The Qualitative Paradigm
Transcript of The Qualitative Paradigm
-
7/28/2019 The Qualitative Paradigm
1/22
The Qualitative Paradigm:
An Overview of some basic Concepts,Assumptions, and Theories of Qualitative Research
By Lisa Joniak, Ph.D.
A paradigm may be viewed as a set ofbasic beliefs (or metaphysics) thatdeals with ultimates or first principles. It represents a worldview thatdefines, for its holder, the nature of the world, the individuals place in it,and the range of possible relationships to that world and its parts, as, forexample, cosmologies and theologies do. The beliefs are basic in thesense that they must be accepted simply on faith (however well argued);there is no way to establish their ultimate truthfulness. If there were, the
philosophical debates reflected in these pages would have been resolvedmillennia ago.
(Denzin 1994, p. 107)
Authors Note: This paper serves as the starting point for a course in qualitativeresearch. The author provides a general overview of the qualitative paradigm andthen goes on to discuss four major theories used in qualitative inquiry.
What is Qualitative Research?
Over the past few decades a methodological revolution has spawned in
the social sciences (Denzin 1994). The field of quantitative research has made
way for a more interpretative approachthe qualitative approach. As Denzin and
Lincoln explain:
Where only statistics, experimental designs, and survey research oncestood, researchers have opened up to ethnography, unstructuredinterviewing, textual analysis, and historical studies. Where Were doingscience was once the watch-word, scholars are now experimenting with
the boundaries of interpretation, linking research to social change, delvinginto characteristics of race, ethnicity, gender, age and culture tounderstand more fully the relationship of the researcher to the research. Invarious disciplines in various guises, this implicit critique of the traditionalworldview of science and quantitative methods is taking place. All of thesetrends have fallen under the rubric of qualitative research. (Denzin 1994,p.ix)
-
7/28/2019 The Qualitative Paradigm
2/22
This is not to suggest that qualitative research is new, even though it is still
learning to fly. Qualitative studies have been traced back to the earlier part of the
20th Century (Lindlof 1995, p. 8).1 Deemed as soft scientists, qualitative
researchers fought to have their methodology recognized and appreciated by the
social scientific world (Denzin 1994; Lindlof 1995; Silverman 2000). Paving the
way for the tremendous development in qualitative inquiry, was the growing
dissatisfaction by academics to form a deeper understanding of their subject than
mere numbers and statistical models could provide (Lindlof 1995, p. 9).
According to Lindlof, unlike quantitative researchers, who perform tests of
prediction and control, qualitative inquirers strive to understandtheir objects of
interest (Lindlof 1995, p. 9). It is through the researchers insight that qualitative
research achieves its ultimate goalunderstanding, or as it is sometimes called,
verstehen. That special something that qualitative research provides comes
out, not only in its product (verstehen), but also in howit was created. Pauly
explains:
The something that qualitative research understands is not some set oftruisms about communication but the awful difficulties groups face inmapping reality. The qualitative researcher is an explorer, not a tourist.Rather than speeding down the interstate, the qualitative researcherambles along the circuitous back roads of public discourse and socialpractice. In reporting on that journey the researcher may conclude thatsome of those paths were, in fact, wider and more foot-worn than others,that some branched off in myriad directions, some narrowed along theway, some rambled endlessly while others ran straight and long, andsome ended at the precipice, in the brambles, or back at their origin.(Pauly 1991, p. 7)
By taking the longer, more scenic path, qualitative researchers open up a
colorful, deep, contextual world of interpretations.
-
7/28/2019 The Qualitative Paradigm
3/22
-
7/28/2019 The Qualitative Paradigm
4/22
and contradictions that the essence of qualitative inquiry emerged. Denzin and
Lincoln broadly define qualitative research:
Qualitative research is multimethod in focus, involving an interpretive,
naturalistic approach to its subject matter. This means that qualitativeresearchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to makesense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bringto them. Qualitative research involves the studied use and collection of avariety of empirical materialscase study, personal experience,introspective, life story, interview, observational, historical, interactional,and visual textsthat describe routine and problematic moments andmeanings in individuals lives. Accordingly, qualitative research deployswide range of interconnected methods, hoping always to get a better fix onthe subject matter at hand. (Denzin 1994, p. 2)
Thus, qualitative research can be used differently by a multitude of disciplines,
studying just about anything. Since qualitative research is made up of complex,
context-dependent variables, it may be helpful to examine and compare
qualitative inquiry with quantitative (or non-qualitative) study. Treise (Table 1)
provides a useful outline comparing many of the qualitative characteristics and
assumptions with the non-qualitative approach:
TABLE 1-Comparison of Qualitative and Non-Qualitative Approaches
Qualitative Approach Non-Qualitative Approach
1. Assumes multiple and dynamicrealities, contextual
1. Assumes single, stable reality,divisible/fragmentable
2. Seeks understanding throughverstehen
2. Seeks external facts and causesexplanation; systematic association of
variables; prediction3. Natural setting, uncontrolledobservation
3. Controlled observation,experimentation
4. Data precedes theory 4. Theory precedes data
5. Data are valid, real, rich, deep,thick
5. Data are hard, reliable, thin,replicable
6. Process-oriented 6. Outcome oriented
7. Findings not generalizable 7. Generalizability claimed
-
7/28/2019 The Qualitative Paradigm
5/22
8. Holistic orientation 8. Particularistic orientation
9. Said to be grounded, discovery-oriented, exploratory, expansionist,descriptive [The theory is grounded inthe data.]
9. Said to be ungrounded, verification-oriented, confirmatory, reductionist
10. Inductive approach 10. Deductive approach11. Researcher is the instrument 11. Relies on questionnaires, attitude
scales
12. Uses insight and sensitizedconcepts
12. Uses statistical measures and tests
13. Meaning is central concept 13. Little or no role for interpretedmeaning
14. Works with research participant 14. Recruits research subjects
15. Dynamic nature of researchprecludes step-by-step instruction
15. Research methods are welldocumented and structured
(Treise 1999)2
Treises chart nicely lays out some of the fundamental differences between
qualitative and quantitative approaches. Here we can clearly see sharp
differences in ontology and epistemology between the qualitative and non-
qualitative camps. In the next section, we will examine the ontological and
epistemological assumptions of qualitative research.
Qualitative Ontology & Epistemology
As Treises matrix shows, qualitative researchers assume multiple and
dynamic realities that are context-dependent. Therefore, qualitative researchers
embrace an ontology that denies the existence of (or at least the efficacy of
arguing for the existence of) an external reality. By external reality, we mean one
that exists outside and independent of our interpretations of it (Searle 1995, p.
154). As such, qualitative researchers value participants own interpretations of
reality. These individual interpretations are deeply embedded in a rich contextual
web that cannot be separated and generalized out to some mass population.
-
7/28/2019 The Qualitative Paradigm
6/22
Holstein and Gubrium maintain the importance of context when examining a
subject, participant or even ones self:
If we are to study lives, including selves in social interaction, we must
study them from within the social contexts they unfold, not separate fromthem. Human beings dont settle their affairs with meaning once and forall. Rather, they continually engage the interpretive process, including theinterpretation of what they mean to themselves.The methodologicaldirective here is to document the articulation and emergence of meaningin rich detail as it unfolds, not in lifeless analytic categories and statisticaltables. (Holstein 2000, p. 33)
Thus, qualitative inquiry assumes that reality is socially constructed by every
unique individual, from within their own unique contextual interpretation.
Maintaining an internal, socially-constructed ontology effects the epistemic
foundations of qualitative research.
Denzin and Lincoln demonstrate how a paradigms ontology invariably
affects its epistemology:
The epistemological question. What is the nature of the relationshipbetween the knower or would-be knower and what can be known? Theanswer that can be given to this question is constrained by the answeralready given to the ontological question; that is, not just anyrelationshipcan now be postulated. (Denzin 1994, p. 108)
That is, ones views on the nature of reality, in turn, affect how they come to gain
knowledge of their reality. Since, qualitative researchers embrace internal reality,
they cannot embrace an objective epistemology. Therefore, qualitative
researchers, valuing participants own interpretations of reality, maintain that
knowledge emerges from achieving a deep understanding of the data and the
context it is embedded in. But how do we know that what we think we know is
-
7/28/2019 The Qualitative Paradigm
7/22
really what we know? Lets examine the trustworthiness criteria for qualitative
research.
Trustworthiness Criteria for Qualitative Inquiry
Qualitative research endures attacks on its unique and distinct approach
to examining the world and seeking understanding from it. The present section
looks at alternative paths to producing research that merits attention, respect and
acceptance. Lincoln and Guba lay out the charges often thrown against
naturalistic studies, including qualitative research:
The naturalistic inquirer soon becomes accustomed to hearing chargesthat naturalistic studies are undisciplined; that he or she is guilty ofsloppy research, engaging in merely subjective observations,responding indiscriminately to the loudest bangs or brightest lights.Rigor, it is asserted, is not the hallmark of naturalism. Is the naturalistinevitable defenseless against such charges? Worse, are they true?(Lincoln 1985, pp 289-290)
Lincoln and Guba give a definitive no to both questions posed above. They start
by explaining that traditionally in the social sciences there have been four criteria
used to evaluate the merit of research: internal validity, external validity, reliability
and objectivity. Critics of qualitative research have long argued that there is no
merit to qualitative studies because they do not achieve internal and external
validity. Perhaps, some have refuted, that is because validity criteria are
inappropriate measures for evaluating qualitative work. Deniz and Lincoln explain
the traditional notions of validity and offer up the concept of trustworthiness as a
replacement:
-
7/28/2019 The Qualitative Paradigm
8/22
-
7/28/2019 The Qualitative Paradigm
9/22
-
7/28/2019 The Qualitative Paradigm
10/22
Covering these five steps is not a necessary condition for achieving credibility,
but is a sufficient condition for credibility. Next, lets look at Lincoln and Gubas
transferability guidelines.
Transferability is very different from its conventionalist counterpart
external validity. Lincoln and Guba explain:
[T]he naturalist cannot specify the external validity of an inquiry; he orshe can provide only the thick description necessary to enable someoneinterested in making a transfer to reach a conclusion about whethertransfer can be contemplated as a possibility.Clearly, not just anydescriptive data will do, but the criteria that separate relevant from
irrelevant descriptors are still largely undefined.The naturalist inquirer isalso responsible for providing the widest possible range of information forinclusion in the thick description(1985, p. 316)
Lincoln and Guba stress that it is not the qualitative researchers responsibility to
provide an indexof transferability; it is his or her responsibility to provide the data
base that makes transferability judgments possible on the part of potential
appliers (Lincoln 1985, p. 316). In fact, it is impossible for a researcher to know
whether or not his or her data is transferable to some other study in the future
because he or she is ignorant of the specific context in which the subsequent
study is taking place. Therefore, qualitative researchers must provide the tools
(data) for future researchers to determine whether or not transferability applies.
Dependability and confirmability are primarily achieved through the use of
audit trails. In an inquiry audit, the auditor examines both the dependability of the
process and the confirmability of the product (Lincoln 1985, p. 316-318). Finally,
Lincoln and Guba wisely note that the procedures they outline for achieving
credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability are merely one way of
-
7/28/2019 The Qualitative Paradigm
11/22
achieving trustworthiness, not the way. Thus, researchers should resist regarding
these criteria as prescriptions of how qualitative inquiry mustbe done, instead
utilize and build on these guides as the context and phenomena require.
Theories of Qualitative Research
The theories presented here are by no means the only theories qualitative
researchers employ.5 Producing an exhaustive list of theories qualitative
researchers utilize would be a daunting task, perhaps an impossible one given
the complexity and multidimensionality of the qualitative process. The present
section looks at four theories that mesh well with the basic tenants and
assumptions of the qualitative paradigm: symbolic interactionism, semiotics,
phenomenology, and ethnomethodology.6 While examining each of these
theories, take note at how each one is interconnected with the others and how all
of the theories fit into the qualitative paradigm.
Symbolic Interactionism
Simply put, symbolic interactionism is a theory about how meanings are
produced by agents through their interactions with symbols. According to Blumer,
symbolic interactionism:
does not regard meaning as emanating from the intrinsic makeup of thething that has meaning, nor does it see meaning as arising through acoalescence of psychological elements in the person. Instead, it seesmeaning as arising in the process of interaction between people. Themeaning of a thing for a person grows out of the ways in which otherpersons act toward the person with regard to the thing. Their actionsoperate to define the thing for the person. Thus, symbolic interactionismsees meanings as social products, as creations that are formed in and
-
7/28/2019 The Qualitative Paradigm
12/22
through the defining activities of people as they interact. This point of viewgives symbolic interactionism a very distinctive position, with profoundimplications(1969, pp. 4-5)
The symbolic interactionists view of meanings, namely as socially constructed
realities, meshes well with the ontological and epistemological assumptions of
the qualitative paradigm. Symbolic interactionists believe that there are no
objective or inherent meanings embedded in a text, but that meanings are
socially constructed creations. Through our interactions with texts we create
meaning. Thus, like the qualitative researcher, the symbolic interactionist
believes that the only knowable world is the one we interpret and interact with.
Both the qualitative researcher and the symbolic interactionist embrace internal
reality (and deny the existence or the efficacy of arguing for the existence of an
external reality) and share understanding (through multiple, creative, and
contextual interpretations and insight) as the ultimate goal or product of epistemic
inquiries.
Holstein and Gubrium recount that there are two branches of symbolic
interactionist thought:
Over the years, two streams of symbolic interactionist thinkingthe so-called Chicago and Iowa schoolstook this in different directions. Blumer(1969), who taught at the University of Chicago, became the central figureof the more process-oriented Chicago school, while Manford Kuhn (1960,1964) and his associatesat the University of Iowa were the leadingproponents of the more structured Iowa school. (2000, p. 32)
Lets take a look at Blumers, Chicago-style symbolic interactionism because, as
qualitative researchers, we are primarily interested in the process, the how, of
-
7/28/2019 The Qualitative Paradigm
13/22
meaning creation. Blumer asserts that symbolic interactionism rests on three
simple premises:
1. Human beings act toward things on the basis of the meanings that the
things have for them.
Whatever those things may be, tables, persons, or representations via the
television, the meaning we ascribe to those things comes from what those things
mean to us, not in the things themselves.
2. The meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the socialinteraction that one has with ones fellows.
We are not islands. We do not stand alone in our interactions and meaning
creation. An essential component to our meaning creation process is our
interaction not only with the things, but with our social systemfriends, family,
culture, organizations, workall play a role in shaping how we act towards
things. Mead describes the social self:
The unity and structure of the complete self reflects the unity and structureof the social process as a whole; and each of the elementary selves ofwhich it is composed reflects the unity and structure of one of the variousaspects of that process in which the individual is implicated. In otherwords, the various elementary selves which constitute, or are organizedinto, a complete self are the various aspects of the structure of thatcomplete self answering to the various aspects of the structure of thesocial process as a whole; the structure of the complete self is thus areflection of the complete social process. The organization and unificationof a social group is identical with the organization and unification of anyone of the selves arising within the social process in which that group isengaged, or which it is carrying on. [Morris, 1967 #140, p. 144]
Thus, if we are to discover how one creates meaning and interacts with different
symbols, we must not only examine the individual, but also the social structures
-
7/28/2019 The Qualitative Paradigm
14/22
that individual belongs to. Now, on to Meads third and final premise for symbolic
interactionism:
3. These meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretative
process used by the person in dealing with the things he encounters.(Blumer, 1969, p. 2)
This meaning making process is continual. That is, human beings do not simply
interpret meaning for a particular thing and move on. Instead, we revisit that
thing, our interpretation, and how it fits within our worldview and adjust our
interpretative meanings accordingly. Holstein and Gubrium contend that Blumer
is cautioning us in this third premise:
The caution is explicitly directed at those symbolic interactionists who,while they would accept the first two premises, are remiss on the third,employing highly structured methods that dont permit the interpretiveprocess to continually show through. Blumer urges us to view the humanbeing in social interaction as incessantly involved in meaning-making. Themethodological directive here is to document the articulation andemergence of meaning in rich detail as it unfolds, not in lifeless analyticcategories and statistical tables. (2000, p 33)
Thus, the meanings we create are not set in stone. Again, this corresponds well
with the epistemological assumptions of the qualitative paradigm. Qualitative
researchers seek understanding of phenomena, within its unique context. If that
context should change, the researcher is obligated to reevaluate his or her notion
of the phenomena and adjust her understanding of it accordingly.
Semiotics
Symbolic interactionism examines the creation of meaning through
interaction with symbols; semiotics takes that examination to the level of science.
Semiotics, according to Denzin and Lincoln, provides a set of assumptions and
-
7/28/2019 The Qualitative Paradigm
15/22
concepts that permit systematic analysis of symbolic systems (Denzin 1994, p.
466). Like symbolic interactionism and the qualitative paradigm, semiotics
embraces the view that meaning is not inherent in any sign (or text). Lindlof
explains the ontological assumptions of semiotics:
Semiotics, in particular, has encouraged a view of texts as inherentlyambiguous and unstable. The meaning of an interpersonal ortechnologically mediated text depends on its relationships to other texts,the competencies and interests of its interpreters, and the culturalconditions in which it is produced and read. The notion that meanings arecontinually constructed lies at the center of interpretive approaches incommunication. This argument implies something very important: that howwe describe the world constitutes whatwe describe. (Lindlof 1995, p. 24)
Thus, semiotics maintains that the construction of meanings depends, in part, on
the context of the sign in relation to the interpreter and the culture in which both
are situated. Visually, the process looks like the following:
Signwhich, in turn affects context
meaning
Agent/
Interpretercontext
Culture/
Society
Here we see a sign (a smiley face), which is essentially incomplete until it has
an interpretant or a context that an agent (or interpreter) creates meaning (or
content from the sign (embedded in its interpretant) (Denzin 1994, p. 466). Now,
-
7/28/2019 The Qualitative Paradigm
16/22
just as we learned in symbolic interactionism, agents are not islands; they do not
stand alone. Interpreters work, live and create meaning within a particular culture
or society. In fact, many individuals create meaning in several different societies.
For example, one agent who belongs to the National Organization for Women
(NOW) and the Catholic Church may view the text of abortion differently within
the two distinct contexts. Thus, the culture one is immersed in affects the context
in which an agent creates meaning about the sign. The creation of meaning by
the agent is a mental activity, which, as we shall see in the next section, depends
on a primitive phenomenology (Denzin 1994, p. 467).
Phenomenology
The philosophy of phenomenology seeks to define the basic nature of the
signs we interpret (Lindlof 1995, p. 32). Many report that the work of Husserl
served as cornerstone for the interpretative theory of phenomenology
(Moustakas 1994); (Lindlof 1995). Husserl argues that human consciousness
orders the ways by which we apprehend the physical nature of the world (Lindlof
1995, p. 32). Moustakas elaborates:
Husserls phenomenology is a Transcendental Phenomenology. Itemphasizes subjectivity and discovery of the essences of experience andprovides a systematic and disciplined methodology for derivation ofknowledge. Husserls approach is called phenomenology because itutilizes only the data available to consciousnessthe appearance ofobjects. It is logical in its assertion that the only thing we know forcertain is that which appears before us in consciousness, and that veryfact is a guarantee of its objectivity. (1994, p. 45)
Here, we see a slight ontological shift from reality being completely loose and
interpretative to phenomenological assumptions of objectivity. By carefully
-
7/28/2019 The Qualitative Paradigm
17/22
following the systematic strategies, phenomenologists contend that agents can
scientifically comprehend the essence of lived experience (Lindlof 1995, p.
236).
Lindlof delineates the three steps need for reaching understanding of
human experience. First, the analyst must become aware of all the
preconceptions (including biases, prejudices, and other prior personal
conceptions) he or she holds about the object of study (Lindlof 1995, p. 236).
Owning up to ones subjective baggage aids in the deconstruction of the text
(Lindlof 1995, p. 236). Next, the researcher must bracket the text, confronting it
without his or her preconceived notions, only on its own terms (Lindlof 1995, p.
236). This step allows the analyst to view the object in its reduced state. Finally,
the researcher builds data clusters about the text and synthesizes these groups
into a cohesive structure (Lindlof 1995, p. 236). By grouping and synthesizing,
phenomenologists contend that essence of an object is brought to the surface
(Lindlof 1995, p. 236).7 Lindlof notes that the three-step strategy employed by the
phenomenological studies can also be utilized in ethnomodological research,
which leads us to our final theory.
Ethnomethodology
The field of ethnomethodology grew out of the seeds of phenomenology
(Denzin 1994, p. 264). Both ethnomethodology and phenomenology are built on
the principles of eidetic science. According to Lindlof, an eidetic science defines
essential objects and relationships of society not through consensual meanings,
but through the things themselves (Lindlof 1995, p. 35). For example, if
-
7/28/2019 The Qualitative Paradigm
18/22
ethnomethodologists want to understand the true essence of beauty they might
begin by conducting interviews with people on what constitutes beauty, but
ultimately would strip these interpretations away to examine the essence of
beauty itself in order to account for their existence as and entity in human
discourse (Lindlof 1995, p. 35). Lindlof explains the basis of ethnomethodology:
In simple terms, ethnomethodology seeks to understand how the taken-for-granted character of everyday life is accomplished. The methodologyin the term refers not to scientific methodology, but to the methods peopleuse to construct sensible, orderly ways of doing things.Ethnomethodologists are fascinated with how appearances are ableto sustain participants complete belief in their reality. (Lindlof 1995, p. 36).
Thus, ethnomethodology looks at both participants and the essence of the
phenomena under study in constructing understanding into how agents engage
in a text and create meaning from that object.
All four theories stress the importance of context in meaning creation and
interpretation. As such, symbolic interactionism, semiotics and phenomenology
and ethnomethodology embrace an internal ontology, which assumes the only
reality that exists is the one we interpret through our interactions with symbols,
culture and ourselves. Finally, all four theories accept a similar epistemic stance
of knowledge creation. Knowledge is not gained through discovery of objective
truths, but created through understanding of a phenomena/text/object within a
particular context. Moreover, understanding is not immutable, but rather fluid in
nature.
Conclusion
-
7/28/2019 The Qualitative Paradigm
19/22
The goal of the present analysis was to outline the major tenants,
assumptions, and theories of the qualitative paradigm. Qualitative research has
endured many criticisms from the conventional, non-qualitative camp and has
clawed its way to the status it currently enjoys, though resistance and complete
acceptance have yet to be achieved. In recent years there has been a surge in
qualitative studies, as more and more researchers turn an interpretative ear to
the ideas and ways of qualitative science (Denzin 1994; Lindlof 1995). Future
trends in qualitative research are interdisciplinary in nature. Qualitative
researchers are teaming up with other disciplines, methodologies and theorists,
exemplifying the dynamic, complex nature of reality through their investigations
of it. In fact, there is a growing acceptance of multi-paradigmatic research,
combining both qualitative and quantitative elements. One can conclude that it is
indeed an exciting time to be a qualitative researcher.
-
7/28/2019 The Qualitative Paradigm
20/22
Denzin, N. K. a. Y. S. L., Ed. (1994). Handbook of Qualitative Research.
Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.
Holstein, J. a. J. G. (2000). The Self We Live By: Narrative Identity in a
Postmodern World. New York, Oxford University Press.
Lincoln, Y. a. E. G. (1985). Establishing Trustworthiness. Naturalist Inquiry.
Newbury Park, CA, Sage.
Lindlof, T. R. (1995). Qualitative Communication Research Methods. Thousand
Oaks, Sage.
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological Research Methods. Thousand Oaks,
CA, Sage.
Pauly, J. (1991). A Beginner's Guide to Doing Qualitative Research. Journalism
Monographs 125.
Searle, J. (1995). The Construction of Social Reality. New York, The Free Press.
Silverman, D. (2000). Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook.
Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.
-
7/28/2019 The Qualitative Paradigm
21/22
Treise, D. (1999). A Slightly Exaggerated Comprison of Some Characteristics
and Assumptions of Qualitative and Non-qualitative Approaches to the
World.
1Denzin and Lincoln outline five developmental stages of qualitative inquiry. See
theirHandbook of Qualitative Research, pages 1-3.
2
This chart served as a handout in a graduate seminar the author took with Dr.
Debbie Treise in spring 1999. The author continues to use this helpful and simple
handout as a guide to the principles and assumptions of qualitative research and
here shares it with other qualitative enthusiasts.
3Lincoln and Guba do not present these criteria in a chart; however, the author
finds comparison tables useful guides and has taken the liberty to construct one
here.
4For a more detailed discussion please see Lincoln and Gubas chapter on
Establishing Trustworthiness in Naturalistic Inquiry.
5Denzin and Lincoln list several other theories (they call them research
strategies) including: ethnography, life history, oral history, case study,
participant observation, field research/study, naturalistic study, ecological
descriptive study, descriptive study, microethnography, interpretive research,
action research, narrative research, historiography, and literary criticism. Again,
even this list, the authors note, is not exhaustive.
-
7/28/2019 The Qualitative Paradigm
22/22
6One might wonder why the author chose to examine these four theories in this
particular order. The theories work from the general to the specific, but, in a way,
also work from the specific to the general. First, symbolic interactionism looks at
meaning creation, semiotics does the same thing but from a more detailed,
scientific way. Phenomenology looks at the mental connections that can be made
when we create meanings and ethnomethodology provides a structured view for
examining these connections. Thus, from one perspective, these theories move
from the general to the specific. On the other hand, symbolic interactionism is
interested in generally specific meanings, while semiotics usually looks at how
those meanings, in general, are created. Phenomenology examines specific
mental connections agents make in their meaning creation process, while
ethnomethodology tackles questions dealing with the interaction process in
meaning creation (which, of course brings it full circle with symbolic
interactionism). The four theories presented here weave through the qualitative
paradigm like a web. There are very few areas of black and white and many
grays.
7To be honest, the author thinks the phenomenological strategy is unattainable.
It is dubious to think that one can simply make a list of ones prejudices and then
cut them away (like a chunk of fat) from his or her interpretations. Since this
essay serves merely as a report and not as a critical piece, the author will not
delve further into this epistemic can of worms.