There is some critique that I'm trying to find answers to and need your input in it.
Mostly, in order to develop a theory I have seen the usage of Grounded Theory Approach of Strauss, Corbin & Charmaz. Likewise, earlier there were others such as Eisenhardt, Cresswel who talk about developing theories from Case Studies. I have also read a coding manual developed by Saldana. I have noticed something similar in all three types of analysis' methods. "The construction is done through categorizing the data by using one order i.e. a three tier method of coding" for instance Raw Data, Preliminary Codes, Final Code, compare that with Identifying Themes, Reviewing Themes, Naming Themes similarly in GT Initial Coding, Axial Coding, Theoretical Coding. (Whether done using CAQDAS, Atlasti or QSR Invivo)
The criticism is even worst* when we combine one or more multiple methods of analysis within cases e.g. using FGDs & Interviews as data collection for a case and grounded theory approach, thematic analysis, discourse analysis etc. as data analysis techniques?
*[Where it is OK for them to use descriptive and inferential or non parametric techniques all together in one study not to mention data normalization & transformation tests that are used first to re-fine [ or re-define] the data] :)
How to counter such types of arguments by post-positivists and quantitative researchers? Is there a way out? I am stuck. I know there are philosophical differences but I need your opinions as well.
Thanks a lot!
There is no one way of doing anything in theory development. Simply develop another theory based on other premises.
First of all, appreciations to you for having reached this level of depth in qualitative enquiry as a whole. I believe one of the viable entry to this debate will be to acknowledge the fact that epistemological differences always runs us into the trouble of comparison as regards to which is better and which is not. But, the fact of the matter is the relationship between the researcher and how he finds the truth varies depending upon the factors and objectives. One who is interested to see the pattern and overall truth will look at the quantitative enquiry and one who is much interested in the outliers will go for qualitative enquiry. Theories can be built in many ways as rightly pointed by you, but at the end we seek to justify how our way is better or improved than others (depending on the context). The premise being there is nothing like absolute truth and hence it is the way how the researcher builds the theory that matters more, rather than the theory itself.
I consider myself a beginner in qualitative enquiry and hence, excuse me if the response is found unsuitable.
Hello Pir
Schools in qualitative research are many. It is very important to understand the type of work you are doing to give you a better recommendation. However, I would say that if you are going to carry out a research, you should not only contrast the main qualitative trends but also decide on one or a mixture of some of them to apply in your study. Critical reading is the first step, but you also you need to operationalize these concepts in your studies.
Regards.
- Badges
- Science topic