It is certainly possible to use a more "deductive" approach in qualitative research, where you begin with pre-existing research questions. What your advisor is advocating is more appropriate for exploratory research, where little is known about a phenomenon.

One source that addresses this issue at the point of analysis is Braun & Clarke's Thematic Analysis (see attached).

Having said that, I would add that it often doesn't work well for a student to argue with an advisor, and bringing in outside "experts" to support your claims might well make things worse. Did your advisor explicitly challenge you find support for your position? If not, then threatening their position of authority may (sadly) not be a wise course.

It depends upon which qualitative design your study demand and which questions you want to address. I think Mixed research designs by Cresswell may help you.

Muhammad - it depends on the task. Your supervisor is probably at least partly correct. Generally, qualitative methodology is not designed for theory-testing. Grounded theory, for instance, is often designed to develop 'new theory' - rather than challenge or modify existing theory. Most other qualitative approaches i.e. phenomenology, ethnography, exploratory descriptive etc intend to expose concepts and concepts - rather than theory - although those concepts and context may well be referred to as 'theoretical' - but could, equally, be referred to as philosophical. Some qualitative narrative forms can be seen to modify existing 'theory' - but it depends on how you define a theoretical framework. For instance, a concept or discourse analysis performed several years after a previous one may well reveal a 'modified' social discourse, or phenomenon, or 'theory'. The attached chapter might assist further. 

Well said 

"Having said that, I would add that it often doesn't work well for a student to argue with an advisor, and bringing in outside "experts" to support your claims might well make things worse. Did your advisor explicitly challenge you find support for your position? If not, then threatening their position of authority may (sadly) not be a wise course"

Can a qualitative research be designed to challenge or modify a theory? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_a_qualitative_research_be_designed_to_challenge_or_modify_a_theory [accessed Dec 16, 2015].

I agree with the cautions about student-supervisor relationships. Having said that, my answer to your question is an unqualified yes. One rather interesting paradox in qualitative research is that qualitative methods have enormous potential for contributing to (challenging, changing) theory, while the qualitative approaches (paradigms, methodologies) are very much focused on description or (at best) on constructing new theory. This is mainly due to qualitative researchers' opposition to the idea of  'explanation' as promoted by quantitative researchers. Instead of saving the idea by advancing their own understanding of explanation, they tend to insist on doing something completely different. Sad story.

Some more general sources on using theory with qualitative methods include:

Maxwell, Joseph A. (2004). "Causal Explanation, Qualitative Research, and Scientific Inquiry in Education." Educational Researcher 33(2): 3-11.

Miles, Matthew B., A. Michael Huberman and Johnny Saldaña (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis -  A Methods Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks u.a.: SAGE Publications.

Bottom line, you don't get to have an opinion until your thesis is signed.

You and your advisor are debating the merits of Theory-testing versus Theory-Building. Both are fully accepted in qualitative research. Here are two quotes. The articles provide further explanation.

"one generally finds the distinction between case studies that test hypotheses and that build hypotheses via exploratory process tracing"

Ingo Rohlfing (2012) Case Studies and Causal Inference: An Integrative Framework, p. 5  http://books.google.com/books?id=7T7R2BCebtEC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

"Theory-testing process-tracing deduces a theory from the existing literature and then tests whether evidence shows that each part of a hypothesized causal mechanism is present in a given case, enabling within-case inferences about whether the mechanism functioned as expected in the case and whether the mechanism as a whole was present."

"Theory-building process-tracing seeks to build a generalizable theoretical explanation from empirical evidence, inferring that a more general causal mechanism exists from the facts of a particular case."

Derek Beach, Rasmus Brun Pedersen (2013) Process-Tracing Methods: Foundations and Guidelines, p.3  http://books.google.com/books?id=5iulb1MInPcC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Dear Muhammad,

I presume you have consulted the following article : QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH METHODS by Nigel Fielding & Margrit Schreier , FQS , Volume 2, No. 1, Art. 4 – February 2001 and the relative references.

For your convenience, I wish to reproduce what I wrote some time ago on RG about that subject and the related argument of ‘Mixed Methodology’:

“The quantitative versus qualitative debate has taken place within our RG research team and significant steps towards a reconciliation of initial differences is taking place. As a means of introduction of the following considerations, I recall to have noticed quite a synthetic but effective message on our task of research designers:

As a starting observation I’d like to point out that the point at which the data analysis begins and ends depends on the type of data collected, which in turn depends on the sample size, which in turn depends on the research design, which in turn depends on the purpose.

Nevertheless, far more insidious discrimination remains. Systematic review methodology exhibits all the characteristics of "institutionalised quantitativism" in that criteria for a "good" review are almost entirely determined by the quantitative methods promoted. Nobody who understands qualitative research would insist that its primary studies demonstrate alien concepts such as "sample size" or "statistical power". Yet comparably fundamental incongruities persist with regard to qualitative syntheses. Why should systematic reviewers of qualitative research pursue a "gold standard" comprehensive literature search when concepts such as "data saturation" have an established pedigree? Why shouldn't they apply systematic, explicit and reproducible principles of thematic or concept analysis to create syntheses that advance our understanding of qualitative issues and highlight research gaps?

Due significance should be given to the methodological options at our disposal reckoned to be more appropriate in the different circumstances dependent on the nature of the study. Accordingly, we should make choices of methods that are both philosophically defensible and, at the same time, practicable and responsive. For instance, taking the case of researchers becoming aware that the purposes of their study often involve both quantitative and qualitative aspects, it follows that it will be more appropriate to explore the opportunity of developing mixed method research designs that may be better associated with their investigation purposes.

Then, following the ideal thread of earlier observations, I choose to concentrate on the ‘mixed methods’ methodological approach employed as a research configuration in social sciences at large especially in cases of integration or connections of quantitative and qualitative data.

On the first approach I observe that an increasing development of mixed methods research is commonly accepted as a distinctive feature of contemporary research designs to profit from the inclusion of both quantitative and qualitative sources of information, mostly when generalization of results and feedback evaluations are the purposes pursued. In fact, as it has been remarked, the insertion of qualitative data can help researchers to enlighten relationships emerging from quantitative data. Similarly, the inclusion of quantitative data can help in compensating for the fact that qualitative data normally cannot be generalized.

According to the prevailing literature on mixed research design [1], combining quantitative and qualitative analyses has been advocated when the process presents evident complementary strengths as in what Denzin (1978)[2] dubbed triangulation of different data source, i.e. the process of testing the consistency of findings obtained through different instruments for the study of the same occurrence. Specifically, the combination of the two approaches seems useful when:”

results from qualitative interviews can help to identify unobserved heterogeneity in quantitative data as well previously unknown explaining variables and misspecified models;.

results from the qualitative part of mixed methods design can help to understand previously incomprehensible statistical findings;

qualitative research can help to discover quality problems of quantitative measurement instruments;

and quantitative research can be used to examine the scope of results from a qualitative study and support the transfer of such findings to other domains” (Kelle,2005).

For its characteristics, mixed method research has been labeled: the third major research paradigm and gained the legitimacy of being a stand-alone research design. However, besides its strengths, controversial issues still hinder its potential and some of the details remain to be worked out by research methodologists (e.g., problems of paradigm mixing, how to qualitatively analyze quantitative data, how to interpret conflicting results). Then, a word of caution seems appropriate to be addressed to researchers (and better to research teams) who plan to design inclusive, complementary methods that are capable to embrace diverse perspectives, data and values within and across studies”.     

 Good work and best regards, Gianrocco

References:

Denzin, N. K., “Triangulation”. In N. K. Denzin (ed.), The research act: An introduction to sociological  methods, 1978, McGraw-Hill, New York

U. Kelle, Mixed Methods as a Means to Overcome Methodological Limitations of Qualitative and Quantitative Research, Workshop on mixed-methods held on October 26-27th 2005 at the University of Manchester.

for instance, A. Tashakkori, C Teddlie. Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, 1998, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, Calif..; Creswell J., “Mixed-method research: introduction and application. in: Cizek GJ, ed. Handbook of Educational Policy. San Diego, Calif: Academic Press; 1999, 455-472; Tashakkori A, Teddlie C, eds. Handbook on Mixed Methods in the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, Calif., 2003.

[2] Denzin, N. K., “Triangulation”. In N. K. Denzin (ed.), The research act: An introduction to sociological  methods, 1978, McGraw-Hill, New York:

Ultimately, it can be argued that all knowledge is theory and that the ultimate goal of science is the development of better theories. Research is driven by the uncertainty surrounding currently accepted theories. Qualitative design contributes knowledge across the entire research spectrum: for example, it sometimes leads to new quantitative research, yet at the other extreme it may help make sense of statistical associations derived from quantitative analyses. Accordingly, both quantitative and qualitative research designs have the potential to challenge or modify a theory.

References

Crease RP. The great equations - the hunt for cosmic beauty in numbers. WW Norton and Company. 2008. (See chapter 10 on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle).

Robinson DL. In pursuit of knowledge. Int J Psychophysiology 2006; 62: 394-410.

Muhammad:  Your paragraph leaves a number of things unclear. However, let us assume you have some in-depth qualitative data gathered from open-ended interviewing questions and perhaps some observation.  Based on my experience, there are quite likely some things in the material that match prior theories and fieldwork, and some others that have not been noted previously, or actually contradict prior work.  Your mentor wants to focus on the former and you want to focus on the latter. You chose your graduate school.  You chose a mentor.  After this, a thesis or dissertation is a joint project.  This is good practice for a person who may later work with coauthors.  Is there really a problem focusing on what your mentor is interested in for your thesis?  Later, you could send out a paper with the other issues that interest you for review for publication.  In reply to your question, yes field research can find  differences between "what is" and "what should be."  As many people have advised you, it is best not to fight with your mentor.  I believe you can do both. Good luck with your project, Bruce

Dear Muhammad, first of all it should be clear to you that as long as you are working with your current adviser, you must listen to his suggestions and DO NOT challenge his authority. It does not work that way, whether right or wrong.

As far as qualitative research goes, it is primarily used to study an existing phenomenon, whether known or unknown, or, in the case of grounded theory, to propose a new theory. Challenging a theory or proving an existing theory wrong just with a single qualitative study is unheard of. If you are adamant to challenge a theory, qualitative study can only be the starting point which should be followed up with larger studies, mix methods, development of instruments, replication so on. Obviously, it is beyond the scope of your master thesis.

I will advice you to complete you masters with whatever your adviser wants. Keep your thoughts intact and keep reading literature on the theory you want to challenge. You will be in a better position, later, to challenge the theory and see it through. Best of luck.

Muhammad, be assured that after you graduate, people will still advise you to do as you are told. Resistance to new thinking is very common. So if you want to do your own thinking in this world, you will need to learn to sell yourself and your ideas. 

Your adviser is especially resistant, so you need a way to sell your approach that he will accept. Here's a thought: Identify other qualitative researchers in your department who have taken your approach, at least to some degree, and talk with them to learn why. Search the references of your adviser's publications for other researchers who have also done that. Look especially for examples that your adviser may accept, because of the way it is done or who is doing it. Then, when you are ready, have a conversation with your adviser about the approach that so-and-so takes in this paper, and might that also be worth considering for your project?  

Muhammad, my suggestion is to accept the settings of your advisor and place the gaps cited as a suggestion for future studies.

I wish you success in your master.

Dear Mohammad, I agree with the advice given to you and finish your studies and then do what you want....

But keep in mind, many people mostly those educated in the developed world look at qualitive resarch down as compared to quantatitive reseach as they think you can not validate qualitative research or validation is weak, but it is possible if structured somehow outside the box, I have done it matching practice, theory, and perceptions..

However, we should not focus on ways of invalidating theories, especially dominant theories, Karl Popper showed us that it is better to refute them eithe by observation or/and experimient rather than focus our attention to invalidation, and there are qualitative comparative ways of doing that.....Perhaps you have that information and that is why you feel like going on your own and not follow your supervisor's view.... But if you want to complete with the support of all advisors this is not the time to fight.....As an example that theories can be refuted the traditional market has just been refuted(1987/2012)based on extreme social and environmental observations...the experiment behind the tratiional market theory has gone wrong.

Wish you good luck Mohhamad