I agree with Shane that you first must become clear about what it is you want to study (the ontology) before you decide what is the appropriate method. 

Dean says IPA and Grounded Theory are miles apart, but still they share a common philosophical core. Both think that once you have the data, you will generate codes from it rather than impose a code on it. So in way both think of theory as being derived from data, although in IPA the construction of the data might be considered more important than the generation of theory. The difference is that IPA gets more involved in the production of the data. That is, it gets involved in the way the subject reflects on its lived experience before he/she reports it.  This is supposed to allow you as a researcher to, as it were, get inside the subjects head (via the subject itself, of course). But, once the data is constructed in this way, the two schools of thought are very close. The critics of IPA will argue that there is a risk that the researcher influences the subject too much, so what you get is what the researcher has in her head rather than the subject. But, how else are you going to study the finer points of how someone construes their lived experience?

On a more practical note, this means that if you want to get involved very closely with how a few individuals construe the meaning of their lived experiences, perhaps because the phenomenon you are interested in is complicated and really requires the subjects to reflect very deeply about it (perhaps because they might not have reflected upon it before), then IPA is a good choice. If you think that your subjects will already be clear on what it is you want to know and therefore can report it without much reflection or thought, then Grounded theory (or some application of it) might suit better. This is as good an explanation as to why IPA is popular in psychology, because they are deeply involved in the more complicated aspects of our inner lives.

Hi, Good evening

Your study is follows quantitative method.   So, your questionnaire having open questions.  So, you shall refer Previous journal papers and use a validated questionnaire.  Or otherwise you must test the validity of your structured questionnaire. 

All the best for you.

Kia Ora Harry,

I suggest you start at the highest level possible in the research design pathway and work your way down as you read each area. Start with ontology, move to epistemology, research paradigm, methodology, methods...for Ontology and epistemology I suggest the following book if you can get hold of it. The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and perspective in the research process Sage  2005 ISBN 9780761961062. Remember - keep your research question driven not methods driven but understand your view of ontology and epistemology and that will guide what you are most comfortable with.  Good luck

Shane

Hi Harry,

Two posts from Massey University in quick succession. Your two main methodologies are 'poles apart'. GT and phenomenology share little in common - so you really need to decide which is the best approach i.e are you needing to create theory from scratch - or are you wanting to explore the lived experience of your participants? If you choose the wrong approach for what you intend - it will really stuff up your study. GT is theoretical in its approach and phenomenology is philosophical. Of course, your supervisor/s should also be guiding you. You also talk of the 3 schools of phenomenology - when there are dozens of schools. IPA tends to lend itself to the Scandanavian school - which is one of the least established schools. 

Senthilvel's response seems to relate purely to quantitative descriptive questionnaire design - so sure that advice is not of any use to you. 

I would advise  experimental phenomenology (Albertazzi) since it allows to articulate empirical data with phenomenological analysis , but you dont say enough bout your field of research .

best mylene botbol baum

Research methods are practical logics that connect theory to data. I can't respond to your question unless I know your research question and what you're asking. What are you trying to answer? Choosing a philosophy first as you describe constrains the methods available to you.

Thanks everyone for spending time to answer my question.

@ Dr. Vasudevan: Thank you for your suggestion but I don't think that a quantitative survey approach would be appropriate for my research question. I am more interested in the depth of the experience.

@ Dr. Scahill: Kia Ora! I am a person who works well with systematic approach. Your suggestion makes a lot of sense to me and resonates with my way of thinking. This maybe the way for me to see how well the philosophy, methodology and research question matches up. Thanks for the resource as well!

@ Dr.Whitehead: Your comments are really helpful. I appreciate the polar difference of GT and IPA in that sense. Perhaps, I really need to decide on my research question and that would answer which method/philosophy would be appropriate. I am interested in the experience of children with a chronic condition and understand the experience of their self management. The problem with this is I need to decide whether I am after the "experience" or am I after discovering the "process/dynamics" of their self management. You rightly point out that these two facets of the phenomenon demands the appropriate choice of methodology. I reduced my choices in the schools in phenomenology due to the fact that I want to stay rooted to the basics/pure form, not solely for the purpose of being a purist but just because I think as a beginner, understanding and having a full appreciation of the process and philosophy is essential before I do more advance stuff that springs from the 3 traditional schools.

@ Prof. Baum: The methodology you suggest sounds exciting. I will surely check this out in my readings (more books to read!). As I mentioned in my reply to Dr. Whitehead, the aim of my study is to understand the experience/dynamics of self management among paediatric patients with a chronic condition. However, your suggestion sounds like it has a positivist element to it. Am I correct? It sounds like the method is very pragmatic and stays true to the data (which any research should). I will surely check this out.

@ Dr. Ellis: The aim is to understand the dynamics/experience (I appreciate the need to choose between the two of this) of self management among children with a chronic condition. I suppose my question is as to what extent does the philosophy affect the study? I have read various books and forum and I appreciate the polarities of interpretivist and positivist schools not to mention the other schools of phenomenology where the distinction lies on the description, interpretation or construction of meanings. What are the factors that I need to consider which best suits my research question? Is it a conscious or intuitive decision throughout the process that I delineate my research into one philosophy?

I suppose the last question is for everyone who may have the time to answer as well. However, all answes so far have been very helpful in jogging my thoughts so these are all much appreciated.

if  theresearch  is about self managemet of pateints I would advide a capability approach associated to patients narratives! best regards

MB

Can you elaborate a bit more about that Prof. Baum? I presume that it is a verbal/written account of the patient's experience? I am sorry if I am being too naive but any enlightenment would be helpful.

Although I'm not overly rigid about it, I essentially think like a quantitative social scientist. So I'm not the best person to give you advice on phenomenological or interpretive approaches. But it sounds to me like you want a deep engagement with the subjects to extract their subjective understanding. There's lots of help out there on how to approach these things.

The factors that will influence your decision will be what you attempt to actually accomplish with your research.  Phenomenology is a descriptive activity - it seeks to add depth and nuance to our thinking on social phenomena, whereas GT can take phenomenologically inspired research approaches but then seeks to generalize across a population of experiences.  There are a couple of issues you'll need to address:

First, most phenomenologists will tell you that you cannot switch back and forth between phenomenological and formal analytic research.  This is because phenomenology is inherently grounded in a different ontological and epistemological tradition that stipulates a parallel research objective.  So you're left with either Geertz' "Thick Description" with no ambition to statistical generalization, or Blumer's "Sensitizing Concepts" without ambition to grand theory.  You might consider reading Schutz's "The Stranger" and "The Homecomer" for exemplars.

Secondly, phenomenologists are  oriented towards the situated character of social action. This is where the very different perspective on the nature of philosophy in social research comes into play.  While GT stipulates you may generalize outwards from situated interactions, phenomenology takes an interest in what it is about these interactions that make them identifiably what they are.  I'd suggest reading Peter Winch's "The Idea of a Social Science: and it's relation to Philosophy" as your departure point to get your bearings on the difference between theory generation and descriptive studies.

I suspect our colleagues make a valid point by suggesting you examine your research question, inasmuch as you must consider what the possible range of answers you're hoping to accomplish might be.  Asking certain questions will limit the range of possible answers.  It will be absolutely imperative to align with a philosophy, as to do otherwise would be to engage in blind empiricism.  Just on your topic and the idea of self management, I'd recommend Garfinkel's paper on Agnes, the transgendered individual who engages in something you might describe as self management in her gender transition.  It's in the Studies. Reading the studies will also help you gain some purchase on where philosophy comes into play. 

Good luck!

I agree with Shane that you first must become clear about what it is you want to study (the ontology) before you decide what is the appropriate method. 

Dean says IPA and Grounded Theory are miles apart, but still they share a common philosophical core. Both think that once you have the data, you will generate codes from it rather than impose a code on it. So in way both think of theory as being derived from data, although in IPA the construction of the data might be considered more important than the generation of theory. The difference is that IPA gets more involved in the production of the data. That is, it gets involved in the way the subject reflects on its lived experience before he/she reports it.  This is supposed to allow you as a researcher to, as it were, get inside the subjects head (via the subject itself, of course). But, once the data is constructed in this way, the two schools of thought are very close. The critics of IPA will argue that there is a risk that the researcher influences the subject too much, so what you get is what the researcher has in her head rather than the subject. But, how else are you going to study the finer points of how someone construes their lived experience?

On a more practical note, this means that if you want to get involved very closely with how a few individuals construe the meaning of their lived experiences, perhaps because the phenomenon you are interested in is complicated and really requires the subjects to reflect very deeply about it (perhaps because they might not have reflected upon it before), then IPA is a good choice. If you think that your subjects will already be clear on what it is you want to know and therefore can report it without much reflection or thought, then Grounded theory (or some application of it) might suit better. This is as good an explanation as to why IPA is popular in psychology, because they are deeply involved in the more complicated aspects of our inner lives.

Just a note to say that qualitative research need not be underwritten by variants of phenomenology but may also be underpinned by other theories of science and knowledge, though this then has distinctive implications for research methods and techniques. I am thinking particularly of the recent popularity of 'Critical Realism' as a distinctive basis and orientation for social research, which differs markedly from both constructivist and positivist approaches. See for example Paul K. Edwards, Joe O'Mahoney and Steve Vincent (eds) Studying Organizations Using Critical Realism,OUP 2014, or for a brief resume Tony Elger 'Critical Realism' in A.J. Mills,

G. Durepos and E. Wiebe (eds) Encyclopedia of Case Study Research, Sage 2010. 

With regard to GT, you can find out more about it's philosophical bases in several of the chapters in the Charmaz and Bryant (2011) SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory. Both Charmaz and Bryant themselves advocate a "constructivist" version of GT that is heavily influenced by pragmatism. The second edition of Charmaz (2014) book, Constructing Grounded Theory, addresses these same topics, although most of the book has a "how to" flavor.

But at this point the core issue is to find some version of the research question that "fits" with the needs and interests of the researcher, along with choosing a method that suits that overall match. What I hear in that regard is a strong interest in philosophy, which would be a better match to IPA than to GT. In particular, phenomenology in all its forms is deeply rooted in philosophical texts, whereas GT has only recently started taking a serious interest in these issues.

Also, as far an emphasis on either process or experience goes, you have a good insight that the former is more connected to GT and latter to IPA. Still, I wouldn't push that distinction too far, since each of those two areas would see its interests as extending to most of human life -- where almost everything can be considered as both process and experience. So, to use an over-worked analogy, this is a choice of which "lens" you use to focus in on what you study. For example, you might well examine "Experiencing the process of..."

The philosophical debate in qualitative research is as wide and complex as between quanti and quali. however the general common point behind the quali research is that as opposed to the positivist model (and subsequent schools in its path) we do not observe social reality from outside but we seek the meaning the actors and/or agents give to their actions. you can find a summary of this debate in Hubermas (structural transformation book), section : the Problem of meaning in social sciences where he provided an account of the debate from Wilhem Delthey to Weber and onward. Indeed the main issue remains how to access such meaning, and how to make sure the meaning is reconstructed in a non distorted way..not an easy question but its the good place to start in ...

Hi Harry,

Me again - I assume that your query is for a Masters-level degree? The last few posts are perfectly valid - but more so at a PhD level if you ask me. Habermas, ethnography (at the level described) etc are not for the feint-hearted - so I would stick with your original intent to decide IPA or GT and stick with it.

Qualitative researchers can counter argue by stating that the purpose of their work is not to produce generalizations (in terms of law-like statements) but rather to understand the phenomenon. However, by acting this way, the research in question runs the risk of being purely descriptive and its explanation just an abbreviation for situated empirical observations. This is not about the number of subjects, which is a sampling problem; it refers to the degree to which empirical data, irrespective of the amount, can support non-observational (theoretical) statements.

In the second place, when a theory is inductively constructed, one can assume that empirical data are able, in and of themselves, to frame or postulate the phenomenon investigated. As a consequence, the theory-building process can advance "in the dark," since the phenomenon takes shape as the empirical data accumulate. Phenomena are directly determined by theory, and only indirectly confirmed by empirical evidence.

For more information, please read the article below:

http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1851/3497

Jeanan,

Not sure how your answer relates to the original question - but I do see your point - although I'm not sure that it helps Harry. Qualitative studies are not designed to be scientifically generalisable (at least not in the quantitative positivistic context - and not that this is a weakness of the paradigm approach) - but they can be 'contextually generalisable' i.e. one might assume that the context of one small sample population in a given country might be reasonably be expected to be similar to a similar population elsewhere. Being 'purely descriptive' is the intention of qualitative research - as the intention of some quantitative research as well i.e. surveys. There are also no generic sampling problems related to number of subjects. You can have small quantitative samples and large qualitative samples; the issue is far more about is the sample the appropriate for what is needed. 

Harry,

Some good advice has been presented however, my advice would be to look again at your research question. Do you want to generate theory that will explain something, something that might be tested quantitavely at a later stage? If so go with GT.

If however, your aim is to create understanding, offer insight or create meaning particularly on a topic that little is known, then opt for Phenomenology.

IPA, is a method of analysis. It draws from GT descriptive and interpretive phenomenology. Perhaps you could look a bit more closely at the philosophical perspectives underpinning phenomenology before making your choice.

I wish you well.

Mary

Hi Harry,

By far the most important thing is to figure out what your research question is. This is the most difficult task, and is one you will need to develop over time with your supervisor, if you haven't done so already. A key question to keep asking yourself is: what do I really want to know? Once you have your research question, then the choice between GT and phenomenological approaches should become clearer. Many of the answers above give you clues to how this works. For example, if you are really interested in exploring an existing middle range theory about a specific phenomenon, or are trying to develop a theoretical explanation for something, GT is likely the direction you might go in, though as Tony suggests, critical realism is also a philosophical base that can justify a qualitative approach to theory and explanation. On the other hand, if you are really more interested in how people experience a phenomena, or you just don't think that a specific phenomenon has yet been described adequately in the literature, then a more phenomenological approach is more appropriate. As Dean notes, there are many schools of phenomenology, some more psychologically oriented, others more sociologically oriented. While, at a Masters level you should not be expected to delve into deep weeds of methodological dispute, I think an attempt to understand what phenomenology is, at a philosophical level, is important before you decide which particular school you adhere to. A more proximate text to look at in terms of how to apply phenomenology to studying the social world is Alfred Schutz's sociological approach:

Schutz, Alfred. The phenomenology of the social world. Northwestern University Press, 1967.

Of course, I'm a bit biased against the more subjectivist, psychological interpretations of phenomenology, so I would make the latter suggestion! Anyway, good luck with your studies!

My question summarizes the view of some other respondents, I suggest becoming as familiar as you can with the nature of your population and review what others have written pertaining to the question under consideration. This can involve a variety of theoretical underpinnings including frameworks from multiple disciplines.  Consider the practicalities of you study. Questions such as time, cost and availability of population, what are you curious about, how will you address this?  I think your concerns about the need to embrace one school of thought  may be antithetical to the entire purpose of qualitative inquiry, stay open, don't  get ahead of yourself.

After a few days hiatus from the forum, I was surprised on the number of replies. I could only express my heartfelt gratitude for all the bits of intellectual advice that everyone has shared. For a budding qualitative researcher like me, having such a wealth of support is encouraging. Your answers has certainly jogged my thoughts and has given me an appreciation of some of the skill sets that would be essential in my progress (i.e. meta-cognition, reflexivity and reflective skills). It also made me realised that knowing who I am as a researcher and being conscious and aware of my relationship to my participants is just as important as the research question and methodology I am going to use. I think this is why although I work in clinical trials which is very positivistic, as a nurse and as a researcher, the qualitative paradigm resonates to my professional identity. Your offers of point of views are very helpful as I now can appreciate perspectives which I am not aware of or even considered before. I realised that my decisions in my research project would have to take leaps of faith and that's how it feels like at the moment. However, having these point of views to consider, I am reassured that I will somehow make that leap with a better informed decision. In my future conundrums, I would definitely throw it out in the forum as I find this exercise highly constructive and I am very fortunate to have this network of quality and helpful experts. Again, many thanks.