Week 2 – Assignment: Appraise the Merits of Using the Qualitative Method

 

Continue with the CITI training. This week’s readings and activities were introspective: you had to evaluate how your choice of a degree path and your worldview will affect your research. Now you will appraise the merits of qualitative research designs.

1. Begin your paper with an overview of the value of qualitative research (1-2 cited paragraphs). Be sure to make the connection between the research problem and the qualitative approach.
2. Determine if there is the potential to employ a mixed methods approach (1-2 cited paragraphs).
3. Explain how your degree path informs your research approach (1-2 cited paragraphs).
4. Based on your discovery of your worldview, share your thoughts about how this will affect your research (1-2 cited paragraphs).
5. Justify and construct a theoretical or conceptual framework for the research problem; this section must be clearly written to ensure that the reader is seeing the proposed research through your framework.
6. Include a brief discussion on how your degree type affected your framework selection.

Length: 3-5 pages.

References: Include a minimum of 5 scholarly sources; find 3 additional sources to support your framework.

Your written assignment should demonstrate thoughtful consideration of the ideas and concepts presented in the course and provide new thoughts and insights relating directly to this topic. Your response should reflect scholarly writing and current APA standards. Be sure to adhere to Northcentral University’s Academic Integrity Policy.

Week 2 – Assignment: Appraise the Merits of Using the Qualitative Method

Hide Folder Information

Turnitin™

Turnitin™ enabledThis assignment will be submitted to Turnitin™.

Instructions

Continue with the CITI training. This week’s readings and activities were introspective: you had to evaluate how your choice of a degree path and your worldview will affect your research. Now you will appraise the merits of qualitative research designs.

Begin your paper with an overview of the value of qualitative research (1-2 cited paragraphs). Be sure to make the connection between the research problem and the qualitative approach.

Determine if there is the potential to employ a mixed methods approach (1-2 cited paragraphs).

Explain how your degree path informs your research approach (1-2 cited paragraphs).

Based on your discovery of your worldview, share your thoughts about how this will affect your research (1-2 cited paragraphs).

Justify and construct a theoretical or conceptual framework for the research problem; this section must be clearly written to ensure that the reader is seeing the proposed research through your framework.

Include a brief discussion on how your degree type affected your framework selection.

Length: 3-5 pages.

References: Include a minimum of 5 scholarly sources; find 3 additional sources to support your framework.

Your written assignment should demonstrate thoughtful consideration of the ideas and concepts presented in the course and provide new thoughts and insights relating directly to this topic. Your response should reflect scholarly writing and current APA standards. Be sure to adhere to Northcentral University’s Academic Integrity Policy.

Caffrey, C. (2018). Conceptual framework [Audio file]. Salem Press Encyclopedia.

Differentiating the Research (Ph.D.) and Applied Doctoral Degrees

Harrison, I. R. L. (2013). Using mixed methods designs in the Journal of Business Research, 1990-2010. Journal of Business Research, 66, 2153-2162

Mertens, D., Holmes, H., & Harris, R. (2009). Transformative research and ethics. In D. M. Mertens & P. E. Ginsberg, The handbook of social

Mertz, N. (Academic). (2017). Norma Mertz defines theoretical framework [Video file]

NCU School of Business Best Practice Guide for Qualitative Research Design and Methods in Dissertations 2nd Edition

Yin, R. K. (2015). Qualitative research from start to finish. New York, NY: Guilford Publications

SAGE Research Methods Video

Norma Mertz Defines Theoretical Framework

Pub. Date: 2016

Product: SAGE Research Methods Video

DOI:

https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781473964525

Methods: Theory, Philosophy of research

Keywords: perspective of the decision maker, Standpoint

Disciplines: Anthropology, Business and Management, Criminology and Criminal Justice, Communication

and Media Studies, Counseling and Psychotherapy, Economics, Education, Geography, Health, History,

Marketing, Nursing, Political Science and International Relations, Psychology, Social Policy and Public Policy,

Social Work, Sociology, Science, Technology, Computer Science, Engineering, Mathematics, Medicine

Access Date: January 5, 2023

Publishing Company: SAGE Publications Ltd.

City: London

Online ISBN: 9781473964525

© 2016 SAGE Publications Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781473964525

[MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] A theoretical framework is a lens through which you are look-

ing and approaching the research. So it frames what you see and what you may not see.

It guides the various parts of the study, so it can have a very encompassing affect on that study.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781473964525

SAGE

(c) SAGE Publications Ltd., 2017

SAGE Research Methods Video

Page 2 of 2 Norma Mertz Defines Theoretical Framework

https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781473964525

SAGE Research Methods Video

Norma Mertz Defines Theoretical Framework

xvii

Brief Contents

Part I Understanding Qualitative Research

ChaP ter 1 What Is Qualitative Research— 3
and Why Might You Consider Doing Such Research?

ChaP ter 2 Getting Ready to Do Qualitative Research 27

ChaP ter 3 How to Start a Qualitative Research Study 53

Part II doing Qualitative Research

ChaP ter 4 Choices in Designing Qualitative Research Studies 83

ChaP ter 5 Doing Fieldwork 116

ChaP ter 6 Data Collection Methods 137

ChaP ter 7 Recording Data 163

ChaP ter 8 Analyzing Qualitative Data, I: 184
Compiling, Disassembling, and Reassembling

ChaP ter 9 Analyzing Qualitative Data, II: 218
Interpreting and Concluding

Yin, Robert K

.

. Qualitative Research from Start to Finish, Guilford Publications, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ncent-ebooks/detail.action?docID=2008479.
Created from ncent-ebooks on 2023-01-05 13:22:09.

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

5.
G

ui
lfo

rd
P

ub
lic

at
io

ns
. A

ll
rig

ht
s

re
se

rv
ed

.

Part III Presenting the Results from Qualitative Research

ChaP ter 10 Displaying Qualitative Data 249

ChaP ter 11 Composing Research to Share It with Others 271

Part IV taking Qualitative Research one Step Further

ChaP ter 12 Broadening the Challenge of Doing 297
Qualitative Research

aPPendIx a Illustrative Study Bank 321

aPPendIx B Two Levels of Data Collection Units in Illustrative 325
Qualitative Studies Cited in This Book

aPPendIx C A Semester- or Year-Long Project: Career Paths 329

A Glossary of Special Terms Used 333
in Qualitative Research

References 343

Author Index 366

Subject Index 370

About the Author 386

xviii Brief Contents

Yin, Robert K.. Qualitative Research from Start to Finish, Guilford Publications, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ncent-ebooks/detail.action?docID=2008479.
Created from ncent-ebooks on 2023-01-05 13:22:09.

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

5.
G

ui
lfo

rd
P

ub
lic

at
io

ns
. A

ll
rig

ht
s

re
se

rv
ed

.

xix

Part I Understanding Qualitative Research

ChaP ter 1 What Is Qualitative Research— 3
and Why Might You Consider Doing Such Research?
A. The Allure of Qualitative Research: A Topical Panorama

of Studies 3
Vignette 1.1. A QuAlitAtiVe Study of HomeleSS Women 4

B. The Distinctiveness of Qualitative Research 7
Qualitative Research: A Broad Area of Inquiry 7
Five Features of Qualitative Research 8

Vignette 1.2. uSing QuAlitAtiVe ReSeARcH to PRoduce neW inSigHtS 10

Vignette 1.3. uSing An oVeRARcHing concePt to oRgAnize
A QuAlitAtiVe Study 11

Brief Preview of the Research Procedures Covered in the Rest
of This Book 11

C. Qualitative Research as a Craft 12
Doing Original Research 13
Transparency 13
Methodic‑ness 14
Adherence to Evidence 14

D. Qualitative Research and Its Belief Systems 15
The Nature of Reality (Whether Multiple or Singular) 16
The Conduct of Research (Whether Value‑Free or Value‑Bound) 18
The Quality of Research Findings (Whether Time‑ and Context‑Free

or Time‑ and Context‑Specific) 19
Vignette 1.4. An immeRSion Study of PHySiciAnS’ tRAining 20

Causal Relationships (Whether Causes and Effects Are Readily Discerned) 21
Alternative Worldviews 22

Vignette 1.5. fifteen yeARS of etHnogRAPHy
in tHe ticuAnenSe community 24

Illustrative Studies Offered in the Remainder of This Book 24
Vignette 1.6. QuAlitAtiVe ReSeARcH AddReSSing A mAjoR

u.S. Policy SHift 25

Recap for Chapter 1 26
Exercise for Chapter 1 26

detailed contents

Yin, Robert K.. Qualitative Research from Start to Finish, Guilford Publications, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ncent-ebooks/detail.action?docID=2008479.
Created from ncent-ebooks on 2023-01-05 13:22:09.

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

5.
G

ui
lfo

rd
P

ub
lic

at
io

ns
. A

ll
rig

ht
s

re
se

rv
ed

.

Chap ter 2 Getting Ready to Do Qualitative Research 27
A. Personal Attributes in Doing Field‑Based Research 28

“Listening” 28
Asking Good Questions 29
Knowing Your Topic of Study 30
Caring about Your Data 31
Doing Parallel Tasks 32
Persevering 32

Vignette 2.1. OVercOming the challenges Of DOing
intensiVe, fielD-BaseD research 33

B. Managing Field‑Based Research 33
Vignette 2.2. a QualitatiVe stuDy BaseD sOlely

On Open-enDeD interViews 34
Making Time to Think Ahead 34

exhiBit 2.1. stephen cOVey’s (1989) time management matrix 35
Managing Field Teams 36

Vignette 2.3. DesiraBle teamwOrk fOr a stuDy BaseD
On Open-enDeD interViews 36

Vignette 2.4. DOing fielDwOrk with multiple persOns
wOrking in multiple settings 37

Vignette 2.5. Organizing a research team tO cOllect
extensiVe fielD Data 38

Practicing 38
Using the Exercises in This Book to Practice 38
Doing a Pilot Study 39
Getting Motivated 39

C. Acknowledging Your Research Lens 40

D. Setting and Maintaining Ethical Standards of Conduct 41
An Illustrative Ethical Challenge: Fairly Examining All of Your Data 42
Codes of Ethics 43

exhiBit 2.2. illustratiVe items in cODes Of ethics Of six
prOfessiOnal assOciatiOns 43

Research Integrity 44
Disclosure as One Way of Demonstrating Research Integrity 45

Vignette 2.6. Detailing the methODOlOgical chOices
anD persOnal cOnDitiOns in DOing a QualitatiVe stuDy 45

Vignette 2.7. DOing QualitatiVe research anD aDVOcating
a sOciOpOlitical cause 46

E. Protecting Human Subjects: Obtaining Approval
from an Institutional Review Board 47
Submitting Study Protocols for Review and Approval 48
Specific Considerations in Protecting Human Subjects 49
Preparing for IRB Review 50
The Informed Consent Dialogue (in the Field) as an Opportunity

for Participants to Query You 51

Recap for Chapter 2 52
Exercise for Chapter 2 52

Chap ter 3 How to Start a Qualitative Research Study 53
A. The Challenge of Starting an Empirical Study 54

Three Goals for Successfully Starting Up 55
Ways of Getting Started 55

xx Detailed Contents

Yin, Robert K.. Qualitative Research from Start to Finish, Guilford Publications, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ncent-ebooks/detail.action?docID=2008479.
Created from ncent-ebooks on 2023-01-05 13:22:09.

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

5.
G

ui
lfo

rd
P

ub
lic

at
io

ns
. A

ll
rig

ht
s

re
se

rv
ed

.

B. Developing a Study Bank 56
Results from Creating an Illustrative Study Bank 56

exHiBit 3.1. jouRnAlS SeARcHed to identify QuAlitAtiVe StudieS
foR tHe Study BAnk in APPendix A 57

1. Identifying a Topic of Inquiry 57
exHiBit 3.2. toPicS coVeRed By illuStRAtiVe StudieS cited

in tHe Study BAnk in APPendix A 58
2. Identifying a Data Collection Method 60

Vignette 3.1. An inteRVieW Study leAding to A Policy AgendA 61

exHiBit 3.3. multiPle SouRceS of dAtA uSed By leVitt 62
3. Identifying a Source of Data (e.g., Identifying a Field Setting) 62

Vignette 3.2. A QuAlitAtiVe Study WitH elementARy ScHool cHildRen
AS tHe mAin SouRceS of dAtA 63

4. Remembering Time and Resource Constraints 64

C. Revealing the Multifaceted World of Qualitative Research 65
Specialized Types of Qualitative Research 65
Whether (or Not) to Emulate One of Qualitative

Research’s Variants 66
Sources for Starting with 12 Specialized Types

of Qualitative Research 67
exHiBit 3.4. tWelVe SPeciAlized tyPeS (VARiAntS)

of QuAlitAtiVe ReSeARcH 68

D. Reviewing the Research Literature 71
Conducting a Literature Review 71
Role of a Literature Review in Starting a Study 72

Vignette 3.3. defining A neW Study’S contRiBution in RelAtion
to exiSting liteRAtuRe 73

Brief Summary: Different Types of Literature Reviews 74
Taking Notes about Existing Studies 74
Downloading Materials from Websites 75

E. Detailing a New Qualitative Study 76
Starting a Bit of Fieldwork First 76
Starting with Research Questions 77
Examining Your Own Research Lens in Relation to a New Study 79
Conceptual Frameworks 79

Recap for Chapter 3 80
Exercise for Chapter 3 80

Part II Doing Qualitative Research

ChaP ter 4 Choices in Designing Qualitative Research Studies 83
Choice 1: Starting a Research Design at the Beginning of a Study

(or Not) 84
Choice 2: Taking Steps to Strengthen the Credibility of a Study

(or Not) 85
Trustworthiness 86
Triangulation 87
Validity 88

Vignette 4.1. eigHt StRAtegieS foR comBAting tHReAtS to VAlidity
in QuAlitAtiVe ReSeARcH 89

Rival Thinking 89

Detailed Contents xxi

Yin, Robert K.. Qualitative Research from Start to Finish, Guilford Publications, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ncent-ebooks/detail.action?docID=2008479.
Created from ncent-ebooks on 2023-01-05 13:22:09.

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

5.
G

ui
lfo

rd
P

ub
lic

at
io

ns
. A

ll
rig

ht
s

re
se

rv
ed

.

Choice 3: Clarifying the Complexity of Data Collection Units
(or Not) 91

Nested Arrangements 91
Relationship between the Level of the Data Collection Units

and the Main Topic of a Study 92

Choice 4: Attending to Sampling (or Not) 93
Purposive and Other Kinds of Sampling 93

Vignette 4.2. Seeking MaxiMuM Variation in a Methodic Way 94
The Number of Instances to Be Included in a Study 95

Broader Level 95
Vignette 4.3. Studying inequality in the retail Marketplace 96

Vignette 4.4. Six ethnographic accountS aS part of a Single Study 97

Vignette 4.5. a coMparatiVe, four-caSe deSign acroSS tiMe,
Within the SaMe Venue 97

Narrower Level 97

Choice 5: Incorporating Concepts and Theories into a Study
(or Not) 99

Worlds Devoid of Concepts? 99
Inductive versus Deductive Approaches 99

Vignette 4.6. hoW fieldWork can lead to a uSeful typology 100

Vignette 4.7. Studying a preeStabliShed concept:
pedagogical content knoWledge 101

Vignette 4.8. Studying priVatization Within forMer
SoViet-bloc countrieS 102

Choice 6: Being Concerned with the Generalizability or Transferability
of a Study’s Findings (or Not) 102

Downplaying Statistical Generalizations 103
Making Analytic Generalizations 104

Vignette 4.9. generalizing the findingS froM a Single-caSe Study 105

Vignette 4.10. an exaMple of analytic generalization froM a Single
qualitatiVe Study 106

Transferability 106

Choice 7: Preparing a Research Protocol (or Not) 107
Protocols, Not Instruments 108
Protocols as Mental Frameworks 108
Operational Definitions 110

exhibit 4.1. exaMple of field protocol for Study
of neighborhood organization 111

exhibit 4.2. protocol for interVieWing a Single perSon 112

Choice 8: Planning at an Early Stage (or Not) to Obtain
Participant Feedback 113

Feedback Choices 114
Potential Influence on a Study’s Later Narrative 114

Recap for Chapter 4 115
Exercise for Chapter 4 115

Chap ter 5 Doing Fieldwork 116
A. Thinking about Doing Fieldwork 116

B. Working in the Field 118
Variety of Field Settings 118

Vignette 5.1. exaMpleS of “eVeryday” SettingS 119

xxii Detailed Contents

Yin, Robert K.. Qualitative Research from Start to Finish, Guilford Publications, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ncent-ebooks/detail.action?docID=2008479.
Created from ncent-ebooks on 2023-01-05 13:22:09.

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

5.
G

ui
lfo

rd
P

ub
lic

at
io

ns
. A

ll
rig

ht
s

re
se

rv
ed

.

Differing Rules and Expectations for Public or Private Places
as Field Settings 120

Varying the Amount of Time in the Field 120

C. Gaining and Maintaining Access to the Field 121
Gaining Access to a Field Setting: A Process, Not an Event 122

Vignette 5.2. AcceSS gAined And tHen ReStRicted 122

Vignette 5.3. QueStionS of continuAtion RAiSed in tHe tHiRd yeAR
of fieldWoRk 123

How the Process Can Influence the Substance of a Study 123
Vignette 5.4. WoRking AS A StoRe cleRk 123

Vignette 5.5. ReSiding And WoRking in A tRAnSitioning uRBAn
neigHBoRHood 124

D. Nurturing Field Relationships 125
Portraying Your Authentic Self 125

Vignette 5.6. tHe fieldWoRkeR in Action 126
The Importance of Personal Demeanor 126
Doing Favors for Participants: Part of the Relationship or Not? 127
Coping with Unexpected Events 127
Planning How to Exit, Not Just Enter, the Field 128

E. Doing Participant‑Observation 128
The Participant‑Observer as the “Research Instrument” 129

Vignette 5.7. doing fieldWoRk in tWo HouSeS of WoRSHiP 130

Vignette 5.8. RAciAl And etHnic congRuencieS 131
Taking an Inductive Stance Even If a Study Started

with Some Propositions 131

F. Making Site Visits 132
Studying a Large Number of Field Settings 133
Adhering to Formal Schedules and Plans 133
Being “Hosted” during a Site Visit 134
Building Teamwork 134

Recap for Chapter 5 135
Exercise for Chapter 5 135

ChaP ter 6 Data Collection Methods 137
A. What Are Data? 137

B. Introduction to Four Types of Data Collection Methods 138
exHiBit 6.1. dAtA collection metHodS And tyPeS of dAtA

foR QuAlitAtiVe ReSeARcH 139

C. Interviewing 140
Structured Interviews 141
Qualitative Interviews 141

Vignette 6.1. QuAlitAtiVe inteRVieWing AS A SociAl RelAtionSHiP 142
Doing Qualitative Interviews 143

Vignette 6.2. uSing “gRAnd touR” QueStionS to StARt
youR conVeRSing 145

Vignette 6.3. nondiRectiVely inteRVieWing PeoPle ABout tHe key toPic
of Study 145

“Entering” and “Exiting” Qualitative Interviews 147
Interviewing Groups of People 148
Focus Group Interviewing as a Method of Collecting

Qualitative Data 148

Detailed Contents xxiii

Yin, Robert K.. Qualitative Research from Start to Finish, Guilford Publications, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ncent-ebooks/detail.action?docID=2008479.
Created from ncent-ebooks on 2023-01-05 13:22:09.

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

5.
G

ui
lfo

rd
P

ub
lic

at
io

ns
. A

ll
rig

ht
s

re
se

rv
ed

.

Vignette 6.4. A diStinguiSHed “mAnuAl” foR collecting
focuS gRouP dAtA 149

Vignette 6.5. uSing focuS gRouPS AS tHe only dAtA
fRom tHe “field” 150

D. Observing 150
“Systematic Observational” Studies and “Observational Studies” 150

Vignette 6.6. SyStemAtic oBSeRVAtionS in ScHool clASSRoomS 151

Vignette 6.7. “oBSeRVAtionAl StudieS” AlSo RefeR to ReSeARcH defined
By StAtiSticAl PRinciPleS And metHodS 151

Deciding When and Where to Observe 152
Deciding What to Observe 152
Taking Advantage of Unobtrusive Measures 153

Vignette 6.8. “unoBtRuSiVe meASuReS” AS tHe SuBject of oBSeRVAtionS 153
Deriving Meaning from Observations, and Triangulating Observational

Evidence with Other Sources 154

E. Collecting and Examining 154
Vignette 6.9. inteRtWining HiStoRicAl And field eVidence 155

Collecting Objects (e.g., Documents, Artifacts, Records, and Videos)
in the Field: Invaluable but Also Time‑Consuming 155

Using Documents to Complement Field Interviews and Conversations 156
Surfing and Googling for Related Information 156
Collecting or Examining Objects as a Complementary Part of Your

Data Collection 157

F. Feelings 157
“Feelings” Take Different Forms 157
Documenting and Recording Feelings 158

G. Desirable Practices Pertinent to All Modes of Data Collection 158
Recap for Chapter 6 161
Exercise for Chapter 6 161

ChaP ter 7 Recording Data 163
A. What to Record 164

Trying to Record “Everything” versus Being Too Selective 164
Highlighting Actions and Capturing Words Verbatim 165

Vignette 7.1. diffeRent exAmPleS of “ViVid imAgeS” 166

Vignette 7.2. tHe VeRBAtim PRinciPle 167
Remembering Your Research Questions 167
Taking Notes about Written Studies, Reports, and Documents Found

in the Field 168

Duplicating Copies of Documents and Written Materials While

in the Field 168

B. Note‑Taking Practices When Doing Fieldwork 169
Being Prepared 169
Setting Up Your Notes 169
Developing Your Own Transcribing Language 170

exHiBit 7.1. SAmPle of field noteS 171
Creating Drawings and Sketches as Part of the Notes 172

exHiBit 7.2. SketcHeS in field noteS 173

C. Converting Field Notes into Fuller Notes 174
Converting Field Notes Quickly 174
Minimum Requirement for the Daily Conversion of the Original

Field Notes 175

xxiv Detailed Contents

Yin, Robert K.. Qualitative Research from Start to Finish, Guilford Publications, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ncent-ebooks/detail.action?docID=2008479.
Created from ncent-ebooks on 2023-01-05 13:22:09.

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

5.
G

ui
lfo

rd
P

ub
lic

at
io

ns
. A

ll
rig

ht
s

re
se

rv
ed

.

Four Additional Ways of Enhancing the Original Field Notes 175
Deepening Your Understanding of Your Fieldwork 176
Verifying Field Notes 176

exHiBit 7.3. SAmPle itemS needing fuRtHeR field clARificAtion,
AS ReVeAled duRing nigHtly ReVieW of field noteS 177

Vignette 7.3. “cHecking Stuff” 177

exHiBit 7.4. illuStRAtiVe tyPeS of VeRificAtionS BetWeen diffeRent
SouRceS of field eVidence 178

D. Recording Data through Modes Other Than Writing 179
Obtaining Permission to Record 179
Mastering Recording Devices before Using Them 180
Sharing the Recordings and Maintaining Their Security 180
Being Prepared to Spend Time Reviewing and Editing the Recordings 181
When Electronic Recordings Are the Main Data Collection Technique 181
Producing Finished Products 182

E. Keeping a Personal Journal 183
Recap for Chapter 7 183
Exercise for Chapter 7 183

ChaP ter 8 Analyzing Qualitative Data, I: 184
Compiling, Disassembling, and Reassembling
A. Overview of Five Analytic Phases 185

Preview of a Five‑Phased Cycle: (1) Compiling, (2) Disassembling,
(3) Reassembling (and Arraying), (4) Interpreting,
and (5) Concluding 185

exHiBit 8.1. fiVe PHASeS of AnAlySiS And tHeiR inteRActionS 186
Using Computer Software to Assist in Analyzing Qualitative Data 187

Vignette 8.1. HelPful guideS foR uSing cAQdAS SoftWARe 189

B. Compiling an Orderly Set of Data (Phase 1) 190
Parallel to Quantitative Research? 190
Rereading and Relistening: Getting to “Know” Your Field Notes 191
Putting Everything into a Consistent Format 192
Using Computer Software to Compile Your Records 192

C. Disassembling Data (Phase 2) 194
Starting by Looking Back 194
Starting by Looking Forward 194

Making Analytic Memos 195
To Code or Not to Code 195

Vignette 8.2. guidAnce foR coding QuAlitAtiVe dAtA 196
Coding Data 196

Needed Decisions about Coding 197
Developing a Schematic Diagram as a Heuristic Device 197

exHiBit 8.2. exAmPleS of leVel 1 And leVel 2 coding 198
Disassembling Data without Coding Them 199
Using Computer Software to Assist in Disassembling Data 201

D. Reassembling Data (Phase 3) 202
Looking for Patterns 202
Using Arrays to Help Reassemble Data 204

Creating Hierarchical Arrays 204
Designing Matrices as Arrays 205

Vignette 8.3. cReAting mAtRiceS to ReASSemBle QuAlitAtiVe dAtA 205

Detailed Contents xxv

Yin, Robert K.. Qualitative Research from Start to Finish, Guilford Publications, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ncent-ebooks/detail.action?docID=2008479.
Created from ncent-ebooks on 2023-01-05 13:22:09.

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

5.
G

ui
lfo

rd
P

ub
lic

at
io

ns
. A

ll
rig

ht
s

re
se

rv
ed

.

Vignette 8.4. Studying neigHBoRHood cHAnge 206

exHiBit 8.3. illuStRAtiVe cHRonology mAtRix 207
Working with Other Types of Arrays, Including Narrative Arrays 209

Summarizing the Arraying Process 209
Important Methodological Procedures during the Reassembling Process 210
Using Computer Software to Assist in Reassembling Data 211

Recap for Chapter 8 213
Exercise for Chapters 8 and 9 213

exHiBit 8.4. HeAdingS And SAmPle gloSSARy foR A Single RecoRd
in SAmPle Study 1 215

exHiBit 8.5. eigHt ActiVitieS emeRging fRom ReVieW of dAtABASe,
tHen uSed AS codeS in SAmPle Study 1 216

ChaP ter 9 Analyzing Qualitative Data, II: 218
Interpreting and Concluding

Transitioning from Reassembling to Interpreting 218
Reprising the Five‑Phased Cycle and Highlighting the Interpreting

and Concluding Phases 219
exHiBit 9.1. RecuRSiVe RelAtionSHiPS Among fouR AnAlytic PHASeS 220

A. Interpreting (Phase 4) 220
Three Modes of Interpreting 221
“Description” as a Major Type of Interpretation 222

exHiBit 9.2. deScRiPtion AS inteRPRetAtion: AutHoRS, SuBtitleS,
And cHAPteR HeAdingS of illuStRAtiVe StudieS 225

Description plus a Call for Action 228
Vignette 9.1. WoRking collABoRAtiVely WitH eigHt teAcHeRS WHo WeRe

tHe SuBject of Study 228

exHiBit 9.3. deScRiPtion-PluS-cAll-foR-Action AS inteRPRetAtion:
AutHoRS, SuBtitleS, And cHAPteR HeAdingS
of illuStRAtiVe StudieS 229

“Explanation” as a Type of Interpretation 231
exHiBit 9.4. exPlAnAtion AS inteRPRetAtion: AutHoRS, SuBtitleS,

And cHAPteR HeAdingS of illuStRAtiVe StudieS 232
Creating Insightful and Useful Interpretations 234

Vignette 9.2. An inteRPRetiVe tHeme tHAt APPeARS
tHRougHout A QuAlitAtiVe Study 235

B. Concluding (Phase 5) 235
1. Concluding by Calling for New Research and by Making Substantive

(Not Methodological) Propositions 236
2. Concluding by Challenging Conventional Social Stereotypes 237

Vignette 9.3. concluSionS tHAt cHAllenge
conVentionAl geneRAlizAtionS 238

3. Concluding with New Concepts, Theories, and Even Discoveries
about Social Behavior 238

Vignette 9.4. uSing QuAlitAtiVe ReSeARcH to cReAte And teSt
A tHeoReticAl conStRuct: “tHe code of tHe StReet” 239

Vignette 9.5. Studying neigHBoRHood tRAnSition in uRBAn mexico 239
4. Concluding by Generalizing to a Broader Set of Situations 240

Vignette 9.6. etHnogRAPHic StudieS in ten locAl SettingS 241
5. Concluding by Taking Action 242

Recap for Chapter 9 243
Exercise for Chapters 8 and 9 243

xxvi Detailed Contents

Yin, Robert K.. Qualitative Research from Start to Finish, Guilford Publications, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ncent-ebooks/detail.action?docID=2008479.
Created from ncent-ebooks on 2023-01-05 13:22:09.

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

5.
G

ui
lfo

rd
P

ub
lic

at
io

ns
. A

ll
rig

ht
s

re
se

rv
ed

.

Part III Presenting the Results from Qualitative Research

ChaP ter 10 Displaying Qualitative Data 249
A. The Challenge of Presenting Qualitative Data 249

B. Narrative Data about the Participants in a Qualitative Study 251
Interspersing Quoted Passages within Selected Paragraphs 252
Using Lengthier Presentations, Covering Multiple Paragraphs 253

Vignette 10.1. collecting in-dePtH mAteRiAl ABout A SuBgRouP
of PeoPle in A Study 254

Making Chapter‑Long Presentations about a Study’s Participants 254
Vignette 10.2. A Study BASed entiRely on tHe VoiceS of tHe PeoPle

WHo WeRe Studied 255
Presenting Information about Different Participants, but Not Focusing

on the Life Story of Any of Them 256
Vignette 10.3. citing tHe exPeRienceS And WoRdS of diffeRent PeoPle,

WitHout comPiling Any Single life StoRy 256

C. Tabular, Graphic, Pictorial, and Related Presentations 257
exHiBit 10.1. tHRee modeS foR diSPlAying QuAlitAtiVe dAtA 257

Tables and Lists 258
Vignette 10.4. uSing WoRd tABleS to SummARize

An AnAlytic finding 258

exHiBit 10.2. VARiAtionS Among HouSeHold tyPeS 259

Vignette 10.5. liSting infoRmAtion ABout tHe PeoPle in A Study 260
Graphics and Drawings 260
Photographs and Reproductions 261

Vignette 10.6. mAking good uSe of PHotogRAPHS AS PARt
of QuAlitAtiVe StudieS 262

D. Creating Slides to Accompany Oral Presentations 263
Slide Artwork: Not the Same as the Artwork for Printed Exhibits 263
Text‑Only Slides (“Word Slides”) 264
Taking Advantage of Slides’ Free Form 264

exHiBit 10.3. illuStRAtiVe tWo-By-tWo mAtRix 265

exHiBit 10.4. A moRe gRAPHic PReSentAtion of A WoRd liSt 266
Using Icons and Other Symbols 266
Choosing Colors and Artistic Style 266

exHiBit 10.5. uSing iconS to illuStRAte concePtuAl RelAtionSHiPS 267

exHiBit 10.6. Adding iconS to illuStRAte SPecific toPicS 267

exHiBit 10.7. illuStRAting textuAl itemS WitH A collAge 268
Slides as an Adjunct to Your Presentation 269

Recap for Chapter 10 270
Exercise for Chapter 10 270

ChaP ter 11 Composing Research to Share It with Others 271
Vignette 11.1. ReAding ABout comPoSing, in A VARiety

of RelAted fieldS 273

A. Composing: General Hints 273
Vignette 11.2. tAking RiSkS WHen uSing

unconVentionAl PReSentAtionS 273
Knowing the Audience for Your Qualitative Research 274
Having a Way with Words 274

Detailed Contents xxvii

Yin, Robert K.. Qualitative Research from Start to Finish, Guilford Publications, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ncent-ebooks/detail.action?docID=2008479.
Created from ncent-ebooks on 2023-01-05 13:22:09.

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

5.
G

ui
lfo

rd
P

ub
lic

at
io

ns
. A

ll
rig

ht
s

re
se

rv
ed

.

Exhibit 11.1. SEvEn ExamplES of USing EvEryday WordS 275
Composing “Inside Out” 275
Composing “Backwards” 277

B. Composing Qualitative Research 278
Covering the Five Senses 279

vignEttE 11.3. thrEE diffErEnt WayS of rElating
yoUr fiEldWork findingS 279

Representing Multiple Voices and Perspectives, and Also Dealing
with Issues of Anonymity 280

Being Sensitive to the Interpretive Nature of Your Compositions 280
vignEttE 11.4. tWitchES or WinkS?: intErprEtivE conStrUctionS

of rEality 281

C. Presenting Your Declarative Self 281
Starting Your Composition at an Interesting Place 282

vignEttE 11.5. thrEE ExamplES of attractivE Starting pointS 282
Differing “Shapes” of Compositions 282

vignEttE 11.6. USing a diffErEnt lifE Story in Each chaptEr to highlight
itS SUbStantivE mESSagE 284

Using Plain Words and Minimizing Research Jargon 284
Making Headings (or the Titles of Exhibits) State a Substantive

Message 285

D. Presenting Your Reflexive Self 285
Making Your Research Lens as Explicit as Possible 286

vignEttE 11.7. USing a prEfacE to diScUSS thE fiEldWorkEr’S lEnS 287

vignEttE 11.8. USing a SEction titlEd “SElf-rEflExivity” to diScUSS
thE fiEldWorkEr’S lEnS 287

Describing Your Research Lens as an Important Quality
Control Procedure 288

Keeping Your Reflexive Self Under Control 288
Making Prefatory Remarks Insightful and Enticing 289

E. Reworking Your Composition 290
Helpfulness of Feedback during the Reworking Process 290

Participants 290
Peers 291

Exhibit 11.2. rESponSES to illUStrativE typES
of rEviEWErS’ commEntS 292

Time and Effort in Reworking 293
Copyediting and Proofreading—and Reviewing Copyeditors’ Work 293

Recap for Chapter 11 294
Exercise for Chapter 11 294

Part IV Taking Qualitative Research One Step Further

ChaP ter 12 Broadening the Challenge of Doing 297
Qualitative Research
A. Qualitative Research as Part of the Broader Realm

of Social Science Research 299
Examples of Craft Similarities 299
Examples of Contrasting Craft Practices 300

xxviii Detailed Contents

Yin, Robert K.. Qualitative Research from Start to Finish, Guilford Publications, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ncent-ebooks/detail.action?docID=2008479.
Created from ncent-ebooks on 2023-01-05 13:22:09.

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

5.
G

ui
lfo

rd
P

ub
lic

at
io

ns
. A

ll
rig

ht
s

re
se

rv
ed

.

Qualitative versus Quantitative Methods: An Ongoing Dialogue 301
A Gold Standard? 302

B. The Promise and Challenge of Mixed Methods Research 304
The Roots of Mixed Methods Research 304

Vignette 12.1. etHnogRAPHic ReSeARcH AS A long-StAnding PARt
of tHe u.S. cenSuS 305

A Mixed Methods Study as a Single Study 306
Mixing of Data 306
Mixing of Designs 306

exHiBit 12.1. comBinAtionS foR mixing QuAlitAtiVe And QuAntitAtiVe
comPonentS in A mixed metHodS Study 307

Mixing of Analyses 308
Expertise Needed for Doing a Mixed Methods Study 308

Vignette 12.2. exAmPleS of PitfAllS to Be oVeRcome in QuAntitAtiVe
ReSeARcH 309

The Continuing Promise of Mixed Methods Research 310

C. Moving Onward 312
Different Motives for Moving Onward 312
Putting Principles, Not Just Procedures, into Practice 313
Making Your Own Contribution to the Craft of Doing

Qualitative Research 314

Recap for Chapter 12 315
Exercise for Chapter 12 315

exHiBit 12.2. eStimAted coSt PeR PRoPoSAl, By numBeR
of PRoPoSAlS SuBmitted 317

exHiBit 12.3. PRoPoSAl PRoceSSing At tWo illuStRAtiVe
uniVeRSitieS 319

aPPendIx a Illustrative Study Bank 321

aPPendIx B Two Levels of Data Collection Units in Illustrative 325
Qualitative Studies Cited in This Book

aPPendIx C A Semester- or Year-Long Project: Career Paths 329

A Glossary of Special Terms Used 333
in Qualitative Research

References 343

Author Index 366

Subject Index 370

About the Author 386

Detailed Contents xxix

Yin, Robert K.. Qualitative Research from Start to Finish, Guilford Publications, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ncent-ebooks/detail.action?docID=2008479.
Created from ncent-ebooks on 2023-01-05 13:22:09.

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

5.
G

ui
lfo

rd
P

ub
lic

at
io

ns
. A

ll
rig

ht
s

re
se

rv
ed

.

Yin, Robert K.. Qualitative Research from Start to Finish, Guilford Publications, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ncent-ebooks/detail.action?docID=2008479.
Created from ncent-ebooks on 2023-01-05 13:22:09.

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

5.
G

ui
lfo

rd
P

ub
lic

at
io

ns
. A

ll
rig

ht
s

re
se

rv
ed

.

SAGE Research Methods

The Handbook of Social Research Ethics

Author: Joshua W. Clegg, Brent D. Slife

Pub. Date: 2013

Product: SAGE Research Methods

DOI:

https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483348971

Methods: Research ethics, Ethical codes, Vulnerable groups

Keywords: modernism, tradition, knowledge, law, social science

Disciplines: Anthropology, Business and Management, Criminology and Criminal Justice, Communication

and Media Studies, Counseling and Psychotherapy, Economics, Education, Geography, Health, History,

Marketing, Nursing, Political Science and International Relations, Psychology, Social Policy and Public Policy,

Social Work, Sociology

Access Date: January 5, 2023

Publishing Company: SAGE Publications, Inc.

City: Thousand Oaks

Online ISBN: 9781483348971

© 2013 SAGE Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483348971

Research Ethics in the Postmodern Context

Joshua W.Clegg and Brent D.Slife

Discussing a topic as broad and as frequently misunderstood as postmodernism requires some organizing

principle, some general definition. Yet postmodernism makes such broad generalizations problematic at the

outset. From the postmodern viewpoint, any definition of anything, including the definition of postmodernism

itself, is a value judgment, with ethical and even political implications. Another problem in defining postmod-

ernism is that postmodernists (whoever these entities are) resist the closed “totalizing” conceptions

of things. They view such conceptions as inappropriate reductions of the real—stereotypes of the rich experi-

ence of whatever is being conceived or defined.

Postmodernism is not, then, best understood in conceptual terms at all; it is perhaps best understood by en-

gaging in practices that are postmodern, rather than conceptualizing things as postmodern. Consequently,

this entire chapter (and perhaps this entire volume) could be construed as the modernist project of summariz-

ing the unsummarizable, and thus conflicting with the very spirit of postmodernism. Any conception of post-

modernity would have to be pluralistic, rarely unitary, and perhaps even poetic. Still, we remain committed to

making this chapter understandable to the modern thinker and coherent within the underpinnings of this book,

which implies some dedication to a clear organization.

Consequently, we begin by outlining some of the major movements and figures in postmodern philosophy. We

follow this with a discussion of four postmodern ethical/philosophical commitments, which we frame not as

conceptual foundations but as Wittgensteinian (1953/2001) “family resemblances.” These four resemblances,

which include the particular, the contextual, the value laden, and the other, are then contrasted with modernist

commitments. True to the rich, particular, and contextualized values of postmodern theorists, we illustrate and

explicate these contrasting commitments in terms of particular examples from existing research traditions.

Much of this discussion will appropriately concern what would traditionally be considered “methodological” is-

sues. However, we caution the reader that one of the primary lessons of a postmodern approach to research

ethics is that every research activity is an exercise in research ethics, every research question is a moral

dilemma, and every research decision is an instantiation of values. In short, postmodernism does not permit

the distinction between research methods and research ethics.

SAGE

© 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 2 of 25 The Handbook of Social Research Ethics

The Postmodern Context

Postmodern thought is something of an antithesis to the thesis of modernism—different sides of the same

coin. Some of the specific characteristics of both modernism and postmodernism are outlined below, but in

general, this dichotomy centers on the dialectic between a generally naturalistic, positivistic, and realist world-

view (modernism) and its antithesis in a critical, constructivist, or interpretivist worldview (postmodernism). In

its historically explicit form, this dialectic is essentially a 20th-century phenomenon, but its roots reach back

into the Enlightenment and perhaps before.

Of the most essential modernist themes, naturalism, probably boasts the oldest pedigree. Naturalism, or the

notion that the world and everything in it can be explained in terms of natural, material, and narrowly empirical

processes, had advocates among the pre-Socratic philosophers (e.g., Democritus). There were, of course,

any number of antinaturalist philosophers in the Western intellectual tradition, particularly among the mystical

or hermetic and early Christian philosophers. It was not until the Enlightenment, particularly in the 18th and

19th centuries, that the theme of naturalism was wedded to a broader intellectual and cultural positivism, or a

general belief in the social, empirical, and theoretical power of science to ask and answer the basic questions

of reality. This marriage permitted the modernist worldview to be fully forged as a culturally powerful antithesis

to various premodern mystical, feudal, or otherwise centralized worldviews.

However, the rise of an unambiguously naturalistic worldview was not unopposed by influential thinkers. Near-

ly every major philosopher of the Enlightenment era was interested in and supported the development of a

naturalistic philosophy, but there were many who also advocated a kind of metaphysical counterpoint to strict-

ly empirical or material accounts. Descartes (1641/ 1996), for example, produced an elaborately mechanistic

(and naturalistic) account of the human organism while also postulating a purely metaphysical realm of the

mind (res cogitans). Even in Britain, the home of the most stridently empiricistic philosophers, thinkers in the

tradition of Berkeley (1710/2004) or Reid (1764/2005) cast doubt on the unproblematically realist approach to

philosophy.

Notwithstanding these currents of dissent, the postmodern view as a whole could not develop until modernism

itself was fully fledged by the dramatic successes of the industrial age, or what Polkinghorne (2005) called

“technification” (p. 5). Modernism as a generally dominant Western worldview reached its zenith only in the

late 19th and early 20th centuries, and this is precisely when the forces of postmodernism began to gath-

er. The successes of industrial technology began to meet its excesses, and the positivist worldview received

SAGE

© 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 3 of 25 The Handbook of Social Research Ethics

both the praise and the blame. Philosophers and scientists began to question the monolith of materialistic and

naturalistic science, and that dissent would eventually be labeled (not unproblematically) “postmodernism.”

The gathering force of postmodern philosophy was, in some sense, the natural dissenting extension of the

modernist worldview and so, like Western philosophy in general, is typically divided into an Anglo-American

tradition and a Continental European tradition.

Anglo-American Postmodernism

In the Anglo-American tradition, the primary thematic contexts for postmodernism have been philosophy of

language and philosophy of science. Philosophy of language in the 20th century made a radical “shift from a

focus on meaning as reference to a focus on meaning as use,” and this was “a change revolutionary enough

to mark the shift from modern to postmodern in philosophy of language” (Murphy, 1997, p. 23).

Alfred North Whitehead was one of the first who began to question a fully realist and objectivist philosophy

(i.e., meaning as reference). In his later writings, Whitehead (1925) asserted that “process rather than sub-

stance is the most basic reality. Substance, in fact, is an abstraction from the processes of experience” (p.

90). For Whitehead, the generalized categories of “existence” were not the fundamental realities but were

essentially perceiver dependent. In this way, Whitehead delineated a pivotal theme of postmodernism—its

rejection of the modernist division of the subjective and objective in favor of a perceiver-dependent or inter-

preted reality.

Ludwig Wittgenstein, another influential Anglo postmodern philosopher, claimed that “meaning depends on

the role language plays in a system of conventions, both linguistic and nonlinguistic, of practices, perfor-

mances, ‘forms of life’” (Murphy, 1997, p. 24), a claim that has had profound implications for postmodern phi-

losophy. In Wittgenstein’s later work, language almost completely abandons its objective and rationalist roots

and replaces them with particular forms of everyday life. Again, meaning is viewed more as a particular social

function (“use”) than as a reference to an objective reality. Other philosophers in this tradition include Gilbert

Ryle (1900–1976) and J. L. Austin (1911–1960).

This shift from substance to process and from the abstract or universal to social convention and everyday life

was mirrored in the Anglo-American philosophy of science. Thomas Kuhn (1996), for example, asserted that

change in science was not the product of systematic empirical or rational progress but was, rather, the result

of radical paradigm shifts in scientific epistemology. For Kuhn, then, science had to be understood culturally

SAGE

© 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 4 of 25 The Handbook of Social Research Ethics

and socially. W. V. Quine (1908–2000) also eschewed a view of science founded entirely on a system of em-

pirical and rational facts. Philosophers such as Imre Lakatos (1922–1974) and Paul Feyerabend (1924–1994)

further elaborated this nonfoundationalist approach to the philosophy of science.

The Anglo-American tradition of postmodernism also included ethical philosophers such as Alasdair McIntyre

(1984)—who argued that ethics had to be understood within its social and historical context—and, to some

extent, philosophers in the American pragmatist tradition. American pragmatism, beginning with William

James (1842–1910), John Dewey (1859–1952), and Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914), was by no means

a unitary tradition, but in general, pragmatists replaced a realist picture of the world with one that centers

meaning in functional relations. This tradition was at least partly a postmodern one in that it undermined the

modernist worldview. As Richard Rorty (1991) argued, pragmatists believe that the epistemology that under-

lies science is not a “privileged method,” and they deny “that the results of the natural sciences suffice to give

meaning to our lives” (p. 75).

Generally, then, Anglo postmodernism reacts to Anglo modernism by emphasizing the interpreted and social

over the objective and rational. The modernist considers the objective and the rational to be essentially un-

interpreted and universal, whereas the postmodernist views even these “foundations” of modernism as con-

text and perceiver dependent. For many modernists, this sort of context and perceiver dependence raises

the specter of radical relativism, and some see chaos and nihilism as the eventual result (Capaldi & Proc-

tor, 1999). As we will see, however, this kind of relativism is not inevitable in postmodernism. The absence

of a modernist grounding of ideas, such as objectivism and foundationalism, does not mean the absence of

grounds altogether. As we will describe, postmodern grounds include, to name a few, the particular, the con-

textual, and the value laden.

Continental European Postmodernism

The Continental European strain of postmodernism began to take shape with a systematic reconceptualiza-

tion of subjectivity, beginning in the Austro-German tradition. Immanuel Kant (1781/1998) set the agenda for

this reconceptualization when he reaffirmed and systematized the subjective-objective dichotomy in terms of

the noumenal, or independent and unknowable reality, and the phenomenal, or the interpreted, knowable re-

ality. This reduction of human knowledge to human experience paved the way for what Wilhelm Dilthey (1883/

SAGE

© 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 5 of 25 The Handbook of Social Research Ethics

1988) would later call “human science” conceptions of knowledge.

The phenomenological tradition was perhaps the most prominent of these human science approaches. Hegel

(1770–1831) pioneered the philosophical investigation of the phenomenal, but it was Edmund Husserl (1900/

1999) who turned phenomenology into a systematic investigation of human experience. For Husserl, this was

a radical enterprise that explicitly undermined naturalistic conceptions of science. He claimed, following the

logic of his teacher Franz Brentano (1838–1917), that experience is always intentional—always an experi-

ence of something. This may seem like a deceptively simple premise, but it has radical implications. Unlike

the modernist notion of an independent and isolated “object,” this intentionality implies that experienced ob-

jects are irreducibly composed in both perceiver and perceived. Under Husserlian phenomenology, purely

objective (uninterpreted) reality is an incoherent notion.

The students of Husserlian phenomenology extended this basic logic into an elaborate and robust challenge

to the modernist worldview. Martin Heidegger (1927/1962), for example, argued that all meaning, including

the meanings of research findings, is fundamentally interpretive. All knowledge, in this sense, is developed

within a preexisting social milieu, ever interpreting and reinterpreting itself. This perspective, usually called

hermeneutics, was systematically applied to the social sciences by Hans Georg Gadamer (1960/1989). He

argued that because the social sciences (like other sciences) build their interpretive assumptions into their

methods (including their scientific methods), they necessarily reproduce their theoretical assumptions in their

professional treatments and empirical find

ings.

Other students of Husserlian phenomenology radically redefined the nature and scope of meaning, and thus

the human sciences. The analysis of Maurice Merleau-Ponty (1964), for example, demonstrated important

differences between the conventional category of “body” and the phenomenological meaning of embodiment.

He claimed, in fact, that all higher-order intellectual meaning was derivative of the concrete experience of our

embodiment. Jean-Paul Sartre (1943/1956) even more radically redefined all meaning in terms of the radical-

ly free human agent. Emmanuel Levinas (1961/1969) was another phenomenologist who redefined meaning,

this time in terms of the ethical. Later students of both phenomenology and hermeneutics—for example, Paul

Ricoeur (1913–2005), Charles Taylor (1931–)—further developed this tradition into a non-naturalistic and non-

positivist approach to research and the social sciences.

Another influential strain of Continental postmodernism emerged from France and was concerned primarily

with the deconstruction of social meanings, including institution, power, and politics. Jacques Derrida

SAGE

© 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 6 of 25 The Handbook of Social Research Ethics

(1930–2004), Jean-Francois Lyotard (1924–1998), and Michel Foucault (1926–1984) are some of the more

prominent figures in this tradition. In postmodern approaches to the human sciences, Foucault (1972) is espe-

cially influential, given that many of his works deal explicitly with the institutions of psychology and psychiatry.

This tradition of deconstructing power has also been influential in much of postmodern feminist psychology.

Feminist theorists such as Jane Flax (1990) or Evelyn Fox-Keller (1982) have drawn on the rhetoric of power

relations developed in the French tradition.

In general, then, like Anglo-American postmodernists, Continental postmodernists reject an objectivist and

rationalist view of science. For thinkers in the Continental tradition, the “objective” categories of science are

objects of human experience and thus depend on the values, perspectives, and context of the researcher.

For these reasons, Continental postmodernists move away from general and abstract conceptions of science

and move toward particular research contexts and concrete researcher-participant relationships.

Family Resemblances: Research Ethics in the Modern and the

Postmodern

As noted in the introduction, we are committed to some degree of organization and clarity in this chapter,

but we are also wary of an overly systematic presentation of postmodern philosophy. Consequently, Ludwig

Wittgenstein’s (1953/2001) notion of family resemblances will serve as a fairly malleable “organizing principle”

for our discussion of postmodern ethics. Wittgenstein used the analogy of apparent similarities among mem-

bers of the same family to describe a unity that does not necessarily depend on a coherent, universal under-

lying structure. Likewise, we employ the notion of family resemblance because there is no coherent, unitary

tradition that could be called postmodern and yet there is a general set of similarities that, though they often

derive from entirely different logics, nevertheless characterize a general ideological trend that could be called

postmodern. It is our hope that this approach to the topic will be true to the nonreductive, nontotalizing spirit

of postmodernism, while at the same time providing accessibility to those readers unfamiliar with it.

Of the many candidates for postmodern family resemblances, we selected four that we will treat below: partic-

ular, contextual, value laden, and other focused. These four were selected for two reasons. First, we judged

them to be those most directly related to social science research and, second, they provide instructive con-

trasts with modernist research ethics. However, these resemblances do not lead to a set of postmodern ethi-

cal guidelines per se. Such an outcome would be inconsistent with the nonreductive, nonfoundationalist sen-

SAGE

© 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 7 of 25 The Handbook of Social Research Ethics

sibilities of the postmodernist. Postmodern thought provides us not with clear-cut answers to the problems of

research ethics but, rather, with challenging, instructive, and transforming dialogues that help us think about

the ethical implications of research.

Our discussion of family resemblances will also extend beyond the boundaries of what have been traditionally

(i.e., in the modernist tradition) considered ethical issues. Research ethics from the postmodern perspective

is not separated from the goals and procedures of the research enterprise itself (like it often is in modernist re-

search). For this reason, we discuss postmodernist themes as they apply not just to conventional (modernist)

ethics but also to research practices in general. In drawing comparisons between the research practices of

modernists and postmodernists, we hope to illuminate many of the hidden values of both approaches to in-

quiry. We also hope to make clear some of the ethical implications of a postmodernist approach to research

without reducing these to a set of ethical principles or guidelines.

Particular

Modern

From the traditional modernist worldview, the primary function of research is not to discover findings that per-

tain only to the particular (situation or population) but to uncover the generalizable, if not universal, laws (or

principles). Examples of this span the history of psychology: 19th-century psychophysicists sought the uni-

versal laws of perception; behaviorists, perhaps the quintessential modernist psychologists, sought the expla-

nation of all “psychological” phenomena in terms of a single, basic mechanism—for example, operant con-

ditioning; even movements such as Gestalt psychology, whose antagonism to reductionistic psychology was

explicit, still understood psychological science as the pursuit of universal, general principles. The Gestaltist

Kurt Lewin (1931/1999), for example, characterized a mature (or “Galilean”) psychology as one that recog-

nizes that “every psychological law must hold without exception” (p.

52).

To discover the universal and unchanging, the methods of the social sciences have properties intended to

reveal these laws and principles, such as replication, standardization, and reliability. For the modernist, psy-

chological law and its principles must hold in every situation, and thus we need not take the particulars of the

situation into account. The particular case is considered an instance of the universal law, and likewise, the

particular individual is essentially a concrete instance of general abstract phenomena, such as law, principle,

SAGE

© 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 8 of 25 The Handbook of Social Research Ethics

and theory. For the modernist, the individual, or individual case, is of interest only in its relation to these ab-

stractions and not as a particular or unique phenomenon.

This insistence on abstract universals is chronicled in Jerome Kagan’s (1998) book Three Seductive Ideas. In

it, Kagan asserted that many psychologists do not find it

terribly important to specify the agent being studied, whether rat, monkey or human, or the context

in which the subject acts, whether laboratory, natural habitat, work-place, or home, because broad

conclusions can be drawn regardless of the agent and context. (p. 1)

The modernist focus on the general is evident in essentially every subdiscipline of 20th-century psychology

(Slife, Reber, & Richardson, 2005), but a particularly clear instance of this phenomenon is the theory and

research on intelligence, a topic Kagan treats at length. According to Kagan (1998), there has been little em-

pirical success in substantiating the notion of a universal concept that could be labeled “intelligence.” Nev-

ertheless, the undifferentiated and unspecified term is employed at all levels of psychological discourse. As

Kagan argued, “The descriptor ‘intelligent’ is frequently found in sentences that are indifferent to the age and

background of the person (or sometimes the animal species) or the evidential basis for the assignment” (p.

52).

Not surprisingly, the modernist focus on abstract generalizations has migrated into the general discussion on

research ethics. The very term research ethics suggests a generalized set of rules for dealing with the ethi-

cal implications of research. In the social sciences, we often approach the question of research ethics in an

essentially bureaucratic manner, developing handbooks, professional guidelines, and review boards whose

purpose is to engender, if not legislate, adherence to general codes of conduct. In modernist research, re-

search ethics is not a particular set of concrete dilemmas but a general set of rules meant to apply to all (or

at least most) research situations.

Postmodern

From the postmodern perspective, we do not live in the realm of the abstract and general, hence their rele-

vance to us is limited. We live instead in the concrete and particular—a particular place at a particular time,

SAGE

© 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 9 of 25 The Handbook of Social Research Ethics

which is our primary nexus of meaning making. This means that the personal and narrative are valued over

the abstract and universal. Abstract principles (e.g., concepts, ideas) are still important, but concrete particu-

lars are more fundamental. Postmodernists do not seek a universal set of truths, nor do they subscribe to an

independent or objective knowledge-advancing tradition. To the postmodernist, science is one of many cultur-

al objects that “are not only enrooted in the incontrovertible presence of this perceived world” but are “also the

achievement of a cultural activity, of a cultural life of which science, considered subjectively as human work,

is a part” (Ricoeur, 1965, p. 168).

The primary methodological implication of the postmodern denial of objectivity and universality is that while

“the mainstream tradition has focused almost exclusively on problems of standardization” (Mishler, 1986, p.

233), psychological research inspired by postmodern traditions has focused more on the understanding of

particular lives. These traditions have focused on particular stories because, as Taylor (1992) argued, “we

grasp our lives in a narrative. … In order to have a sense of who we are, we have to have a notion of how we

have become” (p. 47).

Within the contemporary social sciences, there are innumerable interpretive investigations whose intent is to

narrate particular lives, but let us consider one especially rich example. In an article in Qualitative Inquiry,

Arthur Bochner (1997) narrated an event from his own history as a way of illuminating multiple levels of psy-

chological knowledge. He told of being awakened in a hotel room and informed of his father’s death. In the

article, Bochner narrated his actions, thoughts, and feelings following this revelation. He used this narrative to

discuss grief and dying, psychological method and theory, and the method of personal narrative itself. When,

for example, he compared psychological literature on death and dying with his own experience, he concluded

that the academic world is “long on conceptualizations and short on details; long on abstractions, short on

concrete events; long on analysis, short on experience; long on theories, short on stories” (p. 424).

From within a very particular context, Bochner (1997) drew a number of conclusions about social science

methods, and this practice reflects the postmodern approach to “data.” As Bochner put it,

We do not turn stories into data to test theoretical propositions. Rather, we link theory to story when

we think with a story, trying to stay with the story, letting ourselves resonate with the moral dilemmas

it may pose, understanding its ambiguities, examining its contradictions, feeling its nuances, letting

SAGE

© 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 10 of 25 The Handbook of Social Research Ethics

ourselves become part of the story. (p. 436)

From this postmodern perspective, the notion of “generalization” in inquiry is more from concrete parts to con-

crete wholes rather than from concrete instances to abstract generalities.

Bochner’s (1997) story also highlights another ethical tension between modernist and postmodernist ap-

proaches to research. Insofar as a tradition holds to “a reverent and idealized view of science that positions

science above the contingencies of language and outside the circle of historical and cultural interests” (p.

422), research practices themselves will meet with little broader social control. Under the modernist world-

view, the special status of the “scientific” easily leads to that circumstance where “psychologists too often use

their warrant of expertise not only to manipulate variables but also to manipulate people and their lives” (p.

422). There is a kind of monolithic power inherent in the universalism of the scientific mythos, and a postmod-

ern understanding of research ethics would likely begin in the deconstruction of that power.

Practical Implications

Again, the practical implications of a postmodernist conceptualization of research would likely never be put

into simple guidelines or an ethical code. However, the postmodern “family resemblance” of emphasizing the

particular does imply, as opposed to modernist research, greater emphasis on what is unique in each sit-

uation and the individual. As such, the postmodernist would likely move away from testing thin theoretical

propositions and move toward the richer and thicker accounts encompassed in a narrative. Similarly, the in-

strumental use of science—where universals, power, and expertise are viewed as the means to various social

ends—would be eschewed in favor of less certainty and more humility about knowledge and its use. If we

take the particular as a fundamental research value, ethical research has less to do with an attempt to reason

about ethical research practices and more to do with an uncertain researcher perpetually struggling with the

obligations and responsibilities of a particular situation, to a particular community, and to a particular partici-

pant.

SAGE

© 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 11 of 25 The Handbook of Social Research Ethics

Contextual

Modern

Because generalizable principles and laws are the telos of modernist research, traditional theory and method

have attempted to remove all possible contingency from both theoretical models and particular research find-

ings. In modernist methods, “truth was to be found through method, by following general rules of method that

were largely independent of the content and context of the investigation. Any influence by the person of the

researcher should be eliminated or minimized” (Kvale, 1996, p. 61).

Theories and findings are thus only considered universally valid if they are free from any contingent context.

In this sense, when the modernist is attempting to discern general social science principles, much of culture,

history, relation, and subjectivity are primarily sources of error variance.

The acontextual nature of modernist theory is explicit and unambiguous in most contemporary psychological

traditions. Personality theory has nearly always sought to describe the psyche as an abstract and context-less

type; learning researchers obsessively attempted to remove all contextual factors in their animal research

(e.g., using rats from the same genetic stock, raised in the same environment, and subjected to precisely

identical conditions). Indeed, the modern symbol of the scientist—the laboratory—is significant because of its

context-less representation of the modern subject of science. The justification for such context-independent

research procedures lies in the modernist notion that general knowledge comes from predictable events and

that this predictability can only be ensured in the absence of all confounding contextual factors.

Because context-less results were so fundamental to psychological research in the 20th century, a great

many programs of research could be employed as exemplars. Here, we will consider the research of Daniel

Kahneman and Amos Tversky—work widely considered to be one of the great successes of contemporary

social science research. Tversky and Kahneman (1983) summarized the basic conclusion drawn from a large

portion of their work: “People do not normally analyze daily events into exhaustive lists of possibilities or eval-

uate compound probabilities by aggregating elementary ones. Instead, they commonly use a limited number

of heuristics, such as representativeness and availability” (p. 294). The language used in this statement is

instructive in its reflection of the acontextual ideal of modernist research. First, this statement represents a

SAGE

© 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 12 of 25 The Handbook of Social Research Ethics

conclusion about “people” outside of any special context, as if this extra-contextual condition actually occurs

and is possible. Second, reduction to a “limited number” of heuristics in “common use” would be pivotal to

any research program, because reduction to context-less fundamentals is the sine qua non of modernist in-

vestigation. There is little discussion here, for example, of the changing use of heuristics depending on the

context or situation involved. Indeed, the ability to talk without (or at least across) contexts is an essential goal

of modernist research. It is that very ability that qualifies the statement as knowledge (possibly even truth).

Tversky and Kahneman’s (1983) approach to reporting their findings reflects and embodies this acontextual

ideal. In one study, the participants are considered fully described by the phrase “a group of 88 under-

graduates at UBC” (p. 297). Research subjects are discussed in terms of general categories—for example,

“naive” or “sophisti cated” (p. 300), and the behaviors of subjects are discussed only in general or aggregate

terms—for example, “the numerous conjunction errors reported in this article illustrate people’s affinity for

nonextensional reasoning” (p. 308). Like the vast majority of modernist research, for Tversky and Kahneman,

essentially every statement that could be considered representative of general knowledge will not (and, in

fact, should not) contain any unique contextual content.

This way of valuing acontextual knowledge is clearly reflected in the modernist discourse about research and

research ethics (e.g., ethical principles). Just as ethical codes are designed to apply to all particular individu-

als (see the previous section), they are also constructed to apply across contexts (and not to take the unique-

ness of contexts into account). Just as modernists assume that there is some independent set of verifiable

facts, they also assume that there is some independent (though perhaps more difficult to define) set of ac-

ceptable ethical codes.

Postmodern

The postmodern perspective holds that meaning is always embodied, situated, and inseparable from its sur-

rounding context. For the postmodernist, the personal and the public are inseparable parts of the same whole,

and “any attempt rigorously to eliminate our human perspective from our picture of the world must lead to

absurdity” (Polanyi, 1974, p. 3).

SAGE

© 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 13 of 25 The Handbook of Social Research Ethics

For a postmodern researcher, then, procedures and findings are enriched by context and impoverished, even

misunderstood entirely, by laboratory sanitization and numerical representation. This approach to research,

most clearly embraced by the qualitative or interpretive traditions, asserts that “if participants are removed

from their setting, it leads to contrived findings that are out of context” (Creswell, 1998, p. 17). Even more, en-

riching contexts are considered integral elements of all research findings. Discussing interviews, for example,

Steinar Kvale (1996) asserted that “the interview takes place in an interpersonal context, and the meaning of

the interview statements depends on this context” (p. 44). Contexts, in this sense, are not just “variables” that

“interact” with the subject of interest; they are necessary for understanding the subject of interest itself. From

the postmodern perspective, even traditional biological laboratory science can be undermined by its focus

on inert bodies—with all their passive, inanimate connotations—and enriched by a focus on embodiment as

lived, contextualized, and animate (see Merleau-Ponty, 1964).

Phenomenological research is an example of a tradition that explicitly advocates and integrates a detailed

description of the research context into the results. In a study by Philip Welches and Michael Pica (2005),

for example, the authors provide a rich array of contextualizing information. Their article, which analyzes the

experiences of nine men who had been admitted to a psychiatric hospital for being a danger to self or others,

provides a detailed case study for each of the participants, including relevant personal details and excerpts

from the interview interactions themselves. The contexts of the interview situations as well as some of the

relevant behaviors of the participants are also described in a way that shows how integral they are to the un-

derstanding of the study’s findings.

This sort of “thick” description also provides a necessary context for understanding and evaluating the conclu-

sions drawn by the researchers. The interpretive categories developed by Welches and Pica (2005), contrary

to most modernist research, served to “classify common themes” (p. 49) and not to draw general conclusions

about abstract psychological processes. As in most phenomenological research, the authors’ goal was to de-

velop a general descriptive account of a specific kind of situation and not an abstract model of psychological

or social functioning.

We recognize, of course, that the modernist may see no way to build “general” knowledge from such contex-

tualized analysis. For the postmodernist, however, the contextualization of the subject matter situates it in the

whole of knowledge (e.g., the culture, the era) and thus provides knowledge transfer through context and not

SAGE

© 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 14 of 25 The Handbook of Social Research Ethics

through its elimination (as in the modernist tradition).

Practical Implications

The practical implication of the contextual for a postmodern research ethic is, in some sense, straightforward:

The researcher does not attempt to eliminate—whether through laboratory or control—context from the in-

vestigation or its results. Instead, the postmodern researcher values the importance of context (e.g., situa-

tion, history, embodiment, possibilities) for understanding the meaning of the results and for situating them in

the broader context of the discipline or culture. The postmodern researcher also values the uniqueness and

autonomy of research participants and is thus wary of removing contextual (including unique and personal)

factors through laboratory and procedural controls. For the postmodernist, the use and presentation of knowl-

edge is a primary ethical consideration—one in which the research participant is intimately concerned, and

so the modernist attempt to eliminate the unique contexts of research participants appears dangerously ego-

centric.

Value Laden (Interpretive, Perspectival)

Modern

The pursuit of natural or social laws also requires that knowledge claims be free from bias, prejudice, and per-

sonal or subjective values. For the modernist, “goods or ‘values’ were understood as projections of ours onto

a world which in itself was neutral” (Taylor, 1992, p. 53). It is for precisely this reason that, for the modernist,

“scientific statements ought to be value-neutral; facts were to be distinguished from values, and science from

politics” (Kvale, 1996, p. 62).

Traditional methods thus attempt to build impersonal, blinded, and mechanical procedures that minimize per-

sonal nuance, bias, or interpretive slant. For the modernist, bias is bad, and the “objective” world provides a

value-free picture of reality. As Howard Kendler (2004) phrased it, “Empirical results are value-free. Raw data

SAGE

© 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 15 of 25 The Handbook of Social Research Ethics

do not imply any moral judgment” (p. 122), and it is the role of science “to provide unbiased information” (p.

123). For the modernist, the scientific method provides a bridge between the subjective realm of the scientist

and the objective realm of nature and, thus, provides supposedly value-neutral, objective information about

the world.

This objectivist perspective has put the research of positive psychology in an interesting position. This move-

ment attempts to discern and promote “the highest qualities of civic and personal life” (Seligman, 1998), yet

the modernist philosophy of social science says that this seemingly value-laden task should be conducted in

a value-free manner. Indeed, the main leader of this movement, Martin Seligman (1998), considers positive

psychology to be a superior approach to other sources of optimal human functioning, because those oth-

er sources are “too subjective … dependent on faith or … dubious assumptions; they lacked the clear-eyed

skepticism and the slow cumulative growth that I (and Csikszentmihalyi) associated with science” (p. 7).

Consequently, positive psychologists cannot draw from moral traditions or disciplines that discuss the nature

of a good or flourishing life. All they believe they can do is classify “the strengths that every major subculture

in America today values positively” (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2001, p. 90). In other words, their work is

an empirical polling of what other people think are “the highest qualities of civic and personal life.” The essen-

tial point here is that, even when studying human values, the modernist espouses a value-free approach to

research, and it is this very distinction between hard fact and subjective value that makes “research ethics” a

consideration separate from scientific knowledge.

Postmodern

For the postmodernist, the subjective and objective are inseparable and together constitute any given mean-

ing. In this sense, all meaning—all experience—is inherently and inescapably interpretive, and bias is not only

inevitable but also a basic element of all knowledge practices. H. G. Gadamer (1960/1989), in fact, argued

for the essential importance of prejudice in all research. As Richardson, Fowers, and Guignon (1999) framed

this argument,

Prejudices are not external impositions that constrain our ability to be free and rational subjects. On

SAGE

© 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 16 of 25 The Handbook of Social Research Ethics

the contrary, having a “horizon” or framework of prejudgments is what first makes it possible for us

to think and act in intelligible ways. (p. 230)

Bias and prejudice are often pejorative terms in our modernist culture, so the more common terminology in

postmodern philosophy is value or value laden. To say that all knowledge is biased is to claim that any mean-

ing-making activity is directed by values and interpretive contexts. Fact and value are inseparable because

the postmodernist sees a “fundamental moral orientation as essential to being a human interlocutor” (Taylor,

1992, p. 29). Taylor (1992) stated it even more strongly: “We cannot do without some orientation to the good”

(p. 33).

For the postmodernist, then, value and bias are fundamental and, indeed, the primary impetus for research

(e.g., the selection of a research topic). As such, bias and value should not be avoided or eliminated but made

as explicit and transparent as possible: “The important thing is to be aware of one’s own bias” (Gadamer,

1960/1989, p. 269). Although full value transparency in research is perhaps impossible, the postmodern ideal

is to make one’s own assumptions, historical context, and value stances explicit in reports of research find-

ings.

A study of working-class girls conducted by Sandra Jones (2001) should serve as an exemplar of this ap-

proach to research. Jones, who explicitly aligns herself with feminist and critical theory, observed, interviewed,

and analyzed biographical information concerning 10 female academics who grew up in the working class.

Her approach to this research included the assumption that “the researcher is the research instrument” (p.

147), and so, when evaluating interview data, it was “important to ask who is listening and what is the nature

of listener’s relationship with the speaker” (p. 147).

To help identify her values as a researcher, Jones provided information about her own childhood context

among the working class and discussed some of the effects of her powerful position as researcher. Jones

also made explicit many of her research values. She talked about how she is sensitive to power relations

and so strove for equity in research situations. She discussed her belief that research participants should be

approached in dialogue, and so she provided participants with copies of transcripts and drafts of her interpre-

tations.

Finally, Jones incorporated her values and influence into the presentation of her research findings. When she

SAGE

© 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 17 of 25 The Handbook of Social Research Ethics

quoted the participants, she included her own dialogue in the excerpts. She also narrated her own reactions

to the included excerpts as well as how she came to her subsequent interpretations. The main point here is

that the author tried to make the values of her investigation as explicit and as integrated into the research

findings as possible, and this practice helps the reader understand how those values influenced the findings.

From the postmodern perspective, values are just as influential in modernist findings; they are just not ac-

knowledged. Researcher values are integral to all kinds of research, and the need to recognize and incor-

porate these influences is an ethical imperative. This is the reason, as mentioned at the outset, why there is

no hard distinction between research ethics and research per se. Even the most basic research activities are

situated within an evaluative context and carry very concrete ethical implications.

Practical Implications

The value-ladenness of social science research has many ethical implications from the viewpoint of a post-

modern. First, we need to recognize that there is no escape from this value-ladenness—the assumptions

and philosophies underlying research often involve values that frequently remain unexamined in modernist

research. Second, we should identify these values as much as possible before, during, and after engaging in

research. We do this to understand their potential impact and to be open to their replacement in the service

of the topic of study. Perhaps even more important, we do this to serve the particular individuals or groups

affected by the study. Third, such values are integral to the meaning and use of any study’s results, so these

should be taken explicitly into account in presenting, reporting, or applying the research in question. In short,

values and their explicit discussion are of primary importance at every stage of social science research.

Other-Focus

Modern

The “other” of the social sciences is generally conceived of as an impersonal subject because the general-

SAGE

© 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 18 of 25 The Handbook of Social Research Ethics

ized, decontextualized, and unbiased ideal of modernist research requires a research participant whose val-

ues, projects, and idiosyncrasies do not interfere with the claims of science. The ideal subject is thus imper-

sonalized and reduced—an object in the sense of any other natural thing.

This notion of a manipulated, controlled, and objectified subject is fairly endemic to modernist research, and

the social science vocabulary for describing research participants well illustrates this phenomenon. Although

observer was the most frequently used participant term in late-19th- and early-20th-century psychology, the

increasingly objectivist inclination of (particularly American) psychology was accompanied by an increasing

use of the term subject. The historian of psychology, Kurt Danziger (1990), argued that this terminology was

borrowed from French psychiatry, where its earliest known use was to refer to corpses used for anatomical

dissection. The use of such a term makes sense from the modernist viewpoint because it implies a kind of

clinical distance and almost inanimate or passive status, much as any other “subject” matter (e.g., cells, struc-

tures).

In contemporary psychology, subject continues to be a common term. In fact, Henry Roediger (2004), while

president of the Association for Psychological Science, argued strenuously for a return to the exclusive use

of the “subject” terminology because it better fit his conception of the research subject. For him, “the college

student is the ideal experimental animal” (p. 46), an animal he compares with drosophila, the fruit fly that has

been the subject of so many genetic studies. It makes sense that he would prefer subject to participant be-

cause his research topics, like so many in psychology, concern presumed universal properties—learning and

memory—rather than unique, particular individuals.

Terms other than subject have begun to see significant use in the social sciences. In the last two versions of

the APA style manual, for example, the shift to participant has been explicitly encouraged. It could be argued

that the terminological shift to participant signals a kind of drift from the hard modernist worldview in American

psychology, and there may be some truth to this argument. However, Gary VandenBos (the executive director

of publications and communications for APA) describes this shift as largely political and legal: “‘Subjects’ im-

plies that these are people who are having things done to them, whereas ‘participants’ implies that they gave

consent” (Carey, 2004). There is really no suggestion that one treats a participant differently than a subject;

the change has more to do with legal consent. In any case, whether they are participants or subjects, the

ultimate goal of the modernist is to systematically control them and their values and context.

SAGE

© 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 19 of 25 The Handbook of Social Research Ethics

Postmodern

When postmodernists hear the kind of “control” discourse found in modernist research, they often consider it

a vocabulary of power and dominance, a consideration most notably connected with the work of the postmod-

ernist Michel Foucault. Modernity’s instrumentalized and reduced research subject is understood more as a

means to solidify the power of those who conduct research than as a means to discern generalized principles.

For the postmodernist, in fact, all “disciplines constitute a system of control in the production of discourse”

(Foucault, 1972, p. 224), including any particular postmodernist discipline.

This sensitivity to power relations is a hallmark of many postmodern approaches to research, and it entails a

concomitant sensitivity to how researchers subject research participants to their projects. As Foucault (1972)

argued, “We must conceive discourse as a violence that we do to things, or, at all events, as a practice we

impose upon them” (p. 229). It is not surprising, then, that the status of the participant is extremely significant

to the postmodern researcher. The particularity of the valuing other is not a research confound but is, rather,

the starting place for all meaning-making activities. The values, projects, and idiosyncrasies of the research

participant constitute both an ethical imperative and the foundational knowledge relation. As such, a primary

imperative of postmodernist research is “to do research ‘with’ rather than ‘on’ people” (Burman, 2001, p. 260).

An excellent example of this approach to research is Michelle Fine’s four-year study on the impact of a col-

lege-in-prison program at Bedford Hills Correctional Facility (Fine et al., 2001). The impact of an other-fo-

cused approach to research is immediately apparent in the author line of the book, where there are 11 names

listed. The multiplicity of authors stems from the fact that, in addition to graduate student researchers, Fine

recruited participant observers from among the female inmates she was studying. These women conducted

interviews, took field notes, and met as a research team every few weeks to compare findings. True to the

other-focused ideal, the research reports generated from this study are rich with participant narratives.

Fine’s design made her project an essentially communitarian one, where research interpretations are not the

province of merely the privileged researcher but also of those for whom researchers presume to speak. These

kinds of methods aim to provide a research environment where “the respondents become active agents, the

creators of the worlds they inhabit and the interpreters of their experiences” (Marecek, Fine, & Kidder, 2001, p.

34). While many postmodernists recognize that asymmetrical power relations are perhaps inevitable in many

SAGE

© 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 20 of 25 The Handbook of Social Research Ethics

aspects of research, they nevertheless seek to make power relations as explicit as possible and reveal rather

than obscure the unique constructive contexts of research participants.

Practical Implications

The other-focus of the postmodernist has important ethical implications for researchers. The first is undoubt-

edly that we need to have greater sensitivity to the power relations of many research settings and relation-

ships. For many postmodernists, the subjectification and objectification of persons, and even animals, is a

kind of violence that should never be tolerated. The researcher should do research with people, including

making participants co-investigators, rather than on people.

Second, postmodernists recognize that data interpretation is unavoidable in any kind of research, regardless

of the methods used, and that such interpretation is the province, not simply of the “author” but also of a

community of researchers, participants, and readers. Philosophers of science have long understood how data

underdetermine these interpretations, allowing for alternative interpretations that usually go unmentioned in

research reports (Curd & Cover, 1998). For the postmodernist, reports and presentations should avoid mis-

leading language, such as “the data indicate,” and should discuss instead the many data interpretations avail-

able as well as the reasons for the interpretations favored by researchers and the participants producing the

data.

Conclusion

We have argued that the postmodern turn points toward a research tradition that is interpretive, particular,

contextual, value laden, and other focused—that is, in fact, thoroughly ethical in its character. Research meth-

ods are not essentially amoral—as in many modernist understandings, with ethics as a separate considera-

tion. Research from the postmodern perspective is rife with values, assumptions, and perspectives that need

to be identified and incorporated explicitly in the “findings.” There is no moment in the conceptualization,

design, execution, or presentation of research that is not inescapably and fundamentally ethical. As Kvale

(1996) argued, “Ethical decisions do not belong to a separate stage … but arise throughout the entire re-

SAGE

© 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 21 of 25 The Handbook of Social Research Ethics

search process” (p. 110).

Because the postmodernist sees research as an inherently ethical enterprise, the notion of a separate, post-

modern ethical code is problematic. If the postmodernist is to talk about research ethics, it could only be a

discussion about a kind of praxis or, perhaps, even a way of being: “Moral research behavior is more than

ethical knowledge and cognitive choices; it involves the person of the researcher, his or her sensitivity and

commitment to moral issues and action” (Kvale, 1996, p. 117). For the postmodernist, all research activity is

fraught with moral and ethical issues. As such, scientific investigations require not a set of general solutions to

such issues but a very particular commitment to both an insistent ethical self-examination and an unflinching

sensitivity to our relation with the other.

References

Berkeley, G. (2004). A treatise concerning the principles of human knowledge. Whitefish, MT: Kessinger.

(Original work published 1710)

Bochner, A. P. (1997). It’s about time: Narrative and the divided self. Qualitative Inquiry, 3(4), 418–438.

Burman, E. (2001). Minding the gap: Positivism, psychology, and the politics of qualitative methods. In D.

L.Tolman & M. B.Miller (Eds.), From subjects to subjectivities: A handbook of interpretive and participatory

methods (pp. 259–275). New York: New York

University

Press.

Capaldi, E. J., & Proctor, R. W. (1999). Contextualism in psychological research? A critical review. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Carey, B. (2004, June 15). The subject is subjects. The New York Times. Retrieved April 30, 2008, from

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9501E5D61030F936A25755C0A9629C8B63

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Curd, M., & Cover, J. A. (1998). Philosophy of science: The central issues. New York: W. W. Norton.

Danziger, K. (1990). Constructing the subject. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univer

sity Press.

Descartes, R. (1996). Meditations on first philosophy (J.Cottingham, Trans.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Uni-

SAGE

© 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 22 of 25 The Handbook of Social Research Ethics

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9501E5D61030F936A25755C0A9629C8B63

versity Press. (Original work published 1641)

Dilthey, W. (1988). Introduction to the human sciences (R. J.Betanzos, Trans.). Detroit, MI: Wayne State Uni-

versity Press. (Original work published 1883)

Fine, M., Torre, M. E., Boudin, K., Bowen, I., Clark, J., Hylton, D., et al. (2001). Changing minds. New York:

The City University of New York Graduate Center.

Flax, J. (1990). Thinking fragments: Psychoanalysis, feminism, and postmodernism in the contemporary

West. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge (A. M. S.Smith, Trans.). New York: Harper Colophon

Books. (Original work published 1969)

Fox-Keller, E. (1982). Feminism and science. Signs, 7(3), 589–602.

Gadamer, H. G. (1989). Truth and method (J.Weinsheimer & D. G.Marshall, Trans.). New York: Crossroad.

(Original work published 1960)

Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time (J.Macquarrie & E.Robinson, Trans.). San Francisco: Harper Collins.

(Original work published 1927)

Husserl, E. (1999). Logical investigations (J. N.Findlay, Trans.). In D.Welton (Ed.), The essential Husserl:

Basic writings in transcendental phenomenology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. (Original work pub-

lished 1900)

Jones, S. J. (2001). Embodying working class subjectivity and narrating self: “We were the hired help.” In D.

L.Tolman & M. B.Miller (Eds.), From subjects to subjectivities: A handbook of interpretive and participatory

methods (pp. 145–162). New York: New York University Press.

Kagan, J. (1998). Three seductive ideas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kant, I. (1998). Critique of pure reason (P.Guyer & A.Wood, Trans.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University

Press. (Original work published 1781)

Kendler, H. H. (2004). Politics and science: A combustible mixture. American Psychologist, 59(2), 122–123.

Kuhn, T. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed. ). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

SAGE

© 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 23 of 25 The Handbook of Social Research Ethics

Levinas, E. (1969). Totality and infinity(A.Lingis, Trans.). Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press. (Original

work published 1961)

Lewin, K. (1999). The conflict between Aristotelian and Galilean modes of thought in contemporary psychol-

ogy (D. K.Adams, Trans.). In M.Gold (Ed.), The complete social scientist: A Kurt Lewin reader(2nd ed. , pp.

37–66). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. (Original work published 1931)

Marecek, J., Fine, M., & Kidder, L. (2001). Working between two worlds: Qualitative methods and psychology.

In D. L.Tolman & M. B.Miller (Eds.), From subjects to subjectivities: A handbook of interpretive and participa-

tory methods (pp. 29–41). New York: New York University Press.

McIntyre, A. (1984). After virtue (2nd ed. ). Notre Dame, France: University of Notre Dame Press.

Merleau-Ponty, M. (1964). Primacy of perception (W.Cobb, Trans.; J.Edie, Ed.). Evanston, IL: Northwestern

University Press.

Mishler, E. G. (1986). The analysis of interview narratives. In T. R.Sarbin (Ed.), Narrative psychology(pp.

233–255). New York: Praeger.

Murphy, N. (1997). Anglo-American postmodernity: Philosophical perspectives on science, religion, and

ethics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Polanyi, M. (1974). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

Polkinghorne, D. (2005). Practice and the human sciences: A case for a judgment-based practice of care.

Albany: SUNY Press.

Reid, T. (2005). Essays on the active powers of the human mind: An inquiry into the human mind on the prin-

ciple of common sense. Whitefish, MT: Kessinger. (Original work published 1764)

Richardson, F. C., Fowers, B. J., & Guignon, C. B. (1999). Re-envisioning psychology: Moral dimensions of

theory and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ricoeur, P. (1965). History and truth (C. A.Kelbley, Trans.). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

Roediger, R. (2004). What should they be called?APS Observer, 17(5), 46–48.

Rorty, R. (1991). Objectivity, relativism and truth: Philosophical papers I. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univer-

SAGE

© 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 24 of 25 The Handbook of Social Research Ethics

sity Press.

Sartre, J. P. (1956). Being and nothingness: An essay on phenomenological ontology (H.Barnes, Trans.). New

York: Philosophical Library. (Original work published 1943)

Seligman, M. (1998). President’s column: Positive social science. APA Monitor, 29(4), 2–5.

Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2001). “Positive Psychology: An Intro duction”: Reply. American

Psychologist, 56, 89–90.

Slife, B. D., Reber, J., & Richardson, F. (2005). Critical thinking about psychology: Hidden assumptions and

plausible alternatives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press.

Taylor, C. (1992). Sources of the self. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in prob-

ability judgment. Psychological Review, 90(4), 293–315.

Welches, P., & Pica, M. (2005). Assessed danger to others as a reason for psychiatric hospitalization: An in-

vestigation of patients’ perspectives. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 36(1), 45–73.

Whitehead, A. N. (1925). Science and the modern world. New York: Macmillan.

Wittgenstein, L. (2001). Philosophical investigations (E.Anscombe, Trans.). London: Blackwell. (Original work

published 1953)

https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483348971

SAGE

© 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 25 of 25 The Handbook of Social Research Ethics

https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483348971

SAGE Research Methods

The Handbook of Social Research Ethics

Research Ethics in the Postmodern Context

The Postmodern Context

Anglo-American Postmodernism

Continental European Postmodernism

Family Resemblances: Research Ethics in the Modern and the Postmodern

Particular

Modern

Postmodern

Practical Implications

Contextual

Modern

Postmodern

Practical Implications

Value Laden (Interpretive, Perspectival)

Modern

Postmodern

Practical Implications

Other-Focus

Modern

Postmodern

Practical Implications

Conclusion

References

SAGE Research Methods

The Handbook of Social Research Ethics

Author: Joshua W. Clegg, Brent D. Slife

Pub. Date: 2013

Product: SAGE Research Methods

DOI:

https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483348971

Methods: Research ethics, Ethical codes, Vulnerable groups

Keywords: modernism, tradition, knowledge, law, social science

Disciplines: Anthropology, Business and Management, Criminology and Criminal Justice, Communication

and Media Studies, Counseling and Psychotherapy, Economics, Education, Geography, Health, History,

Marketing, Nursing, Political Science and International Relations, Psychology, Social Policy and Public Policy,

Social Work, Sociology

Access Date: January 5, 2023

Publishing Company: SAGE Publications, Inc.

City: Thousand Oaks

Online ISBN: 9781483348971

© 2013 SAGE Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483348971

Research Ethics in the Postmodern Context

Joshua W.Clegg and Brent D.Slife

Discussing a topic as broad and as frequently misunderstood as postmodernism requires some organizing

principle, some general definition. Yet postmodernism makes such broad generalizations problematic at the

outset. From the postmodern viewpoint, any definition of anything, including the definition of postmodernism

itself, is a value judgment, with ethical and even political implications. Another problem in defining postmod-

ernism is that postmodernists (whoever these entities are) resist the closed “totalizing” conceptions

of things. They view such conceptions as inappropriate reductions of the real—stereotypes of the rich experi-

ence of whatever is being conceived or defined.

Postmodernism is not, then, best understood in conceptual terms at all; it is perhaps best understood by en-

gaging in practices that are postmodern, rather than conceptualizing things as postmodern. Consequently,

this entire chapter (and perhaps this entire volume) could be construed as the modernist project of summariz-

ing the unsummarizable, and thus conflicting with the very spirit of postmodernism. Any conception of post-

modernity would have to be pluralistic, rarely unitary, and perhaps even poetic. Still, we remain committed to

making this chapter understandable to the modern thinker and coherent within the underpinnings of this book,

which implies some dedication to a clear organization.

Consequently, we begin by outlining some of the major movements and figures in postmodern philosophy. We

follow this with a discussion of four postmodern ethical/philosophical commitments, which we frame not as

conceptual foundations but as Wittgensteinian (1953/2001) “family resemblances.” These four resemblances,

which include the particular, the contextual, the value laden, and the other, are then contrasted with modernist

commitments. True to the rich, particular, and contextualized values of postmodern theorists, we illustrate and

explicate these contrasting commitments in terms of particular examples from existing research traditions.

Much of this discussion will appropriately concern what would traditionally be considered “methodological” is-

sues. However, we caution the reader that one of the primary lessons of a postmodern approach to research

ethics is that every research activity is an exercise in research ethics, every research question is a moral

dilemma, and every research decision is an instantiation of values. In short, postmodernism does not permit

the distinction between research methods and research ethics.

SAGE

© 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 2 of 25 The Handbook of Social Research Ethics

The Postmodern Context

Postmodern thought is something of an antithesis to the thesis of modernism—different sides of the same

coin. Some of the specific characteristics of both modernism and postmodernism are outlined below, but in

general, this dichotomy centers on the dialectic between a generally naturalistic, positivistic, and realist world-

view (modernism) and its antithesis in a critical, constructivist, or interpretivist worldview (postmodernism). In

its historically explicit form, this dialectic is essentially a 20th-century phenomenon, but its roots reach back

into the Enlightenment and perhaps before.

Of the most essential modernist themes, naturalism, probably boasts the oldest pedigree. Naturalism, or the

notion that the world and everything in it can be explained in terms of natural, material, and narrowly empirical

processes, had advocates among the pre-Socratic philosophers (e.g., Democritus). There were, of course,

any number of antinaturalist philosophers in the Western intellectual tradition, particularly among the mystical

or hermetic and early Christian philosophers. It was not until the Enlightenment, particularly in the 18th and

19th centuries, that the theme of naturalism was wedded to a broader intellectual and cultural positivism, or a

general belief in the social, empirical, and theoretical power of science to ask and answer the basic questions

of reality. This marriage permitted the modernist worldview to be fully forged as a culturally powerful antithesis

to various premodern mystical, feudal, or otherwise centralized worldviews.

However, the rise of an unambiguously naturalistic worldview was not unopposed by influential thinkers. Near-

ly every major philosopher of the Enlightenment era was interested in and supported the development of a

naturalistic philosophy, but there were many who also advocated a kind of metaphysical counterpoint to strict-

ly empirical or material accounts. Descartes (1641/ 1996), for example, produced an elaborately mechanistic

(and naturalistic) account of the human organism while also postulating a purely metaphysical realm of the

mind (res cogitans). Even in Britain, the home of the most stridently empiricistic philosophers, thinkers in the

tradition of Berkeley (1710/2004) or Reid (1764/2005) cast doubt on the unproblematically realist approach to

philosophy.

Notwithstanding these currents of dissent, the postmodern view as a whole could not develop until modernism

itself was fully fledged by the dramatic successes of the industrial age, or what Polkinghorne (2005) called

“technification” (p. 5). Modernism as a generally dominant Western worldview reached its zenith only in the

late 19th and early 20th centuries, and this is precisely when the forces of postmodernism began to gath-

er. The successes of industrial technology began to meet its excesses, and the positivist worldview received

SAGE

© 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 3 of 25 The Handbook of Social Research Ethics

both the praise and the blame. Philosophers and scientists began to question the monolith of materialistic and

naturalistic science, and that dissent would eventually be labeled (not unproblematically) “postmodernism.”

The gathering force of postmodern philosophy was, in some sense, the natural dissenting extension of the

modernist worldview and so, like Western philosophy in general, is typically divided into an Anglo-American

tradition and a Continental European tradition.

Anglo-American Postmodernism

In the Anglo-American tradition, the primary thematic contexts for postmodernism have been philosophy of

language and philosophy of science. Philosophy of language in the 20th century made a radical “shift from a

focus on meaning as reference to a focus on meaning as use,” and this was “a change revolutionary enough

to mark the shift from modern to postmodern in philosophy of language” (Murphy, 1997, p. 23).

Alfred North Whitehead was one of the first who began to question a fully realist and objectivist philosophy

(i.e., meaning as reference). In his later writings, Whitehead (1925) asserted that “process rather than sub-

stance is the most basic reality. Substance, in fact, is an abstraction from the processes of experience” (p.

90). For Whitehead, the generalized categories of “existence” were not the fundamental realities but were

essentially perceiver dependent. In this way, Whitehead delineated a pivotal theme of postmodernism—its

rejection of the modernist division of the subjective and objective in favor of a perceiver-dependent or inter-

preted reality.

Ludwig Wittgenstein, another influential Anglo postmodern philosopher, claimed that “meaning depends on

the role language plays in a system of conventions, both linguistic and nonlinguistic, of practices, perfor-

mances, ‘forms of life’” (Murphy, 1997, p. 24), a claim that has had profound implications for postmodern phi-

losophy. In Wittgenstein’s later work, language almost completely abandons its objective and rationalist roots

and replaces them with particular forms of everyday life. Again, meaning is viewed more as a particular social

function (“use”) than as a reference to an objective reality. Other philosophers in this tradition include Gilbert

Ryle (1900–1976) and J. L. Austin (1911–1960).

This shift from substance to process and from the abstract or universal to social convention and everyday life

was mirrored in the Anglo-American philosophy of science. Thomas Kuhn (1996), for example, asserted that

change in science was not the product of systematic empirical or rational progress but was, rather, the result

of radical paradigm shifts in scientific epistemology. For Kuhn, then, science had to be understood culturally

SAGE

© 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 4 of 25 The Handbook of Social Research Ethics

and socially. W. V. Quine (1908–2000) also eschewed a view of science founded entirely on a system of em-

pirical and rational facts. Philosophers such as Imre Lakatos (1922–1974) and Paul Feyerabend (1924–1994)

further elaborated this nonfoundationalist approach to the philosophy of science.

The Anglo-American tradition of postmodernism also included ethical philosophers such as Alasdair McIntyre

(1984)—who argued that ethics had to be understood within its social and historical context—and, to some

extent, philosophers in the American pragmatist tradition. American pragmatism, beginning with William

James (1842–1910), John Dewey (1859–1952), and Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914), was by no means

a unitary tradition, but in general, pragmatists replaced a realist picture of the world with one that centers

meaning in functional relations. This tradition was at least partly a postmodern one in that it undermined the

modernist worldview. As Richard Rorty (1991) argued, pragmatists believe that the epistemology that under-

lies science is not a “privileged method,” and they deny “that the results of the natural sciences suffice to give

meaning to our lives” (p. 75).

Generally, then, Anglo postmodernism reacts to Anglo modernism by emphasizing the interpreted and social

over the objective and rational. The modernist considers the objective and the rational to be essentially un-

interpreted and universal, whereas the postmodernist views even these “foundations” of modernism as con-

text and perceiver dependent. For many modernists, this sort of context and perceiver dependence raises

the specter of radical relativism, and some see chaos and nihilism as the eventual result (Capaldi & Proc-

tor, 1999). As we will see, however, this kind of relativism is not inevitable in postmodernism. The absence

of a modernist grounding of ideas, such as objectivism and foundationalism, does not mean the absence of

grounds altogether. As we will describe, postmodern grounds include, to name a few, the particular, the con-

textual, and the value laden.

Continental European Postmodernism

The Continental European strain of postmodernism began to take shape with a systematic reconceptualiza-

tion of subjectivity, beginning in the Austro-German tradition. Immanuel Kant (1781/1998) set the agenda for

this reconceptualization when he reaffirmed and systematized the subjective-objective dichotomy in terms of

the noumenal, or independent and unknowable reality, and the phenomenal, or the interpreted, knowable re-

ality. This reduction of human knowledge to human experience paved the way for what Wilhelm Dilthey (1883/

SAGE

© 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 5 of 25 The Handbook of Social Research Ethics

1988) would later call “human science” conceptions of knowledge.

The phenomenological tradition was perhaps the most prominent of these human science approaches. Hegel

(1770–1831) pioneered the philosophical investigation of the phenomenal, but it was Edmund Husserl (1900/

1999) who turned phenomenology into a systematic investigation of human experience. For Husserl, this was

a radical enterprise that explicitly undermined naturalistic conceptions of science. He claimed, following the

logic of his teacher Franz Brentano (1838–1917), that experience is always intentional—always an experi-

ence of something. This may seem like a deceptively simple premise, but it has radical implications. Unlike

the modernist notion of an independent and isolated “object,” this intentionality implies that experienced ob-

jects are irreducibly composed in both perceiver and perceived. Under Husserlian phenomenology, purely

objective (uninterpreted) reality is an incoherent notion.

The students of Husserlian phenomenology extended this basic logic into an elaborate and robust challenge

to the modernist worldview. Martin Heidegger (1927/1962), for example, argued that all meaning, including

the meanings of research findings, is fundamentally interpretive. All knowledge, in this sense, is developed

within a preexisting social milieu, ever interpreting and reinterpreting itself. This perspective, usually called

hermeneutics, was systematically applied to the social sciences by Hans Georg Gadamer (1960/1989). He

argued that because the social sciences (like other sciences) build their interpretive assumptions into their

methods (including their scientific methods), they necessarily reproduce their theoretical assumptions in their

professional treatments and empirical find

ings.

Other students of Husserlian phenomenology radically redefined the nature and scope of meaning, and thus

the human sciences. The analysis of Maurice Merleau-Ponty (1964), for example, demonstrated important

differences between the conventional category of “body” and the phenomenological meaning of embodiment.

He claimed, in fact, that all higher-order intellectual meaning was derivative of the concrete experience of our

embodiment. Jean-Paul Sartre (1943/1956) even more radically redefined all meaning in terms of the radical-

ly free human agent. Emmanuel Levinas (1961/1969) was another phenomenologist who redefined meaning,

this time in terms of the ethical. Later students of both phenomenology and hermeneutics—for example, Paul

Ricoeur (1913–2005), Charles Taylor (1931–)—further developed this tradition into a non-naturalistic and non-

positivist approach to research and the social sciences.

Another influential strain of Continental postmodernism emerged from France and was concerned primarily

with the deconstruction of social meanings, including institution, power, and politics. Jacques Derrida

SAGE

© 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 6 of 25 The Handbook of Social Research Ethics

(1930–2004), Jean-Francois Lyotard (1924–1998), and Michel Foucault (1926–1984) are some of the more

prominent figures in this tradition. In postmodern approaches to the human sciences, Foucault (1972) is espe-

cially influential, given that many of his works deal explicitly with the institutions of psychology and psychiatry.

This tradition of deconstructing power has also been influential in much of postmodern feminist psychology.

Feminist theorists such as Jane Flax (1990) or Evelyn Fox-Keller (1982) have drawn on the rhetoric of power

relations developed in the French tradition.

In general, then, like Anglo-American postmodernists, Continental postmodernists reject an objectivist and

rationalist view of science. For thinkers in the Continental tradition, the “objective” categories of science are

objects of human experience and thus depend on the values, perspectives, and context of the researcher.

For these reasons, Continental postmodernists move away from general and abstract conceptions of science

and move toward particular research contexts and concrete researcher-participant relationships.

Family Resemblances: Research Ethics in the Modern and the

Postmodern

As noted in the introduction, we are committed to some degree of organization and clarity in this chapter,

but we are also wary of an overly systematic presentation of postmodern philosophy. Consequently, Ludwig

Wittgenstein’s (1953/2001) notion of family resemblances will serve as a fairly malleable “organizing principle”

for our discussion of postmodern ethics. Wittgenstein used the analogy of apparent similarities among mem-

bers of the same family to describe a unity that does not necessarily depend on a coherent, universal under-

lying structure. Likewise, we employ the notion of family resemblance because there is no coherent, unitary

tradition that could be called postmodern and yet there is a general set of similarities that, though they often

derive from entirely different logics, nevertheless characterize a general ideological trend that could be called

postmodern. It is our hope that this approach to the topic will be true to the nonreductive, nontotalizing spirit

of postmodernism, while at the same time providing accessibility to those readers unfamiliar with it.

Of the many candidates for postmodern family resemblances, we selected four that we will treat below: partic-

ular, contextual, value laden, and other focused. These four were selected for two reasons. First, we judged

them to be those most directly related to social science research and, second, they provide instructive con-

trasts with modernist research ethics. However, these resemblances do not lead to a set of postmodern ethi-

cal guidelines per se. Such an outcome would be inconsistent with the nonreductive, nonfoundationalist sen-

SAGE

© 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 7 of 25 The Handbook of Social Research Ethics

sibilities of the postmodernist. Postmodern thought provides us not with clear-cut answers to the problems of

research ethics but, rather, with challenging, instructive, and transforming dialogues that help us think about

the ethical implications of research.

Our discussion of family resemblances will also extend beyond the boundaries of what have been traditionally

(i.e., in the modernist tradition) considered ethical issues. Research ethics from the postmodern perspective

is not separated from the goals and procedures of the research enterprise itself (like it often is in modernist re-

search). For this reason, we discuss postmodernist themes as they apply not just to conventional (modernist)

ethics but also to research practices in general. In drawing comparisons between the research practices of

modernists and postmodernists, we hope to illuminate many of the hidden values of both approaches to in-

quiry. We also hope to make clear some of the ethical implications of a postmodernist approach to research

without reducing these to a set of ethical principles or guidelines.

Particular

Modern

From the traditional modernist worldview, the primary function of research is not to discover findings that per-

tain only to the particular (situation or population) but to uncover the generalizable, if not universal, laws (or

principles). Examples of this span the history of psychology: 19th-century psychophysicists sought the uni-

versal laws of perception; behaviorists, perhaps the quintessential modernist psychologists, sought the expla-

nation of all “psychological” phenomena in terms of a single, basic mechanism—for example, operant con-

ditioning; even movements such as Gestalt psychology, whose antagonism to reductionistic psychology was

explicit, still understood psychological science as the pursuit of universal, general principles. The Gestaltist

Kurt Lewin (1931/1999), for example, characterized a mature (or “Galilean”) psychology as one that recog-

nizes that “every psychological law must hold without exception” (p.

52).

To discover the universal and unchanging, the methods of the social sciences have properties intended to

reveal these laws and principles, such as replication, standardization, and reliability. For the modernist, psy-

chological law and its principles must hold in every situation, and thus we need not take the particulars of the

situation into account. The particular case is considered an instance of the universal law, and likewise, the

particular individual is essentially a concrete instance of general abstract phenomena, such as law, principle,

SAGE

© 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 8 of 25 The Handbook of Social Research Ethics

and theory. For the modernist, the individual, or individual case, is of interest only in its relation to these ab-

stractions and not as a particular or unique phenomenon.

This insistence on abstract universals is chronicled in Jerome Kagan’s (1998) book Three Seductive Ideas. In

it, Kagan asserted that many psychologists do not find it

terribly important to specify the agent being studied, whether rat, monkey or human, or the context

in which the subject acts, whether laboratory, natural habitat, work-place, or home, because broad

conclusions can be drawn regardless of the agent and context. (p. 1)

The modernist focus on the general is evident in essentially every subdiscipline of 20th-century psychology

(Slife, Reber, & Richardson, 2005), but a particularly clear instance of this phenomenon is the theory and

research on intelligence, a topic Kagan treats at length. According to Kagan (1998), there has been little em-

pirical success in substantiating the notion of a universal concept that could be labeled “intelligence.” Nev-

ertheless, the undifferentiated and unspecified term is employed at all levels of psychological discourse. As

Kagan argued, “The descriptor ‘intelligent’ is frequently found in sentences that are indifferent to the age and

background of the person (or sometimes the animal species) or the evidential basis for the assignment” (p.

52).

Not surprisingly, the modernist focus on abstract generalizations has migrated into the general discussion on

research ethics. The very term research ethics suggests a generalized set of rules for dealing with the ethi-

cal implications of research. In the social sciences, we often approach the question of research ethics in an

essentially bureaucratic manner, developing handbooks, professional guidelines, and review boards whose

purpose is to engender, if not legislate, adherence to general codes of conduct. In modernist research, re-

search ethics is not a particular set of concrete dilemmas but a general set of rules meant to apply to all (or

at least most) research situations.

Postmodern

From the postmodern perspective, we do not live in the realm of the abstract and general, hence their rele-

vance to us is limited. We live instead in the concrete and particular—a particular place at a particular time,

SAGE

© 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 9 of 25 The Handbook of Social Research Ethics

which is our primary nexus of meaning making. This means that the personal and narrative are valued over

the abstract and universal. Abstract principles (e.g., concepts, ideas) are still important, but concrete particu-

lars are more fundamental. Postmodernists do not seek a universal set of truths, nor do they subscribe to an

independent or objective knowledge-advancing tradition. To the postmodernist, science is one of many cultur-

al objects that “are not only enrooted in the incontrovertible presence of this perceived world” but are “also the

achievement of a cultural activity, of a cultural life of which science, considered subjectively as human work,

is a part” (Ricoeur, 1965, p. 168).

The primary methodological implication of the postmodern denial of objectivity and universality is that while

“the mainstream tradition has focused almost exclusively on problems of standardization” (Mishler, 1986, p.

233), psychological research inspired by postmodern traditions has focused more on the understanding of

particular lives. These traditions have focused on particular stories because, as Taylor (1992) argued, “we

grasp our lives in a narrative. … In order to have a sense of who we are, we have to have a notion of how we

have become” (p. 47).

Within the contemporary social sciences, there are innumerable interpretive investigations whose intent is to

narrate particular lives, but let us consider one especially rich example. In an article in Qualitative Inquiry,

Arthur Bochner (1997) narrated an event from his own history as a way of illuminating multiple levels of psy-

chological knowledge. He told of being awakened in a hotel room and informed of his father’s death. In the

article, Bochner narrated his actions, thoughts, and feelings following this revelation. He used this narrative to

discuss grief and dying, psychological method and theory, and the method of personal narrative itself. When,

for example, he compared psychological literature on death and dying with his own experience, he concluded

that the academic world is “long on conceptualizations and short on details; long on abstractions, short on

concrete events; long on analysis, short on experience; long on theories, short on stories” (p. 424).

From within a very particular context, Bochner (1997) drew a number of conclusions about social science

methods, and this practice reflects the postmodern approach to “data.” As Bochner put it,

We do not turn stories into data to test theoretical propositions. Rather, we link theory to story when

we think with a story, trying to stay with the story, letting ourselves resonate with the moral dilemmas

it may pose, understanding its ambiguities, examining its contradictions, feeling its nuances, letting

SAGE

© 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 10 of 25 The Handbook of Social Research Ethics

ourselves become part of the story. (p. 436)

From this postmodern perspective, the notion of “generalization” in inquiry is more from concrete parts to con-

crete wholes rather than from concrete instances to abstract generalities.

Bochner’s (1997) story also highlights another ethical tension between modernist and postmodernist ap-

proaches to research. Insofar as a tradition holds to “a reverent and idealized view of science that positions

science above the contingencies of language and outside the circle of historical and cultural interests” (p.

422), research practices themselves will meet with little broader social control. Under the modernist world-

view, the special status of the “scientific” easily leads to that circumstance where “psychologists too often use

their warrant of expertise not only to manipulate variables but also to manipulate people and their lives” (p.

422). There is a kind of monolithic power inherent in the universalism of the scientific mythos, and a postmod-

ern understanding of research ethics would likely begin in the deconstruction of that power.

Practical Implications

Again, the practical implications of a postmodernist conceptualization of research would likely never be put

into simple guidelines or an ethical code. However, the postmodern “family resemblance” of emphasizing the

particular does imply, as opposed to modernist research, greater emphasis on what is unique in each sit-

uation and the individual. As such, the postmodernist would likely move away from testing thin theoretical

propositions and move toward the richer and thicker accounts encompassed in a narrative. Similarly, the in-

strumental use of science—where universals, power, and expertise are viewed as the means to various social

ends—would be eschewed in favor of less certainty and more humility about knowledge and its use. If we

take the particular as a fundamental research value, ethical research has less to do with an attempt to reason

about ethical research practices and more to do with an uncertain researcher perpetually struggling with the

obligations and responsibilities of a particular situation, to a particular community, and to a particular partici-

pant.

SAGE

© 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 11 of 25 The Handbook of Social Research Ethics

Contextual

Modern

Because generalizable principles and laws are the telos of modernist research, traditional theory and method

have attempted to remove all possible contingency from both theoretical models and particular research find-

ings. In modernist methods, “truth was to be found through method, by following general rules of method that

were largely independent of the content and context of the investigation. Any influence by the person of the

researcher should be eliminated or minimized” (Kvale, 1996, p. 61).

Theories and findings are thus only considered universally valid if they are free from any contingent context.

In this sense, when the modernist is attempting to discern general social science principles, much of culture,

history, relation, and subjectivity are primarily sources of error variance.

The acontextual nature of modernist theory is explicit and unambiguous in most contemporary psychological

traditions. Personality theory has nearly always sought to describe the psyche as an abstract and context-less

type; learning researchers obsessively attempted to remove all contextual factors in their animal research

(e.g., using rats from the same genetic stock, raised in the same environment, and subjected to precisely

identical conditions). Indeed, the modern symbol of the scientist—the laboratory—is significant because of its

context-less representation of the modern subject of science. The justification for such context-independent

research procedures lies in the modernist notion that general knowledge comes from predictable events and

that this predictability can only be ensured in the absence of all confounding contextual factors.

Because context-less results were so fundamental to psychological research in the 20th century, a great

many programs of research could be employed as exemplars. Here, we will consider the research of Daniel

Kahneman and Amos Tversky—work widely considered to be one of the great successes of contemporary

social science research. Tversky and Kahneman (1983) summarized the basic conclusion drawn from a large

portion of their work: “People do not normally analyze daily events into exhaustive lists of possibilities or eval-

uate compound probabilities by aggregating elementary ones. Instead, they commonly use a limited number

of heuristics, such as representativeness and availability” (p. 294). The language used in this statement is

instructive in its reflection of the acontextual ideal of modernist research. First, this statement represents a

SAGE

© 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 12 of 25 The Handbook of Social Research Ethics

conclusion about “people” outside of any special context, as if this extra-contextual condition actually occurs

and is possible. Second, reduction to a “limited number” of heuristics in “common use” would be pivotal to

any research program, because reduction to context-less fundamentals is the sine qua non of modernist in-

vestigation. There is little discussion here, for example, of the changing use of heuristics depending on the

context or situation involved. Indeed, the ability to talk without (or at least across) contexts is an essential goal

of modernist research. It is that very ability that qualifies the statement as knowledge (possibly even truth).

Tversky and Kahneman’s (1983) approach to reporting their findings reflects and embodies this acontextual

ideal. In one study, the participants are considered fully described by the phrase “a group of 88 under-

graduates at UBC” (p. 297). Research subjects are discussed in terms of general categories—for example,

“naive” or “sophisti cated” (p. 300), and the behaviors of subjects are discussed only in general or aggregate

terms—for example, “the numerous conjunction errors reported in this article illustrate people’s affinity for

nonextensional reasoning” (p. 308). Like the vast majority of modernist research, for Tversky and Kahneman,

essentially every statement that could be considered representative of general knowledge will not (and, in

fact, should not) contain any unique contextual content.

This way of valuing acontextual knowledge is clearly reflected in the modernist discourse about research and

research ethics (e.g., ethical principles). Just as ethical codes are designed to apply to all particular individu-

als (see the previous section), they are also constructed to apply across contexts (and not to take the unique-

ness of contexts into account). Just as modernists assume that there is some independent set of verifiable

facts, they also assume that there is some independent (though perhaps more difficult to define) set of ac-

ceptable ethical codes.

Postmodern

The postmodern perspective holds that meaning is always embodied, situated, and inseparable from its sur-

rounding context. For the postmodernist, the personal and the public are inseparable parts of the same whole,

and “any attempt rigorously to eliminate our human perspective from our picture of the world must lead to

absurdity” (Polanyi, 1974, p. 3).

SAGE

© 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 13 of 25 The Handbook of Social Research Ethics

For a postmodern researcher, then, procedures and findings are enriched by context and impoverished, even

misunderstood entirely, by laboratory sanitization and numerical representation. This approach to research,

most clearly embraced by the qualitative or interpretive traditions, asserts that “if participants are removed

from their setting, it leads to contrived findings that are out of context” (Creswell, 1998, p. 17). Even more, en-

riching contexts are considered integral elements of all research findings. Discussing interviews, for example,

Steinar Kvale (1996) asserted that “the interview takes place in an interpersonal context, and the meaning of

the interview statements depends on this context” (p. 44). Contexts, in this sense, are not just “variables” that

“interact” with the subject of interest; they are necessary for understanding the subject of interest itself. From

the postmodern perspective, even traditional biological laboratory science can be undermined by its focus

on inert bodies—with all their passive, inanimate connotations—and enriched by a focus on embodiment as

lived, contextualized, and animate (see Merleau-Ponty, 1964).

Phenomenological research is an example of a tradition that explicitly advocates and integrates a detailed

description of the research context into the results. In a study by Philip Welches and Michael Pica (2005),

for example, the authors provide a rich array of contextualizing information. Their article, which analyzes the

experiences of nine men who had been admitted to a psychiatric hospital for being a danger to self or others,

provides a detailed case study for each of the participants, including relevant personal details and excerpts

from the interview interactions themselves. The contexts of the interview situations as well as some of the

relevant behaviors of the participants are also described in a way that shows how integral they are to the un-

derstanding of the study’s findings.

This sort of “thick” description also provides a necessary context for understanding and evaluating the conclu-

sions drawn by the researchers. The interpretive categories developed by Welches and Pica (2005), contrary

to most modernist research, served to “classify common themes” (p. 49) and not to draw general conclusions

about abstract psychological processes. As in most phenomenological research, the authors’ goal was to de-

velop a general descriptive account of a specific kind of situation and not an abstract model of psychological

or social functioning.

We recognize, of course, that the modernist may see no way to build “general” knowledge from such contex-

tualized analysis. For the postmodernist, however, the contextualization of the subject matter situates it in the

whole of knowledge (e.g., the culture, the era) and thus provides knowledge transfer through context and not

SAGE

© 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 14 of 25 The Handbook of Social Research Ethics

through its elimination (as in the modernist tradition).

Practical Implications

The practical implication of the contextual for a postmodern research ethic is, in some sense, straightforward:

The researcher does not attempt to eliminate—whether through laboratory or control—context from the in-

vestigation or its results. Instead, the postmodern researcher values the importance of context (e.g., situa-

tion, history, embodiment, possibilities) for understanding the meaning of the results and for situating them in

the broader context of the discipline or culture. The postmodern researcher also values the uniqueness and

autonomy of research participants and is thus wary of removing contextual (including unique and personal)

factors through laboratory and procedural controls. For the postmodernist, the use and presentation of knowl-

edge is a primary ethical consideration—one in which the research participant is intimately concerned, and

so the modernist attempt to eliminate the unique contexts of research participants appears dangerously ego-

centric.

Value Laden (Interpretive, Perspectival)

Modern

The pursuit of natural or social laws also requires that knowledge claims be free from bias, prejudice, and per-

sonal or subjective values. For the modernist, “goods or ‘values’ were understood as projections of ours onto

a world which in itself was neutral” (Taylor, 1992, p. 53). It is for precisely this reason that, for the modernist,

“scientific statements ought to be value-neutral; facts were to be distinguished from values, and science from

politics” (Kvale, 1996, p. 62).

Traditional methods thus attempt to build impersonal, blinded, and mechanical procedures that minimize per-

sonal nuance, bias, or interpretive slant. For the modernist, bias is bad, and the “objective” world provides a

value-free picture of reality. As Howard Kendler (2004) phrased it, “Empirical results are value-free. Raw data

SAGE

© 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 15 of 25 The Handbook of Social Research Ethics

do not imply any moral judgment” (p. 122), and it is the role of science “to provide unbiased information” (p.

123). For the modernist, the scientific method provides a bridge between the subjective realm of the scientist

and the objective realm of nature and, thus, provides supposedly value-neutral, objective information about

the world.

This objectivist perspective has put the research of positive psychology in an interesting position. This move-

ment attempts to discern and promote “the highest qualities of civic and personal life” (Seligman, 1998), yet

the modernist philosophy of social science says that this seemingly value-laden task should be conducted in

a value-free manner. Indeed, the main leader of this movement, Martin Seligman (1998), considers positive

psychology to be a superior approach to other sources of optimal human functioning, because those oth-

er sources are “too subjective … dependent on faith or … dubious assumptions; they lacked the clear-eyed

skepticism and the slow cumulative growth that I (and Csikszentmihalyi) associated with science” (p. 7).

Consequently, positive psychologists cannot draw from moral traditions or disciplines that discuss the nature

of a good or flourishing life. All they believe they can do is classify “the strengths that every major subculture

in America today values positively” (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2001, p. 90). In other words, their work is

an empirical polling of what other people think are “the highest qualities of civic and personal life.” The essen-

tial point here is that, even when studying human values, the modernist espouses a value-free approach to

research, and it is this very distinction between hard fact and subjective value that makes “research ethics” a

consideration separate from scientific knowledge.

Postmodern

For the postmodernist, the subjective and objective are inseparable and together constitute any given mean-

ing. In this sense, all meaning—all experience—is inherently and inescapably interpretive, and bias is not only

inevitable but also a basic element of all knowledge practices. H. G. Gadamer (1960/1989), in fact, argued

for the essential importance of prejudice in all research. As Richardson, Fowers, and Guignon (1999) framed

this argument,

Prejudices are not external impositions that constrain our ability to be free and rational subjects. On

SAGE

© 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 16 of 25 The Handbook of Social Research Ethics

the contrary, having a “horizon” or framework of prejudgments is what first makes it possible for us

to think and act in intelligible ways. (p. 230)

Bias and prejudice are often pejorative terms in our modernist culture, so the more common terminology in

postmodern philosophy is value or value laden. To say that all knowledge is biased is to claim that any mean-

ing-making activity is directed by values and interpretive contexts. Fact and value are inseparable because

the postmodernist sees a “fundamental moral orientation as essential to being a human interlocutor” (Taylor,

1992, p. 29). Taylor (1992) stated it even more strongly: “We cannot do without some orientation to the good”

(p. 33).

For the postmodernist, then, value and bias are fundamental and, indeed, the primary impetus for research

(e.g., the selection of a research topic). As such, bias and value should not be avoided or eliminated but made

as explicit and transparent as possible: “The important thing is to be aware of one’s own bias” (Gadamer,

1960/1989, p. 269). Although full value transparency in research is perhaps impossible, the postmodern ideal

is to make one’s own assumptions, historical context, and value stances explicit in reports of research find-

ings.

A study of working-class girls conducted by Sandra Jones (2001) should serve as an exemplar of this ap-

proach to research. Jones, who explicitly aligns herself with feminist and critical theory, observed, interviewed,

and analyzed biographical information concerning 10 female academics who grew up in the working class.

Her approach to this research included the assumption that “the researcher is the research instrument” (p.

147), and so, when evaluating interview data, it was “important to ask who is listening and what is the nature

of listener’s relationship with the speaker” (p. 147).

To help identify her values as a researcher, Jones provided information about her own childhood context

among the working class and discussed some of the effects of her powerful position as researcher. Jones

also made explicit many of her research values. She talked about how she is sensitive to power relations

and so strove for equity in research situations. She discussed her belief that research participants should be

approached in dialogue, and so she provided participants with copies of transcripts and drafts of her interpre-

tations.

Finally, Jones incorporated her values and influence into the presentation of her research findings. When she

SAGE

© 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 17 of 25 The Handbook of Social Research Ethics

quoted the participants, she included her own dialogue in the excerpts. She also narrated her own reactions

to the included excerpts as well as how she came to her subsequent interpretations. The main point here is

that the author tried to make the values of her investigation as explicit and as integrated into the research

findings as possible, and this practice helps the reader understand how those values influenced the findings.

From the postmodern perspective, values are just as influential in modernist findings; they are just not ac-

knowledged. Researcher values are integral to all kinds of research, and the need to recognize and incor-

porate these influences is an ethical imperative. This is the reason, as mentioned at the outset, why there is

no hard distinction between research ethics and research per se. Even the most basic research activities are

situated within an evaluative context and carry very concrete ethical implications.

Practical Implications

The value-ladenness of social science research has many ethical implications from the viewpoint of a post-

modern. First, we need to recognize that there is no escape from this value-ladenness—the assumptions

and philosophies underlying research often involve values that frequently remain unexamined in modernist

research. Second, we should identify these values as much as possible before, during, and after engaging in

research. We do this to understand their potential impact and to be open to their replacement in the service

of the topic of study. Perhaps even more important, we do this to serve the particular individuals or groups

affected by the study. Third, such values are integral to the meaning and use of any study’s results, so these

should be taken explicitly into account in presenting, reporting, or applying the research in question. In short,

values and their explicit discussion are of primary importance at every stage of social science research.

Other-Focus

Modern

The “other” of the social sciences is generally conceived of as an impersonal subject because the general-

SAGE

© 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 18 of 25 The Handbook of Social Research Ethics

ized, decontextualized, and unbiased ideal of modernist research requires a research participant whose val-

ues, projects, and idiosyncrasies do not interfere with the claims of science. The ideal subject is thus imper-

sonalized and reduced—an object in the sense of any other natural thing.

This notion of a manipulated, controlled, and objectified subject is fairly endemic to modernist research, and

the social science vocabulary for describing research participants well illustrates this phenomenon. Although

observer was the most frequently used participant term in late-19th- and early-20th-century psychology, the

increasingly objectivist inclination of (particularly American) psychology was accompanied by an increasing

use of the term subject. The historian of psychology, Kurt Danziger (1990), argued that this terminology was

borrowed from French psychiatry, where its earliest known use was to refer to corpses used for anatomical

dissection. The use of such a term makes sense from the modernist viewpoint because it implies a kind of

clinical distance and almost inanimate or passive status, much as any other “subject” matter (e.g., cells, struc-

tures).

In contemporary psychology, subject continues to be a common term. In fact, Henry Roediger (2004), while

president of the Association for Psychological Science, argued strenuously for a return to the exclusive use

of the “subject” terminology because it better fit his conception of the research subject. For him, “the college

student is the ideal experimental animal” (p. 46), an animal he compares with drosophila, the fruit fly that has

been the subject of so many genetic studies. It makes sense that he would prefer subject to participant be-

cause his research topics, like so many in psychology, concern presumed universal properties—learning and

memory—rather than unique, particular individuals.

Terms other than subject have begun to see significant use in the social sciences. In the last two versions of

the APA style manual, for example, the shift to participant has been explicitly encouraged. It could be argued

that the terminological shift to participant signals a kind of drift from the hard modernist worldview in American

psychology, and there may be some truth to this argument. However, Gary VandenBos (the executive director

of publications and communications for APA) describes this shift as largely political and legal: “‘Subjects’ im-

plies that these are people who are having things done to them, whereas ‘participants’ implies that they gave

consent” (Carey, 2004). There is really no suggestion that one treats a participant differently than a subject;

the change has more to do with legal consent. In any case, whether they are participants or subjects, the

ultimate goal of the modernist is to systematically control them and their values and context.

SAGE

© 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 19 of 25 The Handbook of Social Research Ethics

Postmodern

When postmodernists hear the kind of “control” discourse found in modernist research, they often consider it

a vocabulary of power and dominance, a consideration most notably connected with the work of the postmod-

ernist Michel Foucault. Modernity’s instrumentalized and reduced research subject is understood more as a

means to solidify the power of those who conduct research than as a means to discern generalized principles.

For the postmodernist, in fact, all “disciplines constitute a system of control in the production of discourse”

(Foucault, 1972, p. 224), including any particular postmodernist discipline.

This sensitivity to power relations is a hallmark of many postmodern approaches to research, and it entails a

concomitant sensitivity to how researchers subject research participants to their projects. As Foucault (1972)

argued, “We must conceive discourse as a violence that we do to things, or, at all events, as a practice we

impose upon them” (p. 229). It is not surprising, then, that the status of the participant is extremely significant

to the postmodern researcher. The particularity of the valuing other is not a research confound but is, rather,

the starting place for all meaning-making activities. The values, projects, and idiosyncrasies of the research

participant constitute both an ethical imperative and the foundational knowledge relation. As such, a primary

imperative of postmodernist research is “to do research ‘with’ rather than ‘on’ people” (Burman, 2001, p. 260).

An excellent example of this approach to research is Michelle Fine’s four-year study on the impact of a col-

lege-in-prison program at Bedford Hills Correctional Facility (Fine et al., 2001). The impact of an other-fo-

cused approach to research is immediately apparent in the author line of the book, where there are 11 names

listed. The multiplicity of authors stems from the fact that, in addition to graduate student researchers, Fine

recruited participant observers from among the female inmates she was studying. These women conducted

interviews, took field notes, and met as a research team every few weeks to compare findings. True to the

other-focused ideal, the research reports generated from this study are rich with participant narratives.

Fine’s design made her project an essentially communitarian one, where research interpretations are not the

province of merely the privileged researcher but also of those for whom researchers presume to speak. These

kinds of methods aim to provide a research environment where “the respondents become active agents, the

creators of the worlds they inhabit and the interpreters of their experiences” (Marecek, Fine, & Kidder, 2001, p.

34). While many postmodernists recognize that asymmetrical power relations are perhaps inevitable in many

SAGE

© 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 20 of 25 The Handbook of Social Research Ethics

aspects of research, they nevertheless seek to make power relations as explicit as possible and reveal rather

than obscure the unique constructive contexts of research participants.

Practical Implications

The other-focus of the postmodernist has important ethical implications for researchers. The first is undoubt-

edly that we need to have greater sensitivity to the power relations of many research settings and relation-

ships. For many postmodernists, the subjectification and objectification of persons, and even animals, is a

kind of violence that should never be tolerated. The researcher should do research with people, including

making participants co-investigators, rather than on people.

Second, postmodernists recognize that data interpretation is unavoidable in any kind of research, regardless

of the methods used, and that such interpretation is the province, not simply of the “author” but also of a

community of researchers, participants, and readers. Philosophers of science have long understood how data

underdetermine these interpretations, allowing for alternative interpretations that usually go unmentioned in

research reports (Curd & Cover, 1998). For the postmodernist, reports and presentations should avoid mis-

leading language, such as “the data indicate,” and should discuss instead the many data interpretations avail-

able as well as the reasons for the interpretations favored by researchers and the participants producing the

data.

Conclusion

We have argued that the postmodern turn points toward a research tradition that is interpretive, particular,

contextual, value laden, and other focused—that is, in fact, thoroughly ethical in its character. Research meth-

ods are not essentially amoral—as in many modernist understandings, with ethics as a separate considera-

tion. Research from the postmodern perspective is rife with values, assumptions, and perspectives that need

to be identified and incorporated explicitly in the “findings.” There is no moment in the conceptualization,

design, execution, or presentation of research that is not inescapably and fundamentally ethical. As Kvale

(1996) argued, “Ethical decisions do not belong to a separate stage … but arise throughout the entire re-

SAGE

© 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 21 of 25 The Handbook of Social Research Ethics

search process” (p. 110).

Because the postmodernist sees research as an inherently ethical enterprise, the notion of a separate, post-

modern ethical code is problematic. If the postmodernist is to talk about research ethics, it could only be a

discussion about a kind of praxis or, perhaps, even a way of being: “Moral research behavior is more than

ethical knowledge and cognitive choices; it involves the person of the researcher, his or her sensitivity and

commitment to moral issues and action” (Kvale, 1996, p. 117). For the postmodernist, all research activity is

fraught with moral and ethical issues. As such, scientific investigations require not a set of general solutions to

such issues but a very particular commitment to both an insistent ethical self-examination and an unflinching

sensitivity to our relation with the other.

References

Berkeley, G. (2004). A treatise concerning the principles of human knowledge. Whitefish, MT: Kessinger.

(Original work published 1710)

Bochner, A. P. (1997). It’s about time: Narrative and the divided self. Qualitative Inquiry, 3(4), 418–438.

Burman, E. (2001). Minding the gap: Positivism, psychology, and the politics of qualitative methods. In D.

L.Tolman & M. B.Miller (Eds.), From subjects to subjectivities: A handbook of interpretive and participatory

methods (pp. 259–275). New York: New York

University

Press.

Capaldi, E. J., & Proctor, R. W. (1999). Contextualism in psychological research? A critical review. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Carey, B. (2004, June 15). The subject is subjects. The New York Times. Retrieved April 30, 2008, from

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9501E5D61030F936A25755C0A9629C8B63

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Curd, M., & Cover, J. A. (1998). Philosophy of science: The central issues. New York: W. W. Norton.

Danziger, K. (1990). Constructing the subject. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univer

sity Press.

Descartes, R. (1996). Meditations on first philosophy (J.Cottingham, Trans.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Uni-

SAGE

© 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 22 of 25 The Handbook of Social Research Ethics

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9501E5D61030F936A25755C0A9629C8B63

versity Press. (Original work published 1641)

Dilthey, W. (1988). Introduction to the human sciences (R. J.Betanzos, Trans.). Detroit, MI: Wayne State Uni-

versity Press. (Original work published 1883)

Fine, M., Torre, M. E., Boudin, K., Bowen, I., Clark, J., Hylton, D., et al. (2001). Changing minds. New York:

The City University of New York Graduate Center.

Flax, J. (1990). Thinking fragments: Psychoanalysis, feminism, and postmodernism in the contemporary

West. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge (A. M. S.Smith, Trans.). New York: Harper Colophon

Books. (Original work published 1969)

Fox-Keller, E. (1982). Feminism and science. Signs, 7(3), 589–602.

Gadamer, H. G. (1989). Truth and method (J.Weinsheimer & D. G.Marshall, Trans.). New York: Crossroad.

(Original work published 1960)

Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time (J.Macquarrie & E.Robinson, Trans.). San Francisco: Harper Collins.

(Original work published 1927)

Husserl, E. (1999). Logical investigations (J. N.Findlay, Trans.). In D.Welton (Ed.), The essential Husserl:

Basic writings in transcendental phenomenology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. (Original work pub-

lished 1900)

Jones, S. J. (2001). Embodying working class subjectivity and narrating self: “We were the hired help.” In D.

L.Tolman & M. B.Miller (Eds.), From subjects to subjectivities: A handbook of interpretive and participatory

methods (pp. 145–162). New York: New York University Press.

Kagan, J. (1998). Three seductive ideas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kant, I. (1998). Critique of pure reason (P.Guyer & A.Wood, Trans.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University

Press. (Original work published 1781)

Kendler, H. H. (2004). Politics and science: A combustible mixture. American Psychologist, 59(2), 122–123.

Kuhn, T. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed. ). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

SAGE

© 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 23 of 25 The Handbook of Social Research Ethics

Levinas, E. (1969). Totality and infinity(A.Lingis, Trans.). Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press. (Original

work published 1961)

Lewin, K. (1999). The conflict between Aristotelian and Galilean modes of thought in contemporary psychol-

ogy (D. K.Adams, Trans.). In M.Gold (Ed.), The complete social scientist: A Kurt Lewin reader(2nd ed. , pp.

37–66). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. (Original work published 1931)

Marecek, J., Fine, M., & Kidder, L. (2001). Working between two worlds: Qualitative methods and psychology.

In D. L.Tolman & M. B.Miller (Eds.), From subjects to subjectivities: A handbook of interpretive and participa-

tory methods (pp. 29–41). New York: New York University Press.

McIntyre, A. (1984). After virtue (2nd ed. ). Notre Dame, France: University of Notre Dame Press.

Merleau-Ponty, M. (1964). Primacy of perception (W.Cobb, Trans.; J.Edie, Ed.). Evanston, IL: Northwestern

University Press.

Mishler, E. G. (1986). The analysis of interview narratives. In T. R.Sarbin (Ed.), Narrative psychology(pp.

233–255). New York: Praeger.

Murphy, N. (1997). Anglo-American postmodernity: Philosophical perspectives on science, religion, and

ethics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Polanyi, M. (1974). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

Polkinghorne, D. (2005). Practice and the human sciences: A case for a judgment-based practice of care.

Albany: SUNY Press.

Reid, T. (2005). Essays on the active powers of the human mind: An inquiry into the human mind on the prin-

ciple of common sense. Whitefish, MT: Kessinger. (Original work published 1764)

Richardson, F. C., Fowers, B. J., & Guignon, C. B. (1999). Re-envisioning psychology: Moral dimensions of

theory and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ricoeur, P. (1965). History and truth (C. A.Kelbley, Trans.). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

Roediger, R. (2004). What should they be called?APS Observer, 17(5), 46–48.

Rorty, R. (1991). Objectivity, relativism and truth: Philosophical papers I. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univer-

SAGE

© 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 24 of 25 The Handbook of Social Research Ethics

sity Press.

Sartre, J. P. (1956). Being and nothingness: An essay on phenomenological ontology (H.Barnes, Trans.). New

York: Philosophical Library. (Original work published 1943)

Seligman, M. (1998). President’s column: Positive social science. APA Monitor, 29(4), 2–5.

Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2001). “Positive Psychology: An Intro duction”: Reply. American

Psychologist, 56, 89–90.

Slife, B. D., Reber, J., & Richardson, F. (2005). Critical thinking about psychology: Hidden assumptions and

plausible alternatives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press.

Taylor, C. (1992). Sources of the self. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in prob-

ability judgment. Psychological Review, 90(4), 293–315.

Welches, P., & Pica, M. (2005). Assessed danger to others as a reason for psychiatric hospitalization: An in-

vestigation of patients’ perspectives. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 36(1), 45–73.

Whitehead, A. N. (1925). Science and the modern world. New York: Macmillan.

Wittgenstein, L. (2001). Philosophical investigations (E.Anscombe, Trans.). London: Blackwell. (Original work

published 1953)

https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483348971

SAGE

© 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 25 of 25 The Handbook of Social Research Ethics

https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483348971

SAGE Research Methods

The Handbook of Social Research Ethics

Research Ethics in the Postmodern Context

The Postmodern Context

Anglo-American Postmodernism

Continental European Postmodernism

Family Resemblances: Research Ethics in the Modern and the Postmodern

Particular

Modern

Postmodern

Practical Implications

Contextual

Modern

Postmodern

Practical Implications

Value Laden (Interpretive, Perspectival)

Modern

Postmodern

Practical Implications

Other-Focus

Modern

Postmodern

Practical Implications

Conclusion

References

© 2017 Northcentral University
2488 Historic Decatur Rd., Suite 100 ▪ San Diego, CA 92106

www.ncu.edu ▪ p: 866-776-0331 Revised 12.1.2017

Differentiating the Research (Ph.D.) and Applied Doctoral Degrees

The document outlines various characteristics of doctoral programs and the associated research
processes and resources that help to distinguish research degrees (Ph.D.) from applied degrees DrPH,
DHA, DBA, EdD, DNP, DMFT.

The key research design differences between an applied and research degree is scope and
significance. Both degree tracks require that the stated research design demonstrate scientific
rigor. However, the applied degree will be limited in scope to the specific study context and the
results should be significant to leaders and practitioners in the field. Research (Ph.D.) studies must
have theoretical implications and make a contribution to the literature.

The current guidelines are that a dissertation must:

 Summarize, analyze, and integrate scholarly literature and research relevant to a topic
area, focusing on developments in the area in the previous five years, and,

 Present original research in an area related to a student’s program and specialization.

While Ph.D. dissertations demonstrate how the research contributes to theoretical
development in an area, applied doctorate dissertations typically contribute to practice.

The current standards include the non-negotiable requirement of every doctoral manuscript (Ph.D.
or applied doctorate) to include a comprehensive, up-to-date, and critically evaluative review of
the professional and scientific, peer-reviewed literature pertaining to its topic.

A Ph.D. requires original ideas about a specialized topic, as well as a high degree of
methodological/scientific rigor (Nelson, & Coorough, 1994). As is traditional in higher education, a
Ph.D. is only going to be awarded for a piece of work that will actually make a difference to the
theoretical context of the field — the Ph.D. dissertation is a new contribution to the body of
knowledge.

An applied dissertation requires the practical application of scholarship (Nelson, & Coorough,
1994; Wergin, 2011). Examples of an applied investigation may include a replication study, a case
study, program evaluation, or a special project (such as, for example, the creation of a curriculum,
training program, clinical protocol or policy, or educational artifact), followed by an evaluation. A
doctoral project for a professional degree does not have to be an original contribution to the body
of knowledge that impacts the theories in the field, but typically responds to a practical problem
or proposed innovation (Archibald, 2010).

The fundamental differentiation between Ph.D. research programs and professional degree
research programs is that the focus of the Ph.D. is to contribute new knowledge to the field. The
focus of professional degree research programs is to apply theoretical knowledge to the

http://www.ncu.edu/

© 2017 Northcentral University
2488 Historic Decatur Rd., Suite 100 ▪ San Diego, CA 92106

www.ncu.edu ▪ p: 866-776-0331 Revised 12.1.2017

advancement of practice in the field (solve complex problems) (Archibald, 2010; Corley & Giola
2011; Huba, Shubb & Shelley, 2006).

Contribution of New Knowledge

Differentiating scholarly contribution of new knowledge between Ph.D. and applied doctorates
(e.g., DBA, Ed.D. and Psy.D.) includes two criteria to determine contribution: originality and utility.

Originality

Originality is measured by assessing whether the knowledge derived in the research has the
quality of being either, “incremental” (appropriate for professional degrees such as a DBA, Ed.D. or
Psy.D.) or “revelatory” (most sought-after for the Ph.D.). This means that the research adds value
in such a way that it either advances our understanding of prevailing theory (incremental), or it
allows us to see something that we have never seen before (revelatory).

Utility

Utility means the research must generate knowledge that is of either “scientific value” or “practical
value.” Scientific value (predominate measure for Ph.D.) advances our conceptual rigor or
enhances its potential for operationalization and testing, broadly. That means the scope of a project
must be great enough such that it contributes to, extends, or facilitates extension, of theory.
Practical value advances our ability to apply theory directly, in managerial and organizational
pursuits, in education and healthcare settings, or in therapeutic or counseling settings.

Specific Standards within Dissertation Manuscripts

Within each section of a dissertation manuscript are requirement variations that indicate the
distinctions between the research (Ph.D.) and applied dissertations.

Examples are outlined in the following table.

http://www.ncu.edu/

© 2017 Northcentral University
2488 Historic Decatur Rd., Suite 100 ▪ San Diego, CA 92106

www.ncu.edu ▪ p: 866-776-0331 Revised 12.1.2017

Distinctions Between Research and Applied Degree Tracks

Dissertation
Section Applied Degree Track Research (Ph.D.) Track

Problem
Statement

Worthy problems must be
relevant and documented
beyond any particular study site;
however, the study design does
not necessarily require
generalizability beyond the
study site.

The documented problem
identified is a practical problem
or issue in the profession or
study context for which there is
not already an acceptable
solution. In defining the
problem, a clear discrepancy
must be drawn between that
which exists currently and that
which is desired. A clear case of
relevance should be argued and
documented based on various
stakeholder perspectives.

Worthy problems must be
relevant and documented beyond
any particular study site and
have clear theoretical
implications in order to make a
realistic, but substantive
contribution to the field of study.

The documented problem
identified reflects the theoretical
perspective and/or level of
analysis from “micro” to “macro”
for example, individual,
organizational or industry level
to social, economic, political level
analysis.

A Ph.D. dissertation problem
statement indicates theories
relevant to predict, explain and
understand the problem a clear
discrepancy must be drawn
between that which exists
currently and that which is
desired. A clear case of relevance
should be argued and
documented based on the
scholarly research literature.

http://www.ncu.edu/

© 2017 Northcentral University
2488 Historic Decatur Rd., Suite 100 ▪ San Diego, CA 92106

www.ncu.edu ▪ p: 866-776-0331 Revised 12.1.2017

Distinctions Between Research and Applied Degree Tracks

Dissertation
Section Applied Degree Track Research (Ph.D.) Track

Purpose
Statement

(…) provides a description of the
overarching study goal that
reflects and encompasses the
research questions followed by a
brief overview of the study
design, including instrument(s)
and sample, and study context.

The purpose, research questions
and design must reflect an
applied study goal and
demonstrate validity within the
context of the chosen research
design and overall scientific
rigor.

(…) provides a description of the
overarching study goal that
reflects and encompasses the
research questions followed by a
brief overview of the study
design, including instrument(s)
and sample and study context.
The purpose, research questions,
and design must reflect a Ph.D.
study goal, which include
theoretical implications and
generalizability/transferability.

The study results in response to
the purpose, research questions
and research design must be
generalizable or transferable and
have theoretical implications
relevant beyond any particular
study site.

http://www.ncu.edu/

© 2017 Northcentral University
2488 Historic Decatur Rd., Suite 100 ▪ San Diego, CA 92106

www.ncu.edu ▪ p: 866-776-0331 Revised 12.1.2017

Distinctions Between Research and Applied Degree Tracks

Dissertation
Section Applied Degree Track Research (Ph.D.) Track

Theoretical
Framework

NOTE: This section heading is not
included in some applied
dissertations.
It is a requirement of the Doctor
of Education, Doctor of Nursing
Practice, and Doctor of Health
Administration.

The theories identified must be
explicit as there are many
different lenses, such as
psychological theories, social
theories, organizational theories
and economic theories, which
may be used to predict and
explain concepts, topics or
phenomena.

The theoretical framework must
be appropriate, aligned with the
topic, well-articulated and
sourced. The majority of sources
must be drawn from the
scholarly academic literature
published in peer-reviewed
journals.

(…) require identification and
articulation of the theoretical
foundations of the study based on
a review of the relevant
literature.

The theories identified must be
explicit as there are many
different lenses, such as
psychological theories, social
theories, organizational theories
and economic theories, which
may be used to predict and
explain concepts, topics or
phenomena.

The theoretical framework must
be appropriate, aligned with the
topic, well-articulated and
sourced. The majority of sources
must be drawn from the scholarly
academic literature published in
peer-reviewed journals.

http://www.ncu.edu/

© 2017 Northcentral University
2488 Historic Decatur Rd., Suite 100 ▪ San Diego, CA 92106

www.ncu.edu ▪ p: 866-776-0331 Revised 12.1.2017

Chapter 2:
Literature Review

The Literature Review should be
equivalent; however, rather than
necessarily a theoretical
framework, the chapter should
include comprehensive
discussion of the relevant issues,
perspectives, or controversies
relative to the topic.

The literature review should
reflect a synthesis of the extant
literature concerning what is
known about the chosen
constructs and variables relative
to study topic.

The analysis should(…) should
be equivalent in both degrees

Applied studies must include a
comprehensive discussion of the
study context and historical
background. The chapter 2
discussion should build upon the
introductory discussion from
chapter 1 such that it clarifies
the process undertaken to weigh
various rationales, perspectives,
solution options culminating
with a compelling argument for
proceeding with the proposed
study.

The majority of sources must be
drawn from the scholarly
academic literature published in
peer-reviewed journals.

(…) should be equivalent in both
degrees

Ph.D. studies must clearly
demonstrate why the theories
chosen as the study foundation
are appropriate to explain the
topic, research variables and/or
phenomena. The chapter should
include discussion of the relevant
issues, perspectives, or
controversies relative to the
topic.

The literature review should
reflect a synthesis of the extant
literature concerning what is
known about the chosen
constructs and variables relative
to study topic.

The chapter 2 discussion should
build upon the introductory
discussion from chapter 1
culminating with a compelling
argument for proceeding with the
proposed study. It should include
an historical perspective. It
should focus on the underlying
theoretical perspectives through
an insightful argument that
specifies why certain constructs
or variables were chosen for
study.

The majority of sources must be
drawn from the scholarly
academic literature published in
peer-reviewed journals.

Chapter 3:
Method

(…) must reflect an applied
study goal and demonstrate
validity within the context of the

Quantitative studies must
demonstrate both internal and
external validity (e.g., large,

http://www.ncu.edu/

© 2017 Northcentral University
2488 Historic Decatur Rd., Suite 100 ▪ San Diego, CA 92106

www.ncu.edu ▪ p: 866-776-0331 Revised 12.1.2017

Distinctions Between Research and Applied Degree Tracks

Dissertation
Section Applied Degree Track Research (Ph.D.) Track

chosen research design and
overall scientific rigor. Case
studies, action research,
program development, and
evaluation are appropriate.
Replication studies in an original
context are permitted.

A clear rationale behind the
chosen questions for study, the
particular data gathering
techniques and data analyses
should be provided. Clear
decision paths are provided
based on the associated research
method/design. Sample size and
method must be appropriate
and justified based on the nature
of the study design. Quantitative
analyses must include justified
sample size determination.

Case studies, action research,
program development and
evaluation are appropriate.

Given an appropriate rationale
for replication, replication
studies in an original context are
permitted.

random samples, statistical
power and representativeness).
Qualitative studies must
demonstrate validity within the
context of the specific qualitative
design. Replication studies are
not permitted.

A clear rationale behind the
chosen questions for study, the
particular data gathering
techniques and data analyses
should be provided. Clear
decision paths are provided
based on the associated research
method/design. Qualitative
studies must demonstrate
validity within the context of the
specific qualitative design.

Replication studies are not
permitted.

http://www.ncu.edu/

© 2017 Northcentral University
2488 Historic Decatur Rd., Suite 100 ▪ San Diego, CA 92106

www.ncu.edu ▪ p: 866-776-0331 Revised 12.1.2017

Distinctions Between Research and Applied Degree Tracks

Dissertation
Section Applied Degree Track Research (Ph.D.) Track

Chapter 4:
Evaluation of
Findings

Results are briefly interpreted
within the study context and
profession (for example,
corporate or academic
leadership). Findings should be
identified and discussed in
terms of the originality of the
contribution (incremental or
revelatory). Findings should/can
include programmatic results,
results of a change intervention,
or implementation and should
discuss the findings in terms of
the practical utility.

It should be clear how the
profession and/or field of study
are affected by your inquiry.

The discussion should be
expanded upon in chapter 5.

Results are briefly interpreted in
light of the theory (or theories)
identified in chapters 1 and 2.

As appropriate, it should be clear
how the field(s) of study is/are
affected by your inquiry. Findings
should be discussed in terms of
the originality of the contribution
(primarily revelatory, but can
include incremental
contribution). The discussion
should focus on the scientific
value of the study relative extant
theory and the extent to which
the new knowledge advances our
conceptual rigor or enhances the
potential for generalization,
operationalization, and testing.

The discussion should be
expanded upon in chapter 5.

Chapter 5:
Implications

Implications of the study results
are described in light of the
literature described in chapter 2
and placed in the applied study
context and profession/field of
study. The contribution of
practical utility should be
discussed in terms of potential
ways of applying conceptual
frameworks, models and
processes directly in real
contexts, specifically related to
the particular study context and
to the broader social context.

Implications of the study results
are described in light of the
literature described in chapter 2
and placed in the theoretical
context (describe how the results
align with or potentially
contradict the stated theories).
The contribution of scientific
utility should be discussed in
terms of original approaches to
understanding and making sense
of studied phenomenon.
Secondarily, implications should
be discussed in terms of their
relevance to practice.

http://www.ncu.edu/

© 2017 Northcentral University
2488 Historic Decatur Rd., Suite 100 ▪ San Diego, CA 92106

www.ncu.edu ▪ p: 866-776-0331 Revised 12.1.2017

Distinctions Between Research and Applied Degree Tracks

Dissertation
Section Applied Degree Track Research (Ph.D.) Track

Recommendations Recommendations are made for
the study context and for the
professionals and practitioners
in the field along with
recommendations for future
study.

Recommendations are made for
the scholarly discipline along
with recommendations for future
study.

http://www.ncu.edu/

© 2017 Northcentral University
2488 Historic Decatur Rd., Suite 100 ▪ San Diego, CA 92106

www.ncu.edu ▪ p: 866-776-0331 Revised 12.1.2017

References

Archibald, D. (2010). “Breaking the mold” in the dissertation: Implementing a problem-based,
decision-oriented thesis project. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 58(2), 99-107.

Augier, M. March, J. (2007). The pursuit of relevance in management education. California
Management Review. 49(3), 129-150.

Bartunek, J. M. & Rynes, S. (2010). The construction and contributions of “implications for
practice”: What’s in them and what they might offer? Academy of Management Learning &
Education, 9(3), 100-117.

Corley, K. G. & Giola, D. (2011). Building Theory about theory building: What constitutes a
theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 12-32.

Everson, S. T. (2009). A professional doctorate in education leadership: St. Louis University’s Ed.D.
program. Peabody Journal of Education, 84(1), 86-89.

Huba, M. Shubb, J. & Shelley, J. (2006). Recasting doctoral education in an outcomes-based
framework. In P. Maki & N. Borkowski (Eds.), The assessment of doctoral education: Emerging
criteria and new models for improving outcomes (239-272). Sterling VA: Stylus.

Nelson, J.K., & Coorough, C. (1994). Content analysis of the Ph.D. versus Ed.D. dissertation. The
Journal of Experimental Education, 62(2), 158-168.

Rynes, S. L & Brown, K. G. (2011). Where are we in the “Long March to Legitimacy?” Assessing
scholarship in management learning and education. Academy of Management Learning &
Education, 10(4) 561-582.

Wergin, J.F. (2011). Rebooting the Ed.D.. Harvard Educational Review, 81(1), 119-140.

http://www.ncu.edu/

The Theoretical Framework
THE CENTER FOR TEACHING & LEARNING

Where do I start?

Consider these three
considerations to formulate
a theoretical framework:

The theoretical lens
Determine the guiding framework for
your dissertation research
A A theoretical framework provides the
theoretical assumptions for the larger context
of a study, and is the foundation or ‘lens’ by
which a study is developed. This framework
helps to ground the research focus under study
within theoretical underpinnings and to frame
the inquiry for data analysis and interpretation.

The theoretical contribution
Determine the potential theoretical contribution of
your dissertation research
A theoA theoretical contribution provides a theory-driven input to
current thinking when your dissertation research study is
framed by theoretical considerations that began with a
well-defined theoretical framework. A theoretical
framework allows for deliberation of the theoretical
contribution(s) to current scholarship within your discipline
once you determine your key study findings. Ideally, you will
rerevisit the theoretical underpinnings of your study when you
describe the theoretical contribution(s) of your study
findings as you draft Chapter 5 once your study has
concluded.

Chapter 1:
Theoretical
Framework

Chapter 5:
Theoretical
Contribution

As you begin, determine with your Dissertation
Chair whether your dissertation research study
is best guided by a theoretical framework or a
conceptual framework (see also ‘The
Conceptual Framework’)

1. Discipline/Field of Study

What is your degree
program?

What is your area of
specialization?

PhD or applied doctorate?
What is your research
focus?

2. Theory(ies)

What are relevant
theories aligned with your
discipline?

Which theory(ies)
resonated with you in
course work?

What theory(ies) have
past researchers used?

3. Theorist(s)

Who was/were the
original theorist(s)?

Who adapted the
theory(ies) to your
discipline?

AUGUST 2022

References

Casanave, C. P., & Li, Y. (2015). Novices’ struggles with conceptual and theoretical framing in writing
dissertations and papers for publication. Publications, 3(2), 104-119. doi:10.3390/publications3020104

Grant, C., & Osanloo, A. (2015). Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical framework in
dissertation research: Creating the blueprint for your house. Administrative Issues Journal:
Connecting Education, Practice, and Research, 4(2). doi: 10.5929/2014.4.2.9

Review the Chapter 1 requirements in the NCU
DP/DM Template
Checklist:

Identify the guiding framework. Present the key concepts, briefly explain how they
are related, and present the propositions that are relevant to this study.

Explain how the framework guided the research decisions, including the development
of the problem statement, purpose statement, and research questions.

If more than one framework is guiding the study, integrate them, rather than
describing them independently. Do not select a separate framework for each
variable/construct under examination.

Do not eDo not exceed two pages. A more thorough discussion of the theoretical/conceptual
framework will be included in Chapter 2.

QUANT

variables

QUAL

pline>
THEO IST(S)

THEORY(IES)

• The Theoretical Framework CTL 1
• The Theoretical Framework 2

The Conceptual Framework

Where do I start?
Consider these three
considerations to formulate a
conceptual framework:

The conceptual model
Determine the guiding framework for
your dissertation research
As noted in your dissertation template, a
conceptual framework provides the detailed
components/variables identifying
interinterrelationships in and across the components.
While a conceptual framework is often referred to
interchangeably with a theoretical framework, it
maintains a distinct purpose. A conceptual
framework is used to clarify concepts, organize
ideas, and identify relationships with which to frame
a study. Concepts are logically developed and
ororganized to support an overall framework and often
exhibited graphically within dissertation research.

THE CENTER FOR TEACHING & LEARNING

The conceptual contribution
Determine the potential contribution of your
conceptual framework
A conceptual fA conceptual framework provides an illustration of the
interrelated ideas or aspects of your variables/constructs, and
often organized using existing models. Ideally, you will revisit
your conceptual framework of your study when you describe the
implications of your study findings as you draft Chapter 5 once
your study has concluded. This allows for a consideration of your
framework as a deliberation of the influence of the framework in
light of light of your key findings and within the context of current
scholarship within your discipline.

Chapter 1:
Conceptual
Framework

Chapter 5:
Implications

AUGUST 2022

As you begin, determine with your Dissertation Chair
whether your dissertation research study is best guided
by a theoretical framework or a conceptual framework
(see also ‘The Conceptual Framework’)

1. Discipline/Field of Study

What is your degree program?

What is your area of
specialization?

What is your research
focus?

What is your method
paradigm?

2. Principle(s); Model(s)

What are relevant
principle(s), model(s), or
ideas aligned with your
discipline?

Which principle(s) or
model(s) resonated with
you in course work?

What principle(s) and/or
model(s) have past
researchers used?

3. Authorship

Who was/were the
original model author(s)?

How will the model(s) be
adapted/utilized for your
framework?

References

Berman, J., & Smyth, R. (2015). Conceptual frameworks in the doctoral research process a pedagogical
model. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 52(2), 125-136.
doi10.108014703297.2013.80901

Casanave, C. P., & Li, Y. (2015). Novices’ struggles with conceptual and theoretical framing in writing
dissertations and papers for publication. Publications, 3(2), 104-119. doi:10.3390/publications3020104

Review the Chapter 1 requirements in the NCU
DP/DM Template
Checklist:

QUANT

variables

QUAL

pline>

IDEA(S)/P INCIPLE(S)

MODEL(S)

• The Conceptual Framework CTL 1
• The Conceptual Framework 2

Second Edition.
Published by the Center for Teaching and Learning, Northcentral University, 202

1

Contributors:
Marie Bakari, Jennifer Biddle, Linda Bloomberg, John Frame, Namhee Kim, Sharon
Kimmel, Jaime Klein, Paul Markham, Craig Martin, Stephanie Menefee, Eva Philpot,
Wes Rangel, Randee Sanders, Abigail Scheg, Kimberly Scott, Patricia Steiner, Robert

Thompson, Marsha Tongel, Steven Ziemba

In addition to the collaborative process that engendered this guide, it was also informed
by the qualitative methods course in the School of Business, BUS-7380 Qualitative

Business Research Design and Methodology.

For comments or suggestions for the next edition, please contact the
School of Business: sb@ncu.edu

mailto:sb%40ncu.edu?subject=

Foreword (P1)

Introduction (P2)

Student-Chair Engagement (P2)

Qualitative Research Design (P3)

Research Questions (P3)

Case Study (P5)

Multiple Case Studies/Comparative
Case Study (P6)

Participant Selection (P7)

Interviews (P7)

Interviews: Minimum Number
Recommended (P9)

Focus Groups (P10)

Observation (P11)

Document Analysis (P12)

Hermeneutics (P12)

Phenomenological Design (P13)

Constructive Research (P15)

Ethnography (P16)

Grounded Theory (P18)

Narrative Design (P19)

Delphi Method (P20)

Mixed-Methods Research (P21)

Online Questionnaires and Unsuitable
Data Collection Practices (P21)

Interview Guides and Other
Instruments (P22)

Audio Recording and Transcribing
Interviews (P24)

Sampling in Qualitative Research (P25)

Data Saturation (P26)

Triangulation (P27)

Trustworthiness (P28)

Member Checking (P30)

Coding and Thematic Analysis (P30)

Including Data in the Findings (Chapter
4) of the Dissertation (P32)

1

Dear School of Business Community,

Welcome to the Best Practice Guide for Qualitative Research Design and Methods in
Dissertations!

With well over 600 doctoral students in the School of Business working on their dis-
sertation this year, this guide serves as an important resource in helping us shape and
implement quality doctoral-level research. Its primary purpose is to offer direction on
qualitative research in School of Business dissertations, serving students as they craft and
implement their research plans, and serving faculty as they mentor students and evaluate
research design and methods in dissertations.

We encourage you to explore this guide. It is filled with details on important topics that
will help ensure quality and consistency in qualitative research in the School of Business.
Offering support for both faculty and students, this resource covers many topics, from
those related to early stages of qualitative research design, to guidance on how to in-
clude qualitative data in a dissertation.

Thank you to the faculty and staff of the School of Business and wider NCU community
that worked to create this guide. It is a great contribution to our School, and each of
these individuals played an important role in its development.

We wish you the best on your dissertation journey!

SB Leadership Team

2

Introduction
As an accredited university, NCU aims to have ro-

bust expectations and standards for dissertations

produced by its students. This guide, developed

collaboratively by NCU School of Business (SB)

faculty in 2019, and updated in 2021, aims to

provide guidance on best practice in qualitative

research design and methods for SB disserta

tions.

While this guide can serve as a refresher to those

less familiar with qualitative methods, it will also

help ensure consistency in how faculty advise

students on qualitative methods. It is meant to help

ensure good practice vand rigor across commit-

tees and students.

To that end, this document is a guide to help

students when designing their research, as well as

faculty, when judging the merits of student disser-

tation prospectuses, proposals, and manuscripts.

Students should be familiar with the best practices

in this guide and apply them to their dissertation.

References and suggested reading:

Yin, R.K. (2015). Qualitative research from
start to finish. New York, NY: Guilford
Publications.

Student-Chair Engagement
Close engagement between students and facul-

ty is expected through the dissertation process.

Faculty should ensure that students are knowl-

edgeable about expectations, and students should

ensure they obtain necessary mentoring from their

Chair throughout the process. Key areas in the

dissertation sequence where closer than normal

engagement include:

• Developing chapter 1 and ensuring the re-

search questions align with the purpose statement,

problem statement, and methods.

• The IRB process.

• DIS-9902, which requires the completion of

several milestones (Chapters 2 and 3, and the

https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ncent-ebooks/detail.action?docID=200847

9

https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ncent-ebooks/detail.action?docID=2008479

https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ncent-ebooks/detail.action?docID=2008479

3

Developing a qualitative design requires system-

atic planning and the ability to remain flexible.

According to Maxwell (2012: 215), “The activi-

ties of collecting and analyzing data, developing

and modifying theory, elaborating or refocusing

the research questions, and identifying and deal-

ing with validity threats are usually going on more

or less simultaneously, each influencing all of the

others.” In order to develop an effective design,

qualitative research procedures must be based on

the problem, purpose, and re

search questions.

Specifically, the research questions must reflect

the nature of the design. In addition, the purpose

must illustrate how the study is a logical, explicit

research response to the stated problem and the

research questions. Importantly, whereas in a

quantitative study, researchers measure or test

something, in a qualitative study one explores

and understands something. The language used

to describe this exploration should not include the

word ‘prove,’ but, rather, ‘explore’ (or another

similar word).

References and suggested reading:
Maxwell, J.A. (2012). Qualitative research
design: An interactive approach. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Research Questions
Rigorous research questions help ensure a student

deeply probes and examines the issue under

investigation in the dissertation. Crafting rigorous

research questions takes time and great effort.

Typically, a student will want to have more than

one research question; but if having only one is

the best way to explore the topic, then the ques-

Dissertation Proposal). Progression data in the SB

indicates that students often need supplemental

courses (e.g. DIS-9902B) in order to complete

these milestones.

• Data collection: student and Chair should work

closely before and during data collection so that

the Chair is frequently apprised of the student’s

progress. Chairs should coach students to ensure

they are comfortable with data collection (e.g.

how to conduct interviews, with whom, and how

many).

• Writing up the findings. Chairs should ensure

students are knowledgeable about how to an-

alyze data and report their findings. See the

“Including Data in the Findings (Chapter 4) of

the Dissertation” section in this guide for further

information.

Qualitative Research Design
A research design is the ‘map’ that will guide the

study. Sufficient time and consideration should be

given to ensure that the design of a study is the

best ‘route’ for the student to take to complete the

dissertation journey. In other words, the research

design should clearly lead to answering the re-

search questions.

Regardless of the method or design that is uti-

lized, all research must be clear, concise, and

focused. Qualitative studies must demonstrate

validity within the context of the specific qualita-
tive design (e.g., credibility, dependability, trans-
ferability, trustworthiness). All research decisions
should be justified with high-quality scholarly

sources.

4

tion needs to be a rigorous question, ensuring the
topic is explored in a wholistic way.

Research questions need to be narrow and
focused, and related to the student’s degree
program and specialization. They need to be
connected to the problem statement in the disser-
tation, rooted in the literature, and reflect re-
search gaps. Having too many research questions
is not wise, as the scope of the dissertation needs
to be clear and focused. Research questions are
not yes/no questions, because if the questions
could be answered this easily, there would be no
need to conduct a study. Furthermore, research
questions should be more than ‘what’ questions
(though a ‘what’ question can be asked). Em-
phasis should be on examining the topic, not just
reporting on the topic (a dissertation is not a list
or answer to a ‘what’ question). Adding rigor
to research questions can be done by including
more complexity, such as by asking: ‘Why?,’
‘How?,’ ‘In what ways?,’ ‘To what extent?,’ or
‘What difference does X make?,’ for example.

Research questions can be considered the heart
of the dissertation–the engine that drives the
thinking behind the dissertation. As a dissertation
is a deep exploration and analysis of something,
the research questions need to relate to the past

or present (not something that may occur in the
future, as that cannot be examined presently).
Thus, great care needs to be taken with questions
that include the word ‘Can’ (as this likely might
indicate that the questions relate to a future event
that may not be adequately researchable in the
present).

An example of an inadequate research question is:

This question is inadequate because it is a yes/no
question, and it is too broad and not specific.

An example of a good research question is:

5

This question is strong because it is focused,

clearly connected to a specific topic, and rigor-

ous.

Finally, research questions are different than the

interview questions asked of the participants in

a study. Whereas research questions drive the

entire study, interview questions are a means of

data collection, and are the specific questions

asked to get data to answer the research ques-

tions. There will thus be a clear link between

research questions and interview questions.

Case Study
A case study is a study that looks, for example, at

one issue in one or more businesses or organiza-

tions. It involves in-depth exploration, guided by

the dissertation research questions. As Bloomberg

(2018: 237) states, “Case study research is typ-

ically extensive; it draws on multiple methods of

data collection and involves multiple data sourc-

es. This method culminates in the production of

a detailed description of a setting and its partic-

ipants, accompanied by an analysis of the data

for themes, patterns, and issues.”

Case studies should create rich and complex

understanding of the topic under exploration.

Bloomberg (2018) states that a case study needs

to have clear boundaries (thus, students need to

be able to articulate what the case study does

and does not include). In addition, the student

needs to provide rationale for why a particular

case is being selected (Bloomberg, 2018).

Students need to collect data from more than one

source in order to ensure deep understanding of

the case. As further described in the Triangulation

section of this guide, having two or more data

sources is required in dissertations. For example,

a student could conduct interviews and analyze

documents from the organization(s) or busi-

ness(es) examined in the study.

Students may choose to design their case study

to include interviews, document analysis (e.g.

reports or specific content on relevant websites,

though this is not a literature review of peer-re-

viewed publications, etc.), direct observations,

participant observation, and/or analyzing physi-

cal artifacts (e.g. audiovisual materials). The goal

is to ensure thick narrative description, including

6

context and important details that allow read-

ers to gain a deep understanding of the case

(Bloomberg, 2018). Importantly, the data collec-

tion methods should be closely aligned with the

research questions (Bloomberg, 2018). In other

words, data collected should directly result in

answering the dissertation research questions.

References and suggested reading:
Yin, R.K. (2017). Case study research and
applications: Design and methods. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Bloomberg, L.D. (2018). Case study method.
In B.B. Frey (Ed.), The Sage encyclopedia
of educational research, measurement, and
evaluation (pp. 237-239). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.

Yin, R. K. (2012). Case study methods. In APA
handbook of research methods in psychology,
Vol 2: Research designs: Quantitative,
qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological
(pp. 141–155). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.

Multiple Case Studies/Comparative
Case Study
Multiple case studies (or a comparative case
study) analyze similarities, differences, patterns,
and themes across two or more cases (e.g. or-
ganizations, companies). Yin (1993: 34) states,
“The development of consistent findings, over
multiple cases and even multiple studies, can then
be considered a very robust finding.”

Goggin and Orth (2002: 49) state that cases in
a comparative study are purposely selected “on
the basis of similarity and comparability,” so that
they “vary on the dimensions that are theoretically

relevant” (e.g. organisation type), and yet are
“similar in as many other respects as possible.”

Comparative case studies should be carefully
designed, with justification given as to why the
research includes the cases planned for inclusion.
There should also be care in how the study is
described, as a study with multiple sites may be a
multi-site (single) case study, rather than one that
includes multiple case studies. Thus, a student

should consider if his or her design is actually a
multiple case study or a multi-site (single) case
study. This should be discussed in the dissertation.
In any case, whether it is a multiple case study,
or a multi-site (single) case study, a student needs
to clearly articulate why the cases or sites were
selected for inclusion in the study. In other words,
the student should elaborate and defend what
criteria were used to select them, and why that is
important.

References and suggested reading:
Goggin, Malcolm L., & Orth, D.A. (2002).
How faith-based and secular organizations

http://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pzh&AN=2011-23864-009&site=eds-live

http://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pzh&AN=2011-23864-009&site=eds-live

http://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pzh&AN=2011-23864-009&site=eds-live

http://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pzh&AN=2011-23864-009&site=eds-live

7

tackle housing for the homeless. Roundtable on
Religion and Social Welfare Policy.

Yin, R.K. (1993). Applications of case
study research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.

Yin, R. K. (2012). Case study methods. In APA
handbook of research methods in psychology,
Vol 2: Research designs: Quantitative,
qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological
(pp. 141–155). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.

Yin, R.K. (2009). Case study research: Design
and methods, 4th edition. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.

Participant Selection
Participants are people recruited to participate

in a study. Often, participants are those who are

interviewed. In selecting participants for a qual-

itative study, it is essential for a student to first

identify who will be included in the sample based

on the information that needs to be obtained to

answer the research questions. The student needs

to ensure that participants have experience or

knowledge about the topic being explored and

are the most appropriate choices to include in the

study. Also, students need to ensure that they will

be able to obtain access to the participants (e.g.

interviewing U.S Senators would not be a feasible

research design because it would be very unlikely

that a student could interview enough U.S. Sena-

tors to complete a dissertation). Importantly, once

participants are selected, students need to outline

how and why the participants were selected.

Interviews

Interviews are a method in which there is a con-

versation focused around interview questions or

topics that are discussed with the purpose of gath-

ering information to answer the research ques-

tions guiding the dissertation. Interviews allow the

researcher to get in-depth data from participants

in a one-to-one setting.

Structured interviews include pre-determined

open-ended questions that are asked in a prede-

termined order. For data analysis, the researcher

is able to compare and contrast the answers to

http://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pzh&AN=2011-23864-009&site=eds-live

http://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pzh&AN=2011-23864-009&site=eds-live

http://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pzh&AN=2011-23864-009&site=eds-live

http://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pzh&AN=2011-23864-009&site=eds-live

8

the specific questions. In unstructured interviews,

the questions are not predetermined. Data anal-

ysis can be more challenging given variation in

the questions that were asked. Semi-structured

interviews contain the components of both struc-

tured and unstructured interviews. Interviewers

ask pre-determined questions to be answered by

all respondents but allow for clarification and

additional questions to be asked. Typically, stu-

dents will conduct structured, or semi-structured

interviews.

Interviews may be conducted in-person or through

an online medium, such as Skype, or by phone

(not email). With the participant’s permission,

interviews should be audio recorded (see “Audio

Recording and Transcribing Interviews” elsewhere

in this guide); if interviews are conducted by

phone, the student will need to consider how to

audio record the call. Students will also need to

consider—and discuss in their dissertation—the

limitations of conducting an interview virtually, or

on the phone (rather than in person), including

what ways communication and data may have

been hindered or limited because the interview

was not conducted in person.

According to Boyce & Neale (2006), conduct-

ing interviews should follow the same general

principles of the research plan: plan, develop

instruments, collect data, analyze data, and

disseminate findings. The plan identifies who will

be interviewed and what information will be ob-

tained. Developing the instruments will guide the

implementation of the interviews. When the data

is being collected, consent should be obtained

along with an explanation of the purpose of the

interview. To analyze the data, the researcher

will transcribe all data and review the findings.

The final step is to disseminate the findings to the

stakeholders and community.

References and suggested reading:
Boyce, C., & Neale, P. (2006). Conducting
in-depth interviews: A guide for designing
and conducting in-depth interviews. Pathfinder
International Tool Series.

Easwaramoorthy, M., & Zarinpoush, F. (2006).
Interviewing for research: Tip sheet #6.
Toronto: Canada Volunteerism Institute

Yin, R.K. (2015). Qualitative research from
start to finish. New York, NY: Guilford
Publications.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiSjLT24vPkAhUsxqYKHbGaBHEQFjAAegQIABAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsectorsource.ca%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fresources%2Ffiles%2Ftipsheet6_interviewing_for_research_en_0 &usg=AOvVaw2qyOG3IP7T_cH9iN8ln1qm

https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ncent-ebooks/detail.action?docID=2008479

https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ncent-ebooks/detail.action?docID=2008479

9

Interviews: Minimum Number
Recommended
Several factors should be considered when de-
termining the number of interviews a researcher
should conduct in a qualitative study. Bryman
(2012) recognizes the variety of recommenda-
tions in the literature about the number of inter-
views in qualitative studies, highlighting ranges
from 20-30 and 60-150 interviews. A further

range was offered by Marshall, Cardon, Poddar,
and Fontenot (2013: 20), who argued that, in
research related to their own discipline (Informa-
tion Systems), “Single case studies should gener-
ally contain 15 to 30 interviews.” Furthermore,
in a study of 179 doctoral theses from British and
Irish universities that used the case study method,
Mason (2010) found that the average number of
interviews conducted was 36 (the mode was 40,
and the median was 33).

While the target number of interviews for which a
researcher should aim is usually not delineated in
the literature, a minimum number of interviews is
sometimes explicated. For example, the Archives of
Sexual Behavior articulated policy for the minimum
sample size for grounded theory studies published
in their journal (Dworkin, 2012). They did this so
that authors would have clarity on sample size
expectations for a grounded theory design. Thus, it
can be valuable for researchers—especially those
rather new to the field—to have some guidance on
what is expected in their discipline.

While constraints such as time and funds must be
considered, Charmaz’s (2012: 22) advice should
be given important consideration: “…learn what
constitutes excellence rather than adequacy in
your field—and beyond, if your project portends
of having larger import—and conduct as many
interviews as needed to achieve it.”

To ensure appropriate rigor and consistency with-
in NCU SB dissertations, it is recommended that
students conduct a minimum of 15-20 interviews.
A maximum number is not stated. An accurate
assessment of saturation should guide the number
of interviews conducted (see “Data Saturation” in
this guide).

The design of a qualitative study should be of an
appropriate design and nature that allows for this
recommended minimum number of interviews.
This should be considered when designing the
study, including the research questions and po-
tential site(s) where the study will take place. In
some research designs, such as phenomenolog-
ical studies (see “Phenomenological Design” in
this guide), students may wish to interview par-
ticipants more than once (with different questions
and at different times) in order to get thick and
rich data. If this is part of the research design, a
fewer number of participants may be selected, if
appropriate (because they will be interviewed at
least twice).

In all cases, saturation should be ensured (see
“Data Saturation” in this guide), and the student

should provide a clear explanation and defense

of why saturation was believed to have been

10

obtained. In addition, when possible, students are

encouraged to follow the best practice, stated by

Marshall, Cardon, Poddar, and Fontenot (2013),

of citing any previous studies that were conducted

with a similar design.

References and suggested reading:
Bryman, A. (2012). Untitled contribution,
in S.E. Baker, & R. Edwards, How many
qualitative interviews is enough? Expert voices
and early career reflections on sampling
and cases in qualitative research (pp.18-20).
National Centre for Research Methods Review
Paper.

Charmaz, K. (2012). Untitled contribution,
in S.E. Baker, & R. Edwards, How many
qualitative interviews is enough? Expert voices
and early career reflections on sampling and
cases in qualitative research (pp. 21-22).
National Centre for Research Methods Review
Paper.

Dworkin, S.L. (2012). Sample size policy for
qualitative studies using in-depth interviews.
Archives of sexual behavior, 41(6), 1319-1320.

Marshall, B., Cardon, P., Poddar, A., &
Fontenot, R. (2013). Does sample size matter
in qualitative research?: A review of qualitative
interviews in IS research. Journal of computer
information systems, 54(1), 11-22.

Mason, M. (2010). Sample size and saturation
in PhD studies using qualitative interviews.
Forum qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum:
Qualitative social research 11(3.8).

Focus Groups
A focus group, as described by Hair, Celsi, Ortin-

eau and Bush (2013), is a face-to-face experience

with a small group of individuals that are assem-

bled to have an interactive discussion concerning

a research topic of interest. In their dissertation,

students need to articulate why they have gath-

ered particular people into focus groups, justify-

ing the design and numbers of participants includ-

ed in their study. Students should keep in mind the

challenge entailed in attempting to gather busy

people together in the same room at the same

time. This is a challenge that needs to be consid-

ered carefully, as a student does not want to real-

ize when it is too late that gathering focus groups

is not feasible for his or her study (because partic-

ipants do not attend). Students should understand

that deciding to change the research methods

during the data collection period requires modifi-

cations to the IRB application, and IRB approval

needs to be sought again. This takes time away

from the time allotted to data collection.

Students need to justify why focus groups are the

best method for their data collection. Students

should keep in mind that multiple focus groups

will be needed in order to collect sufficient data.

Students should design their study so that the

amount of data they obtain is comparable to the

data that would be acquired in the section in this

guide discussing the minimum number of inter-

views in case study research (see the section on

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjRktnM4_PkAhXR8qYKHfitCz8QFjAAegQIABAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Feprints.ncrm.ac.uk%2F2273%2F4%2Fhow_many_interviews &usg=AOvVaw3vPhUcxU7gI8TOK3ONun4D

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjRktnM4_PkAhXR8qYKHfitCz8QFjAAegQIABAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Feprints.ncrm.ac.uk%2F2273%2F4%2Fhow_many_interviews &usg=AOvVaw3vPhUcxU7gI8TOK3ONun4D

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjRktnM4_PkAhXR8qYKHfitCz8QFjAAegQIABAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Feprints.ncrm.ac.uk%2F2273%2F4%2Fhow_many_interviews &usg=AOvVaw3vPhUcxU7gI8TOK3ONun4D

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjRktnM4_PkAhXR8qYKHfitCz8QFjAAegQIABAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Feprints.ncrm.ac.uk%2F2273%2F4%2Fhow_many_interviews &usg=AOvVaw3vPhUcxU7gI8TOK3ONun4D

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjRktnM4_PkAhXR8qYKHfitCz8QFjAAegQIABAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Feprints.ncrm.ac.uk%2F2273%2F4%2Fhow_many_interviews &usg=AOvVaw3vPhUcxU7gI8TOK3ONun4D

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjRktnM4_PkAhXR8qYKHfitCz8QFjAAegQIABAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Feprints.ncrm.ac.uk%2F2273%2F4%2Fhow_many_interviews &usg=AOvVaw3vPhUcxU7gI8TOK3ONun4D

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjRktnM4_PkAhXR8qYKHfitCz8QFjAAegQIABAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Feprints.ncrm.ac.uk%2F2273%2F4%2Fhow_many_interviews &usg=AOvVaw3vPhUcxU7gI8TOK3ONun4D

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjRktnM4_PkAhXR8qYKHfitCz8QFjAAegQIABAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Feprints.ncrm.ac.uk%2F2273%2F4%2Fhow_many_interviews &usg=AOvVaw3vPhUcxU7gI8TOK3ONun4D

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjRktnM4_PkAhXR8qYKHfitCz8QFjAAegQIABAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Feprints.ncrm.ac.uk%2F2273%2F4%2Fhow_many_interviews &usg=AOvVaw3vPhUcxU7gI8TOK3ONun4D

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjRktnM4_PkAhXR8qYKHfitCz8QFjAAegQIABAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Feprints.ncrm.ac.uk%2F2273%2F4%2Fhow_many_interviews &usg=AOvVaw3vPhUcxU7gI8TOK3ONun4D

11

this topic in this guide). If a study includes focus

groups as one method used (for example, in addi-

tion to interviews), fewer number of focus groups

would be acceptable.

A focus group is comprised of three steps or

phases: planning the focus group study; imple-

menting the focus group; and evaluating, analyz-

ing and communicating the results. When plan-

ning a focus group, several important elements

need to be considered: Should the focus group be

conducted online (for example, in a group Skype

call) or in a face-to-face environment? How large

should the focus group be? Who should be con-

sidered to be part of the focus group, and why?

How should qualified participants be recruited?

Should incentives be used to improve the likeli-

hood of attracting committed participants? Where

should the focus groups be conducted?

Creswell (2013) noted that successful focus
groups are interactive and, therefore, group
dynamics play a significant role. Creswell (2013)
also noted that effective focus groups are heavily
dependent on the facilitator keeping the discus-
sion focused on the primary objective of the re-
search. A student thus needs practice and training
in order to prepare for successfully conducting
focus groups. Chairs need to ensure students are
comfortable and prepared with conducting focus
groups before they begin data collection.

References and suggested reading:
Creswell, J.W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry
& research design: Choosing among five
approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.

Hair, J.F., Celsi, M.W., Ortineau, D.J., & Bush,

R.P. (2013). Essentials of marketing research
(3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Observation
Marshall and Rossman (1989: 79) define obser-

vation as “the systematic description of events, be-

haviors, and artifacts in the social setting chosen

for study.” Observation enables one to describe a

situation using all of one’s senses, thus creating a

‘written photograph’ of the situation being studied

(Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, & Allen, 1993). Stu-

dents who use observation as a method need to

be cautious of the influence their presence might

bring.

It is imperative that observers take detailed and

accurate notes, to be coded and analyzed at

what could be a potentially much later date. The

notes taken will be the only record of what was

observed. So, without accurate and detailed

notes, the observation could be rendered useless.

As mentioned above, the observer should use all

five senses during the process. The environment

and setting is just as important as the situation

being observed. Finally, as is always the case,

research questions and the method to answer

the research questions must be closely linked.

If observation is a method used in a study, the

12

student should clearly delineate in the dissertation

how and why observation is the best method to

answer the research questions.

References and suggested reading:
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G.B. (1995).
Designing qualitative research. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage Publications.

Erlandson, D.A., Harris, E.L., Skipper, B.L., &
Allen, S.D. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry:
A guide to methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.

Yin, R.K. (2015). Qualitative research from start
to finish. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.

Document Analysis
Often used as a means of triangulation, document

analysis involves examining documents (which

can include those in print or online, including

websites) to extrapolate meaning, understanding,

and knowledge surrounding the topic or phenom-

enon in question. Importantly, document analysis

is not a literature review (which students complete

in Chapter 2 of the dissertation). Instead, docu-

ment analysis is a method to collect and analyze

data that will help to answer the research ques-

tions.

Because document analysis is typically used to

triangulate data, it is thus used in support of

other methods (e.g. in-depth interviews). So, for

example, if a student is doing a case study to

explore organizational decline, a student may

interview employees and also gather operational

documents to analyze. One thing to keep in mind

about this method is the ability (or inability) to ac-

cess documents. Students need to consider if they

will have permission from companies or organiza-

tions to review documents not publicly available

on the internet.

When embarking on document analysis, students

need to carefully consider, and articulate in their

dissertation, which documents (or types of doc-

uments) will be analyzed, and why. The process

for document analysis should be thought out well,

including how the documents chosen relate to the

research questions, the types of data expected

to be found within the documents, and how this

data collection method fits with the other form(s)

of data collection (e.g. interviews) planned for the

study. The process should be systematic and clear.

As Bowen (2009: 38) states, “the researcher

should make the process of analysis as rigorous

and as transparent as possible. Qualitative inqui-

ry demands no less.”

References and suggested reading:
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as
a qualitative research method. Qualitative
research journal, 9(2), 27-40.

Hermeneutics
Hermeneutics refers to the interpretation of text.

Through a hermeneutical study, a researcher

interprets ‘sacred’ text in a manner that captures

the essence of the human experience. Since the

inception of hermeneutics, it has been used effec-

tively by more than one academic discipline to

interpret religious scriptures, laws, music, poetry,

and more. For a student interested in interpreting

text for deeper meaning, the references below

https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ncent-ebooks/detail.action?docID=2008479

https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ncent-ebooks/detail.action?docID=2008479

13

are a valuable starting point. For the newcomer

to hermeneutics, Schmidt’s Understanding Herme-

neutics is the best place to begin. If hermeneutics

is a critical element of a dissertation, a student

should include a discussion of hermeneutics in the

dissertation, including how he/she will follow best

practices in the literature.

References and suggested reading:
Davey, N. (2012). Unquiet understanding:
Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics.
Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Schmidt, L.K. (2016). Understanding
hermeneutics. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Thiselton, A.C. (2009). Hermeneutics: an
introduction. Grand Rapids, MI: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Phenomenological Design
The phenomenological research design (or phe-
nomenological study) is focused on examining a
phenomenon, or specific experience, and how
it affects people, such as people who have been
affected by an event. This phenomenon must have
a business or administration-related context, de-
pending on the student’s specialization.

Understanding the effect of an event (the
phenomenon) requires the researcher to
identify individuals who had a specific type of
experience that was directly related to the event.
If a student chooses a phenomenological design,
the design should be clearly defended in the
dissertation, with clear reason as to why the
design was selected, and what phenomenon will

be explored.

All participants a student interviews must have

lived experiences related to the central phenom-

enon under study. Research questions guiding

a phenomenological design should allow for all

aspects of the experience under study to emerge

from the participants’ experience.

In a phenomenological study, a student is likely to

visit with participants individually (over multiple

interviews of at least one hour each). Students

should collect rich narrative and observational

data (i.e. field notes), and ensure immersion in

each participant’s world. The focus should be

on thorough description, and homing in on the

phenomenon under examination (Bevan, 2014).

Bevan (2014: 142-143) states that the focus of

14

this design “is one of accurately describing and

thematizing experience in a systematic way. It

uses themes of contextualizing experience, appre-

hending the phenomenon, and clarification of the

phenomenon.”

At the end of each interview, it is recommended

that the student complete an entry in a research

journal, where reflections on the interview are

entered. In order for this to be done well, detailed

content and reflections should be added to the

journal (which can be a Microsoft Word file, etc.)

as soon as possible after each interview is complet-

ed. This journal will be especially beneficial when

developing themes for meanings behind the words

of the participants (when analyzing data). The

following research journal template can be used:

15

In describing the interview process, Bevan (2014)

summarized another scholar’s approach (Seid-

man, 2006), which included interviewing the

same person 3 times. The first interview focused

on the interviewee’s life history, which provided

context. The second interview focused on recon-

structing the experience, including the relation-

ships and structures relating to the experience.

The final interview focused on how the interview-

ee reflected on the meaning of the experience.

A student should evaluate if phenomenology is the

correct method to be used for his or her disserta-

tion, and should clearly outline the projected inter-

views planned to explore the phenomenon under

examination. As stated earlier in this guide (see

“Interviews: Minimum Number Recommended”), it

is recommended that students conduct a minimum

number of 15-20 interviews in a qualitative study.

The reason is to ensure thick and rich data is col-

lected about the phenomenon explored. If inter-

viewing a fewer number of participants better fits

the research design (or this number is not practi-

cal because few participants have experienced

the phenomenon), then it is recommended that

students interview a minimum of 8-10 participants

twice (or, potentially, interview a fewer number of

participants 3 times each, if the phenomenon is

experienced by a very small number of people).

Students should ensure that the sample size and

number of interviews conducted is determined

from saturation (see “Data Saturation” in this

guide), continuing data collection until saturation

is reached. If multiple rounds of interviews are

planned, different questions should be asked

in each round. The interview questions should

be derived from the central research question(s)

about participants’ lived experiences relative to

the phenomenon

under study.

This design should only be used for deeply ex-

ploring experiences and phenomena. It involves

a different approach than the typical act of sitting

down and talking with interviewees about a par-

ticular topic or issue.

Phenomenology is deeply rooted in a philosoph-

ical base, as well as being a research method-

ology. The intent of a phenomenological study is

to uncover, describe and interpret the essence of

experience and to provide greater insight and

understanding to the essence of the experience

under study.

Data analysis in a phenomenological study

should follow a thematic analysis process. This

process allows students to analyze the data via

coding (see “Coding and Thematic Analysis” in

this guide).

References and suggested reading:
Bevan, M.T. (2014). A method of
phenomenological interviewing. Qualitative
health research, 24(1) 136–144.

Constructive Research
Constructive research refers to research that has,

at its focus, a problem-solving mission. It is aimed

at producing solutions to both practical and theo-

retical problems (Oyegoke, 2011). As Oyegoke,

(2011: 576) states, “The identified research prob-

lems are used to propose research questions that

address the problem. The questions are solved by

16

developing or constructing a solution which will

be operationalised to determine its workability

and appropriateness.”

It is recommended that a constructive research dis-
sertation be understood and designed as a case
study (see “Case Study” in this guide). Guidance
on case study, including triangulation, should thus
be followed in constructive research. Oyegoke
(2011) identifies six phases of a constructive
research project: 1) problem identification; 2)
in-depth understanding of the topic; 3) construc-
tion of a solution; 4) justification of the construct;
5) highlighting both the theoretical and practical
contributions; and 6) examining the scope of

applicability.

While those who may actually use the solution

constructed in a project are ideally involved in its

design, as well as the strategy for how it will be

applied (Oyegoke, 2011), given that a disserta-

tion is a single-person project, a student should

consider ways to feasibly include and integrate

input from these individuals throughout the study.

References and suggested reading:
Oyegoke, A. (2011). The constructive research
approach in project management research.
International journal of managing projects in
business, 4(4), 573-595.

Ethnography
The objective of the ethnographic researcher

is to gain an in-depth understanding about the

activities of a group under study and how their

activities are influenced by the culture within the

group. This is done by becoming immersed as a

participant in their daily activities. The researcher

must be immersed in the culture or the situation to

observe the culture in its natural environment. In

the field of business, this could be a business’s or

organization’s culture. The researcher seeks to

document the culture, practices and perspectives

of the group or community studied while partici-

pating within and observing the group or commu-

17

nity in its regular setting (Draper, 2015). Data col-

lection methods include unstructured observations

and informal inquiries while the researcher serves

as a participant. Data collection often includes

formal interviews, direct observations, document

reviews and focus groups when the researcher

acts as an outside observer (Draper, 2015). The

ethnographer normally will develop an extensive

set of field notes during the time serving as a

participant within the group, and as an observer

of the group setting.

Ethnography, as a qualitative research design,

has the intent to advance understanding about

how a group or community views the world in the

context of the beliefs, traditions and customs of

that group or community (Reeves, Kuper & Hodg-

es, 2008). Ethnography has its origins in an-

thropology and sociological research; however,

ethnography in 2019 involves a variety of con-

texts and settings, including healthcare, educa-

tion, businesses, and other organizations (Reeves,

Kuper & Hodges, 2008).

To facilitate the inductive analysis employed

in ethnography, the collected data often is fac-

tored into some combination of the following

8 dimensions: space, or physical layout, of the

setting; a description of the group or community

participants; the set of activities occurring in the

setting; tangible objects present; specific actions

of individuals present in the setting; time and/

or sequencing of actions; goals or objectives

people establish in the context of the setting; and

specific emotions expressed by participants while

in the setting (Reeves, Kuper & Hodges, 2008).

The researcher uses interpretive and descriptive,

systematic structures demonstrated as credible to

conduct the analyses of qualitative data (Patton,

2015). The objective of the analysis is to devel-

op interpretations of the meanings of activities

observed in the group or community setting in

the context of the beliefs, traditions and customs

established by the group or community. Explana-

tions about how or why participants within the set-

ting behave as they do contribute to a rich, com-

prehensive report (Humphreys & Watson, 2009).

Because the researcher often serves as a par-

ticipant, as well as an observer, ethnography

18

research has several additional challenges when

compared to other qualitative designs (Draper,

2015). To blend into the setting requires that the

researcher build rapport with other participants

within the group or community. The researcher

should consciously bracket out any prejudgments

or biases and seek to maintain an objective view-

point throughout the time of data gathering, so as

not to skew the interpretation of the data.

Ethnography studies enable the researcher to im-

merse oneself deeply within the group or commu-

nity to obtain an in-depth and rich understanding

about social interactions and behaviors observed.

As a participant, ethnographers might acquire

data hidden from public view which explains fur-

ther the behavior within the group or community

studied (Draper, 2015).

Importantly, because ethnography requires immer-

sion for a significant period of time, this research

design is likely not suitable for most NCU stu-

dents.

References and suggested reading:
Draper, J. (2015). Ethnography: Principles,
practice and potential. Nursing standard,
29(36), 219-225.

Humphreys, M., & Watson, T. (2009).
Ethnographic practices: From ‘writing-
up ethnographic research’ to ‘writing
ethnography’. Organizational ethnography:
Studying the complexities of everyday life, 40-
55.

Patton, M.Q. (2015). Qualitative research &
evaluation methods: Integrating theory and

practice (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.

Reeves, S., Kuper, A., & Hodges, B.D.
(2008). Qualitative research methodologies:
Ethnography. British medical journal,
337(7668), 512-514.

Grounded Theory
Grounded theory (GT) is an inductive process

whereby analysis of collected data allows the

researcher to produce theory explaining the

phenomenon in question. In 1967, Glaser and

Strauss discovered this approach while research-

ing terminal illness. According to Charmaz and

Mitchell (2001), the process is characterized

by five general characteristics: (1) Simultaneous

data collection and analysis; (2) Searching for

emerging themes via early analysis; (3) Discov-

ering basic social processes within the data; (4)

Explaining those processes via inductive construc-

tion of abstract categories; and (5) Integrating all

of the above into a theoretical framework specify-

ing causes, conditions, and consequences of the

process(es).

There is a hidden challenge in grounded theory

research that makes this design less ideal for dis-

sertation-type research: to fully develop a theory,

the researcher must repeatedly test the emergent

theory to establish its true existence. Grounded

theory studies are time-consuming because repeat-

ed measures are required to confirm the existence

of the theory. It is a very rigorous method, but

once it is conducted well, it can contribute to the

foundations of theory building. Because of the

time it takes to conduct this type of study, it is not

19

recommended for an NCU dissertation.

For an in-depth review of GT, please refer to the

article listed below by O’Connor, Carpenter &

Coughlan (2018). In this article, the authors re-

view both the classic and constructivist viewpoint

surrounding GT, and the main tenets of properly

executing a GT study.

References and suggested reading:
Charmaz, K., & Mitchell, R.G. (2001).
Grounded theory in ethnography. In P.
Atkinson, A. Coffey, S. Delamount, & J. Lofland
(Eds.), Handbook of ethnography (pp. 160-
174). London, UK: Sage Publications.

O’Connor, A., Carpenter, B., & Coughlan,
B. (2018). An exploration of key issues in
the debate between classic and constructivist
grounded theory. Grounded theory review
7(1), 90-103.

Narrative Design
The narrative design is used when the researcher

is trying to describe the lives of subjects or partic-

ipants, told by the subjects or participants them-

selves. The use of narrative design allows for the

emergence of voices that may otherwise not be

heard. It provides a means to understand and pres-

ent real-life experiences as told through the stories

of those who lived those experiences. The story-tell-

ing approach of narrative design allows for deep,

rich descriptions of experience and the meanings

of the experience to emerge and be shared. Exe-

cuting this type of research can be time-consuming

because of the number of hours that must be spent

with the participants to gather data.

This design uses stories told in the autobiograph-

ical words of the participant. The narrative

approach allows participants to share their ex-

periences and for the researcher to further exam-

ine multiple experiences in an effort to shape a

common true story through a collaborative effort

of participants and researcher. It focuses on the

participant creating a story based on the internal

processing of their own self-awareness, the deep

learning that resulted from reflection, and external

consequences as well as internal development as

a result of change (Connelly, & Clandinin, 1986;

Creswell, 2008; Mahler, 2008).

The researcher actively participates in the study

by interacting with the participants, thereby

becoming immersed in the study as they partic-

ipate in the telling of the stories of their partici-

pants. Semi-structured interviews are conducted

with each participant, transcribed, and coded to

capture significant insights into their behavior. A

descriptive vignette on each participant is devel-

oped from the coded transcriptions and review of

the audio recordings. Participants are invited to

reflect on their profile and provide any follow-up

comments.

20

In many ways, narrative design can appear sim-

ilar to phenomenological studies (See “Phenome-

nological Design” in this guide). In phenomenol-

ogy, the focus is on the essence of a particular

experience, while in narrative design the focus is

on a chain of experiences and the connection of

the events within the experiences.

If a student chooses a narrative design, the choice

should be clearly defended in the dissertation,

with clear reason as to why the design was select-

ed. Furthermore, the student will need to clearly

articulate a plan for how to gather rich data that

is comparable to the data that would be obtained

in a case study (see “Interviews: Minimum Num-

ber in a Case Study Design” in this guide). This

may be done by conducting multiple interviews

with the same person, for example.

References and suggested reading:
Connelly, F.M., & Clandinin, D.J. (1986).
On narrative method, personal philosophy,
and narrative unities in the story of teaching.
Journal of research in science teaching, 23(4),
293-310.

Creswell, J.W. (2008). Educational research:
Planning, conducting and evaluating qualitative
& quantitative research (4th Ed.). New Jersey,
NJ: Pearson Education.

Mahler, E.B. (2008). Defining career success
in the 21st century: A narrative study of
intentional work role transitions. ProQuest.

McAlpine, L. (2016). Why might you use
narrative methodology? A story about
narrative. Eesti Haridusteaduste Ajakiri.
Estonian Journal of Education, 4(1), 32-57.

Delphi method
When students wish to employ a research method

that is untraditional for a qualitative study, they

need to ensure the data they collect will be rich

and rigorous; in addition, a similar level of work

as a more traditional qualitative study needs to be

involved.

For students wishing to do a Delphi Method study,

it is recommended that 15-20 panelists be inter-

viewed in a face-to-face meeting (or via zoom or

the telephone, etc.) in the first round, after which

another type of data collection method (after the

participants are interviewed) could gather addi-

tional data from these same participants.

21

While a Delphi study focuses on forecasting and

the unknowable future, a doctoral dissertation

focuses on a problem or issue—in the past or

present (examined empirically). Therefore, at least

one research question that aligns with a tradition-

al dissertation focus (related to empirical explora-

tion of something in the past or present) should be

included in the dissertation.

Using this approach, the Delphi Method can be

adapted to be a design appropriate for a qualita-

tive doctoral dissertation. Students should ensure

they conduct adequate research on the Delphi

Method before choosing this method.

Mixed-Methods Research
Mixed-methods research relates to a study that

involves both qualitative and quantitative data. It

uses the combination of qualitative and quantita-

tive methods to better understand the given re-

search problem (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011).

Ivankova, Creswell & Stick (2006) advocated the

need for mixed-method research design in cases

where the research problem could not be ade-

quately addressed with either method in isolation.

Mixed-methods research is not a recommended

research method approach at Northcentral Uni-

versity. The use of this method bestows undue

complexity and time burden on the doctoral can-

didate. However, because of its rigor, it should be

understood for future reference.

References and suggested reading:
Creswell, J.W., & Plano Clark, V.L. (2011).
Designing and conducting mixed methods
research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Ivankova, N.V., Creswell, J.W., & Stick, S.L.
(2006). Using mixed-methods sequential
explanatory design: From theory to practice.
Field methods, 18, 3-20.

Sale, J.E. M., Lohfeld, L.H., & Brazil, K. (2002).
Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate:
Implications for mixed-methods research.
Quality and quantity, 36(1), 43-53.

Online Questionnaires and Unsuitable
Data Collection Practices
Qualitative research methods need to be rigorous

and in line with good practices of the wider aca-

demic community. One unsuitable data collection

practice for a dissertation with a qualitative re-

search design is sending out online questionnaires

to participants, including a questionnaire with

open-ended questions for participants to write or

type their answers, as these methods do not allow

for students to obtain thick and rich data (nor

nuances in responses) needed for doctoral-level

qualitative research. Instead of a questionnaire

for participants to write their answers, students

should develop an interview guide for use in in-

terviews or focus groups that are audio recorded

and transcribed (see “Interview Guides and Other

Instruments” in this guide).

Demographic questions, etc. can be asked during

an interview through a questionnaire (e.g. at the

beginning or the end of an interview), or before

an interview is scheduled (for example to help in

selecting interview participants), but a question-

naire should not replace an interview (because

22

this type of instrument does not result in gener-

ating thick and rich data, which is needed for

thorough inquiry in qualitative research, allowing

the student to acquire enough data to answer the

dissertation’s research questions).

Chairs and SMEs should guide students in select-

ing an appropriate qualitative data collection

method. Remember that the value of a qualitative

design includes the rich data obtained through

data collection. Therefore, methods, such as in-

depth interviews, should be used to obtain rich

qualitative data.

Another unsuitable practice for a doctoral dis-

sertation is designing the study to be a literature

review. The literature review should be one chap-

ter of the dissertation. The literature is not the data

in a dissertation. Thus, data that may be included

in a journal article is not an acceptable form of

data for a student’s dissertation. The literature is

an important part of the dissertation, as it informs

theory, and helps in the interpretation and anal-

ysis of the findings. But it is not the data itself.

It should not be confused with the data that is

collected or used in a dissertation. It is valuable

to note that the method of Document Analysis (see

“Document Analysis” in this guide) is different

than a literature review.

Interview Guides and Other Instruments
Instruments created and used in qualitative re-

search are distinctly different from what are used

in quantitative studies. Qualitative instruments

include open-ended questions and must be struc-

tured so that the researcher is collecting deep

and broad data to fully understand the research

questions. In most cases, an instrument should be

designed to extract specific experiential informa-

tion from participants.

Data collection questions (the questions created

for the interview guide) are different than the

research questions in the dissertation. The pur-

pose of data collection questions is to provide

data to answer the research questions. Thus, there

is a clear link.

23

Data collected should be relevant and compre-

hensive enough to answer the research questions.

To gather enough data to answer the research

questions, the data collection questions need to

encourage respondents to provide accurate, in-

depth information.

It is a good idea to develop a crosswalk to show

the relationship between the research questions

and data collection questions. This could be in the

form of a table, or a figure, and should include

key concepts and terms.

A student should polish data collection questions

by ensuring they are open-ended and evoke flow-

ing information, carefully reviewing them to en-

sure they are not answerable with a ‘yes’ or ‘no’

response. Furthermore, questions should address

only one topic at a time. They should also not be

biased, or in any way influence the participant.

Questions should be conversational.

Interviews are social experiences. It is important

to establish and maintain a positive, respectful

social experience. A warm-up question should

be included. If the first question is easy to un-

derstand and answer, and non-threatening, then

the respondent will be encouraged to continue.

However, if the first question is too difficult, em-

barrassing, or threatening, then the respondent

will become distrustful and draw away from the

experience. Probing questions should also be

included as a means to solicit additional infor-

mation or to further explore an unclear response.

A probing question might be as simple as, “Can

you tell me more about that?” This is one reason

why online questionnaires are unsuitable for qual-

itative research (see “Unsuitable Data Collection

Practices” in this guide).

Students should ensure that the order of the

questions on the interview guide is logical. If a

break in topic is necessary, then a break for the

respondent could be introduced. Any reflective or

uncomfortable questions can be included about

two-thirds through the interview.

A student should consider asking four or more

persons to review data collection questions before

they are finalized and before interviews begin.

Three or more of these persons should represent

the target population, and one or more should

have experience in developing data collection

24

questions. These reviewers can be asked: Are the

questions clear? Is wording used in the questions

understandable to the target population? Does the

terminology have a shared meaning for the target

population? Are questions respectful of the target

population? Are questions free of bias and with-

out influence? Are there extraneous questions that

do not address the research topic and purpose?

Note: Persons acting as reviewers of the questions

should not be participants in the actual study.

A pilot study is a ‘test run’ or mock activity that

includes actual participant responses to the data

collection questions. Pilot studies require IRB ap-

proval before the study is performed. Pilot studies

are beneficial and might be considered to prac-

tice implementation, become comfortable with the

interview process, and to ensure the questions are

phrased well. The first three interviews may be

treated as a pilot study, adjusting the questions,

as necessary, after these first interviews.

Audio Recording and Transcribing
Interviews
Audio recording interviews is an important part

of the interview process, and is expected. This

should be done with permission. Recording inter-

views can be done in several ways, such as with

a voice recorder app on a cell phone. Students

should ensure beforehand that the chosen record-

ing device or app is compatible with the chosen

transcription method.

The microphone should not be obstructed, and
recording should be done in a quiet place, if pos

sible. Background noise can make transcribing

difficult, if not impossible, in some cases.

There are several methods available for transcrib-

ing interviews. The best way to better understand

the data is to transcribe it personally. There is

software available online that can replay an

interview at a slower speed, thus allowing it to be

typed more easily. If self-transcription is not possi-

ble, some companies offer transcription services

by a human, but these can be very costly. Alter-

natively, there are automated programs, mostly

web-based, promising anywhere from 90 – 95%

accuracy on transcript return. See below for links

to a few resources. (Note: the contributors of this

guide are in no way affiliated with any of the

below linked resources. Additionally, there are

more resources available than the ones listed

later in this section.) It is important to do a quality

check with transcripts to ensure they are accurate,

by carefully reviewing them while listening to the

audio again, and making corrections, before

beginning data analysis.

Something to think about when deciding how

audio files should be transcribed is the level of

confidentiality surrounding the interviews conduct-

ed for analysis, and this should be considered

when drafting the interview consent form.

25

Self-Transcription

Express Scribe: Transcription software for PC and
Mac. There is a free version and a paid version
of this software. As with most transcription soft-
ware, all controls can be set via keyboard, but a
foot pedal can also be used. https://www.nch.
com.au/scribe

OTranscribe: Much like both of the above-men-
tioned programs, OTranscribe is a simple tool for
self-transcribing audio and video. Hosted on the
web, this is a free service, and it enables one to
upload a file to the website. https://otranscribe.
com

Jotengine: A free website that allows the research-
er to upload an audio file and transcribe the
words. It is very simple and has easy shortcuts.
For example, it allows one to go back 5 seconds
or play the recording slowly. https://jotengine.
com/diy

Transcription Services

Rev.com: This website allows one to upload audio
files and receive a transcript in one day. The tran-
script is done by a person, not speech recognition
software. The current fee is $1.25 per minute.
https://www.rev.com

Automated Transcription

NVivo: Now the coding software, NVivo, offers

researchers an automated transcription service

that works seamlessly with their software. The

cost structure is pay-as-you-go, and starts at 50

cents per minute. NVivo is now available to NCU

students through the Student Technology Resource

Center. You can access the software through the

University Services module in NCUOne. https://
www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo/nvivo-prod-
ucts/transcription

Trint: Audio and video files can be uploaded into

Trint for immediate transcription, through the use

of artificial intelligence. From there one can edit

and distribute the transcript. Additionally, with an

iPhone, one can download a recording app that

will send the audio files to Trint. Trint is a paid

service, costing approximately $15 for one hour

of audio. https://trint.com

Otter.ai: Files can be uploaded and are automat-

ically transcribed. A (limited) free option is avail-

able. https://otter.ai/

Sampling in Qualitative Research
Researchers should recognize that each qual-

itative study is unique. Therefore, qualitative

researchers must investigate the totality of the

circumstances related to their problem, research

site, participants, legal implications, and ethics to

determine the best approach for recruitment, data

collection, and analysis. One sampling technique

does not fit all studies.

Sampling in Phenomenological Studies: consider-

ing the challenge of ensuring quality in qualitative

research, Tracy (2010) identified eight conven-

tional criteria for producing excellence. Four of

the criteria defined by Tracy related to the depth

of inquiry, specifically; the criteria are: rich rigor,

credibility, resonance, and significance of the

contribution. Meeting these criteria require a suf-

ficient number of participants so that the resulting

https://www.nch.com.au/scribe

https://www.nch.com.au/scribe

https://otranscribe.com

https://otranscribe.com

https://jotengine.com/diy

https://jotengine.com/diy

https://www.rev.com

https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo/nvivo-products/transcription

https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo/nvivo-products/transcription

https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo/nvivo-products/transcription

https://trint.com

https://otter.ai/

26

descriptions, discussions, and conclusions provide

rich, deep, and detailed information that is reli-

able and valid (Bernard, 2013).

Sampling in Case Studies: the sampling tech-

niques used in case studies vary and are de-

pendent on several considerations (Saunders &

Townsend, 2018). Irrespective of the technique

chosen, the researcher must justify (rationalize for

the reader) their use.

Furthermore, gaining access to a population or

subgroup for inclusion in a case study relates to

feasibility; will the researcher have physical or

virtual access to the participants?

Another consideration for case studies is the

issue of sample sufficiency. How and when does

the researcher know if the sample is enough?

Saturation is viewed as the gold standard to

determine when data are collected from enough

participants (see “Data Saturation” in this guide).

Triangulation of interview data with other identi-

fiable sources (i.e., government data, the body

of literature, reliable and related internet sources,

etc.) can lead to saturation (see “Triangulation” in

this guide). Member-checking (selective re-inter-

viewing of participants) or transcript review (each

participant reviews a transcript of their interview

to verify or correct the data) are supportive mea-

sures a researcher can use to develop a level of

thoroughness in the collection process.

References and suggested reading:
Bernard, H.R. (2013). Social research methods:
Qualitative and quantitative approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cassell, Catherine, Cunliffe, A.L. & Grandy,
G. (2018). The Sage handbook of qualitative
business and management research methods:
History and traditions. Sage Publications, Ltd.

Saunders, M. & Townsend, K. (2018).
Choosing participants. In The Sage handbook
of qualitative business and management
research methods (pp. 480-492). Sage
Publications, Ltd., https://www-doi-org.proxy1.
ncu.edu/10.4135/9781526430212 https://
methods-sagepub-com.proxy1.ncu.edu/
base/download/bookchapter/handbook-of-
qualitative-business-management-research-
methods-v1/i3035.xml

Tracy, S.J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight
“big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative
research. Qualitative inquiry, 16, 837-851.
Doi:10.1177/1077800410383121

Data Saturation
Data saturation is attained when there is sufficient

information to replicate the study, when the ability

to obtain additional new information has been

achieved, and when further coding is no longer

possible (Fusch and Ness, 2015). According to

Fusch and Ness, 2015: 1411), “There is a direct

link between data triangulation and data satura-

tion; the one (data triangulation) ensures the other

https://methods-sagepub-com.proxy1.ncu.edu/base/download/bookchapter/handbook-of-qualitative-business-management-research-methods-v1/i3035.xml

https://methods-sagepub-com.proxy1.ncu.edu/base/download/bookchapter/handbook-of-qualitative-business-management-research-methods-v1/i3035.xml

https://methods-sagepub-com.proxy1.ncu.edu/base/download/bookchapter/handbook-of-qualitative-business-management-research-methods-v1/i3035.xml

https://methods-sagepub-com.proxy1.ncu.edu/base/download/bookchapter/handbook-of-qualitative-business-management-research-methods-v1/i3035.xml

https://methods-sagepub-com.proxy1.ncu.edu/base/download/bookchapter/handbook-of-qualitative-business-management-research-methods-v1/i3035.xml

https://methods-sagepub-com.proxy1.ncu.edu/base/download/bookchapter/handbook-of-qualitative-business-management-research-methods-v1/i3035.xml

27

(data saturation).”

During data collection, students should consider

if and when they have reached saturation. Stu-

dents should aim for data saturation in their data

generation. Furthermore, they should state in their

dissertation how they know that they did, in fact,

reach saturation. It is not sufficient to simply claim

saturation was reached. Instead, students need to

articulate and defend how they reached it.

References and suggested reading:
Fusch, P.I., & Ness, L.R. (2015). Are we there
yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. The
qualitative report 2015 20(9), 1408-1416.

Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S.,
Waterfield, J., Bartlam, B., … Jinks, C. (2017).
Saturation in qualitative research: Exploring
its conceptualization and operationalization.
Quality and quantity, 52(4), 1893–1907.

Weller, S.C., Vickers, B., Bernard, H.R.,
Blackburn, A.M., Borgatti, S., Gravlee, C.C.,
& Johnson, J.C. (2018). Open-ended interview
questions and saturation. Plos one, 13(6), 1-18.

Triangulation
Triangulation refers to multiple approaches to

collecting data, with the goal of enhancing the

credibility – and ultimately the trustworthiness – of

a qualitative study. Triangulation leads to a more

comprehensive and rigorous understanding of the

phenomenon under study (Salkind, 2010), and is

a required part of case study research at NCU.

Furthermore, triangulation relates directly to data

saturation (see “Data Saturation” in this guide for

further discussion on this topic).

Dixon, Singleton, and Straits (2016: 329) state

that triangulation “refers to the use of two or more

dissimilar methods to address the same research

question,” where “the strengths of one method

offset the weaknesses of the other.”According

to Denzin (1978), there are four main types of
triangulation: a) data source triangulation, b)
method triangulation, c) theory triangulation, and
d) investigator triangulation. The first two types
are the most common in NCU doctoral research
studies that employ a qualitative method. Theo-
ry triangulation is used less frequently, whereas
investigator triangulation is never used (because
doctoral candidates must complete their own
dissertation research, without the assistance of
others). Data source triangulation means that the

28

student is collecting data from different categories

of people, documents, or sources. For example, a

student may interview both leaders and followers

in an organizational case study, in addition to

analyzing relevant company records about lead-

ership development programs. Method triangula-

tion involves “the use of multiple methods of data

collection about the same phenomenon” (Cope,

2014: 545) (See “Mixed-Methods Research” in

this guide). Theory triangulation means that the

student is analyzing and interpreting data from

the perspective of multiple theories. For example,

a student may explore a research question about

employee motivation by analyzing data from

interviews through the different lenses of Expec-

tancy Theory, Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory, and

the Theory of Attribution.

It is possible for students to combine data source,

method and theory triangulation strategies. Stu-

dents should explain which types of triangulation

methods are used, justify the rationale, and ad-

dress the expected quality enhancements to the

overall credibility of study results.

References and suggested reading:
Cope, D.G. (2013). The use of triangulation
in qualitative research. Oncology nursing
research, 41(5), 545-547.

Denzin, N.K. (1978). The research act:
A theoretical introduction to sociological
methods. New York, NY: Praeger.

Dixon, J.C., Singleton, Jr., R.A. & Straits, B.C.
(2016) The process of social research. New
York: Oxford University Press.

Salkind, N.J. (2010). Triangulation. In
Encyclopedia of research design (pp. 1538-
1540). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,
Ltd.

Vasileiou, K., Barnett, J., Thorpe, S., & Young,
T. (2018). Characterising and justifying sample
size sufficiency in interview-based studies:
Systematic analysis of qualitative health
research over a 15-year period. BMC medical
research methodology, 18.

Yin, R. K. (2012). Case study methods. In APA
handbook of research methods in psychology,
Vol 2: Research designs: Quantitative,
qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological
(pp. 141–155). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.

Trustworthiness
The focus of qualitative research is to develop rich

and complex explorations of phenomena based

on a relatively small number of participants, rath-

er than obtaining large, statistically representative

samples. This focus has led qualitative researchers

to substitute the traditional quantitative quality

measures of validity and reliability, in favor of

the trustworthiness quality criterion. Trustworthi-

ness, in a qualitative research study, indicates the

degree to which “the inquiry’s findings are worth

paying attention to” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985:

290).

In practical terms, this means students who use

a qualitative research method should describe

how they will address the following four aspects

http://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pzh&AN=2011-23864-009&site=eds-live

http://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pzh&AN=2011-23864-009&site=eds-live

http://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pzh&AN=2011-23864-009&site=eds-live

http://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pzh&AN=2011-23864-009&site=eds-live

29

of the trustworthiness quality criterion: credibility,

transferability, dependability, and confirmability.

Credibility of findings indicate the “confidence in

the truth of findings” (Cohen & Crabtree, 2006,

para 1). To enhance the credibility of findings, a

study may involve member checking, triangulating

collected data through use of various sources,

considering negative evidence, and integrat-

ing existing research into the analysis of study

findings to reach conclusions. Transferability of

findings indicates the degree to which findings

“have applicability in other contexts” (Cohen &

Crabtree, 2006, para 1). Dependability refers to

the degree to which research findings “are consis-

tent and could be repeated” (Cohen & Crabtree,

2006, para 1). Confirmability is a “degree of

neutrality, or the extent to which the findings of

a study are shaped by the respondents and not

researcher bias, motivation, or interest” (Cohen &

Crabtree, 2006, para 1).

Dependability and confirmability are often deter-

mined through a formal external research audit,

which may not be feasible or necessary for NCU

dissertation students. Instead, dependability can

be enhanced by consistent application of proper

qualitative data analysis techniques and through

the researcher’s awareness of personal bias.

Confirmability can be enhanced through careful

records management of all collected data; and by

maintaining a research journal to: a) document

coding rules and decisions made during data

collection and analysis; b) allow the researcher to

reflect on the research process and his or her role

during data collection and analysis; and c) articu-

late any observations and insights that may affect

the outcome of the study (Lamb, 2013).

References and suggested reading:
Cohen, D., & Crabtree, B. (2006). Lincoln
and Guba’s evaluative criteria. Robert Wood
Johnson Foundation, ‘Qualitative Research
Guidelines Project’. Retrieved from: http://
www.qualres.org/HomeLinc-3684.html

Lamb, D. (2013). Research in the first person:

http://www.qualres.org/HomeLinc-3684.html

http://www.qualres.org/HomeLinc-3684.html

30

Reflection on the research experience using a
research journal. Market & social research,
21(2), 32-29.

Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic
inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Member Checking
One of the data validation techniques qualitative

researchers can use to help eliminate bias from

their data collection and analysis is “member

checking.” According to Creswell and Miller

(2000), member checking is the most crucial step

for ensuring credibility in a study, and consists of

taking data and interpretations back to partici-

pants. Member checking can take place in multi-

ple formats. Researchers can ask participants to

review an interview transcript to ensure that the

transcript includes what the participant said (Birt,

Scott, & Cavers, 2016). It could include the re-

searcher interpreting the responses received from

the participant and then allowing the participant

to review those interpretations to ensure that the

researcher interpreted the participant’s responses

correctly (Birt, Scott, & Cavers, 2016). In the case

of a focus group, it could mean interpreting and

synthesizing the responses of the collective group

and then asking the members of the group to re-

view those interpretations to ensure the researcher

interpreted the collective responses correctly (Birt,

Scott, & Cavers, 2016).

It is important to allow the respondents to have the
ability to check researcher interpretations of their
responses to ensure that the researcher has not
interjected his or her own opinions, experiences,
or biases into their responses in a way that will
skew the results of the study. Validation of quali-
tative research is extremely important, as it helps
to eliminate a potential weakness of qualitative
research. Students should build in time in their
research plan to ensure member checking takes
place.

References and suggested reading:
Birt, L., Scott, S., & Cavers, D. (2016). Member
checking: A tool to enhance trustworthiness or
merely a nod to validation? Qualitative health
research 26, 1802-1811.

Creswell, J.W., & Miller, D.L. (2000).
Determining validity in qualitative inquiry.
Theory into practice, 39(3), 124–130.

Coding and thematic analysis
Coding is a critical part of analyzing qualitative
data, including thematic analysis. Coding is not
rocket science, but it seems to confound the qual-
itative researcher. Coding data is the disassem-
bling or deciphering step used to determine what
the data means (Castleberry & Nolen, 2018).
Saldaña explained coding as a “word or short
phrase” that represents or captures the essence of
a small section of narrative or visual data (Sal-
daña, as cited in Rogers, 2018: 4).

There are two common starting points for gener-

31

ating codes for data analysis: starting with the

framework or beginning with the data itself. Con-

sider that every research problem is framed by a

theory or a set of concepts; this is an established

research norm. This theoretical or conceptual

framework can be the starting point for gener-

ating codes for data analysis (Gläser & Laudel,

2013). The researcher who deeply understands

the framework can develop a list, or nodal map,

of elements of the theory or concepts. The next

step would be to search the data for these ele-

ments to make annotations. Pierre and Jackson

(2014) used an earlier researcher’s terminology,

‘thinking in theory,’ to describe the results of cod-

ing. Applying codes based on the framework is

how the researcher disassembles the raw data.

Alternatively, the researcher can develop codes

from the data itself, and reverse engineer the data

into a logical interpretation of the phenomenon

under study. Essentially, the researcher uses a heu-

ristic approach to determine what the data means

(Rogers, 2018). Regardless of the approach cho-

sen by the researcher, the goal is to deconstruct

the data in preparation for the next phase of data

analysis.

Caulfield (2019) identifies coding as step #2

(after becoming familiar with the data) of the pro-

cess of thematic analysis. He states that coding

is creating short labels for parts of the text in the

data (e.g. interview transcripts) that describe what

it is about. All data is coded, adding new labels

(codes) during the process (Caulfield, 2019). Af-

ter coding is completed, the third step in the the-

matic analysis process is identifying patterns and

themes among the codes. The Caulfield (2019)

resource (see below) can be viewed for an exam-

ple of how to do this. Themes are then reviewed

and further analyzed, including identifying final

themes and what they mean (Caulfield, 2019).

Regardless of whether the process of coding

is aided by a software program (e.g. NVivo),

coding is done by the researcher (the software

does not do the coding). NVivo is now available

at no cost to NCU students through the Student

Technology Resource Center. You can access the

software through the University Services module

in NCUOne. One way of coding data, if done

in Microsoft Word, is to color code text, making

all text about the same code (or topic) the same

32

color. This text can then be later analyzed, using

further colors and codes, as necessary.

References and suggested reading:
Castleberry, A., & Nolen, A. (2018). Thematic
analysis of qualitative research data: Is it
as easy as it sounds? Currents in pharmacy
teaching and learning, 10, 807-815.

Caulfield,J. (2019). How to do thematic
analysis. Available at: https://www.scribbr.
com/methodology/thematic-analysis/.

Evers, J.C. (2016). Elaborating on thick
analysis: About thoroughness and creativity in
qualitative analysis. Forum: Qualitative social
research, 17(1).

Gläser, J., & Laudel, G. (2013). Life with and
without coding: Two methods for early-stage
data analysis in qualitative research aiming at
causal explanations. Forum: Qualitative social
research, 14(2).

Maguire, M., & Delahunt, B. (2017). Doing
a thematic analysis: A Practical, step-by-step
guide for learning and teaching scholars. All
Ireland journal of higher education, 9(3).
https://ojs.aishe.org/index.php/aishe-j/article/
download/335/553

Rogers, R. (2018). Coding and writing analytic
memos on qualitative data: A review of Johnny
Saldaña’s the coding manual for qualitative
researchers. Qualitative report, 23, 889-892.

St. Pierre, E.A., & Jackson, A.Y. (2014).
Qualitative data analysis after coding.
Qualitative inquiry, 20, 715-719.

Yin, R.K. (2015). Qualitative research from
start to finish. New York, NY: Guilford
Publications.

Including Data in the Findings (Chapter 4)
of the Dissertation
In order to substantiate the claims made in disser-

tations, it is important for students to include data

they have collected within their Findings chapter.

Verbatim quotes from interviews, or content from

documents analyzed, help to substantiate summa-

ries and general conclusions students make from

the data. Including data generously throughout

Chapter 4 of a dissertation helps students better

defend their claims and justify their arguments.

Including sufficient data within the dissertation is

also necessary to demonstrate that the data was

actually collected by the student, and that the stu-

dent is knowledgeable about how to adequately

integrate data into their writing. It also can make

reading a dissertation more enjoyable and en-

gaging, and helps ensure the reader that summa-

ries and the analysis of the data are congruent

with the actual data.

Quotes should not only be used to highlight

unusual or extreme issues (though these can be

included). Instead, they should be selected on the

basis of their appropriateness to the findings, and

https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/thematic-analysis/

https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/thematic-analysis/

https://ojs.aishe.org/index.php/aishe-j/article/download/335/553

https://ojs.aishe.org/index.php/aishe-j/article/download/335/553

https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ncent-ebooks/detail.action?docID=2008479

https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ncent-ebooks/detail.action?docID=2008479

33

how they represent major themes of the over-

all study. While specific numbers of how many

quotes to use are not provided here, Chapter 4

(and also, in some cases, Chapter 5) should be

rich with the inclusion of this data, providing evi-

dence for the claims made in the dissertation.

References and suggested reading:
Corden, A., & Sainsbury, R. (2006). Using
verbatim quotations in reporting qualitative
social research: Researchers’ views. York, UK:
University of York.

Yin, R.K. (2015). Qualitative research from
start to finish. New York, NY: Guilford
Publications.

https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ncent-ebooks/detail.action?docID=2008479

https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ncent-ebooks/detail.action?docID=2008479

www.ncu.edu

https://www.ncu.edu/