Jensen Quote

I think it is interesting when I see how influenced we are by scientific method and how the language of this approach to understanding our world has forced us to only see the world through this particular lens.  I see this happening here in trying to understand objectivity/subjectivity in research.  Objectivity in quantitative research is tied to a controlled research context, and yes, there is the premise here that the researcher wants to distance him/herself from the participants/objects of the study. But it goes further than that, in that objectivity must be linked with reliability and validity in the research design.  The main way that we can achieve reliability is if the research design can be repeated (reliability) and if it measures what it was designed to measure (validity).  Through this, we achieve rigor. Reliability and validity are not premises or assumptions of qualitative research and so objectivity has a different meaning.  We achieve rigor in qualitative research through trustworthiness.  This means that because the researcher has followed the specific processes linked with the chosen methodology, the audience can have a high degree of confidence that the interpretative process is an accurate and plausible view of reality linked with the topic.  Since it is all based on an interpretive process, subjectivity is inherently part of the process, because the researcher and the participants work together to interpret the data in an effort to illuminate that part of reality they are seeking to uncover.  The objective element is the researcher stepping back to get a more global view of the research context and the data to make sure that the interpretive process/data analysis is trustworthy.  Meaning that the audience sees the research design and the interpretation of the data as believable.  So objectivity is not about distancing oneself from the research context and that which is being studied.  Objectivity in qualitative research is distancing oneself from the data analysis and interpretive process so that you can make sure you have done things correctly as it pertains to the epistemological and ontological premises of your study.

What is a Theory?

Quote from Dr. Jensen's doctoral student:

What is theory?

For the purposes of this study, I am electing to employ a definition of theory derived from a source outside the domain of grounded theory as well as definitions from the original authors of grounded theory. First, a definition of theory from outside the domain of grounded theory: Timasheff, (1967) described theory in the following manner:

A theory is a set of propositions complying, ideally, with the following conditions: one, the propositions must be couched in terms of exactly defined concepts; two, they must be consistent with one another; three, they must be such that from them the existing generalizations could be deductively verified; four, they must be fruitful-show the way to further observations and generalizations increasing the scope of knowledge (p. 10).

In considering Timasheff’s definition, the integrated theory presented in this chapter consists of categories and their properties that are often described in the language used by the participants. Using participants’ language assists the definitions to be consistent with one another. Deductive verification is possible and I seek to offer verification through an examination of existing literature. Additionally, the integrated theory offers a new way to examine the development of the sense of self as leader – especially amongst Vice Presidents Academic in colleges and technical institutes.

Timasheff (1967) also indicated that theory requires creative thinking when he stated:

theory cannot be derived from observations and generalizations merely by means of rigorous induction. The construction of a theory is a creative achievement, and therefore it is not surprising that few among those laboring in the field of a science are able to carry it out. There is always a jump beyond the evidence, a hunch, corresponding to the creative effort. But every theory thus obtained then must be subjected to verification. It is considered verified, in a preliminary way, if no known fact or generalization seems to contradict it. If there is a contradiction, the tentative theory must be rejected or at least modified. (p. 10)

The next definition of theory presented here and offered by Glaser and Strauss (1967) is as follows:

Theory in sociology is a strategy for handling data in research, providing modes of conceptualization for describing and explaining. The theory should provide clear enough categories and hypotheses so that crucial ones can be verified in present and future research; they must be clear enough to be readily operationalized in quantitative studies when these are appropriate. The theory must be readily understandable to sociologists of any viewpoint, to students and to significant laymen. (p. 3)

While the integrated theory is based on inductive analysis of the data arising from interviews, the integration of the categories into the theory required considerable thought and reflection. The categories presented are clear and potentially verifiable. Additionally, the theory is understandable to laymen and professionals alike.

Conducting research using grounded theory as a method requires different procedures than what are normally employed in other traditional qualitative research studies. Chapter 5 in a doctoral dissertation normally does not introduce new literature into the discussion. However, a grounded theory requires that the researcher establish a close connection between the data which gives rise to the theory and to existing literature. Glaser (1978) stated:

but when he starts working his draft he should make a concerted effort to cover as much literature as possible in the same area in which he is writing his theory. Now the job is to compare his work to others and weave it into its place in the pertinent theoretical and substantial literature. It also sensitizes the analyst to rework his theory to the best advantage, as he studies how others are theorizing in the field (p. 139).

For this reason, the presentation of Chapter 5 breaks with traditional doctoral dissertations. In Chapter 4, I presented the emergence of the concepts of the categories and, in Chapter 5, I present a complete integration of the concepts into the theory and weave in the relevant literature. This integration includes an introduction of new literature that could not have been predicted as being relevant to the emerging theory. This literature assists to further integrate the ideas arising in the theory.

Module 6 - Feb. 14-Feb. 27 - Continuation of last module

Qualitative Methods
Reflective worksheet 4 due - discussion forum instead

This is what I have been grappling with:

Phenomenology and the intentionality of consciousness.  I posted a question on the discussion forum - perhaps it will help to clarify. Below is the question that I posted:

I’ve been trying to develop an understanding of the “intentionality of consciousness” (IC) as it relates to phenomenology. Creswell’s (2007) definition states, “being conscious of objects always is intentional. Thus, when perceiving a tree, ‘my intentional experience is a combination of the outward appearance of the tree and the tree as contained in my consciousness based on memory, image, and meaning’ (citing Moustakas)” (p. 236).  In addition, Creswell describes IC as an idea “that consciousness is always directed toward an object. Reality of an object, then, is inextricably related to one’s consciousness of it” (p. 59) and, I’m wondering, by extension one’s unique perception of it?  

Does this relate to the distinction between real things (noumena) and our perceptions of them (phenomena), with the focus in phenomenology being the perceived thing (Willis, 2007)? Would the postpositivist stance on this be that reality exists outside of our perceptions? Willis explains, “the key focus of phenomenological research in its pure form is consciousness” (p. 172). I’m also wondering how this relates to other qualitative methodologies – would consciousness not also be a factor, given the subjective nature of reality in qualitative research?


Good discussion here.  One of the main ideas behind the interpretive process is that reality is internally located, as such, reality is found in the perceptions of the participants.  When we get to this point, we begin to understand that participants are active participants in their world and have intentionality about how they both understand and come to know their world.  We are not just acted upon by external realities but we can act upon those realities as well.  This is why Descartes said, I think therefore I am.  This is an expression of conscious intentionality.

Dr. J

Another thing I am trying to work out is the differentiation between all of the paradigms, methods, ideologies, world views, approaches ... in particular, the relationship between phenomenology and interpretivism.

Creswell (2007) notes that in his discussion of the 5 approaches, "we will see the constructivist [interpretivist] worldview manifest in phenomenological studies" (p. 21).  Okay, sounds good - implying that phenomenology embraces a constructivist/interpretivist world view and would therefore be considered a methodology utilizing a particular worldview.  Creswell also presents Phenomenology as one of the 5 approaches in his book.

However, Willis states, "In the case of hermeneutics, it shares a great deal with phenomenology and interpretivism" (p. 302) - a statement which seems to place phenomenology and interpretivism on a parallel level.

Willis also states, "Another supporting theory for interpretive qualitative research is phenomenology and a related movement, existentialism" (p. 107).  So in this case, phenomenology is thought of as a theory?

Still trying to work this one out.

Also, I found the following from the book referenced below:

“There are two main research philosophies: positivism and phenomenology.  Positivism promotes a more objective interpretation of reality, using hard data from surveys and experiements, while phenomenology (or interpretivism) is concerned with methods “  (pp. 69-70).

Altinay, L., & Paraskevas, A. (2008).  Planning Research in Hospitality and Tourism, 2008, Hungary: Elsevier. 

And Dr. Jensen's words:

So we must remember that qualitative research operates under a unique set of epistemological and ontological assumptions.  As such, it requires a different set of procedures of how we come to know.  The result is that if we use quantitative understandings and apply it to qualitative research, we would say that flexibility or emergent design lacks rigor because we need a controlled environment and an objective context.  What we need to understand is that because of the epistemologies and ontologies of qualitative research, we actually need flexibility and emergent design to remain consistent with a subjective reality.  This means that flexibility and emergent design are necessary structures for qualitative research.  This is why we have to be careful to not apply quantitative logic to qualitative research.


Notes from Dr. Jensen's postings:

Yes, you kind of right Ana.  The other consideration that we must make is that the creative process is based upon a sound understanding of the practices linked to the qualitative epistemologies we work under. A solid understanding of these qualitative realities, then allows the researcher to make conscious and informed decisions about the research design and how and it ways creativity will be implemented.  It is not just creativity for creativity sake.  It is creativity based upon specific practices that give meaning and purpose to the work.  It is creativity that is driven by a theoretical lens that gives the researcher direction.

Dr. J

Kevin,

I remember a student equating the difference in structure as being the difference between paint by numbers painting - quant research and creative painting - qualitative research.  But we can push this metaphor even deeper when looking at the issue of structure or what appears to be lack of structure in qualitative research.  In that must also remember that there is structure to just painting as well.  There is technique and art theory behind just painting.  The painting becomes more skilled and articulate as we learn about and apply those various painting strategies - however flexible and emergent they may be - to the art project.  This is exactly what is happening with qualitative research. Although it is fluid and emergent, there is theory and technique behind the whole process.

Dr. J

Dr. J I really love that analogy.  If I am correct in understanding, it clarifies a lot me.  So, what I am reading is that advanced creative painting (qualitative research) requires basic strategies, processes and technique that can be applied as we create a work of art, but our art develops as we paint, and we have an idea of what we want, but we don't know exactly the form it will take, how the painting will look, etc.

Nei

Yes, that is partially correct.  For example in grounded theory research, we really don't know what will be revealed at the end.  The theory emerges from the study process.  In research using case study for example, the lit review, our knowledge of the theory on the topic, and other experiential factors give the researcher a pretty good expectation of what will emerge, but we are always ready to see and discover new things that we might not have expected.  So in some research, we really don't know what will emerge, in other research projects, it is still creative, but we have a pretty good idea what will emerge.

Dr. J

 In doing so, this gives qualitative rigor because we can talk to people about not just "how" we did the research, but also about "why" we made the decisions we did through the research process.

You are partially right but you need to be careful how you speak of structure.  Structure is about proceeding with the research in a way that is consistent with the epistemological and ontological assumptions of that research. The structure in qualitative research gives concepts to the researcher on how to be flexible and how to be emergent.  It is not just a free for all.  This is structure because the epistemologies and ontologies of each methodology will tell the researcher the degree to which a study should be emergent or flexible and how it should be incorporated into the study consistent with the necessary data collection methods and data analysis processes.

Dr. J

Module 5 - Feb 7- Feb. 13 - Qualitative Methods

Chapter 7 - Willis; Chapter 4 - Creswell
Reflective worksheet 3 due
Reflective activity:

What I would like you to do for this week is to look through some research journals and begin to look at studies that have been published and look for what methods they used.  See if you can find at least one example of the various methods that were covered in our readings this week.  See which ones are more common than others.  Which types of methods are more prevalent?   This is just a scanning exercise and it could be just reading the abstract for example.  If you find a few articles that use a method you are interested in, pay a little more attention to that article and look for how the authors described things in the study.  You can pick any journal and it would be good if those journals are in your area of professional expertise.

My Thoughts on the Readings

The idea of family resemblances in QR makes sense to me - there do seem to be so many varied methodologies that each have their own distinct features that fitting them under one umbrella was challenging - family resemblances accounts for the variations.  The key features of QR remain constant, however, that is, the underlying assumptions/worldviews - reality is internally located and multiple, knowledge is socially constructed.  I used to think that researchers were people who had special interests in particular topics, however I am reconsidering this and am beginning to think that researchers are skilled 'problem solvers' (for lack of a better descriptor, but I'll think about it ... artists? practitioners?) who have varied interests.  The key to the 'artistry' is in applying the philosophical lens and particular method to a context or problem situation.  

I've been trying to reconcile the 5 methods outlined by Creswell with the many methods outlined by Willis and am still trying to figure out why they don't cover the same methods - Creswell's 5 include: 

1. Narrative Research
2. Phenomenology
3. Grounded Theory
4. Ethnography
5. Case Study

On the other hand, in his chapter on methods, Willis describes:

1. Ethnography
2. Case Study
3. Interview Research (does this encompass Narrative research and Phenomenology?) - which I thought was a data gathering technique as opposed to a specific research method
4. Historiography (is this a form of Case Study?)
5. Participatory Qualitative Research (does this include Narrative Research and perhaps Phenomenology?
6. Emancipatory Research 

How do these methods relate?  How do they, or do they overlap?  This is something that I am still trying to work out. 

I found Creswell's chapter to be more understandable - the organization was straight forward and the methods were clearly described.  I found the charts on pages 78-80 to be particularly useful in comparing the 5 methods and it served to draw clear distinctions between them. 

And what about structure?  Yes, I admit, I did equate 'structure' with the more rigid design of QnR and tried to apply that to QR.  I understand now that QR has its own structure, which influences the design of studies - sometimes fluid and flexible, or emergent, or even at times more structured.  The fact that the design process differs from QnR does not make the process any less structured.  The structure of QR comes from its foundational ontological and epistomological beliefs - reality is internally located and multiple, knowledge is socially constructed, and the subjective nature of research. 

Module 4 - Jan. 31-Feb. 6 - Designing a Qualitative Study

Chapter 6 - Willis; Chapter 3 Creswell
Reflective worksheet 2 due Feb 6

Willis, Chapter 6 - General Guidelines for Qualitative Research (pp. 185-227)
This chapter further defines QR in terms of 'family resemblances' which makes sense as there are so many different methods that could fall under the QR family.  As Willis notes, "there are no features common to all the members" in the family (p. 186). I am coming to understand that QR is indeed 'blurred at its edges' - and the 'game' example fits very nicely as an analogy. Wittgenstein suggests that you 'cannot use language to precisely define something' (p. 187).  Resemblances, however, may not be enough to establish a family connection - further complications!! I like Kuhn's idea of extending family resemblances to include both resemblances and nonresemblences - coming to know what something is is informed by knowing what something isn't.

The guidelines for QR presented by Willis include the following points:

1. Situated or contextual understanding, not truth, is the purpose of research
• which is accomplished by "immersing ourselves in the context we want to understand and by bringing to bear on our efforts all our past experiences and knowledge" (p. 189)
• quoting Bilimoria: "prejudices are made transparent for what they are, and their limitations are thereby undermined"
• interpretivists view knowledge as understanding ratehr than the ability to control - which is the PP goal - to predict and control
• distinction between researcher and participant is blurred in QR
• sometimes contextual understanding is called hermeneutic understanding idiographic understanding, or verstehen
• interpretivists may present theories or generalizations, as will PP, yet the purpose of a PP theory is to explain a phenomenon in a general or universal way. An Int's purpose would be to offer a perspective that helps the reader understand particular phenomenon studied (p. 190) - in this case the theory developed may or may not be applicable to other settings - it is up to the reader to decide how much attention s/b paid to the theory in other settings
• situated understanding not lawlike generalization is the outcome of Int research (IR)
• Critical Researchers (CR), on the other hand, fall btwn IR and PP - they expect to find ocal instances of universals such as oppression of the powerless by the powerful (p. 190)
• nomothetic study - looks at particulars in order to build general rules or laws about human behavior
• ideographic suty - is an effort "not to confirm and expand these general experiences in order to attain knowledge of a law ... but to understand how this man, this people, or this state is what it has become" (p. 191) 
2. Accept multiple sources of influence
• QR highlights the commitment to study and thought rather than an emphasis on a particular topic or research paradigm (p. 192)
• QR cuts across almost all the disciplines in the field and borrows from almost everywhere, including the arts and humanities, which provide ways of knowing that go beyond the scientific method
3. Expect multiple perspectives and seek them
• underlying epistemology emphasizes the need for multiple perspectives
• social reality is constructed through interaction, development of shared meaning and communication - therefore individual experience is not only relevant but crucial to the fabric of social reality in which people develop relationships with one another. 
• contrary to P, IR is an "inside-out" approach to social science - that is, the reality is dynamic and responsive to the fluctuations of human interaction, perception and creation of meaning (citing McQueen, 2002, p. 193)
• physical sciences generally adopt a physical realist position - that there is something external to the individual that determines what she or he believes is real -
• Critical theorists adopt a position that includes components of both physical realism and cultural realism
• IR generally take a nondeterministic view of things and adopt instead the view that each person can determine his or her own behavior - free will, voluntary control
• also, beliefs of groups of people arise from individuals interacting in groups - this difference - determinism vs. a form of free will is at the heart of many differences between PP, CT and IR.
• CT and IR feel that multiple perspectives often lead to a better understanding of the situation (p. 193)
• the idea of multiple perspectives derives from the basic belief that external reality is not knowable in any direct and sure way
• therefore different people and different groups have different perceptions of the world
• IR "are not searching for an objective, external answer to their questions, because they view the world through a series of individuals' eyes" (p. 194)
• IR do not see themselves separate from the process of research
4. Take a foundational rather than technique perspective
• change is encouraged because QR assume you will change as you come to know and udnerstand the research context better
• in all likelihood the point at which you are most ignorant about your research setting is before you start the study -- therefore that is a very bad time to set methods, topics, and hypotheses in stone
• general guidelines are more appropriate than specific technical requirements because each research situation is unique (p. 198)
• Bogdan & Biklen - "Plans evolve as [researchers] learn about the setting, subjects, and other sources of data through direct examination" p. 199
5. Practice recursive (iterative) and emergent data collection and analysis
• desirability of recursion or iteration in research
• QR, especially IR, views research as a nonlinear, recursive (iterative) process in which data collection, data analysis, and interpretation occur throughout the study and influence each other
• working with the data as you collect it gives you the opportunity to develop "emerging insights, hunches, and tentative hypotheses" (p. 202) which "direct the next phase of data collection, which in turn leads to the refinement or reformulation of questions and so on"
• the process of making meaning is emergent
• understandigns emerge from your exploration of the environment and the data collected - they are constructed in the context of the study
• grounded theory supports an emergent approach - which is nonlinear process - the theory you are testing and the questions you ask may change across the study
6. Use multiple sources of data
• because data collection techniques and participants selected influence the meaning and understanding developed by the research, multiple sources of data are often used
• different participants have different views so QR often presents more than one perspective
7. Think of research as a reflective process: The researcher is the primary tool for data collection and analysis
• QR is recursive and fuzzy
• methods from technique to purpose, can eolve across the research process
• evolution of the study is in the hands of the researcher - and data analysis almost always depends on the researcher - dependency on the researcher leads to a major principle of qualitative research:  reflection
• opposite approach to reflection is technical rationality - which is an epistemology of practice derived from positivist philosophy, built into the foundations of the odern research university
• reflective model of research - assumes that most important problems in the social sciences cannot be stated as well-formed issues and solved with preformed solutions
• reflection in action, reflection on action: Schon - thinking reflectively about what we have done, and are doing, leads to reformulations of the problem as well as to experimentation
• reflection represents an effort to reduce the reliance on pure data in research and to increase the use of reason
8. Emphasize Participatory Research p. 206
9. Adopt an open approach p. 209
• which acknowledges that the very act of coming into an environment is itself an event that is likely to change the situation and thus the data obtained - there is no way to get a tru impression in any absolute sense
10. Deal with bias directly
• QR rejects the very idea that you can be objective and neutral in research
• IR - recognize your biases and values to the best of your ability and acknowledge them; personal data is accepted and valued
11. Select natural contexts for research
• all our knowledge is tentative and subjective - that is why QR is done in natural or authentic settings
12. Research s/b holistic, not atomistic
• QR tends to look at the subject matter holistically and within the larger context in which it resides
13. Research involves more than induction and deduction: Anaolgical reasoning, abduction, and family resemblances
• QR tends to accept and encourage both induction and deduction
• case study - depends on analogical reasoning - which is a much looser, less precise approach to inference than either inductive or deductie logic - involes an acceptance of the idea that we are looking not for certainties but for understanding or partial similarities
• it's like abductive reasoning - which involves tentative acceptance of explanations

Alternatives to PP criteria for believability:  Validity and reliability

• when looking for  V and R you are looking for universals, so the concepts don't really match a QR paradigm - in QR triangulation is the equivalent of  V and R - finding multiple sources of confirmation when you draw a conclusion
• "the rationale for this type of strategy [methodological triangulation] is that the flaws of one method are often the strengths of another, and by combining methods, obserers can achiee the best of each, while oercoming their unique deficiencies" (citing Denzin, p. 219)
• method. triangulation involves confirmation across three different data collection methods, such as interviews, observations, and life histories
• triangulation is best used in QR that follows the PP search for generalizations - for laws and truth
• but if the goal of your research is understanding?? Bogdan and Biken advise against using the term
• because IR/theory emphasizes that reality is socially constructed, and thus there are multiple perspectives on reality, there is not necessarily a need to try to eliminate all but one true reality from your conclusions p. 220

Alternatives to Triangulation

• still need to conduct research in such a way that consumers have some confidence in what you say
• there are a number of ways to do that:
• member checks
• participatory research
• extended experience in the environment
• peer review
• researcher journaling
• audit trails p. 221

Conclusions? Aren't they generalizations?

• conclusions in a PP study generally involve generalizations that can be used by others
• what is generalized is abstracted out of the local context in which it was discovered
• abstraction is then communicated by the researcher to other scholars and practitioners
• local context is less important than the abstraction
• in IR the opposite is true - meaning resides in the context and it cannot be removed from it
• conclusions from an IR study become part of the background, the context, in which a professional makes decisions - they may be helpful, but the environment differs - it is up to the professional to decide on the fly in the context of practice, and research is only one sources of understanding about how to make those decisions

Creswell, Chapter 3 - Designing a Qualitative Study

Creswell clearly outlines elements that are common to qualitative research (QR) studies, although he explains there is no  agreed upon structure. Creswell begins the chapter by providing a definition of qualitative research:

"QR begins with assumptions, a worldview, the possible use of a theroretical lens, and the study of research problems inquiring into the meaning individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human problem.  To study this problem, QRs use an emerging qualitative approach to inquiry, the collection of data in a natural setting sensitive to the people and places under study, and data analysis that is inductive and establishes patterns or themes.  The final written report or presentation includes the voices of participants, the reflexivity of the researcher, and a complext description and interpretation of the problem, and it extends the literature or signals a call for action" (p. 37).

Common characteristics of QR:

• Natural setting as opposed to a lab
• Researcher as key instrument in data collection - collecting, examining, observing, interviewing
• Multiple sources of data - rather than a single data source
• Inductive data analysis - bottom-up, build patterns, and themes, or categories, organize data into increasingly more abstract units of information
• participants' meanings - focus on learning the meaning that the participants hold about the issue or problem
• emergent design - the process may change or shift after entering the field; key idea is to learn about the problem or issue from the perspective of partiipants
• theoretical lens - often QRs use a theoretical lens to view their studies - e.g. concept of culture, or gender, or race, or social, political or hisotrical contexts
• interpretive inquiry - researchers make interpretations of what they see, hear and understand.  "The researchers' intepretations cannot be separated from their own background, history, context, and prior understandings; readiers, participants, and researchers all make interpretation which leads to multiple views of the problem
• holistic account - QRs try to develop a comlex picture of the problem or issue

When to use QR:

• when a problem or issue needs to be explored
• when we need to study a group or population,identify variable that can then be measured, or hear silenced voices
• because we need a complesx detailed udnerstanding of the issue
• when we want to empower individuals to share their stories and minimze power relationships that often exist between researcher and participants
• when we want to write in a literary, flexible style
• when we want to understand the contexts or settings in which participants in a study address a problem or issue - cannot separate what people say from the context in which they say it
• when we want to follow up quantitative research and help explain the mechanisms or linkages in causal theories or models
• to develop theories when partial or inadequate theories exist for certian populations and existing theories do not adequately capture the complexity of the problem we are examining
• because quantitative measures and the statistical analyses simply do not fit the problem

QR requries extensive time in the field and time consuming data analysis. 

The Process of Designing a QR Study

• no agreed upon structure
• generally falls within the process of scientific research with common phases:  start with an issue or problem, examine the literature in some way related to the problem, pose questions, gather data and then analyze them, and write up reports
• methodological congruence - purposes, questions, and methods of research are all interconnected and interrelated so that the study appears a sa cohesive whole rather than as fragmented, isolated parts
• process of planning begins with the broad assumptions central to qualitative inquiry, a worldview consistent with it, and in many cases, a theoretical lens that shapes the study
• starts with a topic or substantive area of investigation
• problems span topics in the social and human sciences, ahllmark of QR today is the deep involvement in sissues of gender, culture, and marginalized groups
• ask open-ended research questions, listen to participants and shaping questions after exploration
• refrain from assuming the role of the expert researcher
• questions change during the process - emergent process - that reflects an increased understanding of the problem
• 4 basic types of info:  interviews, observations, documents, and audio visual materials
• backbone of QR is extensive data collection
• multiple sources of information
• examine and analyze data trying to make sense
• examine data inductively from particulars to more gneral perspectives
• work through multiple levels of abstraction
• many forms of analysis - metaphors matrices and tables, usign visuals, reconfiguring
• data is (re)presented partly based on participants' perspectives and partly based on our own interpretations, never clearly escaping our own personal stamp on a study
• tell a story that unfolds over time
• talk about experiences in conducting the study
• let voices of participants speak and carry the story through dialogue
• sensitive to ethical issues
• giving back to participants for their time and efforts - reciprocity
• how will partipants gain from the study?
• sensitivity to the potential of research to disturb the site and potentially exploit the vulnerable populations we study
• honor who owns the account
• respect them individually
• nondiscriminatory language
• did we get it right?
• engage in validation sstrategies which include confirming or triangulating data from several sources, having studies reviewed and corrected by participannts, and having other researhcer review our procedures (p. 45)

Characteristics of Good QR:

1. Rigorous data collection - multiple forms, adequately summarized, adequate time in the field, unusual forms of data collection
2. frames the study within the assumptiosn and characteristics of the qualitative approach to research - evolving design, presentation of multiple realities, researcher as an intsturment, focus on participants' views
3. researcher uses an approach to qualititative inquiry such as one of the 5 - using a recognized approach enhances the rigor and sophisiticaiton of the research design; researcher identifies and efines the approach and cites studies that employ it and follows the procdures outlined in the approach
4. researcher begins with a single focus - focused on understanding a single topic or idea
5. study includes detailed methods, a rigorous approach to data collection, data analysis, and report writing.  Rigor is seen when extensive data collection in the field occurs, when researcher conducts multiple laevels of data analysis.  Researher validates the accuracy of the account using validation - such as member checking, triangulating sources of data, or using peer or external auditors of the accounts
6. researcher analyzes data using multiple levels of abstraction - moves from particulars to general levels; presents themes thta explore the shadow side or unusual angles (e.g. camera not on)
7. writes persuasively
8. study reflects hisory, culture and personal experiences of the researcher; individuals position themselves withing the qualitative study
9. ethical - researcher is aware of and addressing in the study all of the ethical issues

Module 3 - January 24-January 30 - how do we come to know?

Willis, Chapter 4 - History and Foundations of Interpretivist Research:

Although Interpretivist research closely resembles Critical Theory, there are a number of major differences between the two paradigms (Willis, 2007).  When compared to Postpositivism, there are also a number of differences to be noted. 

Unlike postpositivism (scientific method), interpretivism believes in a socially constructed reality - a reality that can be external, yet not an "independently knowable reality" (p. 96). The purpose of research in an interpretivist paradigm is to reflect understanding, whereas in postpositivism it is to find universals.  Both subjective and objective research methods are acceptable in IR (interpretivist research), and understandings are contextual and universals are deemphasized.  Interpretivists assert that "all research is influenced and shaped by preexisting theories and world views of the researchers" (p. 96). Research and practice are integrated and "both guide and become the other" (p. 95).  Research is a socially constructed activity and therefore the "reality" it tells us about is also socially constructed.  "Making meaning is a group or social process" (p. 97).

Purpose of research:  PP looks for universals, CT looks for local instances of universals, IR looks for understanding of a particular context (Willis, p. 98).  Interpretests "believe an understanding of the context in which any form of research is conducted is critical to the interpretation of the data gathered" (p. 98).

• concerned with the 'situatedness' of knowledge - thus the goal of IR is "an understanding of a particular situation or context much more than the discovery of universal laws or rules" (p. 99).

Three movements that support understanding as the purpose for doing research:

verstehen (pp. 100-103)

• German word for 'understanding'
• expresses the idea that understanding the particulars of a situation is an honorable purpose
• goal is to explain and find lawlike rules or generalizations that can be used well beyond the situation studied
• Dilthey - distinguished between 2 types of knowledge = verstehen (understanding) and erklarung (explanation), as well as two types of sciences - natural sciences, and cultural (human, moral, or social) sciences
• Differs from goal of positivist research which is finding lawlike generalizations is fine for the natural sciences but is not a suitable goal for the cultural sciences - makes sense
• goal of research in natural sciences - explanation; goal of research in cultural sciences - understanding; legitimate topic of study - lived experience
• Emic and Etic:  2 contrasting ways of approaching the study of cultures; emic - looks at things through the eyes of members of the culture being studied - what is valid or true is what the members agree upon.  Etic view - uses structures or criteria developed outside the culture as a framework for studying the culture - what is true may be judged through comparison of the cultural practices to an external standard or structure. 
• terms etic and emic should be seen as adjectives modifying the implicit noun 'knowledge'

hermeneutics (pp. 104-107)

• understanding human action in context
• According to Smith (1989) variations of hermeneutics all include 2 common characteristics:  an emphasis on the importance of language in understanding.  Language makes possible what we can say, and it limits what we can say; An emphasis on the context, particularly the historical context, as a frame for understanding.  You cannot understand human behavior and ideas in isolation; they must be understood in context (p. 104)
• Smith - there are at least 3 current versions of hermeneutics - validation, critical, or philosophical
• validation - based on PP and assumes that hermeneutics can be a scientific way of finding the truth
• critical - aims to make transparent and obvious the historical conditions that have led to oppression
• crtical hermeneutics criticizes validation - because it fails to properly account for the possiblity of historically formed ideological distortion and false consciousness
• point of C. hermeneutics is to foster practical engagement or emancipation in light of historical truth
• philosophical hermeneutics - based on interpretivist epistemology - aims at developing understanding - rejects any form of foundationalism - this is, a sure way of finding the truth (p. 104)

Foundationalism:

• build research on a foundation of "primary or basic truths of science that were self-evidently true"
• first principles (Aristotle) can be understood by thinking about them - which is a form of rationalism, however empiricists can also be foundationalists - as in, "if you take the position that the only way to obtain valid knowledge about the external world is through experience, that is a foundational assumption that canot be proved, thus empiricists are also foundationalists" (p. 105)
• antifoundationalist - there is non dependable foundation on which you can build a philosophy of science (e.g. Popper, Rorty)
• hermeneutic cycle - the process by which we return to a text, or to the world, and derive a new interpretation -- perhaps a new interpretation every time, or a new one for every interpreter.

phenomenology (and existentialism) (pp. 107-109)

• supporting theory for interpretive qualitative research and a related movement, existentialism
• phenomenology is the study of people's perception of the world - as opposed to trying to learn what "really is" in the world
• focus is on understanding from the perspective of the person or persons being studied
• Heidegger, Jean-Paul Sartre
• there are no universals that humans can know without doubt (p. 108)
• form part of the basis for jsutifying social science research that attempts to understand the local context rather than find universals or laws of human behavior

Acceptable Interpretivist Methods and Data

• interpretivists are antifoundationalists:  they believe "there is no particular right or correct path to knowledge, no special method that automatically leads to intellectual progress" (p. 109, citing Smith)
• standards used by IRs - understand that they are subjective, and therefore potentially fallible, rather than objective and universal (p. 109, bottom)
• accept almost all the types of quantitative methods that positivists use, but they differ in how they interpret the results of quantitative research, which is one of many potential sources of understanding
• interpretivists also use a broad range of qualitative methods
• also accept reflective discussions of professional practice - thoughtful reflections of experieced practitioners are a prized source of knowledge and understanding for interpretivists
• PP - generally consider practitioner reflections and personal stories to be unacceptable as research - they lack objectivity and are not scientific

Meaning of Data (pp. 111-117)

• knowledge can never be objective because of our inescapable historicity
• we are always situated in a particular "horizon" of understanding that is based on a combination of cultural and personal presuppositions (prejudices) (p. 112)
• hermeneutics sees the pursuit of truth as essential to human exixtence, but suggests we can never have certainty we have found truth
• research adds to our understanding of different contexts and situations
• interpretivist's understanding is of multiple perspectives on the topic
• common misconception of Interpretivism is that "every opinion and theory is treated equally because there is no way to make objective decisions about what is right" (p. 114 - wording slightly changed)

Relationship of Research to Practice (pp. 117-122)

• in the constructionist [i.e. interpretivist] view, our perceptions, appreciations, and beliefs are rooted in worlds of our own making that we come to accept as reality" (p. 119, citing Schon)
• tacit vs. explicit knowledge - Polanyi
• Aristotle - phronesis = knowledge situated in a context and is dependent on that context (p. 120)
• results of a qualitative study is undersstanding in context rather than rules or laws (p. 121)

Implications of an Interpretivist Approach (pp. 122-131)

• does not specify a certain type of research method
• views all research as subjective, yet this does not mean that every viewpoint is just as good as any other (pp. 122)
• conclusions from any program of research could be wrong and we should all be aware of and open to findings from other perspectives and traditions
• implications - formulated as 'family resemblances', rather than 'absolute truths'
• research can be used outside the context in which it was conducted - users decide what seems applicable and what does not in a new context
• messy, in-context research becomes much more valuable, and well-controlled research conducted out of context is devalued (p. 125)
• awareness and understanding of alternative traditions would become a virtue

What Sorts of Research are Worthwhile? (pp. 131-132)

• Iran-Nejad et al. (1990) think of learning theories as having two basic thrusts:  1 type assumes that the best way to learn anything is based on the "assumption of simplification by isolation" (generally associated with behavioral and information processing theories) - complex skills are broken down into their components (reading - sounds, letters, words, etc.) - assumption is that component skills are easier to learn when they are separated from other skills with which they are ordinarily integrated
• Iran-Nejad et al. argue that "simplification by integration" is a more promising approach to designing learning environments
• based on the assumption that "the more meaningful, the more deeply or elaboratively processed, the more situated in context, and the more rooted in cultural, background, metacognitive, and personal knowledge an event is, the more readily it is understood, laerned, and remembered" p. 132
• Research as a form of learning - if we base our research on the simplification by integration principle, then interpretive research has much to recommend it

Examples of Interpretivist Research (pp. 132-140)

• great diversity in studies
• methods may be structured, semi-structured, or very open
• studies are emergent - meaning of the data is not apparent until it emerges from the process of data collection and analysis (p. 139)
• interpretivism cuts across a number of disciplines and areas of application

Do the differences between paradigms mean that producers and consumers of research should make a clear, informed choice and work within one paradigm?

• Some authors take this position, whereas others do not
• You may use methods from a paradigm without adopting the core beliefs of that paradigm
• ecunemical - relating to, involving, or promoting the unity of Christian churches around the world; involving friendship between religions, or in this case perhaps 'friendship between paradigms'
• PP - proponents often rely on other types of data
• using a method from another paradigm may involve reinterpreting the meaning of the results, but borrowing methods from a different paradigm is already common
•  Rorty's democratic pragmatism - do research within your own paradigm but remain open to methods and results from other paradigms; make an effort to understand what others are saying and be willing to change yoru paradigm, or even give it up for another, if proponents of opposing views can convince you they have merit (p. 140)

	Critical Theory	Interpretivism	Postpositivism
Nature of Reality	Material and external to the human mind	Socially constructed	External to human mind
Purpose of Research	Uncover local instances of universal power relationships and empower the oppressed	Reflect understanding	Find universals
Acceptable Methods and Data	Subjective inquiry based on ideology and values; both quantitative and qualitative data are acceptable	Subjective and objective research methods are acceptable	Scientific method
Meaning of Data	Interpreted through ideology; used to enlighten and emancipate	Understanding is contextual; universals are deemphasized	Falsification; use to test theory
Relationship of Research to Practice	Integrated activities; research guided practice	Integrated activities; both guide and become the other	Separate activities; research guides practice

Chapter 5 - Willis - Frameworks for Qualitative Research:

•  in QR there are an unbelievable number of research methods
• the situation in QR constrasts somewhat with the postpositivist paradigm ... okay, wait a minute, I thought that they said PP was QR??? Now I'm getting confused! 
• Okay, let's see ... PP research involves 6 basic steps (p. 148):
1. find an idea you want to researchdevelop or select a theory about the area you want to research
2. develop or select a theory about the area you want to research
3. develop specific, testable hypotheses ... should be empirically testable (hypothetical-deductive model)
4. design a scientific study to objectively gather quantitative data - wait, aren't these more quantitative research?
5. analyze the data and interpret results using guidelines of the scientific method - use PP concept of falsification (positive results don't prove your theory, but add evidence to support it; negative results disprove your theory)
• point of view in a research study can be very different - e.g. fifth floor, second floor, each describing the third floor - is it above or below?? (p. 149) Phillips
• Phillips proposes that we move "not to the rigor mortis of relativism but to the rigor that is needed in competent inquiry"
• "finding truth, not understanding, is the goal of social science research"
• Popper - pp. 149-150 - "any fool can always find some eidence to support a faored theory"
• Phillips - p. 150 - "what serves as more genuine support is that no evidence can be found to disprove the account that is being given; it is up to the person giving the interpretation to convince the rest of us that such negative evidence has been sought vigorously" 
• 6.  Report your work in an objective manner -  p. 150

"It is not a method or technique that determines whether something is qualitative research; it is how the study is conceived, what is to be accomplished, and how the data are to be understood" pp. 150-151

Chapter then describes 8 'moments' in QR history - ending with today's 'Triple Crisis' p. 154

Denzin and Lincoln argue that the social sciences are in the middle of three crises today:  of representation, legitimation, and praxis.

Representation - about the inability of QRs to present in their written reports the lived experiences of those they study.  Instead, "such experience ... is created in the social text written by the researcher"

Legitimation - is about warrant:  what warrants our attention and why?  "How are qualtitative studies to be evaluated in the contemporary, poststructural moment"?
  QR does not have one way of establishing warrant, it has many, and they are sometimes contractory ... has not yet arrived at a consensus on how to decide what warrants our attention and what does not

Praxis - is it possible to effect change in the world if society is only and always a text?  p. 154

The Fifth or Postmodern Moment

• from idea of research paper reflecting reality to idea of research paper as narrative and storytelling
• abandonment of researcher as an aloof, privileged person who can decide what is true; cooperation and collaboration - that blurs the line btwn researcher and researched; operates in teh real world; includes both critiques of what is and efforts to change was is through "more action, participatory and actiist-oriented research"

The Sixth or Postexperimental Inquiry Moment (1995-2000)

• encouragement of new ways of communicating QR

Seventh or Methodologically contested moment - Q journals were publishing

8th moment - 2005-?
research tended to be narrowly defined as quantitative and experimental in the positivist experimental tradition

General Frameworks for QR
A framework is a set of broad concepts that guide research.  Researchers working within interpretivist and critical paradigms have a number of frameworks from which to choose. 

Analytic Realism (Compatible with both critical and interpretivist paradigms)

• Altheide and Johnson
• what criteria we should use to evaluate interpretive QR
• several approaches for deciding what warrants our attention - such as PP, Critical theory, and constructivism (interpretivism)
• A & J propose an alternate based on analytic realism with a general method called reflexive ethnography
• founded on the view that the social world is an interpreted world .... Analytic realism rejects the dichotomy of realism/idealism, and other conceptual dualisms, as being incompatible with teh nature of lived experiences, and its interpretation" p. 158

Denzin and Lincoln's Interpretive perspective - p. 160

• asserts that postpositivism is being rejected and that the emphasis on objective research is untenable
• collection and interpretation of Q data on humans are inherently subjective
• warrant - the values we use to make that decision are ideological, political, moral, and personal.  What is considered good research varies from paradigm to paradigm and perspective to perspective. 
• p. 161 QR reports usually represent the multiple perspectives that are inherent in most human endeavors; they provide detailed explications of the context
• core of common beliefs that will cut across the paradigms and provide a framework for thinkiing about QR:
• humanistic commitment of the QR to study the world always from the perspective of the interacting individual
• belief that a politics of liberation must always begin with the perspecties, desires and dreams of those individuals and groups who have been oppressed by the larger ideological, economic, and political forces of a society or a historical moment

From the Module 3 Worksheet Guide:

Chapters 4 and 5 in the Willis textbook push us to further consider some of the elements linked to the foundational concepts of qualitative inquiry.  As we make determinations of how to conduct research we must be able to answer core epistemological and ontological questions about how we view reality.  The challenge for us as researchers is to take these broad ideas like the nature of reality and then apply it to our given and specific research context.  So some of the ideas we are challenged to consider in these two chapters are:

1)      Positivism – goal of research is to find lawlike generalizations that can be used well beyond the situation being studied; empirical/scientific process; objective researcher; goal of research – explanation (are we including pp with positivism?  I think so)

2)      Interpretivism

3)      Under these two paradigms the researcher must come to understand these core elements as it pertains to your study:

a.       What is the nature of reality? – Ontology  - P – external, I – socially constructed

b.      What is the purpose of the research? – P & PP – universals; IR -  understandings of particular contexts

c.       What are acceptable methods and data? IR – uses Objective and subjective, whereas P relies on empirical/scientific method

d.      What is the meaning of data? IR – understanding is contextual; universals are deemphasized; P – Mirror to reality, use to develop theory;  PP – falsification; data is used to test theories This is the only point at which PP and P differ – the meaning of data – one uses it to test theory, one uses it to develop theory

e.      What is the relationship of research and practice? IR – integrated activities, both guide and become the other; P & PP – Separate activities, research guides practice

4)      Verstehen – German word for ‘understanding’ – expresses the idea that understanding the particulars of a situation is an honourable purpose; goal is to explain and find lawlike rules or generalizations that can be used well beyond the situation studied; Finding lawlike generalizations for the natural sciences is fine but it is not a suitable goal for the cultural sciences (social sciences).  Dilthey – legitimate topic of study was lived experience; goal of research - understanding

5)      Hermeneutics – understanding human action in context; 2 important characteristics:  an emphasis on the importance of language in understanding, and an emphasis on the context, particularly the historical context, as a frame for understanding – cannot understand human ideas and behaviour in isolation – they must be understood in context.

6)      Phenomenology – the study of people’s perceptions of the world – as opposed to trying to learn what “really is” in the world; focus is on understanding from the perspective of the person or persons being studied; Heidegger, Sartre; there are no universals humans can know without doubt; understand the local context rather than find universals or laws

7)      Moments in Qualitative Research:  The Rise of qualitative genres:

a.       The Traditional Period – Early 1900s-WWII

                                                               i.      Other cultures studied from perspective of researcher’s own culture; classic ethnographic method – go into another culture, make field notes of observations, then write conclusions – e.g. Margaret Mead – 4 main characteristics: objectivism; complicity in imperialism  - often supported them; belief in monumentalism – ethnography would create a museum like picture of the culture studied; belief in the timelessness or universal nature of findings

b.      The Modernist Period – 1940s-1970s – an attempt to put QR on the same footing as Quant. Research – to make it a quantitative, objective, and statistical approach

c.       Blurred Genres – 1970s-1986 – Geertz – argues for an approach that rejects all four of the foundations of the traditional period (objectivism, imperialism, monumentalism, and timelessness).  He proposes a social science based in “thick” descriptions and an approach that emphasizes seeking multiple perspectives, interpretive rather than positivist explanations and purposes, open-ended methods, and the situatedness of knowing (the idea that we understand only in context)

d.      Crisis of Representation – mid 1980s – social science leaders recognized that “their methods and the methods of Quantitative social science were never going to represent a singular reality.  Feminist and critical epistemologies grew in influence during this period, and the influence of traditional research methods that led us to some form of universal truth decreased; writing became a method of research- data collection is determined in part by what we write and vice versa; field work and writing blur into one another;  in the final analysis there is no difference between writing and fieldwork

e.      Current genre – A triple crisis – Representation, legitmation, and praxis

                                                              i.      5^th or Postmodern Moment – shift from idea of research paper reflecting the reality of a particular context to the idea of the research paper as narrative or storytelling; as well as abandonment of the researcher as an aloof, privileged person who can decide what is true – a movement toward an emphasis on cooperation and collaboration – blurs the line between researcher and researched, operates in the real world, and includes both critiques of what is and efforts to change what is through “more action, participatory and activist-oriented research” .  Search for ‘grand narratives’ was being replaced by more local, small-scale theories fitted to specific problems and specific situations” (p. 155)

                                                            ii.      Postexperimental inquiry moment – new publishing options and ways of communicating qualitative research

                                                          iii.      Methodologically contested moment – a number of qualitative journals began publishing; period of conflict and anxiety as the field developed institutional components such as journals and thus needed ways of achieving consensus on topics such as how to decide which articles to publish

                                                           iv.      Methodological backlash – for social science, research tended to be narrowly defined as quantitative and experimental in the positivist, experimental tradition; the qualitative research act can no longer be viewed from within a neutral, or objective, positivist perspective; class, race, gender, and ethnicity shape inquiry, making research a multicultural process

8)      Frameworks of Qualitative Research

a.       Analytic Realism – reflexive qualitative research must attend to 5 issues: contextualism, interaction (researcher, by being there changes the setting and may develop relationships with participants p. 159); perspective – whatever is presented is a perspective and not truth in a postpositivist sense; reader roles – if the purpose of a research report is not to pass on truth to readers, what is it for? Keep roles you expect readers to play in mind; style – diverse ways of presenting

b.      Denzin and Lincoln’s Interpretive Perspective – PP is being rejected and the emphasis on objective research is untenable; collection and interpretation of qualitative data on humans are inherently subjective; interpretation as an art; warrant – values we use to make decisions are ideological, political, moral and personal; what is considered good research varies from paradigm to paradigm and perspective to perspective; QR reports generally represent multiple perspectives; humanistic commitment of QR to study the world always from the perspective of the interacting individual; politics of liberation must always begin with perspectives, desires, and dreams of oppressed

c.       Eisner’s Connoisseurship Model of Inquiry – 7 premises: multiple perspectives; human knowledge is constructed; forms influence what can be said; effective use of any form requires intelligence; form influences what we as researchers see; multiple methods of research makes studies more complete and informative; forms accepted are determined in part by political as much as epistemological matters.  Once the connoisseur communicates his or her view to others, it becomes criticism – negative, positive, or mixture of both – 4 aspects – description, interpretation, evaluation, and explication of broad or general themes.  6 Features of QR:  field focused; researcher as instrument of research; is interpretive; presented in an expressive voice, with researcher clearly present in text – we display our signatures; attends to particulars; 3 criteria for appraising transactive accounts :  coherence, consensus, instrumental utility, as well as insightfulness.  These 3 (4) are essentially replacements for the PP’s concepts of validity and reliability.  You could translate the term validity into believability.

9)      Semiotics – the study of signs and their meanings for humans/ and the meanings ascribed to them; has been used as a framework to study how we derive meaning from visual images and other types of signs

10)   The Phenomenological Psychology Model – based on the assumption that the subjects of psychological research have consciousness just as the researcher does, but that the subjects of natural science research do not; focuses on this point and is in many ways the study of consciousness; Real things – noumena and our perceptions of real things – phenomena.  Real things that exist vs. Our perception of them.  Focus in phenomenology is on the perceived thing.  Perception of an external object is necessarily a partial, subjective, and incomplete one; it does not mirror reality.

11)   Poststructuralism and Postmodernism – argue that what structuralists find are not givens to be accepted as the standard or normal way things are but are instead products of a particular culture, context, and set of experiences.  Reject that what is being discovered is in any way universal or common across individuals or groups

12)   Symbolic Interactionism (I have a doctoral student using this in his study right now) – 7 assumptions:  humans act towards things on the basis of meanings that the things have for them; meanings of things arise out of the process of social interaction; meanings are modified through an interpretive process, which involves self-reflective individuals symbolically interacting with one another; humans create the worlds of experience in which they live; the meanings of these worlds come from interactions, and they are shaped by the self-reflections persons bring to their situations; such self-interaction is interwoven with social interaction and influences that social interaction – symbolic interaction (merger of self and social interaction) is the chief means by which hums are able to form social or joint acts; joint acts, their formation, dissolution, conflict and merger, constitute what Blumer calls ‘the social life of a human society’ A society consists of joint or social acts ‘which are formed and carried out by the members’.  A core of SI is subjective meaning.  Things are not as they seem.  Human interaction is not based solely on the way the external world “really “ is.  It is based, instead, on how humans interpret their world. SI – loose set of assumptions about how symbols are used to create a shared frame of meaning which in turn, is used to organize and to interpret human behaviour in loose and ever changing patterns of work, commerce, family, workship an play.  There are also 7 epistemological characteristics of symbolic interaction theory:  general theories are not useful; local understanding is important; objectivity and quantification are not desirable; imported theories form the natural sciences are not desirable; ahistorical theories are inadequate; theories that ignore individuals miss much; ask how questions not why questions. Foundations of SI are basically the same as interpretivism. Interpretivism is a broader term.

Questions:  p. 147 – What does it mean, “The situation in Qualitative Research contrasts somewhat with the postpositivist paradigm”
Whereas QR is interested in obtaining subjective interpretations of situations, QnR are interested in obtaining an objective view.  The PP paradigm is more aligned with QnR with its focus on the scientific method and objective research.  The researcher in QnR is to be separate from the research/ed - assuming an objective stance whereas in QR the researcher situates themselves within the research and brings their unique view to bear.

Going from Willis’ definition of Qualitative Research:

Is it a match for PP research?  No!