What Qualitative Researchers Believe
Eleven propositions are set out across two slides, and three of them are not propositions at all. Several are contradicted by the same deck within a dozen slides, so read the set as a contested position rather than a creed.
The eleven statements as the deck gives them
Two consecutive slides carry the same title. Neither is numbered, neither states a count, and the split between them is not explained. Seven statements sit on the first, four on the second.
Slide one — seven statements
- The best way to understand any phenomenon is to view it in its context
- The best way to understand what's going on is to be immersed in the context
- ‘Move into organization and experience what it is like to be a part of it’
- Be flexible in inquiry of respondents in their context
- Questions will emerge and change as familiarity with the context develops
- Each individual experiences a different reality
- There is no unitary reality apart from our perceptions
Slide two — four statements
- There can be no objectivity: even the analysing researcher has a lived reality
- They may be opposed to methods that attempt to summarise across individuals because each individual is unique
- There is no point in trying to establish ‘validity’ in any external or objective sense
- All that we can hope to do as researchers is interpret our view of the world
Three of the seven are not beliefs
A slide titled with a verb of belief should carry propositions — statements that are true or false about how the world is. Three of the seven are not. Two are imperatives addressed to the reader, and one is a prediction about what will happen during fieldwork.
WHAT KIND OF STATEMENT EACH ITEM ACTUALLY IS
| Statement | Form | What follows from it |
|---|---|---|
| The best way to understand any phenomenon is to view it in its context | Claim about method | A methodological commitment you can defend or reject on evidence |
| The best way to understand what's going on is to be immersed in the context | Claim about method | Same, and it is the premise the two imperatives below depend on |
| ‘Move into organization and experience what it is like to be a part of it’ | Instruction | A directive for practice, not a belief. It cannot be true or false. |
| Be flexible in inquiry of respondents in their context | Instruction | A directive for practice. Also the property the notes elsewhere call a strength and the deck elsewhere calls ad hoc. |
| Questions will emerge and change as familiarity with the context develops | Prediction | A forecast about the conduct of the study, contradicted by the deck's own design checklist, which requires design decisions to be fixed in advance |
| Each individual experiences a different reality | Claim about the world | An ontological position — see the linked page on ontology |
| There is no unitary reality apart from our perceptions | Claim about the world | A stronger ontological position than the one above it, and the deck does not mark the escalation |
The classification in the middle column is this page's, derived from the wording. The source neither classifies nor numbers the statements.
The practical consequence is not pedantry. If you cite this slide as the assumption set behind your study, you are citing a mixture of commitments and instructions, and an examiner reading it will ask which is which. Separate them before you use them, and treat the two ontological claims as the part that belongs in a philosophy section — see ontology.
The strong claims, and where the same material contradicts them
The second slide states three of the strongest positions in the whole topic. Every one of them is contradicted somewhere in the supplied material, in most cases by a document written for the same week. The table records both sides; it does not choose between them, because the source does not.
STATED POSITION AGAINST STATED COUNTER-POSITION
| The claim on slide two | What the same material says elsewhere |
|---|---|
| There is no point in trying to establish ‘validity’ in any external or objective sense | Three later slides are each titled ‘Validity in qualitative research’ and supply four criteria with definitions of all four. The study notes make validity one of the five components of a qualitative design and say the reflexive process exists so a reader can interpret the overall validity of the research. |
| There can be no objectivity | Confirmability is defined two slides later as the degree to which results can be confirmed or substantiated by others, and a post-study data audit is offered as a way of judging the potential for bias or distortion. Both presuppose a standpoint from which bias is visible. |
| There is no unitary reality apart from our perceptions | A later slide states that both approaches are highly respected and that qualitative data can be coded quantitatively while all quantitative data is interpreted qualitatively — a complementarity claim that presupposes the two paradigms address the same reality. |
| They may be opposed to methods that attempt to summarise across individuals | The notes list among the approach's strengths the ability to conduct cross-case comparisons and analysis of individuals or groups, and the deck defines grounded theory as a process in which new observations lead to revisions in the theory. |
Both columns are quoted or close-paraphrased from the supplied material. The source never acknowledges any of these disagreements.
The philosophical assumptions in the study notes
The notes approach the same ground from a different direction and with different vocabulary — a pattern that runs through the whole topic and is set out on what qualitative research is. They open here with a promise the passage does not keep.
Three assumptions are recoverable from the passage that follows. The source neither numbers nor counts them, so the enumeration below is this page's reading of a continuous paragraph.
The three philosophical assumptions as stated
Insider perspectives are the object of study
To understand a complex phenomenon you must consider the multiple realities experienced by the participants themselves — the insider perspectives. The scare quotes around realities and insider are the source's own.
Meaning is constructed where it happens
Natural environments are favoured for discovering how participants construct their own meaning of events or situations. Favoured, not required — the source does not prohibit any other setting.
The search for objective reality is abandoned
The search for an objective reality, favoured by quantitative researchers, is abandoned to the assumption that people construct their own personalised worlds. This matches the deck's ‘There can be no objectivity’ and conflicts with the notes' own comparison table, which lists objective data collection as a quantitative attribute without qualification.
One further claim sits in the notes' limitations paragraph and belongs with this set even though the source does not place it here: in qualitative work the researcher is the primary instrument of investigation. It is a substantial methodological claim, made in a subordinate clause, and never developed. What it implies for the researcher's own account of themselves is taken up in reflexivity and the researcher's position.
How and what: the shape of a qualitative research question
The notes tie the assumptions to question wording directly. Qualitative research questions, they say, are How or What questions, and are geared toward complex processes, exploration and discovery. Two worked questions are given: How did this happen? and What is going on here?
Four topic examples are printed, explicitly as examples rather than requirements: the experiences of high school dropouts; how assessments are conducted at universities; what motivated first-generation women college graduates; and how creativity is fostered in schools. Questions like these, the notes say, yield complex data, although the sources and formats vary.
Using a contested belief set in your own study
A project manager writing a methodology chapter needs a paragraph that states the assumptions the study rests on. The material supplies candidate assumptions and also supplies their contradictions, so the honest move is to take a position and show you knew you were taking one.
Turning the statements into a defensible assumptions paragraph
Separate the claims from the instructions
Of the eleven statements, use only those that assert something about the world or about method. The two imperatives belong in your fieldwork plan, not in your assumptions.
Choose your ontological strength deliberately
Each individual experiences a different reality is a weaker claim than there is no unitary reality apart from our perceptions. The topic's own introduction is weaker still — it speaks of accepting multiple perspectives. Pick one and say which.
Decide what you are doing about validity, and say so
You cannot both cite the denial of validity and use the four alternative criteria without comment. Either adopt the criteria and note that one slide disputes their point, or reject them and say what replaces them.
Word your research question as the notes do
How or What, geared toward process, exploration and discovery. If you need a Why or a When question, note that only the slides license it and that the notes do not.
State the researcher-as-instrument claim if you rely on it
The material asserts it and does not develop it. If your design depends on it — as most qualitative designs do — you will need a second source for what follows from it.
What to carry forward
- Eleven statements across two slides, unnumbered and uncounted; three of the seven on the first slide are instructions or predictions rather than beliefs.
- No objectivity, no unitary reality and no point pursuing validity are each contradicted elsewhere in the same material. Give both sides and mark the conflict.
- Several principles are announced in the notes and none is listed. Three philosophical assumptions appear instead, under a different name.
- Qualitative questions are How or What in the notes and why, how, when, what on the slides. Only the notes' version carries worked examples.
- An unfilled placeholder — the literal string xxx — survives in one of the four worked topic examples.
Frequently asked questions
Can I cite the two belief slides as the philosophical basis of my study?
You can cite them, but not as a coherent basis without comment. Three of the eleven statements are instructions or predictions rather than beliefs, and the strongest three are contradicted later in the same deck and by the study notes. Cite them, separate the claims from the directives, and note the conflict where it bears on your design.
Does this material say qualitative research rejects validity?
It says both. One slide states there is no point trying to establish validity in any external or objective sense. Three later slides in the same deck are titled ‘Validity in qualitative research’ and define four criteria, and the study notes treat validity as one of the five components of a qualitative design. The source never reconciles the two positions.
What are the several principles the notes mention?
The material does not say. The sentence announcing them is followed by a sentence about philosophical assumptions instead, and three assumptions are given. No principle is ever named, numbered or described. If you need them, you need a second source — this is not something the page can supply.
Should my research question start with How, What or Why?
The study notes say How or What, and give two worked examples in that form. The characteristics slide says why, how, when, what. The two formulations are given for the same thing with no reconciliation. In practice the notes' version is better supported because it is the one carrying examples, but that is a judgement about the evidence, not a ruling by the source.
What does it mean that the researcher is the primary instrument of investigation?
The material asserts it and does not explain it. The phrase appears in a subordinate clause in the notes' limitations paragraph, where researcher embeddedness is identified as a source of bias. Nothing in the topic develops the claim, connects it to instrument design, or says what practices follow from it.
References and source attribution
- Merriam, S 2009, Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
- Denzin, N & Lincoln, Y (eds) 2005, Handbook of qualitative research, 3rd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks.
- Patton, M 2002, Qualitative research and evaluation methods, 3rd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks.
- Trochim, W M K 2006, Research Methods Knowledge Base. (The deck attributes its table of alternative validity criteria to an online research-methods knowledge base page on qualitative validity.)
- The supplied teaching source: one slide deck and two study-note documents on the nature of qualitative research.
Suggested questions for Ask KEVOS
- List the eleven belief statements in the supplied material and mark which are claims and which are instructions.
- Where does this material contradict its own statement that there can be no objectivity?
- Draft an assumptions paragraph for a qualitative study of project handover practice, using only what this material supports.
- What is the difference between the two ontological claims on the first belief slide?
- Which parts of the qualitative belief set would I need a second source to defend?