Download Unit 6 - DCU Moodle 2013

Unit 6
Traditions of Qualitative Inquiry
Introduction
The aim of this unit is to demonstrate the salience of tradition and good practice in understanding
qualitative inquiry. Any attempt at qualitative inquiry is informed by a tradition of inquiry which
influences choices made around data collection, analysis, and management and which also
influences the way in which a qualitative study is reported and the criteria used for evaluating it.
As you will see from your required texts for the Qualitative Research sub-module, there are many
qualitative traditions of inquiry. However we will focus on three in this unit. They were chosen to
exemplify some major issues and developments in qualitative research and because they are well
suited to different aspects of research. The three we have chosen are: ethnography, grounded
theory, and discourse analysis. Having completed this unit, you will be expected to appreciate the
differences in emphasis as well as the common ground between the traditions and to see how the
data collection methods you have covered in the last three units, interviewing, observation, and
text analysis, fit with these traditions.
As each of the three traditions is described in detail in your text books, we will concentrate on
comparative analysis, commentary, and research relevance here. It is imperative that you read the
relevant chapters in your texts in order to follow the comparisons and critique that we aim to
develop in this unit. It looks like a lot of reading but it will be useful for many other units and
there is a certain amount of redundancy in the list.
Required Reading
The required reading for these units comes from:
J.T.E. Richardson (ed.) Handbook of Qualitative Research for Psychology and the Social Sciences.

Chapters 6 and 7 discuss the theory and practice of Grounded Theory.

Chapters 8 and 9 discuss the theory and practice of Ethnography.

Chapters 10 and 11 discuss the theory and practice of Discourse Analysis.
We are sure that you will find plenty of relevant material in the above chapters. If you think it is
too much, please bear in mind that it is also required reading for Units 7, 8, 9 and 11, and that you
will have already looked over some of these chapters when considering data collection in earlier
units. Treat this unit as a pivot around which other units and reading revolve.
Recommended Reading
For completeness sake, the following references are also relevant:

Banister, P., Burman, E., Parker, I., Taylor, M., Tindall, C. (1994). Qualitative Methods
in Psychology: A Research Guide. Bucks, UK: Open University Press. Chapter 3
discusses Ethnography and chapter 6 discusses Discourse Analysis.
1-9

Mann, C. and Stewart, F. Internet Communication and Qualitiative Research (2000)
Guilford, Sage.

Willig, C. (1999) Applied Discourse Analysis. Guildord, Open UniversityPress.

Hine (1998) Virtual Ethnography. International Conference: 25-27 March 1998, Bristol,
UK IRISS '98: Conference Papers
http://www.intute.ac.uk/socialsciences/archive/iriss/papers/paper16.htm
Introducing the Traditions
In this section we provide brief introductions of each of the traditions in order to guide you to
some of the main points in your required reading.
Ethnography
Ethnography is the quintessential qualitative research method. Its roots are in anthropology but in
more recent times it has made an impression in sociology, and social and developmental
psychology. It is concerned with lived, felt experience. More specifically it is concerned with
developing accounts or stories of lived experience which are both from the perspective of those
living the experience and theoretically oriented towards social relations. With such a broad remit,
it inevitably accommodates a number of research methods. Ethnographers participate in people’s
daily lives for an extended period of time, observing what is happening, listening to what is said,
asking questions, and studying documents. Ethnography involves a pragmatic approach to
methods of data collection where the guiding rule is to collect whatever data are available to
elucidate the issues at the heart of the research. In this sense, ethnography bears a close
resemblance to the ordinary, everyday ways in which people make sense of their experience. From
a qualitative research perspective, where the ecological validity or naturalness of data is highly
prized, the resemblance to everyday sense-making is a strength. The main stages characteristics of
ethnography according to Banister et al. (1994) are as follows:




Gathering data from a range of sources.
Studying activity in everyday contexts rather than experimental situations.
Using fairly unstructured data collection early on to allow key issues to emerge through a
broad analysis.
Once issues are clear, data collection takes the form of an in-depth and focused study of
one or two well defined situations.
We would add participant observation as a characteristic feature. Ethnographers try to observe and
develop accounts from inside, from a position where they participate in the activity or group being
studied. For example, Janet Rachel’s chapter in Richardson (1996) gives an account of her
attempts to understand computer systems design by becoming a member of the team for a period.
She uses her experience as a member of the team to help make sense of interviews, observations,
documents and other data collected.
Is participant observation just another data collection method? Christina Toren, in her chapter in
Richardson, says no. She argues that it is not so much a method as an intense way of living in
which you are both caught up in the activity and attempting to distance yourself a little from it in
order to be able to question what is happening. It puts the researcher in a strange position as both a
member of a group and an observer of the group. It also requires the researcher to creatively use
the tension between these two positions to develop an account of the group or activity. It is an
approach to research which has to be developed with practice, not just learned from a book.
2-9
Unit 6: Traditions of Qualitative Inquiry
Participation of the researcher in the research involves abandoning attempts to eliminate the
effects of the researcher on the research and instead to try to understand them. Ethnography holds
that as researchers are part of the social world they study, they should recognise the futility of
trying to separate themselves from it, and instead use their participation as a strength, a key to
understanding. Participation also gives ethnography a commitment to understanding how people
actually live their lives. Most ethnographic research lays claims to be relevant to real life and to
identify the complexities of social life as it is lived. As such, ethnography is suited to research
questions which try to understand and contribute to aspects of social life and social practices. In
the context of internet research, it is suited to questions such as: how the internet is used in
educational and business practices, how it influences social relations in those domains, and to
identifying potential improvements in practice.
Grounded Theory
" A grounded theory is one that is inductively derived from the study of the phenomenon it
represents. That is, it is discovered, developed, and provisionally verified through
systematic data collection and analysis of data pertaining to that phenomenon. Therefore,
data collection, analysis, and theory stand in reciprocal relationship with each other. One
does not begin with a theory, then prove it. Rather one begins with an area of study and
what is relevant to that area is allowed to emerge."
(Strauss and Corbin, 1990, p.23).
Grounded theory was developed by Glaser and Strauss (1965) during their investigation of
institutional care of terminally ill patients. They were keen to ensure that qualitative research
would amount to more than a collection of disconnected insights and impressions. They argued
that qualitative research could result in contributions to formal description and explanation, i.e.
theory. They developed grounded theory as a discovery-oriented approach to the development of
theory using qualitative research. Rather than beginning with a theory which it then tries to prove,
it begins with an area of study and allows themes relevant to that area to emerge in a rigorous,
relatively structured, qualitative analysis of data. On first reading, some accounts of Grounded
Theory (e.g. Strauss and Corbin, 1999) which emphasise the structure of grounded analysis, or the
steps that you go through in producing a grounded theory, can be misleading. In our experience of
teaching grounded theory, students can interpret these texts as providing a mechanical route from
textual data, through a highly structured coding and analysis process, to the concepts that
constitute a theory. In our experience of using grounded theory, it is far more fluid and
sophisticated than that, with data and theory in dialogue at every stage. One way to think of it is as
a process of enhancing theoretical sensitivity in analysing qualitative data, which values both rigor
and imagination. Pidgeon and Henwood (1996) make this point by writing that:
"Although grounded theorists use maximum flexibility in qualitative data analysis, it is
still useful to chart a number of steps in the overall scheme of moving from the collection
of unstructured data through to the theoretical outcomes." (p.87).
Pidgeon and Henwood emphasise, as we do, that these steps are guidelines not a rigid procedure to
be followed mechanically. Grounded theory is an iterative process in which researchers move
flexibly between steps and between data collection, analysis, and interpretation (see figure 1, unit
7). There is some disagreement between writers on grounded theory as to what its essential
characteristics are. For example, some argue that interpretation should occur within a causal
paradigmatic framework (e.g. Strauss and Corbin, 1990). Others argue for a less objectivist more
interpretative social theory approach (e.g. Glaser, 1992). Our view is that this argument need not
colour your view of grounded theory too much. It reflects different approaches to research, rather
than different approaches to grounded theory. Instead we suggest that you concentrate on the core
values shared by all grounded theory researchers. These values are as follows:
3-9

The importance of developing a theory that is accountable to the data being studied (e.g.
clear audit trail, making assumptions and interpretations explicit in memos, etc.)

A methodology built on the procedure of constant comparison. The procedure of constant
comparison informs the whole process generating relationships or patterns of similaritydifference. For example, codes are produced from comparing each datum with the others;
categories from constantly comparing codes with each other; theoretical concepts from
comparing categories with each other.

Interpretation as a search for patterns of relations between data, codes, categories, etc.
which leads to the most abstract category being seen as the core category or the concept
that organises the theory.

Theoretical sensitivity which starts as early in the process as coding. Analysts make
theoretical choices as soon as they start coding.
Finally, as Pidgeon (p.75) notes "... grounded theory is particularly suited (though is by no means
restricted) to the study of local interactions and meanings as related to the social context in which
they actually occur."
Check out the website
http://www.groundedtheoryonline.com/
for more details.
4-9
Unit 6: Traditions of Qualitative Inquiry
Discourse Analysis
Let’s examine discourse analysis by highlighting and discussing the four themes of discourse
analysis outlined by Gill (1996, p.141-143).
1. Discourse analysis takes discourse itself as its topic.
It is not an approach to understanding intentions, attitudes, and other psychological constructs
assumed to lie behind human action including discourse. Discourse analysts do not propose that
discourse is a pathway to the mind or some other reality rather they are interested in the content
and organisation of talk and texts. But discourse analysts are not linguists either. They study the
content and organisation of talk and texts with a view to better understanding social life and social
interaction. For example, a discourse analyst could study the content and organisation of email or
chat room contributions with a view to understanding aspects of a particular ‘electronic
community’. Or the analysts could study people’s accounts of internet shopping experiences with
a view to understanding that particular aspect of electronically mediated social interaction.
2. Language is constructive
Even the simplest piece of discourse is manufactured from pre-existing linguistic resources and
involves choices from a number of possibilities. A politician apologising for wrongdoing can use
language to throw himself on the mercy of his audience e.g.
I know it was wrong and I have no excuses. I lost my way for a while and I hope you can
forgive me. This whole experience has renewed my sense of what I am in politics for - to
serve my constituents.
Alternatively the politician could use language to ‘come out fighting’
I have served my constituents well for 20 years and anything I have done in politics has
been done to improve their lot. I know that they understand that the gutter press blows
everything up out of all proportion to create headlines and sell papers. My constituents
know me of old and know they can trust me above any gutter press journalist.
People choose words, metaphors, and styles of speech when constructing an account. In doing so
they represent events, experiences, and speakers themselves in particular ways for their audiences.
In fact, it would not be terribly surprising to have the same politician using each account when
addressing different audiences e.g. colleagues and constituents.
Of course the two accounts construct the world in two different ways. They present events and the
speaker’s relationship to events in different ways. As Gill notes, this points to the way in which
texts construct our world. Discourse analysis takes a constructivist position on human knowing,
that is that we create understandings of our world through discoursing with each other. This is
quite different from the traditional experimental research position which argues that we can know
the real world through the systematic application of experimental method (see Potter’s chapter in
Richardson for a detailed discussion of constructionism).
3. Discourse analysts regard discourse as social practice.
Language does not merely represent events nor is it an epiphenomenon or a side-product of social
interaction. It is social action. Language is action. In social interaction, language is used to do
things: to make excuses, to blame, to present oneself as virtuous and hardworking. As we have
seen with our politician example above, the politician uses language to create two different
accounts of an event. In one case he apologises and looks for mercy. In the other, he comes out
fighting, blaming the press, and stands on his record. The politician is making language work,
making it do things in a social context, making it do different things in different social contexts
5-9
depending on the nature of the audience. In Gill’s terms the different accounts are occasioned by
different interpretative contexts.
4. Discourse analysis treats talk and text as being organised rhetorically.
Talk and text is involved in establishing one version of the world over competing versions.
Although this may be a deliberate Machiavellian move when politicians and advertisers set out to
present a position on a policy or a product, more often than not discourse is rhetorical in a situated
way. In many cases, discourse provides a particular view of the world but not because of a
deliberate intention of the speaker to lead or mislead. As we said earlier, the intention of the author
is not of any great moment in discourse analysis. As discourse analysts have no direct access to
mental states such as intention, they focus on the work the text does in social settings.
Discourse analysis is a tradition best suited to answering questions about the content and
organisation of language as a social practice: questions about the discursive repertoires (i.e. the
whole of words, metaphors, style of discourse) people use when presenting themselves in a ‘chat
room’; questions about the way in which accounts of internet shopping are constructed by those
who shop regularly (e.g. the benefits of internet shopping, personal feelings about its effect on
local shops, etc.); and questions about the ways in which ‘facts’ are constructed in discourse (e.g.
"e-commerce benefits Ireland").
Summary
Our main aim in discussing ethnography, grounded theory, and discourse analysis as three
different traditions of qualitative research is to demonstrate the rich multidisciplinary background
to qualitative inquiry. You will have got a sense of that yourself from reading Potter, Gill, Pidgeon,
Henwood, Toren, and Rachel. In each of these chapters, questions about our understanding of
language, reality, knowing, interpretation, and social life are brought into focus and addressed
through readings in psychology, sociology, philosophy, and linguistics.
Although they have much in common as qualitative research traditions, ethnography, grounded
theory, and discourse analysis take different positions on many important questions. For example,
whereas the theoretical accounts developed through ethnography claim to be about actual lives
from the perspective of the people living them, discourse analysis presents accounts of the content
and organisation of talk and text as social practices in social settings. Moreover, whereas
ethnography attempts to develop holistic accounts by expressing one experience in terms of
another (e.g. marriage in terms of exchange), grounded theory strives for core concepts by
processes of abstraction, and discourse analysis grounds its interpretations in the similarity and
varity of occasioned discourse. We will make a systematic summary of various features of the
three approaches in the next section. For now, suffice it to say that they are different traditions of
enquiry and if you are inclined to use any of them for research purposes, a familiarity with the
tradition and any assumptions entailed in it is a necessary prerequisite. Nonetheless there are ways
in which an analysis based in one tradition can be enriched by borrowing from another, for
example, we find that constant comparison, normally associated with grounded theory, is a very
useful practice when dealing with any qualitative data.
By now it should be clear that qualitative research is not an easy option for those who don’t like
experimental or broadly quantitative approaches to research. It is not an anecdotal or
impressionistic approach to making sense of interviews and observations. Rather it is an umbrella
term for a collection of interpretative traditions of inquiry (far more than the three we have
covered) which share some features but differ from each other in many ways. Qualitative
researchers try to be imaginative in their approach to research but they are very careful to balance
imagination with rigour and theoretical sensitivity.
6-9
Unit 6: Traditions of Qualitative Inquiry
Comparative Analysis of the Traditions
In this section we will present a couple of tables which are designed to summarise similarities and
differences between the three traditions at a glance. You should use your detailed reading of the
chapters in Richardson to complete the comparisons by ‘unpacking’ or ‘elaborating’ the phrases
we present in each cell in the tables.
Credit is due to Creswell (1998) for the idea for presenting the comparisons in this tabular manner.
His book compares five qualitative research traditions: biography, phenomenology, grounded
theory, ethnography, and case study. Given the emphasis on social life on the net in discussions of
cybertalk, cyber-communities, and cyber-identity, we felt that discourse analysis merited a place
in our comparative analysis. We also have a somewhat different emphasis in places.
7-9
Overall Comparison of Three Traditions in Qualitative Research
Research
focus
Data
collection
Data
analysis
Reporting
style
Ethnography
Describing and
interpreting the lived
experiences of people in
their culture from their
perspective
Field research involving
participant observation,
interviews, and analysis
of documents and other
artefacts
Description Analysis
Interpretation from the
perspective of the person
experiencing
Description and
interpretation of cultural
lives of those studied.
Report is an attempt to
find a way of expressing
the lived experience of
participants in the
research.
Grounded Theory
Developing a theory
grounded in field data
Discourse Analysis
Analysing people’s use of
discourse (talk and text) to
do things in social
contexts
A common source of
data is research
interviews but texts and
archives are also
analysed using GT
Coding Categorising and
conceptualising
Interviews Recordings of
naturally occurring
interactions Texts (e.g.
documents and
advertisements)
Listening, transcribing,
reading over and over
coding analysis and
interpretation
Analysis and
interpretation presented in
such a way that the reader
is able to assess the
analyst’s interpretation.
Includes examples of the
discourse together with
their analysis and
interpretation linking
analytic claims to parts or
aspects of the extracts.
A clear analytic story on
a conceptual / theoretical
level. Clear specification
of relationships among
categories. Clear
specifications of
variations - parts of the
story or categories that
don’t quite fit with the
others.
2
Creswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five traditions.
Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1998
8-9
Unit 6: Traditions of Qualitative Inquiry
Data Analysis and Representation in the Three Traditions
Managing data
Reading and notetaking
Describing
Classifying
Ethnography
Many videotapes and/
or audiotapes and
many pages of
extensive field notes
require a well
organised recording
and filing system.
Read text over and
over; make notes in
the margin; make
memos
Describe the social
setting, actors,
events;draw a picture
of the setting
Generate concepts and
models that help make
sense of the data;
develop and test these
analytic categories; be
tolerant of ambiguity don’t rush to closure;
identify patterns and
themes; constant
comparison
Grounded Theory
Documents, otes,
recordings - again
create and organise
files for data
Discourse Analysis
High quality tape
recording; good
transcription;
thoughtful filing
system for transcripts,
notes, etc.
Read text over and
over; make notes in
the margin; form
initial codes
Describe the setting
and context for data
collection
Read text over and
over; make notes in
the margin; form
initial codes
Describe the setting
and context for data
collection
Coding for analysis;
Axial coding Open
coding (categories,
properties,
dimensions); constant
comparison
Coding in order to
make the data
manageable; Select
different kinds of
instances from the
data set which relate
to the research
question (be
inclusive); place the
different kinds of
instances in different
files
Read and re-read for
detail not gist; search
for pattern differences and
similarities in content
and form of accounts;
form and test
hypotheses about the
functions of these
accounts
(a) coherence
(b) participant’s
orientation
(c) new problems
identified
(d) fruitfulness in
making sense of new
kinds of discourse and
generating novel
explanations
Present analysis and
interpretation together
with detailed
examples to illuminate
both analysis and
claims
Analysing/
Interpreting
Interpret and make
sense of the
findings;stories,
typologies of
categories, relations
between categories;
constant comparison
Selective coding and
developing stories;
conditional matrix;
typologies of
categories and
relations between
them; constant
comparison
Warranting (or
validating) claims
audit trail;
triangulation;
respondent validation.
audit trail;
triangulation;
respondent validation.
Representing,
visualising
Narrative presentation
augmented by tables,
figures and sketches
Present a model or
theory Present
propositions
9-9