Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
European Scientific Journal March 2020 edition Vol.16, No.7 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431
181
Paradigms of Inquiry in the Qualitative Research
Dr. Erdem Erciyes,
The Turkish Gendarmerie General Command, Ankara, Turkey
Doi:10.19044/esj.2020.v16n7p181 URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.19044/esj.2020.v16n7p181
Abstract
The paradigms of inquiry can be distinguished through their ontology,
epistemology, and methodology. These paradigms of inquiry ensure different
interpretations on theory. Positivism and post-positivism see theory as an
indication or statement of relationships between abstract ideas with empirical
observations that identify hypotheses via reliable tests. Alternatively, in order
to emphasize the connection between interpretation and the phenomenon
under investigation, critical theory, constructivist and participatory paradigms,
use interpretive perspectives of theory. Paradigms of inquiry, methodology
and method, are not only related and affect each other in the research process,
but also develop the rigour of research thorough reliability, validity,
generalization in positivism and trustworthiness, validity, and reflexivity in
phenomenology. Reaching knowledge through different structural processes
provides researchers access to the social world and thus reaches specific
conclusions that can be passed on to others for further understanding.
Keywords: Paradigms of Inquiry; qualitative research, rigour, methodology
Introduction
The social world is changing constantly and researchers use paradigms
to define social phenomenon. This research aims to present role of paradigm
of inquiry in social research. Kuhn (1970) defines a paradigm as a mean of
sharing between members of a scientific community. As the paradigm
manages to solve the problem it defines, science marches forward and makes
tremendous progress. Paradigms of inquiry are the philosophical stance of the
researcher that show how his inquiry is designed in the research process.
Lincoln and Guba (2000) categorize types of paradigm of inquiry as:
Positivism, Post-Positivism, Critical Theory, Constructivist, and Participatory
approaches.
Comtè (1865) presented positivism in the middle of the 19th Century.
His philosophical stance was affected by Empiricism and Naturalism. He
implemented the rules of natural science in the context of social science. For
positivists, reality exists and can be driven by immutable laws and
European Scientific Journal March 2020 edition Vol.16, No.7 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431
182
mechanisms. Reality can be wholly understood and discovered. Also, the
ontological perspective of Positivism is referred to as “Naïve Realism”.
Positivism reveals an epistemological dualistic and objective approach. The
investigator and investigated object are totally independent from each other.
Investigator abstains from affecting the investigation or being affected by it
(Guba and Lincoln, 1994).
Popper (2002) claimed that due to immutable laws, theory cannot
march ahead and develop itself. In order to provide developments in theory,
he offered falsifying a priori suppositions. Falsification has rules which
determine under which circumstances a system is to be regarded as falsified.
A theory can only be falsified when basic statements contradict it (Guba and
Lincoln, 1994). Here, Popper (2002:4) refers to the example of the white
swans: “…… we are justified in inferring universal statements from singular
ones, no matter how numerous; for any conclusion drawn in this way
may always turn out to be false: no matter how many instances of white
swans we may have observed, this does not justify the conclusion that
all swans are white. Because one black swan can falsify that
conclusion.”
Post-Positivism evaluates reality from the critical perspective. It is
referred to as “critical realism”. Reality exists in post-Positivism, but due to
insufficient human intellectual mechanism and the fundamentally intractable
nature of phenomena, humans cannot totally grasp bona fide reality and
instead only understand it imperfectly and probabilistically (Guba and
Lincoln, 1994).
Marx (1818-1883), Weber (1864-1920), Horkheimer (1895-1973),
Marcuse (1898-1979), Fromm (1900-1980), and Adorno (1901-1969) are
considered as the primary architects of Critical Theory. These philosophers
are also acknowledged as the first generation of Critical Theorists. However,
they did not reach a consensus about social investigation and criticism (Rush,
2004). Capitalism has had a huge effect on development of critical theory. For
instance, Marxism emerged from critiques of Capitalism (Kincheloe and
Tobin, 2009), and Marx utilized both a materialist conception of history
8
and
a critique of Capitalism in his dialectic understanding
9
(Ng, 2015). In addition,
Weber (1930) brought religious and social critiques to capitalism.
8
Materialist conception of history investigates the main sources of major social developments
and changes in the society through utilizing social conscious mediation of natural and social
life’s reproduction (Ng, 2015). According to this approach, “human evolution onwards from
one determinate historical form and productive mode to another” (Horn, 2013: 496).
9
Marx (1967: 14) differentiated his dialectic understanding from Hegel by following remarks:
European Scientific Journal March 2020 edition Vol.16, No.7 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431
183
Horkheimer (1972) inferred that paradigms of Positivism and post-
Positivism cannot bring an in-depth understanding to social research. To
understand the dynamics of social phenomena, a researcher should put on
lenses of critical theory. Horkheimer was influenced by Marx’s social
stratification theory
10
and did not see critical theory as only a research
approach, but believed that it could also provide a helping hand in the
dissolution of social inequalities found in society. Marcuse (1964) was
influenced by Marx’s alienation concept and saw the capitalist system as the
main cause of a uniform society. He also criticized classical research
approaches that utilize knowledge to find universally accepted truths. Per his
viewpoint, positivist research approaches also serve standardization of
societies, hence, social research should focus on understanding reasons for
change in society over periods of time. Adorno (1976) also highlighted the
role of history in shaping ontological understandings. According to his
research, in order to understand the current cultural and political aspects of
society, historical changes should be taken into consideration as well.
However, the interpretation of historical changes is not only limited to past
and present situations, but also relates to further developments in a timeline.
After the First World War, as a reaction to the rise of totalitarian
ideologies in many parts of the world, Fromm (1941) investigated the nature
of authority concept. He posited that due to the unknown nature of freedom
and independence, individuals have a tendency towards fear and anxiety, and
in order to control these feelings and not make decisions on their own, they
prefer to follow an authoritarian leader who would make decisions on their
behalf. As one of the first critical theorists, Fromm examined traditional roles
in society vis-à-vis gender and family. His critical understanding of gender
roles in society helped link feminist theory with critical theory. To sum up,
“My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To
Hegel, the life process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, which, under the name
of “the Idea,” he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgeous of the real
world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of “the Idea.” With me, on
the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind,
and translated into forms of thought”. Afterwards, he defined dialectics materialism as
follows: “In its rational form it is a scandal and abomination to bourgeois Dom and its
doctrinaire professors, because it includes in its comprehension and affirmative recognition
of the existing state of things, at the same time also, the recognition of the negation of that
state, of its inevitable breaking up; because it regards every historically developed social form
as in fluid movement, and therefore takes into account its transient nature not less than its
momentary existence; because it lets nothing impose upon it, and is in its essence critical and
revolutionary.” Marx’s dialectic understanding is based on economic struggle between
different classes of society. The clash of opposites such as thesis (industrial entrepreneurs)
and anti-thesis (proletariat) leads synthesis as communism.
10
Marx’s class form of social stratification is based on inequality in economic welfare of
members of a capitalist society.
European Scientific Journal March 2020 edition Vol.16, No.7 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431
184
Horkheimer, Marcuse, Adorno and Fromm evaluate changes in capitalism
from perspectives of power and domination. Moreover, one of the most
important contributions of Frankfurt School Critical Theorists, to the
literature, is the introduction of emancipation to the research process through
providing awareness of the material conditions of our own knowledge
(Anderson, 2000). In order to determine what our knowledge entails, critical
theory reviews its structure and dynamics within society (Nielsen, 1992).
The second generation of critical theorists cultivated around the axis
of Habermas’ (1974) thoughts. He reorganized Frankfurt School’s theoretical
perspective from a fundamental distinction between strategic and
communicative rationality (Pensky, 1999). He discussed science’s
dependability on ideological assumptions and interests and offered an ideal of
communication through rational subjects completely independent from
domination and error-inducing interests (Honderich, 2005). In addition, he
identified three functions which provide mediation between theory and
practice: firstly, the formation and extension of critical theorems which aim at
true statements; secondly, the organization of the enlightenment process which
aims at authentic insights; and finally, the selection of appropriate strategies
for developing prudent decisions (Habermas, 1974).
The third generation critical theorists challenge the approach of the
Frankfurt School and support Habermas’ critical re-examination of first
generation’s understanding of critical theory (Pensky, 1999). As the most
prominent representative of third generation, Honneth (2004; 2014)
emphasizes the importance of conceptual reformulation, the mediation of the
present state of our knowledge, and the positive impact of practicing shared-
values in group dynamics. Critical theory’s ontology is known as “Historical
Realism”, because reality can be understood through historical analysis.
Reality is shaped by social, political, cultural, economic, ethnic, and gender
factors, in addition, values are crystallized over time (Guba and Lincoln, 1994;
Heron and Reason, 1997). Critical theory has a transactional and subjectivist
epistemology. The researcher and research object are linked and values of the
former influences the inquiry. Therefore, the findings of the inquiry are value-
mediated. For critical theory, subjective humans develop theory in a historical
and cultural context. Critical theory uses dialogic and dialectical methodology
through developing dialectical dialogue between the researcher and research
object. Dialectical dialogue should transform misunderstandings and
ignorance into more informed consciousness (Guba and Lincoln, 1994). Here,
structures may be changed and actions are needed to effect change.
Constructivism seeks to understand how humans interpret or construct
something in social, linguistic and historical contexts (Schwandt, 2001).
Similar to Critical Theory, the interpretation of theory in constructivism is
shaped by researchers’ experiences, views and background. Constructivism
European Scientific Journal March 2020 edition Vol.16, No.7 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431
185
has relativist realism; realities are constructed through shared construction of
social and cultural factors (Guba and Lincoln, 1989). Schwandt (2001)
classified Constructivism as, strong and weak. The main difference between
these two types is rooted in their epistemological and ontological stances. The
epistemology of strong Constructivism is very similar to that of critical theory:
such as being transactional and subjectivist while creating knowledge through
interaction of researcher and respondents; but different from Critical Theory,
strong Constructivism creates and develops findings in the investigation
process. Results are reached through consensus and individual constructions
apropos those of the investigator. Moreover, reality is shaped by local
construction in relation to strong constructivism. On the other hand, weak
Constructivism highlights ideological and political values (Longino, 1993;
House, 1996), and its epistemology and ontology denote Critical Theory.
Heron and Reason (1997) added participatory paradigm to Guba and
Lincoln’s categorization of paradigms of inquiry. Mind and primordial reality
(cosmos) co-create the world together and reality is the result of interaction of
cosmos and mind. Participatory paradigm uses subjective and objective
reality: “Cosmos is known as a subjectively articulated world; whose
objectivity is relative to how it is shaped by the knower. But, this is not all, its
objectivity is also relative to how it is inter-subjectively shaped” (Ibid: 279).
The epistemology of participatory requires critical subjectivity which is
formed with experimental, presentational, propositional and practical
knowing. Practical and theoretical knowledge co-create findings in the
becoming context.
Types of Main Qualitative Methodologies
Crotty (1998: 3) defines methodology as “the strategy or plan of action
which lies behind the choice and use of particular methods”. Different
ontological and epistemological assumptions have different views of
knowledge and reality which reflect in their choice of methodology (Scotland,
2012). To clarify the relationship between methodology, ontology, and
epistemology, the link between theory, reality, knowledge and truth should be
clarified. Positivist perspective views reality as totally independent of
humanity, but on the other hand, phenomenological reality considers them to
be intrinsically linked. Truth ensures a better understanding of reality. Truths,
like theories, cannot remain constant forever. When truth and/or theories
change, accordingly, the nature of reality changes with them. Knowledge
requires interpretations of facts derived from data. Then again, theory analyses
understandings extrapolated from data. Theory can be expressed through
immutable laws at one extreme, and social or construction at the other,
reflecting reality, truth or knowledge (Howell, 2013). Theory is akin to lenses
which help one see truth, knowledge, and reality. The reflection and relation
European Scientific Journal March 2020 edition Vol.16, No.7 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431
186
of truth, knowledge, reality, and theory, can change according to the type of
methodology considered. Methodology, with ontological and epistemological
assumptions, form basic belief systems of paradigms (Guba and Lincoln,
1994). There are different types of research methodology that reflect the
assumptions of research paradigms in a study, such as, Grounded Theory,
Hermeneutics, Action Research, and Ethnography.
Grounded Theory
Glaser and Strauss (1967) developed grounded theory while they were
investigating the subject of dying and death in hospitals. They abandoned
employing deducting testable hypotheses from existing theories and began to
discover theory from research grounded in qualitative data (Charmaz, 2014).
Furthermore, they utilized grounded theory to understand and explain social
and social-psychological issues but nowadays, thanks to its flexible approach,
grounded theory is used in different disciplines and research areas.
Grounded theory utilizes a systematic, inductive and comparative
approach (Bryant and Charmaz, 2007) to generate or discover a theory from
data which has been gained from participants’ experiences thorough coding
and categorizing (Creswell, 2013). Researcher’s own creativity gains
importance while determining categories in grounded theory. Here, categories
should be developed inductively per the data. Yet the researcher should not be
affected by his/her prejudices or become too reflexive as to stifle creativity,
hindering the development of substantive theory (McGhee et al., 2007).
Hermeneutics
Hermeneutics is derived from the Greek word “hermeneuin”
(ἑρμηνευτική) which means to interpret. The origin of word is inspired from
Greek mythological character Hermes who was tasked with delivering
messages of Greek Gods to the people (Gadamer, 2006). The term was first
used in its contemporary context by Schleiermacher and Dilthey. Before
Schleiermacher, hermeneutics was used due to a lack of understanding of the
text but Schleiermacher applied it as “the natural priority of
misunderstanding”. He propositioned that “understanding arises naturally”.
The more rigorous practice proceeds on the assumption that misunderstanding
arises naturally and the understanding must be intended and sought at each
point (Gadamer, 2008: xiii). Like Schleiermacher, Diltey emphasized the
effect of researcher’s subjective intention on the meaning of text or action.
Moreover, he removed the uncertainty of hermeneutics through utilizing the
understanding of texts to the law of understanding another person who
expresses himself therein (Ricoeur, 1981).
Hermeneutics is about interpretation and focuses on historical and
social contexts that surround actions when interpreting a text. The
European Scientific Journal March 2020 edition Vol.16, No.7 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431
187
interpretation of understanding has been closely linked to empathy (Ibid). It
causes empathy as regards those involved in the research. Thanks to
imagination, to better grasp an act’s meaning, the reader is forced to focus on
the researcher’s perspective. Therefore, the interpreter tries to show broader
and different kinds of information. This provides a better understanding of the
research to researcher and enhances his/her interpretation capacity.
Action Research
In 1939, Kurt Lewin as one of the pioneers of action research combined
this research with the idea of doing experiments. He used the results of
experiments gained in the workplace and took them well beyond their socio-
technical design (Bradbury et al., 2013) to develop a theory (Gustavsen, 2001).
The Tavistock Institute, with the aid of Kurt Lewin, has made important
contributions to the development of action research through utilizing this
methodology in their various researches as regards increasing productivity in
the British coal-mining industry (Gustavsen, 2008). Nowadays, action
research is mostly used for enhancing conditions and practice in
administrative, leadership, social and community settings environments
(Craig, 2009).
The inquiry of action research requires identifying research problems,
gathering and analysing data and designing a plan of action in the practicing
environment. To reach a conclusion for improving practice, additional data are
gathered and analysed. Action research seeks to provide the participation of
practitioners (involvement) and improvement of participants’ understanding
(Carr and Kemmis, 1986). Action research has a direct link with participatory
paradigm of inquiry. It focuses on conducting research with interaction of
researchers and participants. Different from other types action research,
participatory action research gives more responsibility to participants such as
deciding what problems to tackle, taking responsibility of research process and
implementing action (Park, 2001).
Ethnography
Ethnography is derived from the terms ethnos and graphic. Ethnos is a
Greek word meaning ethnic group and graphic means explaining or describing
something clearly and simply (Glesne, 2011). Ethnography scrutinizes
culture-sharing groups and tries to define their values, beliefs, behaviours, and
understandings (Harris, 1968). Since modern culture concept emerged in the
beginning of the 1800s, cultural research has tended to understand and explain
human behaviour in a clearly more scientific manner (Fox, 1985). In the social
science literature, ethnography initially begun to be utilized as a methodology
by anthropologists in the last quarter of the 19th Century (Toren, 1996).
Anthropological ethnography became one of the fundamental figures of
European Scientific Journal March 2020 edition Vol.16, No.7 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431
188
Western sociology in the beginning of the twentieth century and it mostly
focused on community study movement
11
(Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007).
In the late 1930s, William Foot Whyte conducted one of the classic examples
of ethnography research, entitled, “Street Corner Society: The Social Structure
of an Italian Slum”. In it, he investigated a street corner society by living in
that area and meeting the local people (Have, 2004). After the 1930s, Chicago
School of Ethnography took on a pioneering role in the advancement of
ethnography. Accordingly, it developed a realistic understanding of urban life
through conducting local studies and analysing human behaviour. Chicago
School researchers generally used many mixed methods by combining
quantitative (statistical) data with qualitative techniques, such as, remote
interviews, face-to-face interviews, and life histories (Deegan, 2001).
According to Hammersley and Atkinson (2007), in the twenty-first
century, ethnography was influenced by various theoretical approaches, such
as, anthropological and sociological functionalism, philosophical pragmatism
and symbolic interactionism, Marxism, phenomenology, hermeneutics,
structuralism, feminism, constructionism, post-structuralism, and
postmodernism. Nowadays, ethnography is differentiated per different
research perspectives. Ethnographers mostly prefer to use participant
observation as a method (Davies, 2008) in their research, but it is very
common to see other methods, such as, interviews, focus groups, group
discussions, and surveys in ethnographic examinations. Whichever method is
being utilized, it should not be forgotten that ethnography involves direct and
sustained contact, watching what happens, listening to what is being said and
focusing on the effects of culture as regards the inquiry.
Main Qualitative Research Methods
Interviews
Josselson (2013:1) defines interview as “a shared product of what the
interviewer and interviewee talk about and how they talk together”.
Knowledge is produced through conversation advanced by both interviewer
and interviewee (Kvale, 1996). There are three main types of interviews in the
research process: Structured, semi-structured, and unstructured. Structured
interview utilizes predetermined questions which are always asked in the same
sequence. A standardized protocol which aims to reduce the subjectivity of
interviewer is prepared and is sent to interviewee in advance. Semi-structured
interviews utilize fixed questions, but the interviewer can pursue different
queries depending on the flow of the interview. Moreover, a question may be
put earlier than planned or the interviewee may answer a query before it is
11
Community study movement involved studies of villages and towns in the United States
and Western Europe, often concerned with the impact of urbanization and industrialization
(Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007: 1).
European Scientific Journal March 2020 edition Vol.16, No.7 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431
189
asked. Semi-structured interviews, while providing flexibility to the inquiry,
follow a structure. Therefore, it is a very popular method in phenomenological
studies. Unstructured interview uses neither predetermined questions nor an
interview protocol. Mostly, the interviewer has a list of topics and interviewee
responds regarding a given subject matter.
Focus Group
Focus group study emerged in behavioural science after the Second
World War as a data collection method (Stewart et al., 2009). It aims to get
emic perspective of selected group members in a safe environment (Merton
et.al., 1956). There exists an interaction discussion among members through
sharing their opinions and perceptions. Explicit use of group interaction
makes focus group method different from other group methods such as,
nominal group technique
12
and Delphi technique
13
. There are many different
opinions among academics regarding the ideal size a focus group should have,
as there is no consensus in this regard. In general, 3-12 individuals are the
accepted norm for conducting a focus group. Here though, the experience and
ability of the moderator is a rather important factor in determining the ideal
size of the group. Moreover, the moderator has a key role to play in the overall
success of the focus group method. “Personal characteristics, educational and
training background, previous experiences as a moderator, situational
characteristics, like sensitivity of the topic, the scope and depth of coverage
required, leading capacity of physical environment and time limits” (Stewart
et al., 2007: 69) are the foremost elements for being an effective moderator. In
order to make participants feel comfortable to express their opinions freely
and provide divergent views, the researcher can use different stimulus
materials and activities, such as, vignettes, cartoons, videos, games,
newspaper clippings, exercises, and flip charts in the focus group method.
More to the point, these kinds of stimuli create a better atmosphere for
achieving a more comprehensive research study (Krueger, 1994; 1998).
Observation
Observation generates data from human experience. Positivist and
Phenomenological paradigms can use the observation method. Positivist
researcher keeps objective distance from natural or physical settings where
observation takes place. Phenomenological researchers provide interaction
12
“Each member of the group is interviewed individually, and summaries of the responses
and ideas of the other group members are provided to the other groups”, in the nominal group
technique (Stewart et al. 2007: 153).
13
The Delphi technique develops a consensus of opinions concerning a specific topic through
a series of questionnaires to collect data from a panel of selected subjects (Hsu and Sandford,
2007: 1-2).
European Scientific Journal March 2020 edition Vol.16, No.7 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431
190
with respondents in their natural settings. There are two main types of
observation, as non-participatory and participatory. Non-participatory
observation fits best with structured observation
14
. Here, the observer is part
and parcel of the situation under observation but remains outside of group
activities as regards non-participant observation. On the other hand,
participatory observation method is mostly appropriate for constructivist and
participatory paradigms. Here, the observer takes part in daily events during
the observation regarding participatory observation. Participatory observation
is utilized to generate practical and theoretical truths about social life that are
embedded in the realities of daily existence (Jorgensen, 1989).
In addition to these two fundamental categories of observation, there
are other types incorporated within, which can be classified as, structured,
unstructured, overt and covert. While structured observation systematically
focuses on an individual’s behaviour as regards a plan or a schedule,
contrariwise, in order to create a narrative form of the observed, unstructured
observations note as much as possible without utilizing any schedules
(Bryman, 2004). Furthermore, observers have to declare their identity, aims,
and objects of observation in an overt manner. Thus, it can help uncover
ethical aspects expected from a scientific research. Inversely, covert
observation aims to reach real natural settings by hiding the identity of the
researcher, or the aims of the investigation. Even though this method solves
the problems associated with the Hawthorne Effect, whereby observed
subjects behave differently than they normally would, it does manage to reach
real and natural paradigms of inquiry while touching upon ethical concerns.
Therefore, covert observation is not preferred by most academics.
Rigour in Relation to the Overall Research Process Regarding Paradigm
of Inquiry, Methodology and Methods
The Oxford dictionary defines rigour as, “The quality of being
extremely thorough and careful”. The origin of rigour dates back to the late
14th Century as an old French word, rigour, derived from the Latin word,
rigor, meaning ‘stiffness’. Today, rigour demonstrates integrity and
competence in a research and has a very important role in establishing a piece
of academic research; without rigour, research is little different than fictional
journalism which makes no contribution to knowledge (Morse et al., 2002).
However, Tobin and Begley (2004) criticize Morse et al.’s idea and confer that
14
Structured observation, or in other words, systematic observation, follows explicitly
formulated rules that inform observers of what they investigate and how they should record
observations. Participants are observed for a predetermined time using the same rules
(Bryman, 2004). On the contrary, unstructured observation does not follow any specific rule
and tries to reach as much as possible.
European Scientific Journal March 2020 edition Vol.16, No.7 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431
191
the concept of rigour should not be rejected by qualitative researchers but to
realize research’s aims, it can be used within its epistemology.
Lincoln (1995) evaluates rigour from the perspectives of ethics. Per
him, standards of quality and those of ethics are the same in interpretive social
science. Rigour can be seen in all types of research approaches. However,
Juroš (2011) argues that the role of ethics and rigour in a qualitative research
are more important than in that of a quantitative one as there are more
interactions between the researcher and respondents. Paradigms of inquiry,
methodology and method are not only related and affect each other in the
research process, but also develop the rigour of research through reliability,
validity, generalization in positivism and trustworthiness, and validity and
reflexivity in phenomenology. While developing rigour however, the
researcher faces some difficulties in developing procedure. Howell (2013:
191-192) identifies this difficulty which has emerged in positivist and
phenomenological approaches of research, in this way:
“One major difficulty is that of identifying truth (or reality) and in this
context one may question all methodological approaches and methods.
However, notions regarding levels of reliability, validity and
generalization, as with trustworthiness, fairness and credibility provide
a yardstick by which levels of rigour and measurement in research
projects can be gauged and assessed.”
The relation of rigour to the overall research process regarding
paradigm of inquiry, methodology and methods, as demonstrated in Figure 1
below.
Figure 1: Research, Rigour, and Paradigm of Inquiry (Howell, 2013)
European Scientific Journal March 2020 edition Vol.16, No.7 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431
192
Rigour in Relation to Reliability, Validity, Generalization and
Trustworthiness
Four main criteria can be used to judge the rigour of a conventional
research: a. Reliability (replicability), b. Generalisation (external validity),
and, c. Validity and Objectivity (Lincoln and Guba, 1985).
Reliability
Reliability can be used in positivist and post-positivist inquiries, rather
than phenomenologist examinations, in order to show the reliability of
achieving similar results while repeating the same research. In order to provide
reliability of measures, mostly, four main ways have been used in the
literature: a. conceptualizing constructs clearly, b. utilizing a certain level of
measurement, c. using multiple indicators, and, d. running pilot-tests
(Neuman, 2011).
Kirk and Miller (1986) refer to three types of reliability in qualitative
research: a. quixotic reliability, b. diachronic reliability, and, c. synchronic
reliability. Quixotic reliability is based on observing consistency. Diachronic
reliability refers to the stability of an observation which is taken at different
times. Synchronic reliability looks into the similarity of observation in the
same length of time. On the other hand, in phenomenology, the results are
subjective; the researcher and the research issues are linked with each other.
That is why, in phenomenological research there is no need to repeat the
results as the results change according to the researcher’s perspective. On the
other hand, in positivism and post-positivism, objectivity is pursued and there
is a separation between the researcher and research issue. Hence, the
importance of reliability gains more importance in positivist and post-
positivist research.
Generalization
Generalization is mostly utilized in quantitative research and shows
how the results can be generalized for bigger samples. Even though it is very
rare, there are some generalization implementations in a qualitative research
as well. Regarding this, Larsson (2009) offers three methods: a. Maximize
variation, b. Provide context similarity, and, c. Recognize patterns. Firstly,
instead of using random samplings, variations of qualitatively different
samplings should be included in the research process in order for different
opinions to develop better understandings of the qualitative research.
Secondly, a researcher should provide sufficient descriptive data to make
judgements possible regarding any similarity between the researched context
and other contexts. Finally, qualitative researchers sometimes produce new
patterns that can be identified in the empirical world. Thus, pattern which have
not been seen before is presented to the reader; this can be referred to as a
European Scientific Journal March 2020 edition Vol.16, No.7 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431
193
variant of generalization. The communicated pattern is recognized in new
cases.
Validity
Validity, different from reliability, is a more theoretical concept.
Howell (2013) divides its definition of validation into two parts. First from a
positivist perspective, validity defines which measurement is accurate and
what is supposed to be measured is actually being measured; how far one can
see that a test measures the phenomenon we expect it to. On the other hand,
from a phenomenological perspective, validity involves accessing knowledge
and meaning for realisation. Validity interrogates the authenticity of findings,
the research’s trustworthiness, and how it is being acted upon.
There are four types of validity: First, measurement validity
investigates if a discovered result from statistical data really indicates what is
measured in a quantitative research. Second, internal validity examines if a
conclusion contains causal relationship of variables (Bryman and Bell, 2011).
Third, external validity generalizes results from a specific to a broad range.
This type of validity may also be called generalization and was explained in
the previous part. Finally, experiential validity interrogates how far the
findings of an experiment can be identified in real life situations. In a
qualitative research, most focus on getting an inside view to provide a detailed
explanation through interpretation. In order to provide validity in
understanding of a qualitative research, researchers have developed various
approaches, such as: conveying an insider’s opinion to others; using internal
and external criticisms to determine whether evidence is real or just believed
to be; becoming transparent in the research process; and, creating a tight fit
between understandings, opinions, and claims, regarding the social world and
what is actually occurring within it.
Objectivity
The principle of objectivity is utilized in positivist and post-positivist
research. It is expected that researchers do not incorporate their own opinions,
values and beliefs, into the research process. In order to fulfil the requirements
of this principle, different quantitative research methods are used and are
crosschecked for their findings. However, it is almost impossible to bring
some objectivity criteria – via utilizing these kinds of methods – to any
phenomenological study. This is because others’ views may become partially
injected into the research, and subjectivity almost always inserted into the
inquiry by the researcher’s values, awareness, and mere presence. Hence,
especially from an epistemological point of view, this principle cannot be
applied into any phenomenological study.
European Scientific Journal March 2020 edition Vol.16, No.7 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431
194
Trustworthiness
Trustworthiness demonstrates the quality of a research’s findings in a
qualitative research by looking into five characteristic inquiries: a. Truth
value, b. Applicability, c. Consistency, and, d. Neutrality, e. Authenticity.
Transferability checks the applicability of findings to similar contexts by
utilizng “Thick description”. Thick description combines different methods,
such as, interviews, observations, and focus groups. Credibility focuses on
construction of participants’ realities. Seven major techniques are used in a
qualitative inquiry to provide credibility: a. Using prolonged engagement; b.
Persistent observation; c. Triangulation; d. Peer debriefing; e. Negative case
analysis); f. Progressive subjectivity); and, g. Member checks (Guba and
Lincoln, 1989). Dependability provides an inquiry’s consistency among main
research components. Confirmability examines if the inquiry is influenced by
the researcher’s biases. Authenticity focuses on developing a fair, honest and
balanced account of social life from the perspective of someone who is
personally involved with the issues at hand (Neuman, 2011).
Reflexivity
The definition of reflexivity goes back to early 1930s. George Herbert
Mead offered one of the best known and popular definitions of reflexivity in
1934: “It is by means of reflexiveness—the turning-back of the experience
of the individual upon himself—that the whole social process is thus
brought into the experiences of the individuals involved in it; it is by
such means, which enable the individual to take the attitude of the other
toward himself, that the individual is consciously to adjust himself to
that process, and to modify the resultant of that process in any given
social act in terms of his adjustment to it. Reflexiveness, then, is the
essential condition, within the social process, for the development of
mind” (Strauss, 1956: 211).
Alvesson and Sköldberg (2009) define two fundamental characteristics
in reflective research, as careful interpretation and reflection. Firstly, all
references to empirical data stems from interpretation. Secondly, reflection
considers interpretation through researcher’s character, whole relevant
research society, language, and culture. Reflection can be defined as
“interpretation of interpretation” (Ibid: 9). Reflexivity provides a mutual and
continuing interaction between the self and the research topic. Self develops
the research process but also it is developed through that same process. The
researcher is a fundamental part of the research with giving meaning to data
which is collected through methods. Collected data is just a pile of information
European Scientific Journal March 2020 edition Vol.16, No.7 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431
195
without the researcher’s interpretations (Gilbert, 2008). Hence, self-reflection
is sine qua non part of the research process.
Conclusion
Interpretation and making sense of what has been observed gains more
importance in a qualitative research. Therefore, that qualitative research
design provides a better guidance to the social science research process when
dealing with cultural issues such as values, symbols, rituals and ideas.
Qualitative research requires a broader and less restrictive concept of design
than the more traditional perspectives. The components of research affect and
are affected by each other (Maxwell, 2009).
The reflection of interactive relationship must also be seen in the
researcher’s reasoning. There must be a constant back and forth between
inductive and deductive reasoning throughout the process. The abductive
approach
15
combines both deductive and inductive methodologies. It provides
more flexibility vis-à-vis developing new knowledge and especially better
interaction among research components, such as, philosophical perspective,
ontological and epistemological positions, paradigms of inquiry, literature
reviews, theory, methodology, methods, and rigour. The model of qualitative
research design is presented in Figure 2. This research design is used not only
in qualitative researches, but also is used in other fields when a phenomenon
is to be appreciated in depth.
15
The term abduction was coined in the translation of the Aristotelian Apagoge by Julius
Pacius in 1597. However, it was Peirce (1931) that for the first time introduced abduction as
a type of logical reasoning, by combining a diverse inference pattern with the name of
‘hypothesis’ (Reichertz, 2004). According to Peirce (1955: 151): “The first starting of a
hypothesis and the entertaining of it, whether as a simple interrogation or with any degree of
confidence, is an inferential step which I propose to call abduction…This will include a
preference for any one hypothesis over others which would equally explain the facts, so long
as this preference is not based upon any previous knowledge bearing upon the truth of the
hypotheses, nor on any testing of any of the hypotheses, after having admitted them on
probation.”
European Scientific Journal March 2020 edition Vol.16, No.7 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431
196
Figure 2: The Model of Research Design
References:
1. Adorno, T.W. (1976). On the logic of the Social Science. In T.W.
Adorno, H. Albert, R. Dahrendorf, J. Habermas, H. Pilot and K.R.
Popper, The Positivist Dispute in German Sociology, London:
Heinemann.
2. Alvesson, M. & Kaj Skoldberg, (2009). Reflexive methodology, 2nd ed.
London: Sage Publications.
3. Anderson, J. (2000). The "Third Generation" of the Frankfurt School,
Intellectual History Newsletter, 22, pp.31-57.
4. Bradbury, H., Mirvis P., Neilsen E. and Pasmore W. (2013), In P.
Reason &
5. H. Bradbury (Eds.), 2nd edn., Handbook of action research. London:
SAGE Publications, pp. 77–92.
6. Bryman, A. (2004). Social Research Methods, 2nd edn, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
7. Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2011) Business Research Methods, 3rd edn.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8. Bryant, A & Charmaz, K. (eds) (2007). The Sage Handbook of
Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, pp 1-28.
9. Car, W. and Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming Critical, London: Falmer.
European Scientific Journal March 2020 edition Vol.16, No.7 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431
197
10. Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory. 2nd edn. London:
Sage Publications. Comtè, A. (1865). A General View of Positivism.
Trans. by J.H. Bridges, London: Trubner and Co.
11. Craig, D.V. (2009). Action Research Essentials, San Francisco: John
Wiley Sons.
12. Creswell, J.W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry Research Design. 3rd edn.
California: Sage Publications.
13. Crotty, M. (1989). The Foundations of Social Research. London: Sage
Publications.
14. Fox, Robin, 1985. In Kuper, A & Kuper, J (eds), in ‘The Social Science
Encyclopedia’, London: Routledge.
15. Davies, C.A. (2008). Reflexive Ethnography, 2nd edn., Oxon:
Routledge.
16. Deegan, M.J. (2001). The Chicago School of Ethnography, in n P.
Atkinson, A. Coffey, S. Delamont, J. Lofland and L. Lofland (eds.),
Handbook of Ethnography, London: Sage. pp. 11–25.
17. Fromm, E. (1941). Escape from Freedom. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston.
18. Gadamer, H.G., (2006). Theory, Culture & Society, SAGE, Vol. 23(1),
pp. 29–56.
19. Gadamer, H.G., (2008). Philosophical Hermeneutics, trans. & ed. D.E
Linge, California: University of California Press.
20. Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory.
New York: Alpine.
21. Glesne C. (2011). Becoming Qualitative Researchers, 4th edn., Boston:
Pearson.
22. Guba, E. G., and Lincoln, Y.S. (1986). But Is It Rigorous?
Trustworthiness and Authenticity in Naturalistic Evaluation. In D.
Williams (ed.), Naturalistic Evaluation. New Directions for
Evaluation, No. 30. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
23. Guba, E.G and Lincoln, Y.S. (1989). Fourth Generation Evaluation.
London: Sage Publications.
24. Guba, E.G and Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Competing Paradigms in
Qualitative Research, in N.Denzin, and Y.S Lincoln (eds), Handbook
of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Pp.105-117.
25. Gustavsen, B. (2001). Theory and Practice: The Mediating Discourse.
In P. Reason &
26. H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of Action Research, London:SAGE,
pp. 17–26.
27. Gustavsen, B. (2008). Action Research, Practical Challenges and The
Formation of Theory, Sage Publications Volume 6(4), pp.421–437.
European Scientific Journal March 2020 edition Vol.16, No.7 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431
198
28. Habermas, J. (1974). Theory and Practice. Trans. John Viertel.
London: Heinemann.
29. Hammersley, M. and Atkinson P. (2007). Ethnography: Principles in
Practice, 3rd edn., New York: Routledge.
30. Harris, M. (1968). The Rise of Anthropological Theory: A History of
Theories of Culture. New York: T.Y. Crowell.
31. Have P.T. (2004). Understanding Qualitative Research and
Ethnomethodology, London: SAGE Publications.
32. Heron, J., & Reason, P. (1997). A Participatory Inquiry Paradigm.
Qualitative Inquiry, 3 (3), pp.274-294.
33. Honneth, A. (2004). A Social Pathology of Reason: On the Intellectual
Legacy of Critical Theory, In Rush, F. (ed.), The Cambridge
Companion to Critical Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
34. Honneth, A. (2014). The I In We. Trans. by Joseph Ganahl, Cambridge:
Polity Press.
35. Horkheimer, M. (1972). Critical Theory: Selected Essays, New York:
Continuum.
36. Horn, A.J. (2013). Marx’s Historical Dialectic, Critique, 41(4),
pp.495-513.
37. House, R. J, Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W. and Gupta, V.,
(2004). Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of
62 Societies. California: SAGE Publications.
38. Howell, K.E. (2013). An Introduction to the Philosophy of
Methodology, London: SAGE Publications.
39. Josselson, R. (2013). Interviewing for Qualitative Inquiry, New York:
The Guilford Press.
40. Jorgensen, D.L. (1989). Participant Observation, California: Sage
Publications.
41. Juroš, T.V. (2011). Reporting on the Issues of Research Rigour, Revija
Za Sociologiju, 41, 2, pp.161–184. Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews,
California: Sage Publications, Inc.
42. Khun, T.S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago:
University of Chicago.
43. Kincheloe, J. L., and Tobin, K. (2009). The Much-Exaggerated Death
of Positivism. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4, pp.513–528.
44. Kirk, J., & Miller, M. L., (1986). Reliability and Validity in Qualitative
Research. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
45. Krueger, R.A. (1994). Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied
Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
46. Krueger, R.A. (1998). Moderating Focus Groups, Focus Group Kit
Vol 4. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
European Scientific Journal March 2020 edition Vol.16, No.7 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431
199
47. Larsson, S. (2009). A Pluralist View of Generalization in Qualitative
Research, International Journal of Research & Method in Education,
32:1, pp.25-38.
48. Lincoln, Y. S. and Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
49. Lincoln Y.S., (1995). Emerging Criteria for Qualitative and
Interpretive Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 3, pp. 275–289.
50. Lincoln, Y. S. and Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies,
contradictions, and emerging confluences, In N. K. Denzin and Y. S.
Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd edition (pp.163-
188), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
51. Longino, H. (1992). Essential Tensions--Phase Two. In (eds). Louise
Antony and Charlotte Witt, A Mind of Her Own: Feminist Essays on
Reason and Objectivity, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
52. Marcuse, H. (1964). One Dimensional Man. Boston: Beacon Press.
53. Marx, K. (1967). Das Capital, Vol.1, berlin: Dietz.
54. Marx, K. (1988). Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844.
trans. Miligan, M., New York: Prometheus Books.
55. McGhee G., Marland G.R. & Atkinson J. (2007). Grounded theory
research:
56. literature reviewing and reflexivity. Journal of Advanced Nursing,
60(3), pp. 334–342.
57. Merton, R.K., Fiske, M. and Kendall, P.L (1956). The Focused
Interview: a Manual of Problems and Procedures. Glencoe, IL: Free
Press.
58. Morse J.M., Barrett M., Mayan M., Olson K. & Spiers J. (2002).
Verification Strategies for Establishing Reliability and Validity in
Qualitative Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods,
1(2), pp.13-22.
59. Neuman, W. L. (2011). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and
Quantitative Approaches, 7th edn. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
60. Ng, K. (2015). Ideology Critique from Hegel and Marx to Critical
Theory, Constellations, 22(3), pp. 393-404.
61. Nielsen, J. (1992). Finding Usability Problems through Heuristic
Evaluation, Proceedings ACM CHI'92 Conference, May 3-7, CA:
Monterey, pp. 373-380.
62. Park, P. (2001). Knowledge and Participatory Research. In P. Reason
& H. Bradbury (Eds.), 1st edn., Handbook of Action Research, London:
SAGE Publications, pp. 81–89.
63. Popper, K. (2002). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: The
Routledge Classics.
European Scientific Journal March 2020 edition Vol.16, No.7 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431
200
64. Pensky, M. N (1999). Third Generation Critical Theory. In Critchley
S. & Schroeder W.R. (eds.), A Companion to Continental Philosophy,
Oxford: Blackwell.
65. Ricoeur, (1981). Hermeneutics & the Human Sciences, ed. and trans.
By John B.Thompson, New York: Cambridge University Press.
66. Rush, F. (2004). Conceptual Foundations of Early Critical Theory. In
F. Rush (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Critical Theory.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
67. Weber, M. (1930/2001). The Protestant Ethic and The Spirit of
Capitalism. London: Routledge.
68. Schwandt, T.A. (2001). Dictionary of Qualitative Inquiry, 2nd ed.
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
69. Scotland, J. (2012). Exploring the Philosophical Underpinnings of
Research: Relating Ontology and Epistemology to the Methodology
and Methods of the Scientific. Interpretive, and Critical Research
Paradigms. English Language Teaching, 5(9), pp.9-16.
70. Stewart, D. W., Shamdasani, P. N., and Rook, D. W. (2007). Focus
Groups: Theory and Practice, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
71. Stewart, D. W., Shamdasani, P. N., and Rook, D. W. (2009). Group
Depths Interviews, in Bickman L. and Rog, D.J. (eds.), The Sage
Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods, 2nd edn. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
72. Tobin, G., & Begley, C. (2004). Methodological Rigour within a
Qualitative Framework. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 48(4), pp.388-
396.
73. Toren, C. (1996). Ethnography: Theoretical Background, in John T.E
Richardson, Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods. Leicester:
The British Psychological Society.
