MTO-E: Methoden van Kwalitatief Onderzoek
Unit 1. Foundations (Ontology, epistemology and paradigms)
As strange as it may sound, before we can start doing research, we need to adopt a
particular belief. First, we need to believe that something exists. Second, we need to
believe that we can acquire knowledge about wat we believe exists. In other words, our
ontological and epistemological beliefs decide if and how we can practice science.
Ontology: assumptions about the nature of reality
Ontological beliefs influence both the kind of topics you want to research and the
way you want to do research. Ontological beliefs influence epistemological beliefs,
i.e. beliefs about how we can acquire knowledge.
Two major positions in social science: objectivism and constructionism.
(Ritchie & Lewis use different names: realism & idealism, BUT objectivism and
constructionism are more current.)
Ontology is concerned with the nature of reality and what there is to know
about the world. Epistemology is concerned with questions about how we know
this world. These are philosophical questions. The answer to these questions will
influence both what you want to research and how you want to research.
Ceci n’est pas une pipe (Magritte).
Objectivism/realism: It’s a pipe.
Constructionism/idealism: It’s not a pipe, it’s a painting of a pipe.
(Or a recognition, representation or construction of a pipe)
This is not a pipe. Indeed, it is a painting of something we
recognize as a pipe. Calling it a pipe without considering the
constructed nature of the image can be considered a realist or
objectivist approach. The pipe is presented as an objective
reality. Denying that this is a pipe draws attention to the
constructed nature of this pipe.
Epistemology: objectivism empiricism
Image of blindfolded researchers around an elephant.
Constructionism interpretivism: how people construct meaning from their
experiences.
Ontological positions have consequences for our epistemological position. If we
assume there is an external reality, it follows that we can study this reality by
using our senses: we can see it, hear it, smell it, touch it, taste it. The idea that we
can know reality through using our senses is called empiricism. If we believe that
reality is constructed, we have to adopt a different way of gaining knowledge
about this constructed reality. For example, we have to acknowledge that people
construct realities in different ways and we have to find out how people construct
meaning.
Ontology + epistemology = paradigm
Particular combinations of ontological and epistemological beliefs are called
paradigms.
, Historically, the first paradigm is referred to as positivism. Positivism adopts an
objectivist ontological position and a realist epistemology. In other words:
positivists assume that there is an external reality and that we can know this
reality by using our senses. This was quite revolutionary at that time. This
position has been nuanced later, as scientists became convinced that reality
can never be fully known. This nuanced version of positivism is called post-
positivism. However, post-positivism still adopts a rather objectivist approach
to scientific inquiry.
From the seventies onwards, different paradigms started to develop. The
interpretivist paradigm posits that it is important to find out how people
understand and interpret the world around them. After all, if men define
situation as real, they are real in their consequences.
Constructionist paradigms, of which there are many, go even a step further. If
people construct the reality in which they live, so do researchers. It is therefore
important for social researchers to reflect continuously on their own role.
Another insight brought by constructionist approaches is the recognition of the
importance of language. After all, it is through language that people construct
meaning. This insight is referred to as the linguistic turn.
Furthermore, acknowledging the role of researchers themselves is constructing
realities has given rise to (participatory) action research. Realizing that they
are part of the construction, researchers came to feel responsibility for the
outcomes of their research. This has led researchers to adopt research
approaches that question existing realities, as in critical theory, or that would
result in concrete benefits for the people involved, such as in action research.
Paradigms and the qualitative/quantitative divide
Quantitative Qualitative
Principle orientation to the Deductive; testing theory Inductive; generation of
role of theory to research theory
Epistemological orientation Natural science model - in Interpretivism
particular positivism
Ontological orientation Objectivism Constructivism
The ontological and epistemological assumptions of the different paradigms conflate
with preferences for qualitative or quantitative approaches.
,Unit 2. Quality criteria and sampling
1. Quality of Research (according to different paradigms)
One’s paradigm influences one’s beliefs of what good research is.
the adoption of a particular paradigm brings with it also the adoption of particular
quality criteria
‘good research’ – quality criteria implied in positivism:
Findings are an accurate reflection of reality – validity (various types)
Another researcher will be able to conduct the same research – replicability
When another researcher will conduct the research, the results will be the same –
reliability
Preference for numbers – quantitative research
in positivism, it is assumed that there is an objective reality that we can know more or
less unproblematically by adopting an empirical approach. This means that we can
produce accurate knowledge about the reality that surrounds us. It also means that
others should be able to produce the same research outcomes. The three major quality
criteria are therefore validity, reliability and replicability. Quality can be proven by
providing statistical evidence about confidence intervals etcetera.
“Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts
can be counted.”
– Albert Einstein
For the social sciences, such an approach is not always satisfying, especially when
working with an interpretivist or constructionist approach. We will also want to
understand people’s experiences to interpret their stories. Such an interpretivist
approach cannot produce statistical evidence.
Criteria for good qualitative research
Adopt form quantitative approaches?
So how to judge the quality of qualitative research? In relation to quality criteria of
qualitative research, there are different ‘schools’. There are researchers who have a more
positivist orientation: they believe that there is a reality that we can know. Such
researchers may still speak about the quality of their research in terms of validity,
reliability and replicability.
Or formulate different ones? Trustworthiness
Credibility – confidence in the ‘truth’ of the findings
Transferability – showing that the findings have applicability in other contexts
Dependability – showing that the findings are consistent and could be repeated
Confirmability – 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.
Other researchers argue that these three concepts are too much associated with
quantitative research and with ontological and epistemological positions that are
too different from their own. They therefore propose to use terms like
‘trustworthiness’. The definitions of these four dimensions sound quite similar to
validity, reliability and replicability.
Or should we be more concerned about the usefulness of the outcomes instead of the
quality of the research? Action research & other traditions
Yet other researchers argue that research should not only be judged on its own
terms, but also on its social relevance. This argument has been most strongly
developed in constructionist paradigms. Some researchers even adopt this criterion
as the main criterion. Such is the case in action research. In any case, whereas for
, quantitative research it is rather easy to measure quality, for qualitative research
different techniques need to be used to establish quality. In relation to
trustworthiness, many different techniques can be found in literature.
Techniques to establish trustworthiness in qualitative research
Transferability – Thick description. By describing a phenomenon in sufficient detail
one can begin to evaluate the extent to which the conclusions drawn are transferable
to other times, settings, situations and people.
Whereas research assignments for a commissioner do not need to be relevant
for other parties, it is commonly accepted that scientific research should have
larger relevance. In order to allow readers to assess whether findings would be
applicable in other context, context information is needed. Suppose that we find
that providing people with a basic income works well in Finland. We would then like
to estimate if this could be the case in the Netherlands as well. In order to estimate
this, we need information about the Finnish context: are there similarities that
allow us to believe that is could work the same way in the Netherlands?
Dependability – Inquiry audit. External audits involve having a researcher not involved
in the research process examine both the process and product of the research study.
This is only possible if enough detail about the process is available and if data are
stored well.
Qualitative research cannot be repeated, but measures can be taken to show
consistency and give trust that other researchers would have reached similar
outcomes. Registration of all steps in the process of data collection, storage of data
and making analytical steps explicit will allow others to assess the outcomes.
Confirmability – Confirmability audit. External audits involve having a researcher not
involved in the research process examine both the process and product of the
research study (in order to assess if results are influenced by the researcher). Audit
trail. Transparent description of the research steps taken from the start of a research
project to the development and reporting of findings. Triangulation. Rather than
seeing triangulation as a method for validation or verification, qualitative researchers
generally use this technique to ensure that an account is rich, robust, comprehensive
and well-developed. Reflexivity. Attitude of attending systematically to the context of
knowledge construction, especially to the effect of the researcher, at every step of the
research process.
Even when qualitative researchers believe that research can never be fully
objective, they can take measures that make the findings convincing. They can ask
for the opinion of other researchers, who are outsiders to the research. Also
triangulation may be helpful here. A very important concept is reflexivity: the
attitude of systematically paying attention to the role of the researcher at every
step of the research process. Readers can see that efforts were made to avoid bias.
2. Quality and Sampling
Generalizability
We have come across the concept of transferability, which may be taken to equal
external validity or generalizability. Generalizability is of special concern for researchers.
If research outcomes would not be generalizable in one way or another, we would end up
with endless, idiosyncratic descriptions of particular cases. Such an understanding of one
particular case may be beneficial for that particular case, but it does not serve a larger
purpose. When it comes to scientific research, researchers want their outcomes to be
relevant beyond the case. In other words, they want their outcomes to be generalizable in
one way or another. In scientific research, there are basically three ways in which
research outcomes can have a more general application. Proper sampling procedures are
of key importance.
