Module 4

Module 4:Fundamentals of qualitative research

Unit 1: Difference between qualitative and quantitative research,
Need for qualitative research in Psychology, Characteristics of
qualitative research, Components of qualitative research design
Unit 2: Paradigms of qualitative Research- Constructivism,
Transformative, Pragmatism Traditions in qualitative research:
Grounded theory, Narrative Approach, Ethnography, Discourse
analysis.
Unit 3: Basic designs- case study, comparative study,
retrospective study.
Unit 4: Data collection: Observation, Interviews, Focus group
discussions, Documents, Audio-visual Materials, Coding and
categorizing: Types of coding- open, thematic
Unit 5: Data analysis: Content analysis, Narrative analysis,
Discourse analysis, Thematic analysis

Unit 1:
Difference between qualitative and quantitative research, Need for
qualitative research in Psychology, Characteristics of qualitative
research, Components of qualitative research design
What is Qualitative Research?
When one searches the literature one would realize that most of
the approaches define qualitative method of research in
opposition to quantitative, thus describing qualitative as what it is
not rather than what it is (Olson, 1995; Fidel, 1993).
That is why Fidel (1993) said “the concept of qualitative research
(QLR) has no short, elegant and universally agreed upon
definition”. Yet he acknowledges that researchers know what it
means and what its attributes are.
Bryman (2001) understands qualitative research as a research
strategy that usually emphasizes words rather than quantification
in the collection and analysis of data.
For Gravetter & Forzano (2009) qualitative research is a narrative
report (i.e. written discussion of the observation) emerged as a
result of the careful observation of participants (often including
interaction with participants).

Making Sense of Other’s Reality

The QLT research has a unique grounding – the position from

which to conduct research – that fosters particular ways of asking
questions and particular ways of thinking through problems.
The questions asked in this type of research usually begins with
words like how, why, or what.
Qualitative researchers are after MEANING – the social meaning
people attribute to their experience, circumstances, and
situations.

The History of the Evolution of QLR

(“Those who do not know their history tend to repeat it”)
Qualitative research has a long and vibrant history in the social
sciences, health sciences, and humanities.
Early Ethnography

1st Phase:
The beginnings of qualitative research are located in the work of
early ethnographers during the 17th century. Qualitative research
during this period involved the Western researcher observing the
customs, practices, and behaviors of “primitive” societies, to
understand the other.

2nd Phase

Qualitative research during this second phase (17 th to the 19th

century) was regarded in terms of colonial ethnography.

3rd Phase
Ethnography of the American Indian as Other
During this next phase (late 19th to early 20th century), American
ethnographers focused on American Indians, who were still
regarded as primitive and as representing a specific other. These
others were researched to shed light on prehistoric times.

4th Phase
Ethnography of the Civic Other
During the early 20th century and up to the 1960s, the religious
beliefs, practices, and customs of Black, Asian, and European
immigrants who had arrived on American soil during the early
days of industrialization were a source of worry for White
American citizens who were concerned with the future
development of the American Protestant society.
Modernist Age
1950–1970 known as the golden age of qualitative research, saw
a shift toward making qualitative methods as rigorous as
quantitative approaches. Subjects explored during this moment
included deviance and social control in specific settings, such as
classrooms, and in society more generally. New interpretive
theories (such as feminism) and a shift to giving the underclass a
voice and presence also characterized this moment.
Dimensions of Qualitative Research
There are many important aspects of research aside from methods.
• The major dimensions are ontology, epistemology,
methodology, and methods.
• Each dimension impacts how a research question is
formulated, how a project is conceptualized, and how a study
is carried out.
Further ontological and epistemological positions invariably
influence methodological and methods choice.

Organization of Knowledge
ONTOLOGY

EPISTEMOLOGY METHODOLOGY
• EPISTEMOLOGY
• IDEALISM
• RATIONALISM
• EMPIRICISM
• CONSTRUCTIVISM
Empiricism Rationalism

Knowledge is derived from Knowledge is derived from

experience/experimentation. reason and logic.

Experimental science is the Mathematics is the paradigm

paradigm of knowledge. of knowledge.
 Experimental science cannot Genuine knowledge is certain
produce certainty. because it is rational, not
empirical.

• Ontology and epistemology are two different ways of viewing

the research philosophy.
• Ontology can be defined as “the science or study of being”
and it deals with the nature of reality.
• Ontology is associated with a central question of whether
social entities need to be perceived as objective or
subjective.
• Accordingly, objectivism (or positivism) and subjectivism can
be specified as two important aspects of ontology.
• Objectivism “portrays the position that social entities exist in
reality external to social actors concerned with their
existence” Alternatively, objectivism “is an ontological
position that asserts
that social phenomena and their meanings have an existence
that is independent of social actors”.
Objectivism (Positivism) and research practise: The Researcher as
Scientist
• The quest for objective knowledge
• A Deductive or Theory-Testing Approach (Applying a theory to
a particular case)
• Underpinned by an Objectivist or Realist ontology: facts are
facts
• Explaining how and why things happen: Measurement,
Correlation, Statistical Logic, Verification
• Typical Methods: Surveys, Questionnaires, Random Sampling
• Example Hypothesis: Violence on TV Leads to Juvenile
Violence • Problems with this approach?
Subjectivism/Interpretivism/constructionism on the contrary,
perceives that social phenomena is created from perceptions
and consequent actions of those social actors concerned with
their existence. Formally, constructionism can be defined as
“ontological position which asserts that social phenomena and
their meanings are continually being accomplished by social
actors”.
Subjectivism/Interpretivism/constructionism as a research
practise:
• The quest for subjective knowledge
• Arises from a critique of using the natural sciences as a model
for social research
• An Inductive or Theory-Building Approach
• Underpinned by a Subjectivist ontology: people are people
• Understanding how and why things happen: Elucidating
Meaning
• Typical Approaches: Ethnographic Study; In-depth Interviews;
Analytical Approaches

Epistemology
• Epistemology as a branch of philosophy deals with the sources
of knowledge. Specifically, epistemology is concerned with
possibilities, nature, sources and limitations of knowledge in
the field of study. Alternatively, epistemology can be branded
as the study of the criteria by which the researcher classifies
what does and does not constitute the knowledge.
• In research philosophy there are many different sources of
knowledge. Sources of knowledge related to research in
particular can be divided into the following four categories:
• Intuitive knowledge is based on intuition, faith, beliefs etc.
Human feelings plays greater role in intuitive knowledge
compared to reliance on facts.
• Authoritarian knowledge relies on information that has
 been obtained from books, research papers, experts, etc.
• Logical knowledge is a creation of new knowledge through
the application of logical reasoning.
• Empirical knowledge relies on objective facts that have
been established and can be demonstrated.
As qualitative researches explore the meaning that people give
to their experiences the epistemological paradigm it follows is
constructionism. Constructionists hold the view that knowledge
is constructed rather than discovered, it is a representation of
the ‘real world’ and interpreted by the researcher (Bohlinger,
2009).
There are two primary approaches to using theory: Deductive
and Inductive
A deductive approach is concerned with “developing a
hypothesis (or hypotheses) based on existing theory, and then
designing a research strategy to test the hypothesis”.
It has been stated that “deductive means reasoning from the
general to the particular. If a causal relationship or link
seems to be implied by a particular theory or case example, it
might be true in many cases. A deductive design might test to
see if this relationship or link did obtain on more general
circumstances”.
Deductive approach can be explained by the means of
hypotheses, which can be derived from the propositions of the
theory. In other words, deductive approach is concerned with
deducting conclusions from premises or propositions.
An Example for Deductive Reasoning: You also know that
all apples are fruits, and a Granny Smith is an apple. Therefore,
the Granny Smith has to be a fruit. This is an example of a
syllogism, a form of deductive reasoning. Deductive
reasoning is a type of logic where general statements, or
premises, are used to form a specific conclusion.
 Inducti

ve approach, also known in inductive reasoning, starts with the

observations and theories are proposed towards the end of the
research process as a result of observations. Inductive research
“involves the search for pattern from observation and the
development of explanations – theories – for those patterns
through series of hypotheses”. No theories or hypotheses would
apply in inductive studies at the beginning of the research and
the researcher is free in terms of altering the direction for the
study after the research process had commenced.
It is important to stress that inductive approach does not imply
disregarding theories when formulating research questions and
objectives. This approach aims to generate meanings from the
data set collected in order to identify patterns and relationships to
build a theory; however, inductive approach does not prevent the
researcher from using existing theory to formulate the research
question to be explored. Inductive reasoning is based on learning
from experience. Patterns, resemblances and regularities in
experience (premises) are observed in order to reach conclusions
(or to generate theory).
An example for inductive reasoning: A third marble from the bag is
black. Therefore all the marbles in the bag black.” The statement
above is an example of inductive reasoning. Since the first
marble
from the bag was black, the second was black and the third was
black the conclusion reached is that all the marbles in the bag are
black.
Examples for how qualitative and quantitative looks at the
same issue:
Research Topic: Parenting style and Adolescent identity.
The nature of this topic in itself does not make it qualitative or
quantitative study. The study looks at two constructs: Parenting
style and identity of adolescents.
You could study the extent to which one construct influences the
other (QUAN)
You could also study the nature of one construct and its
relationship to the other (QUAL)
Therefore, the title of the same study under QTR would appear as:
“The Extent to which parenting style influences the level of
adolescents’ identities”
QLR: “The nature of parenting styles and its relationship to
adolescents’ identity”.
Or
“Exploring dimensions of the relationship between parenting
styles and adolescents’ identity.
What kinds of questions and problems can be addressed
with QUAL Methods?
QUAL approaches to research typically use qualitative “inductive”
methods. This means projects frequently begin with the
accumulation of specific data, the analysis of which leads to a
more general understanding of the topic. Therefore, guiding
research questions are generally open-ended, allowing for a
multiplicity of findings to emerge. Research questions typically
begin with words like why, how and what. For example consider
the following questions:
? How might some people with a racial minority status experience
prejudice in their workplace? In what ways does this occur? How
does this make people feel? How does this impact work
productivity? How does this impact professional identity?
? Why do many working women experience struggles to balance
work and family? What is the nature of these struggles? How do
working women cope with these challenges What are the
differences between working fathers’ experiences and those of
working mothers?
? What is the extend of the experience of stigma by people living
with HIV in India? How do PLHIV perceive their stigmatizing
experiences? What does it mean to be a HIV positive person in
India? How do PLHIV cope with the challenge of stigma in this
country? How does stigma affect their wellbeing?
? How do people experience divorce? What does the process entail
on an emotional level? What does it mean to uncouple? How does
this impact self concept?
Qualitative Vs Quantitative Methodology

The Clichéd view of Qualitative and Quantitative

Research
CHARACTERISTICS OF QUAL RESEARCH
1. Natural setting: Qualitative researchers tend to collect
data in the field at the site where participants experience
the issue or problem under study. Researchers do not bring
individuals into a lab (a contrived situation), nor do they
typically send out instruments for individuals to complete.
This up-close information gathered by actually talking
directly to people and seeing them behave and act within
their context is a major characteristic of qualitative
research. In the natural setting, the researchers have face-
to-face interaction, often extending over a prolonged period
of time.
2. Researcher as key instrument: Qualitative researchers
collect data themselves through examining documents,
observing behavior, or interviewing participants. They may
use a protocol—an instrument for recording data—but the
researchers are the ones who actually gather the information
and interpret it. They do not tend to use or rely on
questionnaires or instruments developed by other
researchers.
3. Multiple sources of data: Qualitative researchers typically
gather multiple forms of data, such as interviews,
observations, documents, and audiovisual information rather
than rely on a single data source. These are all open-ended
forms of data in which the participants share their ideas
freely, not constrained by predetermined scales or
instruments. Then the researchers review all of the data,
make sense of it, and organize it into codes and themes that
cut across all of the data sources.
4. Inductive and deductive data analysis: Qualitative
researchers typically work inductively, building patterns,
categories, and themes from the bottom up by organizing
the data into increasingly more abstract units of
information. This inductive process illustrates working back
and forth between the themes and the database until the
researchers have established a comprehensive set of
themes. Then deductively, the researchers look back at their
data from the themes to determine if more evidence can
support each theme or whether they need to gather
additional information. Thus, while the process begins
inductively, deductive thinking also plays an important role
as the analysis
moves forward.
5. Participants’ meanings: In the entire qualitative research
process, the researchers keep a focus on learning the
meaning that the participants hold about the problem or
issue, not the meaning that the researchers bring to the
research or that writers express in the literature.
6. Emergent design: The research process for qualitative
researchers is emergent. This means that the initial plan for
research cannot be tightly prescribed, and some or all
phases of the process may change or shift after the
researcher enters the field and begins to collect data. For
example, the
questions may change, the forms of data collection may
shift, and the individuals studied and the sites visited may
be modified. These shifts signal that the researchers are
delving deeper and deeper into the topic or the
phenomenon under study. The key idea behind qualitative
research is to learn about the problem or issue from
participants and to address the research to obtain that
information.
7. Reflexivity: In qualitative research, inquirers reflect about
how their role in the study and their personal background,
culture, and experiences hold potential for shaping their
interpretations, such as the themes they advance and the
meaning they ascribe to the data. This aspect of the methods is
more than merely advancing biases and values in
 the study, but how the background of the researchers
actually may shape the direction of the study.
8. Holistic account: Qualitative researchers try to develop a
complex picture of the problem or issue under study. This
involves reporting multiple perspectives, identifying the
many factors involved in a situation, and generally sketching
the larger picture that emerges. This larger picture is not
necessarily a linear model of cause and effect but rather a
model of multiple factors interacting in different ways. This
picture, qualitative researchers would say, mirrors real life
and the ways that events operate in the real world. A visual
model of many facets of a process or a central phenomenon
aids in establishing this holistic picture (see, for example,
Creswell & Brown, 1992).

THE NEED FOR QUAL RESEARCH IN PSYCHOLOGY • In

the scientific community, and particularly in psychology and
health, there has been an active and ongoing debate on the
relative merits of adopting either quantitative or qualitative
methods, especially when researching into human behaviour
(Bowling, 2009; Oakley, 2000; Smith, 1995a, 1995b; Smith,
1998). In part, this debate formed a component of the
development in the 1970s of our thinking about science.
Andrew Pickering has described this movement as the
“sociology of scientific knowledge” (SSK), where our scientific
understanding, developing scientific ‘products’ and ‘know-how’,
became identified as forming components in a wider
engagement with society’s environmental and social context
(Pickering, 1992, pp. 1). Since that time, the debate has
continued so that today there is an increasing acceptance of
the use of qualitative methods in the social sciences (Denzin &
Lincoln, 2000; Morse, 1994; Punch, 2011; Robson, 2011) and
health sciences (Bowling, 2009; Greenhalgh & Hurwitz, 1998;
Murphy & Dingwall, 1998).

• The utility of qualitative methods has also been recognised in

psychology. As Nollaig Frost (2011) observes, authors such
asCarla Willig and Wendy Stainton Rogers consider
qualitative
 psychology is much more accepted today and that it has
moved from “the margins to the mainstream in psychology
in the UK.” (Willig & Stainton Rogers, 2008, pp. 8).
Nevertheless, in psychology, qualitative methodologies are
still considered to be relatively ‘new’ (Banister, Bunn,
Burman, et al., 2011; Hayes, 1998; Richardson, 1996)
despite clear evidence to the contrary (see, for example, the
discussion on this point by Rapport et al., 2005). Nicki Hayes
observes, scanning the content of some early journals from
the 1920s – 1930s that many of these more historical papers
“discuss personal experiences as freely as statistical data”
(Hayes, 1998, 1). This can be viewed as an early
development of the case-study approach, now an accepted
methodological approach in psychological, health care and
medical research, where our knowledge about people is
enhanced by our understanding of the individual ‘case’ (May
& Perry, 2011; Radley & Chamberlain, 2001; Ragin, 2011;
Smith, 1998).
The discipline of psychology, originating as it did during the
late 19th century, in parallel with developments in modern
medicine, tended, from the outset, to emphasise the
‘scientific method’ as the way forward for psychological
inquiry. This point of view arose out of the previous century’s
Enlightenment period which underlay the founding of what is
generally agreed to be the first empirical experimental
psychology laboratory, established by Wilhelm Wundt,
University of Leipzig, in 1879.
• During this same period, other early psychology researchers,
such as the group of scientific thinkers interested in
perception were developing their work. Later, in the 20th
century, the introduction of Behaviourism became the
predominant school of psychology in America and Britain.
Behaviourism emphasised a reductionist approach, and this
movement, until its displacement in the 1970-80s by the
‘cognitive revolution’, dominated the discipline of
psychology (Hayes, 1998, pp. 2-3). These approaches have
served the scientific community well, and have been
considerably enhanced by increasingly sophisticated
statistical computer programmes for data analysis.
• A recent feature of the debate in the future direction for
psychology has been a concern for the philosophical
underpinnings of the discipline and an appreciation of their
importance. In part, this is an intrinsic part of theoretical
developments in psychology and the related social sciences,
in particular sociological research, such as Grounded Theory,
developed by the sociologists Glazer and Strauss during the
1960s and 1970s (e.g. Charmaz, 1983; Glaser & Strauss,
1967; Searle, 2012); modes of social inquiry such as
interviewing and content analysis (Gillham, 2000; King &
Horrocks, 2010); action research (Hart & Bond, 1999;
Sixsmith & Daniels, 2011); discourse and discourse analysis
(Tonkiss, 2012; Potter &
Wetherell, 1995); narrative (Polkinghorne, 1988; Reissman,
2008);
• biographical research methods (Roberts, 2002);
phenomenological methods (Giorgi,1995; Langdridge, 2007;
Lawthom &Tindall, 2011; Smith et al., 2009 ); focus groups
(Carey, 1994; Vazquez-Lago et al., 2011); visual research
methods (Mitchell, 2011); ethnographic methods (Boyles, 1994;
Punch, 2011); photo-biographic-elicitation methods (Rapport et
al., 2008); and, finally, the combining or integrating of methods,
the approach often known as ‘mixed methods’ (Frost, 2011;
Pope et al., 2007; Thomas et al., 2004; Todd et al., 2004).
• Qualitative methods have much to offer when we need to
explore people’s feelings or ask participants to reflect on
their experiences. As was noted above, some of the earliest
psychological thinkers of the late 19th century and early 20th
century may be regarded as
proto-qualitative researchers. Examples include the ‘founding
father’ of psycho-analysis, Sigmund Freud, who worked in
Vienna (late 19th century – to mid 20th century), recorded
and published numerous case-studies and then engaged in
analysis,
postulation and theorising on the basis of his observations,
and the pioneering Swiss developmental psychologist, Jean
Piaget (1896 – 1980) who meticulously observed and
recorded his children’s developing awareness and
engagement with their social world.
• They were succeeded by many other authors from the 1940s
onwards who adopted qualitative methods and may be
regarded as contributors to the development of qualitative
methodologies through their emphasis of the importance of
the idiographic and use of case studies (Allport,1946;
Nicholson, 1997)1 . This locates the roots of qualitative
thinking in the long-standing debate between empiricist and
rationalistic schools of thought, and also in social
constructionism (Gergen, 1985; King & Horrock, pp. 6 – 24).
• More recently, in the UK, the British Psychological Society now
has a members’ section for Qualitative Methods in
Psychology (QMiP) which held a successful inaugural
conference, in 2008, at the University of Leeds. The Section
now boasts a membership of more than 1000 members,
making it one of the largest BPS Sections. The
undergraduate psychology curriculum, which confers BPS
graduate basis for registration (GBR), now includes
qualitative research methods teaching in the core
programme for UK universities degrees. Elsewhere,
qualitative psychology has taken a little longer to be
accepted e.g. by the American Psychological Association
(APA). This is somewhat surprising given the large volume of
qualitative research papers which originate from the
American research community. However, US researchers,
alongside their international colleagues, have finally
managed to petition successfully for the inclusion of
qualitative methodologies to be admitted to Section 5, the
methodology section, of the APA, during 2011.
• These developments can be tracked by a search for qualitative
research across the main electronic databases and exploring
the ‘hits’ recovered. A quick scan using the umbrella terms
‘qualitative’ and / or ‘qualitative research’ for example,
provides the researcher with a result for a relatively low
number of papers from the earlier years of last century.
However there is a noticeably sharp increase in the number
of papers published from 1990 onwards. A search of the
main databases, using the term “qualitative” as a key word
(January, 1990 - December, 2011) produced a retrieval rate
for qualitative papers of over 51744 hits (CINAHL); 122012
 hits (PsycInfo); 12108 for Medline
(OVID); and 18431 for Applied Social Sciences Index and
Abstracts (ASSIA).
• Prior to 1990 the number of papers recorded in these
databases is noticeably lower: searching in ASSIA for papers
published between 1985 – 1990, for example, results in 13
papers, while a Medline search for the years 1985 – 1990
returns 6
papers. Searching in CINAHL for the same period (1985 –
1990) results in no papers (zero result).

THE PURPOSE OF QLR

In QLR there are three primary research purposes:
• Exploratory – seeks to investigate an area that has
been under researched. The data garnered is
preliminary data that shape the direction of the future
research. This kind of research addresses “what” of a
topic
• Descriptive – seeks to describe the aspects of social
reality under investigation. This kind of research
addresses “how” of a topic
• Explanatory – seeks to explain social phenomena and
the difference between different components of a topic.
This kind of research addresses “why” of a topic
Exploratory:
Example: The experience of binge drinking among college
students.
Questions the researcher would ask:
• Where do college students party?
• What kind of parties do college students
attend? • What is the drinking environment like?

• In what context do they drink mostly?

 • What does lead the students to drinking?
• Is drinking a strategy of coping with the pressure of being
a student?
Where to gather these data from? And how?
Descriptive
Example: Understanding the experience of military spouses
coping with having their spouse serving in war.
Questions the researcher would ask:
• How did you feel when your spouse was called to the war? •
What did you do as a family to prepare for him/her to leave?
• What did you do individually to prepare?

• What are the hardest aspects of this experience? • How

has your daily life changed with your partner away?

• What coping strategies do you use to deal with the worry,

tensions or pressure?
What is the best way to gather these data?
Explanatory
Example: The relationship between college women’s media
consumption and their body image
Here the researcher is specifically interested association
between media consumption, such as regular reading of
women’s fashion magazines, and poor body image.
The questions the researcher would ask:
• How do you feel about the way you look?
• What do you like about your appearance?
• What do you dislike about your appearance and why?
• How does that make you feel?

The example questions…. cntd

• What television program do you watch?
 • What do you like about them?
• How often do you read fashion magazines?
• Which one’s do you read?
• What do you think about the image you see?
• How do these images make you feel?
• Do you wish you looked more like the models?
• Do you hang clips from these magazines in your dorm? If
yes why?
• How do you decide which clips to hang?
• How do you feel when you look at them?
How do you gather these data?
In each of the three preceding examples, the general research
purpose (to explore, describe, or explain) helped the researcher
to formulate specific research questions. The specific research
questions, in turn, led the researcher to select an appropriate
method or methods – those that are best suited to address the
research questions.

COMPONENTS OF QUAL RESEARCH

• Traditional (typological or linear) approaches to design provide
a model for conducting the research—a prescriptive guide
that arranges the components or tasks involved in planning
or conducting a study in what is seen as an optimal order. In
contrast, the model presented in this chapter is a model of as
well as for research. It is intended to help you understand the
actual structure of your study as well as to plan this study
and carry it out. An essential feature of this model is that it
treats research design as a real entity, not simply an
abstraction or plan. Borrowing Kaplan’s (1964, p. 8)
distinction between the “logic-in-use” and “reconstructed
logic” of research, this model can be used to represent the
“design-in-use” of a study, the actual relationships among
the components of the research, as
 well as the intended (or reconstructed) design (Maxwell &
Loomis, 2002).
This model of research design has five components, each of
which addresses a different set of issues that are essential to
the coherence of a study:
1. Goals:
Why is your study worth doing? What issues do you want it to
clarify, and what practices and policies do you want it to
influence? Why do you want to conduct this study, and why
should we care about the results?
2. Conceptual framework:
What do you think is going on with the issues, settings, or
people you plan to study? What theories, beliefs, and prior
research findings will guide or inform your research, and what
literature, preliminary studies, and personal experiences will
you draw on for understanding the people or issues you are
studying?
3. Research questions: What, specifically, do you want to
learn or understand by doing this study? What do you not
know about the things you are studying that you want to
learn? What questions will your research attempt to answer,
and how are these questions related to one another?
4. Methods: What will you actually do in conducting this
study? What approaches and techniques will you use to
collect and analyze your data, and how do these constitute
an integrated strategy?
5. Validity:
How might your results and conclusions be wrong? What are
the plausible alternative interpretations and validity threats
to these, and how will you deal with these? How can the
data that you have, or that you could potentially collect,
support or challenge your ideas about what’s going on? Why
should we believe your results?
Unit 2:
Paradigms of qualitative Research-Constructivism, Transformative,
Pragmatism Traditions in qualitative research: Grounded theory, Narrative
Approach, Ethnography, Discourse analysis.

The Five Approaches to Qualitative Research (Five Paradigms)

1. Narrative Research
Definition and Background
• “Narrative” might be the term assigned to any text or discourse, or, it
might be text used within the context of a mode of inquiry in qualitative
research, with a specific focus on the stories told by individuals.
• Narrative can be both a method and the phenomenon of study.
• As a method, it begins with the experiences as expressed in
lived and told stories of individuals.
• The procedures for implementing this research consist of
focusing on studying one or two individuals, gathering data
through the collection of their stories, reporting individual
experiences, and chronologically ordering (or using life
course stages) the meaning of those experiences.
Types of Narrative Studies
A biographical study is a form of narrative study in which the
researcher writes and records the experiences of another
person’s life.
Autobiography is written and recorded by the individuals who
are the subject of the study (Ellis, 2004).
A life history portrays an individual’s entire life, while a
personal experience story is a narrative study of an individual’s
personal experience found in single or multiple episodes,
private situations, or communal folklore.
Types of Narrative Studies ………cntd
• An oral history consists of gathering personal reflections of
events and their causes and effects from one individual or
several individuals.
• Narrative studies may have a specific contextual focus, such
as teachers or children in classrooms, or the stories told
about organizations.
• Narratives may be guided by a theoretical lens or perspective.
The lens may be used to advocate for Latin Americans
through using testimonios, or it may be a feminist lens used
to report the stories of women, a lens that shows how
women’s voices are muted.
Procedures for Conducting Narrative Research
• The methods of conducting a narrative study do not follow a
lock-step approach, but instead represent an informal
collection of topics.
1. Determine if the research problem or question best fits
narrative research. Narrative research is best for capturing
the detailed stories or life experiences of a single life or the
lives of a small number of individuals.
2. Select one or more individuals who have stories or life
experiences to tell, and spend considerable time with them
gathering their stories through multiples types of
information. Research participants may record their stories
in a journal or diary, or the researcher might observe the
individuals and record fieldnotes. Researchers may also
 collect letters sent by the individuals; assemble stories
about the individuals from family members; gather
documents such as memos or official correspondence about
the individual; or obtain photographs, memory boxes
(collection of items that trigger memories), and other
personal-family-social artifacts. After examining these
sources, the researcher records the individuals’ life
experiences.
3. Collect information about the context of these stories.
Narrative researchers situate individual stories within
participants’ personal experiences (their jobs, their homes),
their culture (racial or ethnic), and their historical contexts
(time and place).
4. Analyze the participants’ stories, and then “restory” them
into a framework that makes sense. Restorying is the
process of reorganizing the stories into some general type of
framework. This framework may consist of gathering stories,
analyzing them for key elements of the story (e.g., time,
place, and scene), and then rewriting the stories to place
them within a chronological sequence. Often when
individuals tell their stories,
they do not present them in a chronological sequence.
One aspect of the chronology is that the stories have a
beginning, a middle, and an end. Similar to basic elements
found in good novels, these aspects involve a predicament,
conflict, or struggle; a protagonist, or main character; and a
sequence with implied causality (i.e., a plot) during which the
predicament is resolved in some fashion. A chronology
further
may consist of past, present, and future ideas, based on the
assumption that time has a unilinear direction.
5. Collaborate with participants by actively involving them in
the research. As researchers collect stories, they negotiate
relationships, smooth transitions, and provide ways to be
useful to the participants. In narrative research, a key theme
has been the turn toward the relationship between the
researcher and the researched in which both parties will
 learn and change in the encounter. In this process, the
parties negotiate the meaning of the stories, adding a
validation check to the analysis.
Challenges
Given these procedures and the characteristics of narrative
research, narrative research is a challenging approach to use.
• The researcher needs to collect extensive information about
the participant, and needs to have a clear understanding of
the context of the individual’s life. It takes a keen eye to
identify in the source material gathered the particular stories
that capture the individual’s experiences.
• Active collaboration with the participant is necessary, and
researchers need to discuss the participant’s stories as well
as be reflective about their own personal and political
background, which shapes how they “restory” the account.
• Multiple issues arise in the collecting, analyzing, and telling of
individual stories. Pinnegar and Daynes (2006) raise these
important questions: Who owns the story? Who can tell it?
Who can change it? Whose version is convincing? What
happens when narratives compete? As a community, what
do stories do among us?

2. Phenomenological Research
Definition and Background
Whereas a narrative study reports the life of a single
individual, a phenomenological study describes the
meaning for several
individuals of their lived experiences of a concept or a
phenomenon. Phenomenologists focus on describing what all
participants have in common as they experience a phenomenon
(e.g., grief is universally experienced).
• The basic purpose of phenomenology is to reduce individual
experiences with a phenomenon to a description of the
universal essence (a “grasp of the very nature of the thing,”
 van Manen, 1990, p. 177). To this end, qualitative
researchers identify a phenomenon (an “object” of human
experience; van Manen, 1990, p. 163). This human
experience may be phenomena such as insomnia, being left
out, anger, grief, or being diagnosed with cancer, or diabetes
(Moustakas, 1994). The inquirer then collects data from
persons who have experienced the phenomenon, and
develops a composite description of the essence of the
experience for all of the individuals. This description consists
of “what” they experienced and “how” they experienced it
(Moustakas, 1994).
• Beyond these procedures, phenomenology has a strong
philosophical component to it. It draws heavily on the
writings of the German mathematician Edmund Husserl
(1859–1938) and those who expanded on his views, such as
Heidegger, Sartre, and Merleau-Ponty. Phenomenology is
popular in the social and health sciences, especially in
sociology, psychology, nursing and the health sciences, and
education.
Types of Phenomenology
Two approaches to phenomenology are highlighted in this discussion:
hermeneutic phenomenology and empirical, transcendental, or
psychological phenomenology.
In hermeneutical phenomenology research is oriented toward
lived experience (phenomenology) and interpreting the “texts” of
life (hermeneutics). van Manen discusses phenomenology
research as a dynamic interplay among the following research
activities:
Researchers first turn to a phenomenon, an “abiding concern”,
which seriously interests them (e.g., reading, running, driving,
mothering).
In the process, they reflect on essential themes, what
constitutes the nature of this lived experience.
They write a description of the phenomenon, maintaining a
strong relation to the topic of inquiry and balancing the
parts of the writing to the whole.
Phenomenology is not only a description, but it is also seen as an
interpretive process in which the researcher makes an
interpretation (i.e., the researcher “mediates” between different
meanings; van Manen, 1990, p. 26) of the meaning of the lived
experiences.
Moustakas’s (1994) transcendental or psychological
phenomenology is focused less on the interpretations of the
researcher and more on a description of the experiences of
participants. In addition, Moustakas focuses on one of Husserl’s
concepts, epoche (or bracketing), in which investigators set aside
their experiences, as much as possible, to take a fresh perspective
toward the phenomenon under examination. Hence,
“transcendental”
means “in which everything is perceived freshly, as if for the first
time” (Moustakas, 1994, p. 34). Moustakas admits that this state is
seldom perfectly achieved.
The procedures, illustrated by Moustakas (1994), consist of
identifying a phenomenon to study, bracketing out one’s
experiences, and collecting data from several persons who have
experienced the phenomenon. The researcher then analyzes the
data by reducing the information to significant statements or
quotes and combines the statements into themes. Following that,
the researcher develops a textural description of the
experiences of the persons (what participants experienced), a
structural description of their experiences (how they
experienced it in terms of the conditions, situations, or context),
and a combination of the textural and structural descriptions to
convey an overall essence of the experience.
Procedures for Conducting Phenomenological Research
The major procedural steps in conducting a phenomenological
study would be as follows:
1. The researcher determines if the research problem is best
examined using a phenomenological approach. The type of
problem best suited for this form of research is one in which it is
important to understand several individuals’ common or shared
experiences of a phenomenon. It would be important to
understand these common experiences in order to develop
 practices or policies, or to develop a deeper understanding
about the features of the phenomenon.
2. A phenomenon of interest to study, such as anger,
professionalism, what it means to be underweight, or what it
means to be a wrestler, is identified.
3. 3. The researcher recognizes and specifies the broad
philosophical assumptions of phenomenology. To fully describe
how participants view the phenomenon, researchers must
bracket out, as much as possible, their own experiences.
4. Data are collected from the individuals who have experienced
the phenomenon. Often data collection in phenomenological
studies consists of in-depth interviews and multiple interviews
with participants. Polkinghorne (1989) recommends that
researchers interview from 5 to 25 individuals who have all
experienced the phenomenon. Other forms of data may also be
collected, such as observations, journals, art, poetry, music,
and other forms of art. Van Manen (1990) mentions taped
conversations, formally written responses, accounts of
vicarious experiences of drama, films, poetry, and novels.
5. The participants are asked two broad, general questions
(Moustakas,1994): What have you experienced in terms of the
phenomenon? What contexts or situations have typically
influenced or affected your experiences of the phenomenon?
Other open-ended questions may also be asked, but these two,
especially,
focus attention on gathering data that will lead to a textural
description and a structural description of the experiences, and
ultimately provide an understanding of the common
experiences of the participants.
6. Phenomenological data analysis steps are generally similar
for all psychological phenomenologists who discuss the
methods (Moustakas, 1994; Polkinghorne, 1989). Building on
the data from the first and second research questions, data
analysts go through
the data (e.g., interview transcriptions) and highlight
“significant statements,” sentences, or quotes that provide an
understanding of how the participants experienced the
phenomenon. Moustakas (1994) calls this step
horizontalization. Next, the researcher develops clusters of
 meaning from these significant statements into themes.
7. These significant statements and themes are then used to write
a description of what the participants experienced (textural
description). They are also used to write a description of the
context or setting that influenced how the participants
experienced the phenomenon.
8. From the structural and textural descriptions, the researcher
then writes a composite description that presents the
“essence” of the phenomenon. Primarily this passage focuses
on the common experiences of the participants. For example, it
means that all experiences have an underlying structure
(grief is the same whether the loved one is a puppy, a
parakeet, or a child). It is a descriptive passage, a long
paragraph or two, and the reader should come away from the
phenomenology with the feeling, “I understand better what it is
like for someone to experience that” (Polkinghorne, 1989, p.
46).
Challenges
• A phenomenology provides a deep understanding of a
phenomenon as experienced by several individuals.
Phenomenology can involve a streamlined form of data
collection by including only single or multiple interviews with
participants.
• Using the Moustakas (1994) approach for analyzing the data
helps provide a structured approach for novice researchers.
On the other hand, phenomenology requires at least some
understanding of the broader philosophical assumptions, and
these should be identified by the researcher.
• The participants in the study need to be carefully chosen to be
individuals who have all experienced the phenomenon in
question, so that the researcher, in the end, can forge a
common understanding.
• Bracketing personal experiences may be difficult for the
researcher to implement. An interpretive approach to
phenomenology would signal this as an impossibility (van
Manen, 1990)—for the researcher to become separated from
the text. Perhaps we need a new definition of epoche or
 bracketing, such as suspending our understandings in a
reflective move that cultivates curiosity (LeVasseur, 2003).
Thus, the researcher needs to decide how and in what way
his or her personal understandings will be introduced into
the study.

3. Grounded Theory Research

Definition and Background
Although a phenomenology emphasizes the meaning of an
experience for a number of individuals, the intent of a grounded
theory study is to move beyond description and to generate or
discover a theory, an abstract analytical schema of a process (or
action or interaction). Participants in the study would all have
experienced the process, and the development of the theory
might help explain practice or provide a framework for further
research. A key idea is that this theory
development does not come “off the shelf,” but rather is
generated or “grounded” in data from participants who have
experienced the process. Thus, grounded theory is a qualitative
research design in which the inquirer generates a general
explanation (a theory) of a process, action, or interaction shaped
by the views of a large number of participants (Strauss & Corbin,
1998).
Grounded theory involves the progressive identification and
integration of categories of meaning from data. It is both the
process of category identification and integration (as method) and
its product (as theory). Grounded theory as method provides us
with guidelines on how to identify categories, how to make links
between categories and how to establish relationships between
them. Grounded theory as theory is the end-product of this
process; it provides us with an explanatory framework with which
to understand the phenomenon under investigation.
Procedures for Conducting Grounded Theory Research
1. The researcher needs to begin by determining if grounded
theory is best suited to study his or her research problem.
Grounded theory is a good design to use when a theory is not
available to explain a process. The literature may have models
 available, but they were developed and tested on samples and
populations other than those of interest to the qualitative
researcher. Also, theories may be present, but they are
incomplete because they do not address potentially valuable
variables of interest to the researcher. On the practical side, a
theory may be needed to explain how people are experiencing
a phenomenon, and the grounded theory developed by the
researcher will provide such a general framework.
2. The research questions that the inquirer asks of participants
will focus on understanding how individuals experience the
process and identifying the steps in the process (What was the
process? How did it unfold?). After initially exploring these
issues, the researcher then returns to the participants and asks
more detailed questions that help to shape the axial coding
phase, questions such as: What was central to the process?
(the core phenomenon); What influenced or caused this
phenomenon to occur? (causal conditions); What strategies
were employed during the process? (strategies); What effect
occurred? (consequences).
3. These questions are typically asked in interviews, although
other forms of data may also be collected, such as
observations, documents, and audiovisual materials. The point
is to gather enough information to fully develop (or saturate)
the model. This may involve 20 to 30 interviews or 50 to 60
interviews.
4. 4. The analysis of the data proceeds in stages. In open coding,
the researcher forms categories of information about the
phenomenon being studied by segmenting information. Within
each category, the investigator finds several properties, or
subcategories, and looks for data to dimensionalize, or show
the extreme possibilities on a continuum of, the property.
What is open coding?
Open coding: Basically, you read through your data several
times and then start to create tentative labels for chunks of
data that summarize what you see happening (not based on
existing theory
– just based on the meaning that emerges from the data).
Record examples of participants’ words and establish
properties of each code (see my charts below).
5. In axial coding, the investigator assembles the data in new ways
after open coding. This is presented using a coding paradigm
or logic diagram (i.e., a visual model) in which the researcher
identifies a central phenomenon (i.e., a central category
about the phenomenon), explores causal conditions (i.e.,
categories of conditions that influence the phenomenon),
specifies strategies (i.e., the actions or interactions that result
from the central phenomenon), identifies the context and
intervening conditions (i.e., the narrow and broad conditions
that influence the strategies), and delineates the
consequences (i.e., the outcomes of the strategies) for this
phenomenon.

6. In selective coding, the researcher may write a “story line” that

connects the categories. Alternatively, propositions or
hypotheses may be specified that state predicted relationships.
How’s Selective coding done? Figure out the core variable
that includes all of the data. Then reread the transcripts and
selectively code any data that relates to the core variable you
identified.
7. Finally, the researcher may develop and visually portray a
conditional matrix that elucidates the social, historical, and
 economic conditions influencing the central phenomenon. It is
an optional step and one in which the qualitative inquirer
thinks about the model from the smallest to the broadest
perspective.
The result of this process of data collection and analysis is a
theory, a substantive-level theory, written by a researcher
close to a specific problem or population of people. The theory
emerges with help from the process of memoing, a process in
which the researcher writes down ideas about the evolving
theory throughout the process of open, axial, and selective
coding. The substantive-level theory may be tested later for its
empirical verification with quantitative data to determine if it
can be generalized to a sample and population (see mixed
methods design procedures, Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007).
Alternatively, the study may end at this point with the
generation of a theory as the goal of the research.
Challenges
• A grounded theory study challenges researchers for the
following reasons:
• The investigator needs to set aside, as much as possible,
theoretical ideas or notions so that the analytic, substantive
theory can emerge.
• Despite the evolving, inductive nature of this form of
qualitative inquiry, the researcher must recognize that this is
a systematic approach to research with specific steps in data
analysis.
• The researcher faces the difficulty of determining when
categories are saturated or when the theory is sufficiently
detailed.
• The researcher needs to recognize that the primary outcome
of this study is a theory with specific components: a central
phenomenon, causal conditions, strategies, conditions and
context, and consequences. These are prescribed categories
of information in the theory. Therefore the researcher does
not enjoy much flexibility here unlike the case of other
qualitative paradigms.
4. Ethnographic Research
Definition and Background
Although a grounded theory researcher develops a theory from
examining many individuals who share in the same process, action,
or interaction, the study participants are not likely to be located in
the same place or interacting on so frequent a basis that they
develop shared patterns of behavior, beliefs, and language. An
ethnographer is interested in examining these shared patterns,
and the unit of analysis is larger than the 20 or so individuals
involved in a grounded theory study. An ethnography focuses
on an entire cultural group.
Granted, sometimes this cultural group may be small (a few
teachers, a few social workers), but typically it is large, involving
many people who interact over time (teachers in an entire school,
a community social work group).
Ethnography is a qualitative design in which the researcher
describes and interprets the shared and learned patterns of
values, behaviors, beliefs, and language of a culture-sharing
group. As both a process and an outcome of research,
ethnography is a way of studying a culture-sharing group as well
as the final, written product of that research. As a process,
ethnography involves extended observations of the group, most
often through participant observation, in which the researcher
is immersed in the day-to-day lives of the people and observes
and interviews the group participants.
Types of Ethnographies
There are many forms of ethnography, such as a confessional
ethnography, life history, autoethnography, feminist ethnography,
ethnographic novels, and the visual ethnography found in
photography and video, and electronic media.
Two popular forms of ethnography will be emphasized here: the
realist ethnography and the critical ethnography. The realist
ethnography is a traditional approach used by cultural
anthropologists. It reflects a particular stance taken by the
researcher toward the individuals being studied. Realist
ethnography is an objective account of the situation, typically
written in the third
person point of view and reporting objectively on the information
learned from participants at a site. In this ethnographic approach,
the realist ethnographer narrates the study in a third-person
dispassionate voice and reports on what is observed or heard from
participants.
The ethnographer remains in the background as an omniscient
reporter of the “facts.” The realist also reports objective data in a
measured style uncontaminated by personal bias, political goals,
and judgment. The researcher may provide mundane details of
everyday life among the people studied. The ethnographer also
uses standard categories for cultural description (e.g., family life,
communication networks, worklife, social networks, status
systems). The ethnographer produces the participants’ views
through closely edited quotations and has the final word on how
the culture is to be interpreted and presented.
The critical ethnography is a type of ethnographic research in
which the authors advocate for the emancipation of groups
marginalized in society. Critical researchers typically are politically
minded individuals who seek, through their research, to speak out
against inequality and domination. For example, critical
ethnographers might study schools that provide privileges to
certain types of students, or counseling practices that serve to
overlook the needs of underrepresented groups. The major
components of a critical ethnography include a value-laden
orientation, empowering people by giving them more authority,
challenging the status quo, and addressing concerns about power
and control. A critical ethnographer will study issues of power,
empowerment, inequality, inequity, dominance, repression,
hegemony, and victimization.
Procedures for Conducting an Ethnography
1. Determine if ethnography is the most appropriate design to use
to study the research problem. Ethnography is appropriate if
the needs are to describe how a cultural group works and to
explore the beliefs, language, behaviors, and issues such as
power, resistance, and dominance.
2. Identify and locate a culture-sharing group to study. Typically,
this group is one that has been together for an extended period
of time, so that their shared language, patterns of behavior,
 and attitudes have merged into a discernible pattern. This may
also be a group that has been marginalized by society. Because
ethnographers spend time talking with and observing this
group, access may require finding one or more individuals in
the group who will allow the researcher in—a gatekeeper or
key informants (or participants).
3. Select cultural themes or issues to study about the group. This
involves the analysis of the culture-sharing group. The
themes may include such topics as enculturation, socialization,
learning, cognition, domination, inequality, or child and adult
development. The ethnographer begins the study by examining
people in interaction in ordinary settings and by attempting to
discern pervasive patterns such as life cycles, events, and
cultural themes. Such themes are diverse. Ethnographers
describe a holistic perspective of the group’s history, religion,
politics, economy, and environment. Within this description,
cultural concepts such as the social structure, kinship, the
political structure, and the social relations or function among
members of the group may be described.
4. To study cultural concepts, determine which type of
ethnography to use. Perhaps how the group works needs to be
described, or the critical ethnography may need to expose
issues such as power, hegemony, and to advocate for certain
groups.

5. Gather information where the group works and lives. This is

called fieldwork. Gathering the types of information typically
needed in an ethnography involves going to the research site,
respecting the daily lives of individuals at the site, and
collecting a wide variety of materials. From the many sources
 collected, the ethnographer analyzes the data for a
description of the culture-sharing group,
themes that emerge from the group, and an overall
interpretation. The researcher begins by compiling a detailed
description of the culture-sharing group, focusing on a single
event, on several activities, or on the group over a prolonged
period of time. The ethnographer moves into a theme analysis
of patterns or topics that signifies how the cultural group works
and lives.
6. Forge a working set of rules or patterns as the final product of
this analysis. The final product is a holistic cultural portrait of
the group that incorporates the views of the participants as well
as the views of the researcher. It might also advocate for the
needs of the group or suggest changes in society to address
needs of the group. As a result, the reader learns about the
culture-sharing group from both the participants and the
interpretation of the researcher.
Other products may be more performance based, such as
theater productions, plays, or poems.
Challenges
• Ethnography is challenging to use for the following reason:
• The researcher needs to have a grounding in cultural
anthropology and the meaning of a social-cultural system as
well as the concepts typically explored by ethnographers.
• The time to collect data is extensive, involving prolonged time
in the field.
• In many ethnographies, the narratives are written in a literary,
almost storytelling approach, an approach that may limit the
audience for the work and may be challenging for authors
accustomed to traditional approaches to writing social and
human science research.
• There is a possibility that the researcher will “go native” and
be unable to complete the study or be compromised in the
study. This is but one issue in the complex array of fieldwork
issues facing ethnographers who venture into an unfamiliar
cultural group or system.
 • A sensitivity to the needs of individual studies is especially
important, and the researcher needs to acknowledge his or
her impact on the people and the places being studied.

5. Case Study Research

Definition and Background
The entire culture-sharing group in ethnography may be
considered a case, but the intent in ethnography is to
determine how the culture works rather than to understand an
issue or problem using the case as a specific illustration. Thus,
case study research involves the study of an issue explored
through one or more cases within a bounded system (i.e., a
setting, a context).
• Case study research is a qualitative approach in which the
investigator explores a bounded system (a case) or multiple
bounded systems (cases) over time, through detailed, in-
depth data collection involving multiple sources of
information (e.g.,
observations, interviews, audiovisual material, and
documents and reports), and reports a case description and
case-based themes. For example, several programs (a
multi-site study) or a single program (a within-site study)
may be selected for study.

Types of

Case Studies
Types of qualitative case studies are distinguished by the size of
the bounded case, such as whether the case involves one
individual, several individuals, a group, an entire program, or an
activity.
They may also be distinguished in terms of the intent of the case
analysis. Three variations exist in terms of intent: the single
instrumental case study, the collective or multiple case study, and
the intrinsic case study.
In a single instrumental case study, the researcher focuses on
an issue or concern, and then selects one bounded case to
illustrate this issue. It is used to accomplish something other than
understanding a particular situation. It provides insight into an
issue or helps to refine a theory. The case is often looked at in
depth, its contexts scrutinized, its ordinary activities detailed, and
because it helps the researcher pursue the external interest. The
case may or may not be seen as typical of other cases (Stake,
1995).
Example: Luck, Jackson, & Usher (2007). STAMP: Components of
observable behaviour that indicate potential for patient violence in
emergency departments. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 59, 11-19.
(STAMP: Staring and eye contact, Tone and volume of voice,
Anxiety, Mumbling and Pacing).
In a collective case study A multiple case study enables the
researcher to explore differences within and between cases. The
goal is to replicate findings across cases. Because comparisons
will be drawn, it is imperative that the cases are chosen carefully
so that the researcher can predict similar results across cases, or
predict contrasting results based on a theory (Yin, 2003).
Example: Campbell & Ahrens (1998). Innovative community
services for rape victims: An application of multiple case study
methodology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26,
537-571.
The final type of case study design is an intrinsic case study in
which the focus is on the case itself (e.g., evaluating a program, or
studying a student having difficulty). Stake (1995) uses the term
intrinsic and suggests that researchers who have a genuine
interest in the case should use this approach when the intent is to
better understand the case. It is not undertaken primarily because
the case represents other cases or because it illustrates a
particular trait or problem, but because in all its particularity and
ordinariness, the case itself is of interest. The purpose is NOT to
come to understand some abstract construct or generic
phenomenon or to build a theory.
Example: Hellström, Nolan, & Lundh (2005). “We do things
together” A case study of “couplehood” in dementia. Dementia,
4(1), 7-22.
Procedures for Conducting a Case Study
1. First, researchers determine if a case study approach is
appropriate to the research problem. A case study is a good
approach when the inquirer has clearly identifiable cases with
boundaries and seeks to provide an in-depth understanding of
the cases or a comparison of several cases.
2. Researchers next need to identify their case or cases. These
cases may involve an individual, several individuals, a
program, an event, or an activity. In conducting case study
research, investigators should first consider what type of case
study is most promising and useful. The case can be single or
collective, multi
sited or within-site, focused on a case or on an issue (intrinsic,
instrumental). In choosing which case to study, an array of
possibilities for purposeful sampling is available.
3. The data collection in case study research is typically extensive,
drawing on multiple sources of information, such as
observations, interviews, documents, and audiovisual
materials. For example, Yin (2003) recommends six types of
information to collect: documents, archival records, interviews,
direct observations, participant-observations, and physical
artifacts.
4. The type of analysis of these data can be a holistic analysis of
the entire case or an embedded analysis of a specific aspect
of the case. Through this data collection, a detailed
description of the case emerges in which the researcher
details such aspects as the history of the case, the chronology
of events, or a day-by-day rendering of the activities of the
case. (The gunman case study involved tracing the campus
response to a gunman for 2 weeks immediately following the
near-tragedy on campus.)
After this description, the researcher might focus on a few key
issues (or analysis of themes), not for generalizing beyond
the case, but for understanding the complexity of the case.
One analytic strategy would be to identify issues within each
case and then look for common themes that transcend the
 cases. When multiple cases are chosen, a typical format is to
first provide a detailed description of each case and themes
within the case, called a within-case analysis, followed by a
thematic analysis across the cases, called a cross-case
analysis, as well as assertions or an interpretation of the
meaning of the case.
5. In the final interpretive phase, the researcher reports the
meaning of the case, whether that meaning comes from
learning about the issue of the case (an instrumental case) or
learning about an unusual situation (an intrinsic case). As
Lincoln and Guba (1985) mention, this phase constitutes the
“lessons learned”
from the case.
Challenges
• One of the challenges inherent in qualitative case study
development is that the researcher must identify his or her
case. The case study researcher must decide which bounded
system to study, recognizing that several might be possible
candidates for this selection and realizing that either the case
itself or an issue, which a case or cases are selected to
illustrate, is worthy of study.
• The researcher must consider whether to study a single case
or multiple cases. The study of more than one case dilutes
the overall analysis; the more cases an individual studies,
the less the depth in any single case. When a researcher
chooses multiple cases, the issue becomes, “How many
cases?” There is
not a set number of cases. Typically, however, the researcher
chooses no more than four or five cases. What motivates the
researcher to consider a large number of cases is the idea of
“generalizability,” a term that holds little meaning for most
qualitative researchers.
• Selecting the case requires that the researcher establish a
rationale for his or her purposeful sampling strategy for
selecting the case and for gathering information about the
case. Having enough information to present an in-depth
picture of the case limits the value of some case studies. In
 planning a case study, researchers develop a data collection
matrix in which they specify the amount of information they
are likely to collect about the case.
• Deciding the “boundaries” of a case—how it might be
constrained in terms of time, events, and processes—may be
challenging. Some case studies may not have clean
beginning and ending points, and the researcher will need to
set boundaries that adequately surround the case.