the issue at hand. The hope is that such theories will lead to a better understanding of the phenomenon of interest and to ideas of exerting some control over the phenomenon. Although grounded theory is designed to be a precise rigorous process, creativity plays an important part in that process in that the formulations of the data – “to create new order out of old”. The use of literature also differs in the grounded theory approach. There is a recommendation against knowing the literature too well before using this approach because knowing the categories, classifications, and conclusions of previous researchers may constrain your creativity in finding new formulas.

The dominant methods of data collection in grounded theory research are interviews (usually audio-taped), participant and non-participant observations, conversations recorded in dairies, field notes, descriptions of comparative instances, and personal experience. As mentioned, the participants in a grounded theory study often will be interviewed more than once, and asked to reflect on and refine the preliminary conclusions drawn by the researcher. In an analogy to “hypothesis testing” procedures in quantitative analysis, grounded theorists will often test their theories by re-interviewing participants about them, asking for their feedback, or by interviewing a new round of participants about how well the hypothesized elements of the new theory actually explain their experience.

The methods of doing these forms of data collection do not differ markedly from similar methods across all qualitative approaches. As mentioned, however, grounded theorists sometimes avoid too much study of the extant literature on their topic before going into the field, in hopes that they will not be biased by previous conjectures and data about the topic. It is their aim to allow the data to teach them and guide their analysis into a rich explanation.

Because grounded theory goes beyond the descriptive and interpretive goals of many other qualitative models and is aimed at building theories, data analysis tends to be more complex and aims to achieve an explanatory power that is not necessary in other approaches. The heart of the grounded theory approach occurs in its use of coding, its main form of data analysis. There are three different types of coding used in a more-or-less sequential manner (this discussion is adapted from Strauss and Corbin, 1990, 1998, Patton, 2003; and Creswell, 1998; for dissertations, more detailed discussions in primary sources should be consulted).

The first type of coding is open coding which is much like the description goal of science. Usually open coding is done first. During open coding, the researcher labels and categorizes the phenomena being studied. This involves the process of describing the data through means such as examination, comparison, conceptualization, and categorization. Labels are created to describe in one or a few words the categories one finds in the data. Examples are collected for all these categories. For example, in a grounded theory study of the effects of child sexual abuse, open coding might discover in the reports of the participants some categories such as these: Feeling powerless, hating myself, hating the abuser, or feeling permanently damaged.

The categories are studied more carefully to identify subcategories, which are called properties and dimensionality in the categories. For instance, the researcher in our example might discover that “hating myself” had a wide range of emotional power – in some participants it is very strong, whereas in others it is not strong at all. The categories, properties, and dimensions discovered in the data are fully described in the participants’ words.

Then begins the second type of coding: axial coding which involves finding links among the categories, properties, and dimensions that were derived from open coding. (A link is an axis, hence the term axial.) How is axial coding actually done?

Axial coding first identifies the central categories about the phenomenon. These central or core categories tend to be the most important aspect(s) of element of the phenomenon, the one that clearly has the greatest strength and appears in all or most of the participants’ reports or other data. For instance, a central category of the phenomenon of the psychological effects of childhood sexual abuse might be found to be “feelings of powerlessness.”

Next, the researcher explores the data carefully to discover causal conditions, which are categories of conditions influencing the central category or categories. For instance, in the child sexual abuse study, one causal condition might be found to be “repeated humiliations,” a condition that is found across many reports to support or influence the development of feelings of powerlessness (the central category).

The researcher continues axial coding by identifying interactions among the categories (which are called strategies, although that term might be confusing). Strategies in the example study could be, for example, “repeated humiliations strengthen feelings of powerless, but weaken hatred of the abuser while strengthening self-hatred.” You might think of “strategies” in grounded theory as the equivalent of correlations in statistical theory-building.

Axial coding continues with the identification and exploration of other supporting or weakening conditions which exert lesser influences on the central variables. These are categories in the data which label the contexts and intervening conditions. Examples from the grounded theory study of the effects of child sexual abuse might include “protection by another adult,” which when found to be present ameliorates (positively influences) the central category, but which is insufficient in itself to prevent the damage entirely. Finally, consequences are carefully identified and described. These would include all the outcomes of the presence of the central category in all its interactions (strategies) with contexts, intervening conditions, properties, dimensions, etc. Consequences describe what happens when the central category is found under specific conditions. For example, when “feelings of powerless” are found to be very strong, accompanied (interacting with) “isolation” and “repeated humiliation,” depression may be found to be a consequence.

Notice that these consequences are NOT presupposed, but are carefully teased out of the real reports and descriptions of their experiences by the many participants in the study. Preconceptions about the theory must be left at the door. See “Phenomenology,” below, and its discussion of epoche and the phenomenological reduction. Without using the terminology of phenomenology, the requirement is the same.

The third type of coding, selective coding, continues the axial coding activity of relating the subsidiary categories to the central category(s). Selective coding is the process of selecting your main phenomenon (core category) around which all other phenomena (subsidiary categories) are grouped, arranging the groupings, studying the results and rearranging where necessary. It is necessary to remain faithful to the data, so in selective coding, one frequently goes “back to the things themselves” to ensure that one is capturing what one’s informants told one.

From this last type of coding, the grounded theory researcher moves toward developing a model of process and a transactional system, which essentially tells the story of the outcome of the research. Creating a literal “story line” is one manner of doing selective coding. The story line tells the results of the axial coding in a coherent narrative. Many grounded theory researchers do not create a conditional matrix, a diagram or picture of the various categories, interactions, and relationships among the central category(s) and the subsidiary categories. But the conditional matrix is a very helpful tool in creating the narrative story line which embodies the grounded theory.

The selective coding process typically focuses on two dimensions of the phenomenon: its process and its transactional system. Again, the conditional matrix is quite useful in elucidating these two elements of the theory.

• Process is the manner in which actions and interactions occur in a sequence or series. It incorporates the time element. (“As time went on and I got older, the repeated humiliations my father inflicted on me began to tear me apart. I started to hate myself, though not at first.”) It also incorporates the various categories which mutually influenced each other. (“My brother tried to help, and I was grateful, but I was more worried he’d get hurt, so I asked him to stay out of it. He hasn’t been much a part of my life since.”)

• The transactional system is a grounded theory’s analytic method that allows an examination of the interactions of different events. (“Self-hatred led to increased willingness to be hurt. It strengthened the belief among most participants that the victim is bad and deserves punishment, and also strengthened the yearning for even the abusive “love” offered by the perpetrator. This in turn alienated most participants from other sources of more benign love, because the victims did not feel worthy of it.”)

The use of the conditional matrix and the process and transactional-system analysis leads finally to the general description of the grounded theory. It might be a brief sentence distilling all the above work, or a more complex statement. But it will also be accompanied by a set of propositions or hypotheses which explain the phenomenon under study.

At this stage, it is usual for grounded theory researchers to return not only to the original data to ensure that the theory fits those data, but may meet with the participants again to compare the theory with their perceptions and to ask them whether the theory fits their experiences. Their responses will be taken as new data to be incorporated into the theory, which is thought to be in a continual adaptation and evolution. Grounded theory is never complete. (Adapted from Strauss, & Corbin, 1990, 1998; Creswell, 1998; Patton, 2002)

Another model of grounded theory has been developed by Kathy Charmaz(2006). Charmaz’s model of grounded theory is built upon constructivism. This model uses a slightly different system of coding in the data analysis.

Process questions about changing experience over time or its stages and phases (e.g., What is the process of becoming…?) or understanding questions (e.g., What are the dimensions of this experience…?). In grounded theory the researcher may ask understanding questions, trying to elicit the understanding of the participants about their experiences. (see Appendix F)

A number of useful texts discuss methods of Grounded Theory data collection, data analysis, and writing the results. We recommend that these or similar texts and articles form the basis of the discussion of methodology and methods in both the Prospectus and in the dissertation (e.g., in the section of Chapter Two’s literature review on methodological issues related to the project). The following list contains excellent general introductions to ethnography, as well as more detailed treatments by practitioners:

Camic, P.M., Rhodes, J.E. & Yardley, L. (Eds.) (2003). Qualitative research in psychology: Expanding perspectives in methodology and design. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Creswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. See the sections on ethnography in Chapters 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, and the Appendix D by Susan L. Morrow and Mary Lee Smith.

Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions, 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Morse, J., & Richards, L. (2002). Read first for a users guide to qualitative methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods, 3rd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage., See the sections in Chapter 3 on ethnography and ethnomethodology (a related approach); and Chapters 6 and 7 on field work and qualitative interviewing.

Charmaz, K. (1990). ‘Discovering’ chronic illness: Using grounded theory. Social Science & Medicine, 30(11), 1161-1172.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage.

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13, 3-21.

Corbin, J., Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.

Strauss, A., Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Strauss, A., Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and theory for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

The key to understanding phenomenology lies in the phrase “lived experience.” Before reading this section, you might find it helpful to read the earlier section titled Differentiating Generic Qualitative Inquiry from Phenomenological Inquiry (p.6). Put most simply, phenomenology is the study of the lived experience of persons who are going through the phenomenon to be understood. By using the terms “lived experience” and “going through,” we put the focus squarely on exactly how a phenomenon reveals itself to the experiencing person in all its specificity and concreteness. What does this mean, exactly?

First of all, “lived” suggests everyday experiencing, which is “pre-reflective.” That means that the phenomenon for the research study must be something that people experience in their everyday lives prior to reflecting on it. How does a person experience being angry at the time he or she is actually angry – not later, when one can reflect on the experience? A simple example may help. A woman is walking along a lake, enjoying the view across the water to where the moon is rising. As she walks, her “lived experience” of the moon would suggest that it appears to be “moving” along with her, not standing still in the sky (unlike the trees on the opposite shore). Later, upon reflection, she might understand that the moon was not moving at all—but that reflection was not a part of the original “lived” or everyday experience. It is at this level that phenomenology attempts to understand phenomena.

The next point to grasp is that a phenomenon can be anything that a person experiences–but it must always be conscious experience. If one is not conscious of the experience, it is not a phenomenon. A feeling (anger) can be a phenomenon, and a phenomenological study of anger would focus on what it is like to be angry and to feel anger as an actual, lived experience, not “in principle” or “in theory.” However, unconscious anger—familiar to psychologists—cannot be considered a phenomenon. Similarly, being hired by a large corporation or being elected to office or losing a loved one in a car accident all are phenomena, as long as we remember that we’re focusing on how people experience these things in their minds and feelings. Phenomenology focuses on how the people experiencing them actually felt, thought about, perceived, observed, and were moved by them. It would not focus on actual happenings (what was said in a meeting or an objective recounting of related facts of the case) or “experiences” in the sense of external objective occurrences.

As a methodological approach, phenomenology is open to whatever may be significant to understanding a phenomenon. Remember, a phenomenon is an experience as it appears to a person’s consciousness, not an externally objective occurrence. In phenomenological inquiry, the person experiencing a phenomenon is asked to attend to the actual, everyday, “raw” experience and then to describe it exactly as it appears in his or her consciousness, without prejudgment, bias, or any predetermined set or orientation. This amounts to a simple “rule”: A topic that appears in the outer world but not in a person’s consciousness can’t be the subject of a phenomenological study. (Consider generic qualitative inquiry or one of the other acceptable approaches.) Take this example: In a study of the experience of being fired by one’s manager, if the focus is on the behaviors or the relationship characteristics that led to the firing, this is not phenomenology. On the other hand, if the focus were on how the processes and events leading to the firing were consciously experienced (what the persons involved felt, thought, believed, opined, etc.) by the participants, that would be phenomenology.

Likewise, the phenomenological approach requires that researchers take great pains to reduce their own pre-knowledge sets or orientations so that the reports of the participants can “reach” the researcher’s own consciousness with as little filtering as possible. This process of suspending one’s preconceptions about the phenomena under inquiry is a process often referred to in phenomenology as epoche (pronounced “eh-poh-kay”), from a Greek root meaning “to suspend” or (from another root) “to keep steady or hold steady.” For example, as a researcher, I may have learned from reading and from many previous conversations that people in large corporations are seldom fired for frivolous reasons. I need to find a way to suspend or set aside that previous knowledge so that I can hear the actual conscious experiences of my participants. I cannot allow myself to assume that my previous knowledge applies to these people. Their lived everyday experience of things may be different. Indeed, being-fired often feels capricious to the victim, and it is that lived everyday quality of the experience that phenomenology wishes to capture, not the objective “facts.”

Phenomenological approach also requires a conscious attempt to “reduce” the bias of preconceptions by continually setting aside preconceptions and looking anew at the things themselves. The founder of philosophical phenomenology, Edmund Husserl, used to say that the phenomenologist had to be “a perpetual beginner,” returning always “to the things themselves” The “things” are the phenomena we are trying to understand, not the objective, external happenings or objects in the world. We know that any pure, unfiltered perception is impossible, so the “reduction” of the researcher’s biases is an ongoing and always-imperfect thing. In Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s (1962) phrase, “The most important lesson which the reduction teaches us is the impossibility of a complete reduction” (p. xiv).

Giorgi and Giorgi (2003) offer a useful summary of these twin requirements. In essence, the researcher suspends any commitment either to previous knowledge or to beliefs that the phenomenon as described is existentially real. A simple example: In a study of the experience of domestic abuse, the researcher may have strong beliefs about what it is like to be a victim of domestic abuse, based on a variety of previous research and learnings. One of the participants says that being abused “was a spiritual experience. I found myself becoming holy as I found ways to forgive him.” The researcher found herself reacting negatively to this, mentally labeling it “denial.” That was a failure in method. Instead, her responsibility was to investigate all the possible meanings of these words, but to allow the participant’s experience to be the bedrock data.

Nor should she think such thoughts as “no, that’s not really how she felt,” because a phenomenologist must make no commitment about whether or not the description is existentially real or not. It is quite similar to hearing someone say that they are deeply moved by one of Van Gogh’s self-portraits. One would sound foolish retorting that the self-portrait isn’t “really” so beautiful or moving. Instead, the phenomenologist accepts the report as veridical, and moves to analyzing its meaning. This is the heart of the meaning of the epoché.

The goals of the phenomenological method are as follows: The researcher seeks first to describe the phenomena in rich detail, illuminating the lived experience of the participants mediated through their reports. Through those descriptions, the researcher aims at the apprehension (literally, the mental grasping) of the structure of the phenomenon as it appears in the consciousness of the participants. By bringing to light these structures of experiences, the research investigates the foundations (bases or origins) of the phenomenon-as-experienced, seeking finally to know the possible ways of perceiving all such phenomena (known as the “essence” of the phenomenon). Keep in mind that the term “phenomena” always implies the thing-as-experienced in the consciousness of the person who experiences. Consequently, phenomenology as such is not concerned with objective descriptions of “things-in-themselves,” without reference to the perceiver or knower. Thus, terms like “structure” and “essence” should not be interpreted as being about the external thing (phenomenon), but about the structure or essence of how the participants experience the external thing.

The task of the phenomenological researcher is to investigate the processes of intuition, reflection, and description with which the participants experience the phenomenon. Accordingly, phenomena are not manipulated but rather are permitted to reveal themselves. The substance of phenomenology consists of the data of experience and their meaning for the experiencing individual. Paradoxically, although psychological phenomenological research is certainly about “real” phenomena, but always as experienced by people – there is no “subject-object split” in phenomenological research. Both are considered an integral part of any happening – there is the external world and its manifestations which are manifested in the consciousness of the one who experiences. The proper subject matter of phenomenology is not consciousness alone, but always consciousness-of-phenomena-being-experienced (Merleau-Ponty, 1964).

In all stages of conducting a phenomenological inquiry, the researcher will use the process of epoche--conducting a “reduction” of his or her biases and preconceptions (see above). This method will involve setting aside or “bracketing” the researcher’s preconceptions while collecting and working with the data. The aim is to adopt the “phenomenological attitude,” being as open to whatever reveals itself in the data as possible. This is contrasted with the “natural attitude,” which is our ordinary, non-reflective state of mind in everyday life.

In the natural attitude, for instance, one unreflectively takes all one’s assumptions as being the truth – Republicans are “big-government lackeys of business,” Democrats are “tax-and-spend liberals,” the sun and moon do travel across the sky, evolution means we really are no different from apes, and so on. In the natural attitude, one does not reflect, theorize, or critically examine on one’s experience. In the phenomenological attitude, on the other hand, one assumes nothing about the truth of things, and instead tries to remain open to how phenomena actually appear as they appear. Now, when we assume the phenomenological attitude, Republicans can reveal themselves in all their actuality. Democrats, too.

The researcher cannot expect participants in the psychological phenomenological study to be phenomenologists and, thus, capable of assuming the attitude of the phenomenological reduction (setting aside their natural attitude). Moreover, the preconceptions, details, biases, errors, and prejudices that participants carry with them in everyday life are exactly what have to be understood in psychological phenomenological research. What is critical is that the description be as precise and detailed as possible with a minimum number of generalities and abstractions. However, the phenomenological attitude – which the researcher adopts - does demand that the researcher be able to do his/her work from within the attitude of the reduction or else no phenomenological claims for the analysis could be made.

There are two descriptive levels of the empirical phenomenological model which arise from the data collected:

• Level 1, the original data are comprised of naïve descriptions obtained through open-ended questions and dialogue.

• Level II, the researcher describes the structures of the experiences based on reflective analysis and interpretation of the research participant’s account or story.

To collect data for these levels of analysis, the primary tool is the in-depth personal interview. Interviews typically are open – that is, beyond initial orienting information, usually the only pre-formed questions will be open-ended, designed carefully to inquire into the participant’s lived experience of the phenomenon under investigation and to allow the respondent the maximum freedom to respond from within that lived experience. Follow up questions would be asked to tease out deeper or more detailed elaborations of the earlier answers. Because the objective is to collect data which are profoundly descriptive – rich in detail – and introspective, these interviews often can be lengthy, sometimes lasting as much as an hour or more.

Sometimes other sources of data are used in phenomenological studies, when those source are equivalent in some way to the in-depth interview. For example, in a study of the experience of grief, poems or other writings by the participants (or other people) about personal grief experiences might be analyzed in the same way as the in-depth interviews. Similarly, audiovisual materials which have a direct bearing on the lived experience of grief might be included as data (e.g., photos of the participant with the deceased person) and interpreted similarly.

Although other less personal data sources (such as letters, official documents, news accounts) are not often used as direct information about the lived experience, the researcher may find in a particular case that these are useful either in illuminating the participant’s story itself or in creating a rich and textured background description of the contexts and settings in which the participant experienced the phenomenon.

Most standard texts (e.g., Creswell, 1998; Lincoln and Denzin, 2000; Patton, 2002; or Taylor and Bogdan, 1984) propose a general five-step model for phenomenological analysis. These steps are elaborated in three more detailed models described in Appendix A (see “empirical phenomenology” [Amedeo Giorgi], “transcendental phenomenology” [Clark Moustakas] and the Stevick-Colaizzi-Keen Method of Analysis of Phenomenological Data). The Giorgi model, the Moustakas model, and the Stevick-Colaizzi-Keen method of analysis of phenomenological data are acceptable in the General Psychology specialization. Other models can be used provided they meet (are equivalent to) the criteria described in these pages.

The generic method of analysis consists of five essential steps, but is preceded by careful preparation of the data and of the researcher. First, the data must be transformed into written form – usually transcripts of interviews – which can be studied as a whole and, later, in bits or units. Word processing programs are ideal for this, allowing both retention of the original interview in “raw” form and “cutting and pasting” individual segments (phrases, sentences, paragraphs) into separate documents for deeper analysis and comparison. These segments (or “meaning units” as described above) will be organized thematically in two major ways: within the context of a single interview, and across a series of interviews.

For example, in a series of phenomenological interviews on the experience of grief in children, the researcher found that participant A repeated the phrase, “she left me behind” many times in talking about what it was like to lose his mommy. Within the context of that child’s experience, being “left behind” became a very significant part of the experience, a “meaning unit.” Meanwhile, child B repeated the phrase “she’s gone, I can’t find her” a number of times. This too was a meaning unit for child B. Looking across both transcripts and comparing the two meaning units and reflecting deeply on them and their contexts in the interviews, the researcher teased out a deeper level of meaning by comparing the two different units: “I feel lost.” This “across interviews” would not have been possible unless the individual phrases could have been cut out and kept in a separate “meaning unit” document of some kind, which word processing makes quite handy.

Before starting to analyze data, though, the researcher does a second preparatory step, which as been described briefly above as the “phenomenological reduction.” She attempts to reduce the impact of his or her biases, preconceptions, and beliefs about the phenomenon and opening oneself to the data and meanings that emerge from the data in their own terms. If we include these two preliminary steps with the five steps proposed by most texts, we have a generic seven-step model for data analysis, beginning with:

• Step 1 and 2: Prepare the data and adopt the phenomenological attitude (“reduction” or “epoche” [see below].)

• Step 3: Achieve a Sense of the Whole. The researcher reads the entire description in order to get a general sense of the whole statement.

• Step 4: Discrimination of Meaning Units Within a Psychological Perspective and Focused on the Phenomenon Being Researched. Once the sense of the whole has been grasped, the researcher goes back to the beginning and reads through the text once more and delineates each time that a transition in meaning occurs. The specific aim is to discriminate “meaning units” from within a psychological perspective and with a focus on the phenomenon being researched. The meaning unit should be made with psychological criteria in mind. The researcher next eliminates redundancies and clarifies and elaborates on the meaning of the units by relating them to each other and to the sense of the whole.

• Step 5: Transformation of Subjects Everyday Expressions into Psychological Language with Emphasis on the Phenomenon Being Investigated. Once meaning units have been delineated and linked together, the researcher goes through all of the meaning units, which are still expressed in the concrete language of the participants, reflects on them, and comes up with the essence of the experience for the participant. The researcher next transforms each relevant unit’s essence into the language of psychological science.

• Step 6: Use imaginative variation to Synthesis of Transformed Meaning Units into a Consistent Statement of the Structure of the Experience. Here, the researcher synthesizes all of the transformed meaning units (now expressed in the language of psychological science) into a consistent statement regarding the participant’s experience.

• Step 6: Final Synthesis: Finally, the researcher synthesizes all of the essence or structure statements regarding each participant’s experience into one consistent statement, which describes and captures the essence of the experience being studied.

The generic model described above is elaborated in two acceptable and detailed models of psychological phenomenological analysis developed by Amedeo Giorgi at Duquesne University and Clark Moustakas at the Center for Humanistic Studies and The Union Institute. Each of these models is detailed and provides a stepwise guide to the seven generic steps presented above. Either of the models is acceptable for phenomenological research in the General Psychology specialization. The Moustakas model is further elaborated in the Stevick-Colaizzi-Keen model.

A learner may adopt a different model for the data analysis, provided that the alternative model is at least as clearly articulated and provides at least as much guidance for procedures as the accepted models. The learner should prepare a careful description of and rationale for using an alternative model, and that rationale should be approved by the mentor (and the dissertation committee, of course) and reviewed (with a rating of “Satisfactory” or better) by the Methodology Committee of the Specialization.

The Giorgi model (usually called “empirical phenomenology” or “phenomenological psychology”) and the Moustakas model (often called “transcendental phenomenology”) and the “Stevick-Colaizzi-Keen Model” synthesized by Moustakas (1994) and based on the work of Ernest Keen of Bucknell University and Paul F. Colaizzi and Emily M. Stevick of Duquesne University are described more fully in Appendix A. They differ from each other and from the generic model above only in the ways in which they outline the procedures. Each provides much more detail about how to proceed in each step or stage.

• What is the meaning of…?

• What is the experience of…?

• How do people experience and describe…?

• What is the essence of…? What is the lived experience of…?

• What is it like to experience . . .?

A number of useful texts discuss methods of Phenomenological Research data collection, data analysis, and writing the results. We recommend that these or similar texts and articles form the basis of the discussion of methodology and methods in both the Prospectus and in the dissertation (e.g., in the section of Chapter Two’s literature review on methodological issues related to the project). The following list contains excellent general introductions to ethnography, as well as more detailed treatments by practitioners:

Camic, P.M., Rhodes, J.E. & Yardley, L. (Eds.) (2003). Qualitative research in psychology: Expanding perspectives in methodology and design. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Creswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. See the sections on ethnography in Chapters 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, and the Appendix D by Susan L. Morrow and Mary Lee Smith.

Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions, 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Giorgi, A. (1985). Phenomenology and psychological research. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.

Giorgi, A. (2009). The descriptive phenomenological method in psychology: A modified Husserlian approach. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.

Morse, J., & Richards, L. (2002). Read first for a users guide to qualitative methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods, 3rd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage., See the sections in Chapter 3 on ethnography and ethnomethodology (a related approach); and Chapters 6 and 7 on field work and qualitative interviewing.

Colaizzi, P.F. (1978). Psychological research as the phenomenologist views it. In R. Vaile & M. King (Eds.). Existential phenomenological alternatives for psychology (pp. 48-71). New York: Oxford University Press.

Fischer, C.T. & Wertz, F.J. (1979). An empirical phenomenology study of being criminally victimized. In A. Giorgi, R. Knowles, and D. Smith (Eds.), Duquesne studies in phenomenological psychology (Vol 3, pp. 135-158). Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.

Giorgi, A. (1997). The theory, practice, and evaluation of phenomenological methods as a qualitative research procedure. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 28, 235-281.

Giorgi, A. (2009). The descriptive phenomenological method in psychology: A modified Husserlian approach. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.

Giorgi, A.P. & Giorgi, B.M. (2003). The descriptive phenomenological psychological method. In Camic, P.M., Rhodes, J.E. & Yardley, L. (Eds.), Qualitative research in psychology: Expanding perspectives in methodology and design (pp. 243-273). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Keen, E. (1975). Doing psychology phenomenologically. Unpublished Manuscript. Lewisberg, PA: Bucknell University.

Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception. (Trans. Colin Smith). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Moerer-Urdahl, T., & Creswell, J. (2004). Using transcendental phenomenology to explore the ripple effect in a leadership mentoring program. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3(2), 1–28.

Natanson,. M. (Ed.). (1973). Phenomenology and the social sciences. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

Oiler, C.J. (1986). Phenomenology: The method. In P.L.Munhall & C.j.Oiler (Eds.), Nursing research: A qualitative perspective (pp. 69-82). Norwalk, CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Polkinghorne, D.E. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. In R.S. Valle & S. Halling (Eds.), Existential-phenomenological perspectives in psychology, (pp.41-60). New York: Plenum.

Riemen, D.J. (1986). The essential structure of a caring interaction: Doing phenomenology. In P.L. Munhall & C.J. Oiler (Eds.), Nursing research: A qualitative perspective (pp.85-105). Norwalk, CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Stewart, D. & Mickunas, A. (1990). Exploring phenomenology: A guide to the field and its literature (2nd edition). Athens, OH: Ohio University Press.

Heuristics is a research model that places special emphasis on knowing through the self, by becoming one with the topic and experiencing it, as it exists in the world. Eric Craig (1978) defines heuristics in his work The Heart of the Teacher” as: “A private discovery oriented approach to understanding how individuals experience themselves and their world” (p. 22). What has been said about phenomenology in general is applied to the heuristic approach as well, and now the researcher him- or herself becomes one of the participants. In most heuristics texts, the researcher and the participants are called “co-researchers.”

There are two focusing or narrowing elements of heuristic inquiry within the larger framework of phenomenology. First, the researcher must have personal experience with and an intense interest in the phenomenon under study and be willing to be a participant (co-researcher in his/her own study). Second, the other participants (co-researchers) must share an intensity of experience with the phenomenon.

Heuristic inquiry lends itself to single case designs in which the researcher is the only participant. However, in the Psychology at Capella, single case designed are not allowed, in order to provide the learner with a broader research experience involving live participants, and in order to sharpen the learner’s research skills with participants prior to graduation and the conferring of the doctoral degree.

Some heuristic research reports are written in the first person because of the intense involvement of the researcher. However, in the Psychology specialization, all dissertations must be written in the third person in order to conform with Capella University’s and standard scholarly requirements, and to provide the learner with a full experience of the customary standards of research presentation.

The goals of heuristics are similar to those of phenomenological inquiry researching lived experience, with the addition of the involvement in and illumination of the researcher’s experience of the phenomenon. While phenomenology focuses on description of live experience heuristics focuses on depiction. Therefore heuristic research tends to use more artistic representations of lived experience during the research process.

The data collection methods of heuristics in general are similar to those in phenomenological research, including primarily intensive and in-depth (audio-taped and transcribed) interviews with all participants (co-researchers). However, because the researcher is also a participant, any activities which allow the participants to describe their experience of the phenomenon can be considered acceptable data collection procedures. For instance, journaling, writing letters, prose, or poetry about the phenomenon, composing and reflecting on music or creating art or film about one’s experience, or any other reasonable method of articulating one’s experience of a phenomenon can become useful data for heuristic reflection.

Data collection, in a heuristic inquiry, often is integrated with data analysis, because personal reflection is an integral part of every stage or phase of the processes. While there will be activities which clearly are “data collection” vs. “data analysis,” at times the distinction is not so clear. Further, analysis of earlier data may change the focus and intensity of later data collection, as when one’s insight into the meaning of the phenomenon for oneself forces new questions to be asked of one’s co-researchers, or when new insights gleaned from the co-researchers force the researcher to go back to her own experience and re-evaluate it for new meaning.

In general, six steps characterize the heuristic approach to analysis. They are as follows: initial engagement, immersion, incubation, illumination, explication and synthesis (Douglass and Moustakas, l985; Moustakas, 1990). Steps 1 and 2 (initial engagement and immersion) would appear to be preliminary to data collection, but because the researcher (who performs them) is a participant, they already are a form of data collection.

• Step 1: Initial engagement involves and awareness of the topic. In heuristics it is essential that the topic not only be of importance to the researcher but also that he/she experiences a sense of passion in connection with it. From the experience of being with the topic in an open way emerges the question. The culmination of the initial engagement period is the creation of a clear research question which forms the heart of the inquiry. Initial engagement requires the researcher to reduce the influence of preconceptions and beliefs about the phenomenon, so it includes a form of the phenomenological reduction or epoche (see Appendix A for a description of epoche).

• Step 2: During the immersion step, the researcher makes his/her question the center of the experiential world, allowing the self to become one with the question. This is done in a loose, non-structured way, permitting openness to the range of related experiences, which helps to facilitate an understanding of the phenomenon. During this step, the researcher is non-judgmental and non-critical, open to the flow of experience (again, a version of the phenomenological reduction). The researcher is open to intuitions (hunches based on clues) and tacit knowledge (knowing that he/she knows but not knowing how he/she knows). At this stage, journaling or other forms of self-expression may become the primary mode of both data collection and data analysis.

• During immersion, heuristic researchers also gather information from their co-researchers, in the form of interviews, diaries, journals, writings, art, film, etc.., and immerse themselves in those data along with their own data. Typically, each researcher finds a personal method for immersing oneself in the data that are emerging from the interviews and other documents. As can be seen, data “collection” and data “analysis” are not easily separated into discrete steps or stages, but are an integrated and ongoing process each informing the other.

• Step 3: After a period of time, having been immersed in the research question, the researcher puts aside all deliberate focus on the experience and the data and allows the information to be processed on an unconscious level, a process known as incubation. When this becomes appropriate cannot be arbitrarily specified, but depends on the data themselves. A common marker is when new themes are no longer emerging in the data ( a condition sometimes called saturation). During incubation, data are no longer being collected intentionally (although new insights may emerge or new information may arise). Instead, the researcher allows the data to “go unconscious” and to be processed at that level. No intentional (conscious) work is done to further the interpretation, although obviously the engaged researcher will be “present” to the process and reflecting often on how it is going..

• Step 4: The information continues to consolidate and grow (“incubate”) until a sense of discovery occurs. This moment of realization and enlightenment is known as illumination, and often has the fell of an “Aha!” experience. At this point, new knowledge is obtained, representing a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. The great danger here is that the researcher will succumb to pressures of time, money, or expediency and “force” an illumination which is not authentic. Because the incubation period (step 3) is by nature an unconscious process, it is unpredictable. One cannot know ahead of time when insight or illumination will emerge. This provides an element of risk to the Capella University dissertation learner, because the time-and-money pressures of the four-course, one-year model can be a factor.

• Step 5: The next step is explication. During the explication phase, the researcher returns to the data (transcripts, documents, etc.), and with the new insights gained during the illumination phase, observes the patterns and themes arising which portray essential meanings. This is a version of “thematic analysis” as discussed in the section on ethnography. Indwelling is used to dwell within the experiences and draw meaning from them. Polanyi (l966) refers to indwelling as follows: “It brings home to us that it is not by looking at things, but by dwelling in them, that we understand their joint meaning” (p. l8). This phase resembles the earlier immersion phase, with the difference that now one dwells in the data and their emerging meanings and structures in order to interpret them, whereas in the earlier immersion phase, one was immersed in the articulation of the phenomenon itself and in gathering similar articulations from one’s co-researchers. The goal of step 5 is to articulate by indwelling and reflection the essential structures of the experience of the phenomenon under study.

• Step 6: The final step in a heuristic inquiry is synthesis. It is through synthesis that the whole experience is captured. Synthesis is more than a summary, it is the creation of a new understanding of the essence of the experience. “Synthesis goes beyond distillation of themes and patterns. It is not a summary or recapitulation. In synthesis, the searcher is challenged to generate a new reality, a new monolithic significance that embodies the essence of the heuristic truth” (Douglass and Moustakas, l985, p. l7). The synthesis in heuristic inquiry is similar to the “final synthesis” in the generic model of phenomenological analysis.

The task is (l) to arrive at a depiction of the experience, a synthesizing statement that illuminates the question or problem AND (2) to develop portraits of the persons who have explicated the experience.

Clark Moustakas (1990) offers a model for doing heuristic analysis which is described in detail.

The typical questions in a heuristic study are the same as those in a phenomenological research study.

Because of its intensely personal and self-engaging nature, heuristics requires a particular sensitivity to the nuances and responsibilities of maintaining rigor and credibility. Of all the qualitative approaches discussed in this document, heuristic research demands the most caution regarding issues of validity of its practitioners. Therefore, the Psychology specialization requires that a learner who intends to do heuristic research meet the following criteria:

• The mentor must have demonstrated experience and expertise in this approach.

• There must be a group of co-researchers (participants) that is consistent with contemporary practice in phenomenological research. In other words, using only oneself as the subject of the study is not acceptable in a dissertation.

• The prospectus (or proposal) and the dissertation using a heuristic approach should be written in the third person and structured according to the conventions used at Capella University in general and the School of Psychology in particular.

A number of useful texts discuss methods of Heuristic Research data collection, data analysis, and writing the results. We recommend that these or similar texts and articles form the basis of the discussion of methodology and methods in both the Prospectus and in the dissertation (e.g., in the section of Chapter Two’s literature review on methodological issues related to the project). The following list contains excellent general introductions to ethnography, as well as more detailed treatments by practitioners:

Morse, J., & Richards, L. (2002). Read first for a users guide to qualitative methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (See the sections in Chapter 3 on ethnography and ethnomethodology (a related approach); and Chapters 6 and 7 on field work and qualitative interviewing.)

Bridgman, P. (l955). Reflections of a physicist. New York: Philosophical Library.

Bridgman, P. (l959). The way things are. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Craig, E. (l978). The heart of the teacher. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms International.

Douglass, B., & Moustakas, C. (l985). Heuristic inquiry: The internal search to know. Journal of humanistic psychology, 25(3), 39-55.

Heron, J. (1996) Co-operative Inquiry: Research into the human condition. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Hiles, D.R. (1999) Loss, Grief and Transformation: A heuristic inquiry. Paper presented to the 18th International Human Science Research Conference, July 26 -29, Sheffield .

Hiles, D.R. (2001) Heuristic inquiry and transpersonal research. Paper presented to CCPE, October 2001. Available at:     http://psy.dmu.ac.uk/drhiles/papers.htm

Moustakas, C. (1967) Heuristic research. In J.F.T. Bugental (Ed.) Challenges of Humanistic Psychology. McGraw-Hill.

Moustakas, C. (1981) Heuristic methods of obtaining knowledge. In C. Moustakas, Rhythms, Rituals, and Relationships. Center for Humanistic Studies.

Moustakas, C. (1990) Heuristic Research: Design, methodology and applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Moustakas, C. (2001) Heuristic research: Design and Methodology. In K.J. Schneider, J.F.T. Bugental, & J.F. Pierson (Eds.) The Handbook of Humanistic Psychology: Leading edges in theory, research, and practice. Sage.

Polanyi, M. (1958) Personal Knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Polanyi, M. (l966). The tacit dimension. Garden City, New York: Anchor Books Doubleday and Company, Inc.

Polanyi, M. (1969) Knowing and Being: Essays by Michael Polanyi, (Edited by M. Grene). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Polanyi, M. & Prosch, H. (1975) Meaning. University of Chicago Press .

Valle, R. (Ed.) (1998). Phenomenological inquiry in psychology: Existential and transpersonal dimensions. New York: Plenum Press.

1. 1. Empirical Phenomenology is a model of phenomenological psychological research that was developed at Duquesne University (Giorgi, 1985, 1997; Giorgi & Giorgi, 2003, Giorgi, 2009).

In order to develop an understanding of the phenomenological psychological research method, it is essential to first understand the concept of intentionality and its role in the phenomenological method. The following passage from Amedeo Giorgi (1997) explains the role of intentionality in phenomenology.

Finally, no discussion of phenomenology would be complete without mentioning intentionality. Edmund Husserl took the term over from Franz Bretano but uses it in a fundamentally different way. For Husserl, intentionality is the essential feature of consciousness, and it refers to the fact that consciousness is always directed to an object that is not itself consciousness, although it could be, as in reflective acts. More precisely, consciousness always takes an object, and the object always transcends the act in which it appears. This idea is important for the human sciences as well, since it helps overcome the Cartesian understanding of the subject-object relationship. There are not two independent entities, objects and subjects, existing in themselves which later get to relate to each other, but the very meaning of subject implies a relationship to an object, and to be an object intrinsically implies being related to subjectivity. Thus, the subject object relationship must be understood structurally and holistically (p. 237).

In the philosophical phenomenological method there are three interlocking steps: (1) the phenomenological reduction, (2) description and (3) search for essences. The phenomenological reduction is a methodological device devised by Husserl that is used to make research findings, which use the phenomenological model more precise. During the phenomenological reduction, one brackets past knowledge about the phenomenon encountered in order to be fully present to it as it is in the concrete situation in which one is encountering it. One puts aside or renders "non-influential" all past knowledge that may be associated with the presently given object.

The researcher cannot expect all participants in the psychological phenomenological study to be phenomenological and, thus, capable of assuming the attitude of the phenomenological reduction. Moreover, for human science research, the details, biases, errors, and prejudices that we carry with us in everyday life are exactly what have to be understood in psychological phenomenological research. What is critical is that the description be as precise and detailed as possible with a minimum number of generalities and abstractions. However, the phenomenological attitude does demand that the researcher be able to do his/her work from within the attitude of the reduction or else no phenomenological claims for the analysis could be made.

There are two descriptive levels of the empirical phenomenological model:

Level 1, the original data is comprised of naïve descriptions obtained through open-ended questions and dialogue.

Level II, the researcher describes the structures of the experiences based on reflective analysis and interpretation of the research participant's account or story.

The method of analysis consists of five essential steps which are as follows:

1. 1. 1. Sense of the Whole – One reads the entire description in order to get a general sense of the whole statement.

      2. Discrimination of Meaning Units Within a Psychological Perspective and Focused on the Phenomenon Being Researched – Once the sense of the whole has been grasped, the researcher goes back to the beginning and reads through the text once more and delineates each time that a transition in meaning occurs with the specific aim of discriminating "meaning units" from within a psychological perspective and with a focus on the phenomenon being researched. The meaning unit should be made with psychological criteria in mind. The researcher next eliminates redundancies and clarifies and elaborates on the meaning of the units by relating them to each other and to the sense of the whole.

      3. Transformation of Subjects Everyday Expressions into Psychological Language with Emphasis on the Phenomenon Being Investigated – Once meaning units have been delineated, the researcher goes through all of the meaning units, which are still expressed in the concrete language of the participants, reflects on them and comes up with the essence of the experience for the participant. The researcher next transforms each relevant unit into the language of psychological science.

      4. Synthesis of Transformed Meaning Units into a Consistent Statement of the Structure of the Experience – Finally, the researcher synthesizes all of the transformed meaning units into a consistent statement regarding the participant's experience.

      5. Final Synthesis – Finally the researcher synthesizes all of the statements regarding each participant's experience into one consistent statement, which describes and captures the essence of the experience being studied.

(Adapted from Giorgi, 1985, 1997; Giorgi & Giorgi, 2003, Giorgi, 2009)

1. 1. Transcendental Phenomenology -There are three core processes that facilitate derivation of knowledge in the transcendental phenomenological approach as proposed by Clark Moustakas (1994). The three core processes are: Epoche, Transcendental- Phenomenological Reduction and Imaginative Variation.

1. 1. 1. Epoche: Setting aside prejudgments and opening the research interview with an unbiased, receptive presence. It is returning to things themselves, free of prejudgments and preconceptions.

      2. Transcendental Phenomenological Reduction: The task is that of describing in textual language just what one sees, not only in terms of the external object but also the internal act of consciousness, the experience as such, the rhythm and relationship between phenomenon and self. Textual qualities are as follows: rough and smooth; small and large; quiet and noisy; colorful and bland; hot and cold; stationary and moving; high and low; squeezed in and expansive, fearful and courageous; angry and calm – descriptions that present varying intensities; ranges of shapes, sizes and special qualities; time references and colors within an experiential context.

         1. Bracketing the Topic or Question – The focus of the research is placed in brackets, everything else is set aside so that the entire research process is rooted solely on the topic and question.

         2. Horizonalizaton – Every statement is treated as having equal value.

         3. Statements irrelevant to the topic or question as well as those that are repetitive or overlapping are deleted, leaving only the Horizons (the textual meaning and invariant constituents of the phenomenon)

         4. Delimiting Horizons or Meanings: Horizons that stand out as invariant qualities of the experience.

         5. Invariant Qualities and Themes – Non-repetitive, non-overlapping constituents are clustered into themes.

         6. Individual Textual Descriptions – Develop integration, descriptively, of the invariant textural constituents and themes of each research participant.

         7. Composite Textual Description – Develop integration of all of the individual textual descriptions into a group or universal textual description.

      3. Imaginative Variation: The task of Imaginative Variation is to seek possible meanings through the utilization of imagination, varying frames of reference, employing polarities and reversals, and approaching the phenomenon from divergent perspectives, different positions roles or functions. The aim is to arrive at structural descriptions of an experience, the underlying and precipitating factors that account for what is being experienced; in other words the “how” that speaks to conditions that illuminate the “what” of experience. How did the experience of the phenomenon come to be what it is? The steps to Imaginative Variation are as follows:

         1. Systematic varying of the possible structural meanings that underlie the textural meanings. Vary perspectives of the phenomenon from different vantage points, such as opposite meanings and various roles. Using free fantasy variations, consider freely the possible structural qualities or dynamics that evoke structural qualities.

         2. Construct a list of the structural qualities of the experience.

         3. Recognizing the underlying themes or contexts that account for emergence of the phenomenon.

         4. Develop structural themes by clustering the structural qualities into themes.

         5. Considering the universal structures that precipitate feelings and thoughts with reference to the phenomenon, such as: time, space, bodily concerns, materiality, causality, relation to self, or relation to others;

         6. Individual Structural Descriptions: For each participant, integrate the structural qualities and themes into an individual structural description of the experience.

         7. Composite Structural Description: Integration of all of the individual structural descriptions into a group or universal structural description of the experience.

      4. Synthesis of Meanings and Essences: The final step in the phenomenological research process is the intuitive integration of the composite textual and structural descriptions into a unified statement of the essences of the experience of the phenomenon as a whole. The essences of any experience are never totally exhausted. The fundamental textual-structural synthesis represents the essences at a particular time and place from the vantage point of an individual researcher following an exhaustive imaginative and reflective study of the phenomenon.(Adapted from Moustakas, 1994)

1. 1. Stevick-Colaizzi-Keen Method of Analysis of Phenomenological Data (See Flow Chart in Appendix B)

Epoche is the first step in the phenomenological method and is a process in which the researcher sets aside all preconceived ideas about what is being experienced and described by the participants. Phenomenological Reduction is the process by which the participant describes in textual language just what one sees, not only in terms of the external object but also the internal act of consciousness, the experience under inquiry as such, the rhythm and relationship between phenomenon and self. Textual qualities are as follows: rough and smooth; small and large; quiet and noisy; colorful and bland; hot and cold; stationary and moving; high and low; squeezed in and expansive, fearful and courageous; angry and calm – descriptions that present varying intensities; ranges of shapes, sizes and special qualities; time references and colors within an experiential context. During this step in the phenomenological process, the textural qualities of the lived experience of the participant are separated. Those comments that deal with the question are clustered into themes (Moustakas, 1994).

Following the Phenomenological Reduction, the researcher uses imaginative variation. The task of imaginative variation is to seek possible meanings through the utilization of imagination, varying frames of reference, employing polarities and reversals, and approaching the phenomenon from divergent perspectives, different positions roles or functions. The aim is to arrive at structural descriptions of an experience, the underlying and precipitating factors that account for what is being experienced; in other words, the “how” that speaks to conditions that illuminate the “what” of experience. How did the experience of the phenomenon come to be what it is? Through the use of imaginative variation the researcher examines the data collected from participants from different views, changing the frames of reference, using polarities and reversals, and looking at the phenomenon from different perspectives, positions, roles, or functions. Employ universal structures as themes: time, space, materiality, relationship to self, relationship to others, bodily concerns, causal and intentional structures.

The final step of the process is called intuitive integration. Intuitive integration is the process by which the researcher develops textural-structural synthesis that represents the essence of the experience of the phenomenon under inquiry (Moustakas, 1994).

The steps to the modified Stevick-Colaizzi-Keen Method of Analysis of

Phenomenological Data are as follows:

1. 1. 1. Set aside all preconceived ideas about what is being experienced and described by the participant (Epoche).

      2. Consider each statement with the emphasis on the importance for description of the experience.

      3. Record all of the relevant statements dealing with the experience.

      4. Make a list of every non-repetitive, non overlapping statement. These constitute the invariant horizons or meaning units of the experience.

      5. Cluster the invariant meaning units into themes.

      6. Organize the invariant meaning units and themes into a description of the textures of the experience (textural description). Include direct quotes and verbatim passages from the participants.

      7. Reflect on the textual descriptions. Through the use of imaginative variation, develop a description of the structures of these experiences (structural description).

      8. Construct a textural-structural description of the meanings and essences of the experiences for the individual participant.

      9. Once this process is completed for the data collected from each participant in the study, synthesize all of these descriptions into a composite textural-structural description of the experience representing the essence of the experience of the participants in the study as a whole. Thus, developing a composite textural-structural synthesis, which represents the lived experience of the subject under investigation for participants involved in the study. (Adapted from Moustakas, 1994)

Brennan, J. (1998). History and systems of psychology. Prentice-Hall: New Jersey.

Giorgi, A. (1985). Phenomenology and psychological research. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.

Giorgi, A. (1997). The theory, practice and evaluation of phenomenological methods as a qualitative research procedure. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 28, 235-281.

Giorgi, A. (2009). The descriptive phenomenological method in psychology: A modified Husserlian approach. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.

Giorgi, A.P. & Giorgi, B.M. (2003). The descriptive phenomenological psychological method. In Camic, P.M., Rhodes, J.E. & Yardley, L. (Eds.), Qualitative research in psychology: Expanding perspectives in methodology and design (pp. 243-273). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Moerer-Urdahl, T., & Creswell, J. (2004). Using transcendental phenomenology to explore the ripple effect in a leadership mentoring program. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3(2), 1–28.

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Appendix B: Flow chart of Keen’s version of transcendental phenomenological data analysis

Epoche is the first step in the phenomenological method and is a process in which the researcher sets aside all preconceived ideas about what is being experienced and described by the participants. Phenomenological researchers develop their own techniques, often involving meditative or awareness techniques (such as mindfulness meditation, journaling, and the like) to become aware of the arising of biases or biasing thoughts).

Phenomenological Reduction is the process by which the participant describes in textual language just what one sees, not only in terms of the external objects but also the internal act of consciousness, the experience under inquiry as such, the rhythm and relationship between phenomenon and self. During this step in the phenomenological process, the textural qualities of the lived experience of the participant are separated and a textural description is developed.

The task of imaginative variation is to seek possible meanings through the utilization of imagination, varying frames of reference, employing polarities and reversals, and approaching the phenomenon from divergent perspectives, different positions roles or functions. The aim is to arrive at structural descriptions of an experience, the underlying and precipitating factors that account for what is being experienced; in other words, the “how” that speaks to conditions that illuminate the “what” of experience.

The final step of the process is called intuitive integration. Intuitive integration is the process by which the researcher develops textural-structural synthesis that represents the essence of the experience of the phenomenon under inquiry

Patterns of experience or meaning units

Once the data are collected by observations, interviews (audio taped and transcribed), field notes, or any other sources, patterns of experience (recurring words, phrases, descriptions, etc.) are identified and listed. These patterns are derived from direct quotes and paraphrases of recurring ideas emerging from the data. These patterns form the first level of thematic analysis.

Linking the data themselves to the meaning units (confirming the meaning units)

Next, the researcher identifies data that correspond to the identified patterns. If, in a study of the culture of a corporation, a pattern is noted such as “males defer to hierarchically superior males, but not to hierarchically superior females,” examples that confirm this – that show it is both recurring and an accurate description of events - are located in the data (transcripts, notes, etc.) and annotated with the listed pattern (as quotes along with citation of their source). This step is critical, because it provides confirming evidence that the meaning units have emerged directly from the data themselves and not from the researcher’s biases or preconceptions. This step also provides the material for substantiating the “results” section of the dissertation (typically Chapter Four).

Creating Themes

Now, the researcher combines and catalogues related patterns into themes. This is a more abstract step, during which the researcher must beware the intrusion of bias, preconceptions, beliefs, etc. Themes are comprised of combinations and distillations of the descriptive meaning units derived from the patterns in the data. For example, if along with the earlier example this pattern emerged: “males repeatedly initiate flirting behavior with females regardless of the females’ rank and the females return the flirtation, even when they dislike it,” two themes or meaning units might be constructed as follows: “Males impose rank-dominance on subordinate males” and “males impose sexual-dominance on all females.”

Synthesis of themes

Finally, at the highest level of abstraction, themes that emerge from the patterns or meaning units (which emerged from the original data) are synthesized together to form a comprehensive representation of the element of the culture that is being investigated. The above meaning units or themes might constellate with other descriptive themes of the male and female interactions in the organization into a rich and textured description of the rules, customs, attitudes, and practices around gender in that organization.

This distillation of the practice of thematic analysis is adapted from Taylor and Bogdan (1984) and Aronson (1994)

1. Place all the material drawn from one participant before you (recordings, transcriptions, journals, notes, poems, art work, etc.). This material may either be data gathered by self-search or by interviews with co-researchers.

2. Immerse yourself fully in the material until you are aware of and understand everything that is before you.

3. Put the material aside for a while. Let it settle in you. Live with it but without particular attention or focus. Return to the immersion process. Make notes where these would enable you to remember or classify the material. Continue the rhythm of working with the data and resting until an illumination or essential configuration emerges. From your core or global sense, list the essential components or themes that characterize the fundamental nature and meaning of the experience. Reflectively study the themes, dwell inside them, and develop a full depiction of the experience. The depiction must include the essential components of the experience.

4. Illustrate the depiction of the experience with verbatim samples, poems, stories, or other materials to highlight and accentuate the person’s lived experience.

5. Return to the “raw material” of your co-researcher (participant). Does your depiction of the experience fit the data from which you have developed it? Does it contain all that is essential?

Complete the above steps for each participant. Then:

1. Place the Reflective Depiction for each participant before you.

2. Immerse yourself completely in the Reflective Depictions until you are fully aware of and understand what they contain.

3. Put the material aside and engage in a rhythm of rest and work until the essential invariant and non-repetitive themes of the material stand out.

4. Make a list of the essential components of the experience (these should portray the qualities, nature, and meanings that characterize the experience).

5. From the above, develop a full reflective depiction of the experience, one that characterizes the participants as a group, reflecting core meanings not only for the individuals but the group of persons as a whole. Include in the depiction, verbatim samples, poems, stories, etc., to highlight and accentuate the lived nature of the experience. This depiction will serve as the creative synthesis, which will combine, in an esthetically pleasing way, the themes and patterns into a representation of the whole. This synthesis will communicate the essence of the lived experience under inquiry. The synthesis is more than a summary - it is like a chemical reaction, a creation of anew.

6. Return to the individuals, select two or three and develop portraits of these persons that are consistent with the composite depiction of the group as a whole, in such a way that the phenomenon and the person emerge as real.

(Adapted from Moustakas, 1990)

Moustakas, C. (1990). Heuristic research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Topic: Expressing Will

(A specific situation in a persons life in which expressing will was a major ingredient for a making a major life change.)

Research Question: What is the experience of expressing will?

Guiding Questions:

1. Describe your experience of will, leaving nothing out.

2. What have you discovered in your journal about yourself and how you express will?

3. How would you personally define will?

4. What are your feelings connected with expressing will?

5. What are your thoughts connected with expressing will?

6. What are your physical or bodily responses during the experience of expressing will?

7. What precipitates your expression of will?

8. What effect has expressing will or not expressing will, had on your life?

9. How has expressing will been useful or not useful to you?

10. What stops you from expressing your will?

Topic: Managing Dual Relationships in Rural Communities

Research Question: What is the Mental Health Professionals’ Experience of Managing Dual Relationships in Rural Communities?

Guiding Questions:

1. What has been your experience in managing dual relationships in rural communities?

2. What types of dual relationships have you experienced?

3. In your experiences, are there specific resources that you have found to be beneficial? If so, what resources?

4. Are there certain strategies you have used to avoid dual relationships?

5. In your experiences, have any dual relationships proved to be beneficial? If so, in what ways?

6. Do you think that there are characteristics of rural communities that facilitate dual relationships? If so, how?

7. Is there anything that I have not asked that you would like to add about your experiences of managing dual relationships?

Topic: The experience of having an alcoholic mate.

Research Question: How do spouses perceive and describe the experience of having an alcoholic mate?

Guiding Questions:

1. Has the drinking impacted with your marriage? If so, how?

2. Do you consider your husband/wife an alcoholic?

3. What leads you to believe that your spouse is alcoholic?

4. How do you feel being married to your husband/wife?

5. Describe the experience of being married to your wife/husband.

6. Share with me some of your daily experiences with your husband/wife.

7. When did you first realize your husband/wife was drinking too much?

8. When have you noticed the drinking becomes worse?

9. How has the drinking affected you personally?

10. How has the drinking affected your spouse?

11. How has the drinking affected your children or family?

Charmaz’s Grounded Theory Model

Construction of Grounded Theory methods

Charmaz (2006) refers to grounded theory research as a journey. As common in most qualitative methodologies, interviewing is a main data collection method. Charmaz describes the interview process as both an open-ended and a directed conversation that attempts to understand the phenomena that the interviewee has experienced. The data collection and analysis involves the use of ‘fresh eyes’, which indicates the setting aside of preconceived ideas for the purpose of not imposing these preconceived ideas on the ongoing data collection and analysis process. Charmaz refers to this as careful coding.

The analysis is conducted through a process of coding. “Through coding, you define what is happening in the data and begin to grapple with what it means” (p. 46). The analysis guidelines provide a process of steps that are systematic, however, within each step there is flexibility. Grounded theory uses a constant comparison method. This allows the researcher the involvement in the analysis throughout the data collection. During each stage of the analysis the data being analyzed is compared to data analyzed during the previous step in the analysis. For example, after the 2nd interview transcript is analyzed, the researcher would compare and combine the results of this analysis with the analysis of the 1st interview transcript.

The following is a brief description of each step in the data analysis based on Charmaz (2006).

1. The first type of coding is initial coding of the transcribed data, which involves a line by line analysis (or sentence by sentence, or incident by incident). Charmaz emphasizes the need to keep questioning your data. “Line by line frees you from becoming so immersed in your respondents’ world view that you accept them without question. Then you fail to look at your data critically and analytically” (p. 51). This initial coding stays with the data looking at the action and the meaning of the action. It does not try to fit data into preexisting categories. This coding is done spontaneously and remains open to other possibilities. Some codes are clear, where other codes may need revisions to improve the fit. The codes should be simple and concise; and advance the researcher towards defining core categories.

   • (Suggestion) The initial coding can be conducted by writing the codes in the margin of transcript. The initial coding is intuitive. Do not try to analyze the data in this step. Keep your mind open to possibilities.

2. The second coding process is focus coding. Focus coding evolves from the initial coding. In this step the researcher decides which initial codes make sense in regards to understanding the phenomena under inquiry. The process involves comparing and combing initial codes into categories.

   • (Suggestion) This process can be conducted by making a list of the initial codes and then combining the codes that are similar, naming the code and making sure that the code in some way answers your research question. However, the researcher needs to continue to stay open to the meaning of the data.

3. The next step is axial coding which involves finding relationships between categories formed in the focus coding. Charmaz (2006) describes the axial coding process by referencing the Strauss and Corbin’s grounded theory approach. “According to Strauss and Corbin (1998, p.125), axial coding answers questions such as ‘when, where, why, how, and with what consequences” (as cited in Charmaz). Axial coding helps clarify the analysis and provides a framework for the emerging theory.

   • (Suggestion) This process occurs by clustering the focus codes into categories that present a deeper understanding of the phenomena under inquiry. What are the actions? What are the meanings? The axial codes should be described in terms or their relationship to answering the research question.

4. Theoretical Coding is a more sophisticated level of analysis and conceptualizes the relationships of all the categories. The theorizing process entails stopping, pondering, and rethinking (Charmaz, 2006). Exploring the entire coding process facilitates the theoretical coding towards the constructing of a theory. The theoretical codes extend and integrate the analysis; offering further clarification of the analysis.

   • (Suggestion) Take a few days to immerse yourself in the coding, your field notes and memos, and your analysis. Ask questions and look for possibilities. What are the links or connections between the coding? What theoretical codes will interpret all the data? Does the analysis capture the participants’ experience?

5. The final step in the grounded theory methodology is generating the theory. Charmaz’s constructivist grounded theory uses the interpretive definition of theory (p. 126). Interpretive theory stresses the understanding of the phenomenon under inquiry. The interpretive theory seeks to answer the question regarding what is assumed as reality and how do individuals “construct and act on their view of reality?” (p.127). The theory arises from the data analysis process and is based on the social construction of the shared experiences of the participants, with an emphasis on how meaning is interpreted.

   • (Suggestion) Take your time. Develop your theory and then wait a few days and review your theory. Make revisions to clarify or add information to support your theory. Find someone to critique your theory.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through

qualitative analysis. London: Sage.