can case studies be used for philosophical research

Previous Article
Next Article
1. Introduction
4. Discussion
5. Conclusion

The Case Study Method in Philosophy of Science: An Empirical Study

Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the 26th Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association in Seattle, Washington (November 1–4, 2018) and the Workshop on Experimental Philosophy of Science at Aarhus University in Denmark (October 15–16, 2019). I thank Samuel Schindler for inviting me to the workshop and the audience for their helpful comments. I am also grateful to two anonymous reviewers of Perspectives on Science for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. Special thanks as well to the Editor, Alex Levine.

Cite Icon Cite
Permissions
Article contents
Figures & tables
Supplementary Data
Peer Review
Search Site

Moti Mizrahi; The Case Study Method in Philosophy of Science: An Empirical Study. Perspectives on Science 2020; 28 (1): 63–88. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/posc_a_00333

Download citation file:

Ris (Zotero)
Reference Manager

There is an ongoing methodological debate in philosophy of science concerning the use of case studies as evidence for and/or against theories about science. In this paper, I aim to make a contribution to this debate by taking an empirical approach. I present the results of a systematic survey of the PhilSci-Archive, which suggest that a sizeable proportion of papers in philosophy of science contain appeals to case studies, as indicated by the occurrence of the indicator words “case study” and/or “case studies.” These results are confirmed by data mined from the JSTOR database on research articles published in leading journals in the field: Philosophy of Science , the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science ( BJPS ), and the Journal for General Philosophy of Science ( JGPS ), as well as the Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association ( PSA ). The data also show upward trends in appeals to case studies in articles published in Philosophy of Science , the BJPS , and the JGPS . The empirical work I have done for this paper provides philosophers of science who are wary of the use of case studies as evidence for and/or against theories about science with a way to do philosophy of science that is informed by data rather than case studies.

Client Account

Online ISSN 1530-9274
Print ISSN 1063-6145

A product of The MIT Press

Mit press direct.

About MIT Press Direct

Information

Accessibility
For Authors
For Customers
For Librarians
Direct to Open
Open Access
Media Inquiries
Rights and Permissions
For Advertisers
About the MIT Press
The MIT Press Reader
MIT Press Blog
Seasonal Catalogs
MIT Press Home
Give to the MIT Press
Direct Service Desk
Terms of Use
Privacy Statement
Crossref Member
COUNTER Member
The MIT Press colophon is registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Search Menu
Browse content in Arts and Humanities
Browse content in Archaeology
Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
Archaeology by Region
Archaeology of Religion
Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
Biblical Archaeology
Contemporary and Public Archaeology
Environmental Archaeology
Historical Archaeology
History and Theory of Archaeology
Industrial Archaeology
Landscape Archaeology
Mortuary Archaeology
Prehistoric Archaeology
Underwater Archaeology
Urban Archaeology
Zooarchaeology
Browse content in Architecture
Architectural Structure and Design
History of Architecture
Residential and Domestic Buildings
Theory of Architecture
Browse content in Art
Art Subjects and Themes
History of Art
Industrial and Commercial Art
Theory of Art
Biographical Studies
Byzantine Studies
Browse content in Classical Studies
Classical History
Classical Philosophy
Classical Mythology
Classical Literature
Classical Reception
Classical Art and Architecture
Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
Greek and Roman Papyrology
Greek and Roman Epigraphy
Greek and Roman Law
Greek and Roman Archaeology
Late Antiquity
Religion in the Ancient World
Digital Humanities
Browse content in History
Colonialism and Imperialism
Diplomatic History
Environmental History
Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
Historical Geography
History by Period
History of Emotions
History of Agriculture
History of Education
History of Gender and Sexuality
Industrial History
Intellectual History
International History
Labour History
Legal and Constitutional History
Local and Family History
Maritime History
Military History
National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
Oral History
Political History
Public History
Regional and National History
Revolutions and Rebellions
Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
Social and Cultural History
Theory, Methods, and Historiography
Urban History
World History
Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
Language Learning (Specific Skills)
Language Teaching Theory and Methods
Browse content in Linguistics
Applied Linguistics
Cognitive Linguistics
Computational Linguistics
Forensic Linguistics
Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
History of English
Language Evolution
Language Reference
Language Acquisition
Language Variation
Language Families
Lexicography
Linguistic Anthropology
Linguistic Theories
Linguistic Typology
Phonetics and Phonology
Psycholinguistics
Sociolinguistics
Translation and Interpretation
Writing Systems
Browse content in Literature
Bibliography
Children's Literature Studies
Literary Studies (Romanticism)
Literary Studies (American)
Literary Studies (Asian)
Literary Studies (European)
Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
Literary Studies (Modernism)
Literary Studies - World
Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
Literary Studies (19th Century)
Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
Literary Studies (African American Literature)
Literary Studies (British and Irish)
Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
Literary Studies (History of the Book)
Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
Literary Studies (War Literature)
Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
Mythology and Folklore
Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
Browse content in Media Studies
Browse content in Music
Applied Music
Dance and Music
Ethics in Music
Ethnomusicology
Gender and Sexuality in Music
Medicine and Music
Music Cultures
Music and Media
Music and Religion
Music and Culture
Music Education and Pedagogy
Music Theory and Analysis
Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
Musicology and Music History
Performance Practice and Studies
Race and Ethnicity in Music
Sound Studies
Browse content in Performing Arts
Browse content in Philosophy
Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
Epistemology
Feminist Philosophy
History of Western Philosophy
Metaphysics
Moral Philosophy
Non-Western Philosophy
Philosophy of Language
Philosophy of Mind
Philosophy of Perception
Philosophy of Science
Philosophy of Action
Philosophy of Law
Philosophy of Religion
Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
Practical Ethics
Social and Political Philosophy
Browse content in Religion
Biblical Studies
Christianity
East Asian Religions
History of Religion
Judaism and Jewish Studies
Qumran Studies
Religion and Education
Religion and Health
Religion and Politics
Religion and Science
Religion and Law
Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
Religious Studies
Browse content in Society and Culture
Cookery, Food, and Drink
Cultural Studies
Customs and Traditions
Ethical Issues and Debates
Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
Sports and Outdoor Recreation
Technology and Society
Travel and Holiday
Visual Culture
Browse content in Law
Arbitration
Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
Commercial Law
Company Law
Browse content in Comparative Law
Systems of Law
Competition Law
Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
Government Powers
Judicial Review
Local Government Law
Military and Defence Law
Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
Construction Law
Contract Law
Browse content in Criminal Law
Criminal Procedure
Criminal Evidence Law
Sentencing and Punishment
Employment and Labour Law
Environment and Energy Law
Browse content in Financial Law
Banking Law
Insolvency Law
History of Law
Human Rights and Immigration
Intellectual Property Law
Browse content in International Law
Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
Public International Law
IT and Communications Law
Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
Law and Politics
Law and Society
Browse content in Legal System and Practice
Courts and Procedure
Legal Skills and Practice
Primary Sources of Law
Regulation of Legal Profession
Medical and Healthcare Law
Browse content in Policing
Criminal Investigation and Detection
Police and Security Services
Police Procedure and Law
Police Regional Planning
Browse content in Property Law
Personal Property Law
Study and Revision
Terrorism and National Security Law
Browse content in Trusts Law
Wills and Probate or Succession
Browse content in Medicine and Health
Browse content in Allied Health Professions
Arts Therapies
Clinical Science
Dietetics and Nutrition
Occupational Therapy
Operating Department Practice
Physiotherapy
Radiography
Speech and Language Therapy
Browse content in Anaesthetics
General Anaesthesia
Neuroanaesthesia
Clinical Neuroscience
Browse content in Clinical Medicine
Acute Medicine
Cardiovascular Medicine
Clinical Genetics
Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
Dermatology
Endocrinology and Diabetes
Gastroenterology
Genito-urinary Medicine
Geriatric Medicine
Infectious Diseases
Medical Toxicology
Medical Oncology
Pain Medicine
Palliative Medicine
Rehabilitation Medicine
Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
Rheumatology
Sleep Medicine
Sports and Exercise Medicine
Community Medical Services
Critical Care
Emergency Medicine
Forensic Medicine
Haematology
History of Medicine
Browse content in Medical Skills
Clinical Skills
Communication Skills
Nursing Skills
Surgical Skills
Browse content in Medical Dentistry
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Paediatric Dentistry
Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
Surgical Dentistry
Medical Ethics
Medical Statistics and Methodology
Browse content in Neurology
Clinical Neurophysiology
Neuropathology
Nursing Studies
Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Gynaecology
Occupational Medicine
Ophthalmology
Otolaryngology (ENT)
Browse content in Paediatrics
Neonatology
Browse content in Pathology
Chemical Pathology
Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
Histopathology
Medical Microbiology and Virology
Patient Education and Information
Browse content in Pharmacology
Psychopharmacology
Browse content in Popular Health
Caring for Others
Complementary and Alternative Medicine
Self-help and Personal Development
Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
Cell Biology
Molecular Biology and Genetics
Reproduction, Growth and Development
Primary Care
Professional Development in Medicine
Browse content in Psychiatry
Addiction Medicine
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
Forensic Psychiatry
Learning Disabilities
Old Age Psychiatry
Psychotherapy
Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
Epidemiology
Public Health
Browse content in Radiology
Clinical Radiology
Interventional Radiology
Nuclear Medicine
Radiation Oncology
Reproductive Medicine
Browse content in Surgery
Cardiothoracic Surgery
Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
General Surgery
Neurosurgery
Paediatric Surgery
Peri-operative Care
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
Surgical Oncology
Transplant Surgery
Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
Vascular Surgery
Browse content in Science and Mathematics
Browse content in Biological Sciences
Aquatic Biology
Biochemistry
Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
Developmental Biology
Ecology and Conservation
Evolutionary Biology
Genetics and Genomics
Microbiology
Molecular and Cell Biology
Natural History
Plant Sciences and Forestry
Research Methods in Life Sciences
Structural Biology
Systems Biology
Zoology and Animal Sciences
Browse content in Chemistry
Analytical Chemistry
Computational Chemistry
Crystallography
Environmental Chemistry
Industrial Chemistry
Inorganic Chemistry
Materials Chemistry
Medicinal Chemistry
Mineralogy and Gems
Organic Chemistry
Physical Chemistry
Polymer Chemistry
Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
Theoretical Chemistry
Browse content in Computer Science
Artificial Intelligence
Computer Architecture and Logic Design
Game Studies
Human-Computer Interaction
Mathematical Theory of Computation
Programming Languages
Software Engineering
Systems Analysis and Design
Virtual Reality
Browse content in Computing
Business Applications
Computer Security
Computer Games
Computer Networking and Communications
Digital Lifestyle
Graphical and Digital Media Applications
Operating Systems
Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
Atmospheric Sciences
Environmental Geography
Geology and the Lithosphere
Maps and Map-making
Meteorology and Climatology
Oceanography and Hydrology
Palaeontology
Physical Geography and Topography
Regional Geography
Soil Science
Urban Geography
Browse content in Engineering and Technology
Agriculture and Farming
Biological Engineering
Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
Electronics and Communications Engineering
Energy Technology
Engineering (General)
Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
History of Engineering and Technology
Mechanical Engineering and Materials
Technology of Industrial Chemistry
Transport Technology and Trades
Browse content in Environmental Science
Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
Environmental Sustainability
Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
History of Science and Technology
Browse content in Materials Science
Ceramics and Glasses
Composite Materials
Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
Nanotechnology
Browse content in Mathematics
Applied Mathematics
Biomathematics and Statistics
History of Mathematics
Mathematical Education
Mathematical Finance
Mathematical Analysis
Numerical and Computational Mathematics
Probability and Statistics
Pure Mathematics
Browse content in Neuroscience
Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
Development of the Nervous System
Disorders of the Nervous System
History of Neuroscience
Invertebrate Neurobiology
Molecular and Cellular Systems
Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
Neuroscientific Techniques
Sensory and Motor Systems
Browse content in Physics
Astronomy and Astrophysics
Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
Biological and Medical Physics
Classical Mechanics
Computational Physics
Condensed Matter Physics
Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
History of Physics
Mathematical and Statistical Physics
Measurement Science
Nuclear Physics
Particles and Fields
Plasma Physics
Quantum Physics
Relativity and Gravitation
Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
Browse content in Psychology
Affective Sciences
Clinical Psychology
Cognitive Psychology
Cognitive Neuroscience
Criminal and Forensic Psychology
Developmental Psychology
Educational Psychology
Evolutionary Psychology
Health Psychology
History and Systems in Psychology
Music Psychology
Neuropsychology
Organizational Psychology
Psychological Assessment and Testing
Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
Psychology Professional Development and Training
Research Methods in Psychology
Social Psychology
Browse content in Social Sciences
Browse content in Anthropology
Anthropology of Religion
Human Evolution
Medical Anthropology
Physical Anthropology
Regional Anthropology
Social and Cultural Anthropology
Theory and Practice of Anthropology
Browse content in Business and Management
Business Ethics
Business Strategy
Business History
Business and Technology
Business and Government
Business and the Environment
Comparative Management
Corporate Governance
Corporate Social Responsibility
Entrepreneurship
Health Management
Human Resource Management
Industrial and Employment Relations
Industry Studies
Information and Communication Technologies
International Business
Knowledge Management
Management and Management Techniques
Operations Management
Organizational Theory and Behaviour
Pensions and Pension Management
Public and Nonprofit Management
Strategic Management
Supply Chain Management
Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
Criminal Justice
Criminology
Forms of Crime
International and Comparative Criminology
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
Development Studies
Browse content in Economics
Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
Asian Economics
Behavioural Finance
Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
Economic History
Economic Systems
Economic Methodology
Economic Development and Growth
Financial Markets
Financial Institutions and Services
General Economics and Teaching
Health, Education, and Welfare
History of Economic Thought
International Economics
Labour and Demographic Economics
Law and Economics
Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
Microeconomics
Public Economics
Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
Welfare Economics
Browse content in Education
Adult Education and Continuous Learning
Care and Counselling of Students
Early Childhood and Elementary Education
Educational Equipment and Technology
Educational Strategies and Policy
Higher and Further Education
Organization and Management of Education
Philosophy and Theory of Education
Schools Studies
Secondary Education
Teaching of a Specific Subject
Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
Teaching Skills and Techniques
Browse content in Environment
Applied Ecology (Social Science)
Climate Change
Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
Natural Disasters (Environment)
Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
Browse content in Human Geography
Cultural Geography
Economic Geography
Political Geography
Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
Communication Studies
Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
Browse content in Politics
African Politics
Asian Politics
Chinese Politics
Comparative Politics
Conflict Politics
Elections and Electoral Studies
Environmental Politics
European Union
Foreign Policy
Gender and Politics
Human Rights and Politics
Indian Politics
International Relations
International Organization (Politics)
International Political Economy
Irish Politics
Latin American Politics
Middle Eastern Politics
Political Behaviour
Political Economy
Political Institutions
Political Methodology
Political Communication
Political Philosophy
Political Sociology
Political Theory
Politics and Law
Public Policy
Public Administration
Quantitative Political Methodology
Regional Political Studies
Russian Politics
Security Studies
State and Local Government
UK Politics
US Politics
Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
African Studies
Asian Studies
East Asian Studies
Japanese Studies
Latin American Studies
Middle Eastern Studies
Native American Studies
Scottish Studies
Browse content in Research and Information
Research Methods
Browse content in Social Work
Addictions and Substance Misuse
Adoption and Fostering
Care of the Elderly
Child and Adolescent Social Work
Couple and Family Social Work
Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
Emergency Services
Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
International and Global Issues in Social Work
Mental and Behavioural Health
Social Justice and Human Rights
Social Policy and Advocacy
Social Work and Crime and Justice
Social Work Macro Practice
Social Work Practice Settings
Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
Welfare and Benefit Systems
Browse content in Sociology
Childhood Studies
Community Development
Comparative and Historical Sociology
Economic Sociology
Gender and Sexuality
Gerontology and Ageing
Health, Illness, and Medicine
Marriage and the Family
Migration Studies
Occupations, Professions, and Work
Organizations
Population and Demography
Race and Ethnicity
Social Theory
Social Movements and Social Change
Social Research and Statistics
Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
Sociology of Religion
Sociology of Education
Sport and Leisure
Urban and Rural Studies
Browse content in Warfare and Defence
Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
Land Forces and Warfare
Military Administration
Military Life and Institutions
Naval Forces and Warfare
Other Warfare and Defence Issues
Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
Weapons and Equipment

The Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd edn)

< Previous chapter
Next chapter >

5 Philosophical Approaches to Qualitative Research

Renée Spencer, School of Social Work, Boston University

Julia M. Pryce, School of Social Work, Loyola University, Chicago

Jill Walsh, Department of Sociology, Boston University

Published: 02 September 2020
Cite Icon Cite
Permissions Icon Permissions

This chapter reviews some of the major overarching philosophical approaches to qualitative inquiry and includes some historical background for each approach. Taking a “big picture” view, the chapter discusses postpositivism, constructivism, critical theory, feminism, and queer theory and offers a brief history of these approaches; considers the ontological, epistemological, and axiological assumptions on which they rest; and details some of their distinguishing features. In the last section, attention is turned to the future, identifying three overarching, interrelated, and contested issues with which the field is being confronted and will be compelled to address as it moves forward: retaining the rich diversity that has defined the field, the articulation of recognizable standards for qualitative research, and the commensurability of differing approaches.

Much ink has been spilled in what have been called the paradigm wars , or battles within psychology and related disciples about how we know—and who judges—what is real. Efforts to establish the legitimacy of qualitative research have often taken the form of vociferous arguments for the merits of qualitative approaches, typically cast in terms of the contrasts between qualitative approaches and the more widely accepted quantitative approaches to knowledge production. More recently, even as the push toward evidence-based practice gains momentum and predictably lists the field toward greater uniformity in acceptable approaches to establishing what can be deemed credible evidence, qualitative approaches have continued to strengthen in presence and broaden in reach. Once a seeming fledgling movement, despite its long but sometimes forgotten history (Wertz et al., 2011 ), qualitative research in psychology appears to have come of age. This maturity is reflected in the wide variety of philosophical approaches to qualitative research that have now firmly taken root.

In this chapter, we review some of the major overarching philosophical approaches to qualitative inquiry and include some historical background for each one. Here, we offer a “big picture” view; other chapters in this section (on interpretive, critical, feminist, and indigenous approaches) will take a more fine-grained look at some of the particular fields of thought within these approaches. Described by Denzin and Lincoln ( 2013 ) as “a field of inquiry in its own right” (p. 5), qualitative research cuts across disciplines and is represented in many areas of scholarship. We focus here on psychology, but recognize the substantial work done in related fields such as sociology, anthropology, social work, social policy, humanities, and the health sciences, in particular, nursing. We cannot possibly do justice to the work that has been done in this arena in just one chapter. Entire volumes (cf., Denzin & Lincoln, 2013 ) are devoted to introducing researchers to these issues. We offer here what we hope is a concise and practical overview of some of the major philosophical assumptions that undergird qualitative research and shape its implementation in the early 21st century.

Once dominated by quantitative methods anchored in positivistic and postpositivistic research paradigms, a greater balance in the use of methodological and philosophical approaches is now being utilized in psychological research (Ponterotto, 2005 ; Rennie, Watson, & Monteiro, 2002 ). The importance of qualitative research has long been justified by many on the basis of Dilthey’s argument that the distinctive natures of natural science and human science called for different approaches: “We explain nature, but we understand psychic life” (1894/1977, p. 27; as cited in Wertz et al., 2011 , p. 80). Today, qualitative methods are viewed as being particularly well suited to addressing some of our most pressing issues and concerns, such as the influence of culture on psychological development and its role in psychological interventions (Ponterotto, Casas, Suzuki, & Alexander, 2010 ). The rise of participatory action research (PAR), with its emphasis on social change and the empowerment of community participants (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2005 ), has also required employing a range of qualitative approaches (i.e., focus groups, interviews, participant observation, photovoice, and storytelling) to collecting data that contribute to the development of the kind of deeper understandings of the experiences of the participants needed to effect meaningful change.

The diversity of qualitative approaches can be dizzying and makes agreement about their appropriate use, in what forms, and according to what standards difficult, if not impossible. It can be challenging for “insiders” to navigate these issues, let alone the novice researcher wading into this terrain. Seemingly simple questions about sample size and composition or the specific steps one should take in data analysis and how to achieve reliable findings can provoke lengthy discussion and even heated debates, with researchers take opposing positions and rooting their justification in foundational principles of qualitative research. Even more maddening for some, such questions may simply yield a repeated singular and highly unsatisfying response of “It depends.”

This seeming confusion can stem in part from differences in the purpose or aims of the research and in beliefs associated with core philosophies of science embedded within the varying approaches, namely, ontology, epistemology, and axiology (Creswell, 2007 ; Hays & Singh, 2012 ; Ponterotto, 2005 ). At its core, psychological research may be carried out with markedly distinct purposes, such as explaining and predicting aspects of the human experience, increasing our understanding of the lived experiences of different groups of people, or critiquing and changing the current conditions within which we live and strive to grow (Lincoln, Lynham, & Guba, 2013 ). These aims may also be carried out using approaches to research that rest on differing foundational assumptions about the nature of our world (ontology) and our knowledge about it (epistemology), as well as the role of values in the process of knowledge production (axiology), that are conceptualized by Hays and Singh ( 2012 ) as falling along separate continuums of beliefs.

Ontology is the study of the nature of reality. Within the context of qualitative research, ontology is discussed in terms of beliefs about the existence of some universal truth and about objectivity. At one end of the spectrum is a belief that reality is objective and that there are universal truths about reality that can be known. At the other end is a belief that reality is subjective and contextual, and a universal understanding of psychological experiences cannot be obtained because they must always be understood within the contexts within which they are embedded (Hays & Singh, 2012 ). The crux of these viewpoints is also represented in the terms emic and etic , which are often used in anthropology and cultural psychology. These terms have been used to capture the distinction between experience-near understandings of culture and human experience, or what an insider within a local context would recognize and resonate with, and more experience-distant conceptualizations or abstractions about cultural processes (e.g., Geertz, 1983 ). Etic can also be thought of as generalizations about human behavior that are universally true and emic as those that are contextually situated and not generalizable, such as local customs (Ponterotto, 2005 ).

Epistemology is the study of the process of knowing, or how we know what we know (Guba & Lincoln, 2008 ; Ponterotto, 2005 ). It is concerned with how we gain knowledge of what exists and the relationship between the knower—in this case the researcher—and the world. The researcher and research participant may be considered independent of one another. In this view, researchers can use rigorous, systematic approaches to studying participants objectively or without researcher bias. This results in much attention being paid to rigor in research, particularly in the form of strict adherence to generally accepted systematic approaches to enhancing objectivity and reducing researcher bias. On the other side of the continuum is an understanding of knowledge as being actively constructed by the researcher and participant, who exert mutual influence on one another. Rather than removing or guarding against researcher bias, the dynamic interaction between the researcher and participant is viewed as central to capturing the inherently contextualized experiences of the participant. Issues of rigor remain but take on different meanings and forms. The goal here is not to eliminate bias—because that would be futile—but rather to enhance the trustworthiness of the findings by including and documenting multiple perspectives on the focus of the inquiry. In some cases, this might mean demonstrating that the researcher became immersed enough in the participants’ experiences to be able to credibly represent and interpret them. In other cases, this might involve triangulating the data sources and/or the investigators.

Axiology is concerned with how values and assumptions of the researcher influence the scientific process, as well as what actions the researcher takes with the research produced (Lincoln et al., 2013 ). What place do the emotions, expectations, and values of the researcher have in the research process? Should systematic steps be taken to ensure that the process is kept free of these emotions, expectations, and values so that they do not influence the participants and the results? Or is such a pursuit futile and the best a researcher can do is identify, describe, or even attempt to “bracket” (Wertz, 2011 ) his or her values? Much qualitative research today rests on the assumption that research is “radically relational” and is inevitably shaped, and even intentionally informed, by the researcher’s orientation, values, and personal qualities (Wertz et al., 2011 , p. 84). In research that seeks to change the status quo with regard to the unequal distribution of power and resources, such as in PAR, the researcher’s experience is central to the process and may be key to achieving the intended outcomes of the research (Ponterotto, 2005 ). With regard to action, the positions range from researcher as distant observer of the study participants to researcher as change agent who is deliberately striving to achieve social justice through the work produced.

In some cases, the assumptions of a researcher may align more neatly along one side of these continuums. For example, a feminist researcher may hold that there are multiple truths and that knowledge is constructed in relationship with study participants, with the values and assumptions of the researcher integral to the construction of this knowledge. In others, the assumptions may be more mixed, such as a researcher who endorses a constructivist view of reality but views researcher reflexivity as less central to the research process. When these differing ontological, epistemological, and axiological stances go unacknowledged, the differences among qualitative approaches can seem as vast as those between quantitative and qualitative methods. As Camic, Rhodes, and Yardley ( 2003 ), among many others, argued, the principle that should unify us is the need for coherence between the nature of our questions and the methodological and philosophical approach taken to answering them.

In the next sections, we will review the following major overarching philosophical approaches that guide and structure qualitative research: postpositivism, constructivism, critical theory, feminism, and queer theory. We offer a brief history of each of the approaches; consider the ontological, epistemological, and axiological assumptions on which they rest; and detail some of the distinguishing features while also attempting to capture some of the diversity within them. We also touch on some prominent applications of these approaches to qualitative research in psychology. We recognize that these approaches have been grouped and defined in varying ways and that they defy this sort of tidy categorization. Still, we draw some lines here in an effort to highlight distinctive ideas within each approach. Also included are discussions of the applications of each approach.

Philosophical Approaches

Postpositivism.

Postpositivism grew out of the positivist view of science, and together these views have dominated research in psychology for much of the field’s history (Packer, 2011 ). Positivism rests on the ontological assumption that some objective truth or reality exists that is independent of our beliefs and constructions and can be ascertained through direct observation and experience. The efforts of science, thus, are put toward establishing universal laws of nature and, within psychology, universal laws of human development and experience. The attainment of this knowledge and our confidence in it depend on following systematic procedures through which claims about truth can be verified. Hypothesis generation and testing using valid measures of operationally defined variables are primary tools, and the goal is to be able, with confidence, to generalize the knowledge obtained to some larger general population. Postpositivism introduces the idea that hypotheses can never fully be proven beyond any doubt and that theory should be tested to be falsified as well as verified. Issues of validity and reliability are of central importance in research within this paradigm, as are considerations of credible alternative hypotheses to explain the phenomenon being studied.

Postpositivism is rooted in logical positivism, a term coined by a group of scientists, mathematicians, and philosophers in the early 1900s known as the Vienna Circle. Building on the “positive philosophy” of Auguste Comte, but also emphasizing the importance of formal logic in scientific investigation, these thinkers determined that science required a systematic way of organizing our direct observations of experience and sought to inductively build laws of the natural world based on the construction of meaningful and unambiguous logical statements (Packer, 2011 ). Only statements of fact that could be verified in some way or tested empirically were considered meaningful in the scientific endeavor.

Karl Popper ( 1934/1959 ) objected to the idea that this kind of inductive construction and confirmation of factual, logical statements that were purportedly free from personal and theoretical bias could lead to certainty about the natural world. Instead, he argued that the laws of science had to be built through a process of falsification or testing of hypotheses. He argued that data disproving hypotheses are more definitive than those supporting them, because in any given study there is always the risk that the data gathered do not accurately or fully represent the real world being studied. The disconfirming case or cases may simply have not made it into the sample drawn for study.

Foundational Assumptions

Postpositivism retains the belief in an observable external reality and the existence of universal truths but contends that a fully accurate representation of them can never be achieved with certitude (Popper, 1934/1959 ). Although things exist beyond our experience of them, our knowledge of this world is socially constructed. Bias is unavoidable. All observations are fallible because they are inherently laden with our individual and cultural biases. Although we can never get to the truth with any certainty, postpositivists contend that we should continually strive to come as close as possible. Because all measurement is biased and introduces error, issues of reliability and validity are paramount. Much attention is paid to reducing or controlling for bias through the design of the research and the use of clearly defined techniques, such as control groups and multiple forms of measurement or triangulation. This attempt to remove or at least reduce bias extends to the subjectivity of the researcher as well as to the intentions of the research. The researcher is to remain as neutral as possible throughout the research process and should not engage in research in the service of advocacy for any particular position within his or her field.

From a postpositivist perspective, the existence of multiple worldviews does not extend into a belief in complete relativism and an incommensurability of perspectives—the belief that our differences in experiences and culture mean that we can never understand each other. Whereas we may never achieve objectivity in the true sense of the word, we can employ systematic ways of checking our biases both individually and collectively through engaging in the scientific enterprise within a community of people who critically review one another’s work.

Implications for Research Methods

Research rooted in postpositivism aims to explain psychological phenomena by identifying factors that predict particular outcomes and the relationships between them. A priori theory about how things are related is used to guide the research, which then seeks to verify or falsify these theory-based ideas. Having confidence in the findings from such research rests on the rigor with which systematic steps in the research process are employed. Using multiple levels of data analysis and taking steps to ensure validity contribute to the rigor of the research, and the results of these studies are typically written in the form of scientific reports similar in structure to that used for the reporting of quantitative studies.

Application

Grounded theory , a now widely used approach to qualitative research, as traditionally constructed, aligns most closely with positivistic and postpositivistic assumptions (Bryant & Charmaz, 2010 ). It was first developed by Glaser and Strauss ( 1967 ) in response to what they considered an overemphasis on hypothesis testing and the verification of theory in sociological research. They argued that the work of theory generation could not be complete and that all human experience was unlikely to be captured and accounted for by the existing grand theories of the time. They put forth grounded theory as a systematic approach to qualitative data collection and analysis to be carried out with the explicit purpose of discovering new theory from data or building new theory from the ground up, rather than by logical deductions from a priori assumptions. Although grounded theory turned the process of scientific inquiry in the postpositivist tradition on its head by beginning with the collection of data to ultimately build theory rather than to prove or disprove existing theory, the foundational assumptions on which traditional grounded theory rests are largely rooted in postpositivism. That said, constructive approaches to grounded theory have also been articulated and widely implemented (e.g., Charmaz, 2014 ), and others have argued that grounded theory techniques can be implemented using a variety of philosophical approaches (Birks & Mills, 2011 ).

Traditional grounded theory “accepts that there is an external world that can be described, analyzed, explained and predicted: truth, but with a small t ” (Charmaz, 2000 , p. 524). Part of the intent of grounded theory was to codify qualitative research methods and put forth a systematic set of explicit strategies for carrying out the research process, with the assumption being that following a systematic set of methods would lead to the discovery of real phenomena and the development of verifiable “theories” of them (Strauss & Corbin, 1998 ). Such work, however, requires getting out into the field to collect rich data on which to build these theories. Some of the defining features of a grounded theory approach are (a) simultaneous data collection and analysis, (b) the development of codes from the data rather than from theory, (c) constant comparison of data at all levels of the data collection and analytic process, (d) theoretical sampling to serve the purpose of theory generation rather than representativeness of the sample, and (e) memo writing to define and elaborate on emerging categories and the relationships among them (Glaser & Strauss, 1967 ; Strauss & Corbin, 1998 ).

Social Constructionism

The tenets of the discipline throughout the 20th century tended to place social constructionism at the opposite pole of experimental social psychology (Jost & Kruglanski, 2002 ), with the idea being that work in social psychology should fall on either end of the spectrum: you either do quantitative experiments or engage in qualitative studies that are undergirded by a social constructionist paradigm. Additionally, social constructionism has often been positioned as being at odds with the “traditional, Western individualism of American psychology” (Raskin, 2002 , p. 9). Although the two extremes have begun to meet in the middle in recent years, it is important to examine the role that the social constructionist perspective has played in shaping our thinking and work in the field of psychological research.

The notion of social construction first gained popularity in the United States after the publication of Berger and Luckmann’s ( 1966 ) seminal book, The Social Construction of Reality . Relying on the work of Alfred Schutz, Berger and Luckmann argued that all our understandings and knowledge are socially constructed. The idea is that we create our own reality through social interactions, relationships, and experiences. From the ontological perspective, reality is context and socially relative and therefore many realities can exist simultaneously (Berger & Luckmann, 1966 ; Gergen, 1996 ). If our reality is constructed, then, too, our knowledge and meanings are derived from social interactions and understandings. Berger and Luckmann noted that we often accept social meanings from others without much forethought. Individuals hold these meanings in their minds, but the epistemological notion of reality and meanings is not individual in nature. Instead, individuals are constantly “negotiating meaning” (Gergen, 1996 , p. 119).

This has significant implications for both how we analyze the findings from past research in the field and how we shape future research projects. As Gergen ( 1996 ) stated, “research findings don’t have any meaning until they are interpreted” and interpretations “result from a process of negotiating meaning in the community” (p. 119). The data do not reveal anything in or of themselves; instead, it is the way that psychologists utilize and interpret the data that reveals meaning. But again, it is not a truth that is revealed, or rather it is a truth , the truth that the researcher, given his or her experiences and knowledge, created while interacting with the social environment. Diverse and influential work, such as Milgram’s ( 1974 ) experiment and Burr’s ( 1998 ) work on the social construction of gender, illustrates the power of social interactions to frame and influence our understandings and realities.

There is an important temporal component to this epistemological perspective because the ways that researchers engage with the social environment, and the participants in said environments, may change over time. In particular, value judgments that underpin research and affect our interactions with participants may change. An interesting example of this can be seen in our changing understandings of motherhood. Phoenix and Woollett ( 1991 ) argued that the ways we have socially constructed motherhood and the family have important implications for psychological research on mothers. They argued that the social (and psychological) construction of “ ‘normal’ being synonymous with ‘good’ and with ‘ideal’ ” (p. 13) motherhood has implications for a mother’s well-being and psychological health. In essence, the meanings around motherhood that linked normal mothers with ideal mothers was (and perhaps still is) a taken-for-granted assumption that may not be representative of women’s true experiences. This assumption may have affected both the typebs of research conducted on mothers and the ways researchers analyzed their findings. Phoenix and Woollett’s ( 1991 ) work serves as an important reminder that as our meanings around what motherhood can look like shift, we must re-evaluate previous psychological research on mothers and adapt our research moving forward to be more representative of the full spectrum of experiences.

Perhaps most important for our purposes, social construction highlights the social creation of identity. This approach posits that individuals do not have one stable core identity or personality (Raskin, 2002 ); rather, our personality and identity are context dependent (Goffman, 1955 ). Identity creation and impression maintenance is work in which we are constantly engaged as individuals; we use Goffmanian (Goffman, 1955 ) performances and props to test how others interpret our identities, which then impacts how we think of our own identity. According to Goffman, the performance is iterative: There is the performance, an interpretation of the feedback one receives on the performance, and then an adjustment of the performance, when warranted, based on the interpretation of the feedback. As meanings and reality are socially constructed, so, too, are our identities. This is also true for the related notion of self-worth. In an interesting study examining the social construction of identity among the homeless in Austin, Texas, Snow and Anderson ( 1987 ) found that there can be both a social identity (the identity that society gives you) and a personal identity (the identity you hold in your mind). Traditionally, these identities would be thought to align, but through a social construction approach, Snow and Anderson argued that there are cases in which people cannot easily reconcile the public and the personal. This has obvious implications for the field of social psychology and identity research.

Social construction, as defined by Berger and Luckmann ( 1966 ), suggests that reality is constantly in flux as it is negotiated and renegotiated through our experiences in our social worlds. From this core idea, other branches of social construction, such as symbolic interaction, phenomenology, and ethnomethodology, have evolved. Because they all fall under the social construction umbrella, it can be difficult at times to determine their differences. How does symbolic interactionism really differ from phenomenology, for example? The following sections lay out these three offshoots of social construction and attempt to present both their historical precedence and their current engagement with the discipline.

Symbolic Interactionism

The symbolic interactionist approach was first developed in the early 1900s by George Herbert Mead ( 1913 ) at the University of Chicago. Mead was a member of the eminent group of sociologists (loosely termed at the time because he also taught philosophy) working as part of the Chicago school in the early to mid-1900s. The Chicago school came to be known in particular for the development of the symbolic interactionist approach to studying daily life. Mead argued that society and all its component parts—structures, interactions, and meanings—are developed through social interactions; thus, macro analyses can and should really be reduced to their smaller micro-level interactions. The theory was popular during the time of the Chicago school and was then expanded and adapted by Herbert Blumer in 1960s. Blumer did not like the emphasis placed on macro-level structures that dominated most of the sociological research at the time and thought that symbolic interactionism offered an alternative theoretical framework. Blumer’s work ( 1969 ) was resurrected as an empirical framework in the 1980s, and its popularity has ebbed and flowed since. Symbolic interactionism has seen a resurgence recently in research on digital and emerging media. Jurgenson and Rey ( 2012 ) offered an interesting example of this work in their “fan dance” analogy, which builds on Goffman’s dramaturgical approach to illustrate the ways we make choices about what we reveal and conceal in our front-stage social media presentations.

Although Mead did not refer to the theory as such, symbolic interactionism is based on the overarching premise that all aspects of society are socially constituted. From macro-level power structures to micro-level daily interactions, all are created through social interactions at various levels. Embedded in this perspective is the notion that meanings (about these power structures, interactions, etc.) are derived from social interactions. For both Mead and Blumer, the unit of analysis is the individual, not society or institutions. They were both reacting against the notion that social structures (i.e., socioeconomic status) explain outcomes. Structures, according to symbolic interactionists, are just groups of people repeatedly engaged in interaction.

Our social interactions lead us to develop “shared meanings” (Sandstrom, Martin, & Fine, 2006 ); through our interactions with others, we take on common definitions of emotions, experiences, and ways of acting. Thus, for example, gender norms may be taught, both consciously and unconsciously, from early childhood; in this way, a female understands what it “means” to be a woman in her society without ever being explicitly told. A girl does not learn this in a bubble; rather, it is through her social interactions with others that she comes to understand what constitutes appropriate behavior, dress, appearance, and the like. She learns this through her experiences and the responses she gets from others in her day-to-day interactions.

Symbolic interactionism “stresses that people create, negotiate, and change social meanings through the process of interaction” (Sandstrom et al., 2006 , p. 1). The key point here, for Blumer and others, is that meanings are constantly evolving. So, to follow the example just mentioned, our understanding of gender is not a fixed fact (because it might differ depending on geographic location, religions, and time periods), but the result of previously experienced gendered interactions in our past. We take our previous interactions with us and apply them to the next interaction. Interactions, even with people we have just met, are not completely insulated events. Rather, each person brings to the interaction all his or her previous interactions and meanings. Thus, a student attending a professor’s office hours will bring to this exchange all of the person’s previously held ideas about their intellect, merit, and even what it means to be a student, all of which will be used as a guide for navigating this new interaction. And of ultimate importance is Goffman’s ( 1959 ) notion of the feedback loop; you act based on your prior understandings, receive feedback from your new partner, and then take this new feedback with you into your future interactions. As this process continues, you may alter your meanings, and potentially your behavior, over time. It is a process, not a set plan.

Because behavior and meaning are socially constituted, so, too, is the self. Most symbolic interactionists would argue that there is no core/true individual identity. Rather, we engage in identity work in which we take on different identities to manage the diversity of our social interactions. So, for example, in the classroom setting, one takes on the role of either professor or student. Out of this context, we may take on an entirely different identity, such as friend or sibling. None of these identities represents our “true self,” but rather they are all appropriate context-specific identities. We base these roles on what Goffman ( 1959 ) called the generalized other , or the group/people we interact with. So, we base our parenting role on our interactions with our children, our experiences with our own parents and friends, and media/cultural influences. As the generalized other changes, so do our identities. As a result of the primacy of social interactions, Mead’s original theory is very fluid. Meanings are iterative because they are informed by our ongoing interactions.

The legacy of symbolic interactionism for research in psychology is important. First, the notion that all behaviors, from internal thoughts to outward interactions, are socially constituted has an impact on the psychological discourse. For researchers, this means that the participant cannot be looked at simply as an individual, but rather as an individual in the social context. Thus, a person’s thoughts and judgments are not solely the product of his or her own mind, but rather of his or her understandings based on social interactions (Sandstrom et al., 2006 ). Additionally, one of the byproducts of social interaction is feedback about ourselves; we internalize others’ perceptions of us, which can, in turn, influence our self-concept (Cook & Douglas, 1998 ). This has significant implications for any researchers studying mental health because it means that the mind is no longer a solely internal, individual unit of analysis. One interesting example of this is Rieker and Carmen’s ( 1986 ) work on what they term the victim-to-patient process . In this research, Rieker and Carmen argued that the self can be fragmented by abuse and the victim must create new meanings about everything from safety, family, and relationships. While the fragmentation of self is perhaps an individual process, Rieker and Carmen argued that meanings around the abuse experience are made socially in relation to abusers and our social support systems (i.e., family, friends). Indeed, our thoughts, ideas, hopes, and fears are all rooted in the social world and therefore have both social causes and consequences. Therefore, the “social act” should be the unit of analysis (Sandstrom et al., 2006 ).

Symbolic interactionists also highlight individual agency to form and change the world around us. Individuals “designate meanings, define situations and plan lines of action. In so doing, they actively construct the reality of their environment and exercise a measure of control over it” (Sandstrom et al., 2006 , p. 6). We do this through the process of interacting, reflecting on and evaluating interactions, and acting. This process is dynamic and, at least to some degree, controlled by the individual. There is no right or set meaning or type of interaction. Instead, we each create our own realities based on our understandings and meanings. Thus, it is still possible for two people to react to the same interaction very differently because each person will bring his or her own history of social interactions and meanings to the experience. To return to Rieker and Carmen’s ( 1986 ) example, this would explain why not all victims of abuse suffer from mental illness; we each respond to the fragmentation and reconstitution of self in our own ways.

Rooting the theory in individual meanings and experiences has implications for the types of research methods symbolic interactionists will utilize. The most commonly utilized approaches are ethnography, grounded theory, and narrative analysis because these methods allow the themes to emerge from the data, thereby preserving the individual experiences and realities. These methods more readily address the question of how people make meaning out of experiences in their lives and do not allow the researcher’s assumptions and own set of meanings to dictate the findings that emerge from the data.

The border between social psychology and sociology is often blurred by researchers in both disciplines’ use of symbolic interactionism. In particular, Stryker ( 1987 ) argued that the movement in psychology away from behaviorism and toward a value placed on subjective experience is the result of the use of symbolic interactionism as a lens through which to examine psychological research. Thus, it is fair to say that the scope of symbolic interactionism’s influence is far reaching within the field. One interesting study that took a symbolic interactionist approach is Ponticelli’s ( 1999 ) study of people who identified as lesbians who, because of religious involvement in a ministry that does not acknowledge homosexuality, had to reframe their sexual identities to align with their newly acquired religious beliefs. Ponticelli’s research method involved 8 months of participant observations, interviews, and material analysis, and her goal was to understand the ways that the women who had identified as gay in her study construct a narrative of their sexuality. Symbolic interactionism lends itself well to this kind of study because it brings participants’ own understandings and narratives to the study rather than the researcher’s personal assessment of the participants’ stories. Additionally, Ponticelli’s study incorporated a symbolic interactionist approach in its attempt to focus on the ways that meaning is created and adjusted over time.

As mentioned previously, research on emerging media has also called on symbolic interactionism as a way to explore the symbols we make and take in the digital space. In particular, a great deal of research has been done using Goffman’s impression management (1959) because the dramaturgical description of social presentations of the self lends itself nicely to social media exchanges (e.g., boyd, 2007 ; Hogan, 2010 ; Mendelson & Papacharissi, 2010 Tufecki, 2008 ; Walther, 2008 ; Zarghooni, 2007 ).

Phenomenology

Phenomenology was first established by Edmund Husserl in the early 1900s. It has subsequently been used as an approach within psychology as well as in other disciplines in the social sciences. Husserl’s original goal was to find a way to conduct objective scientific analysis of subjective topics, such as emotion. Phenomenology, along with the ideologically similar symbolic interactionism, has been an important philosophical approach underpinning much of psychological research. Phenomenology has influenced the Duquesne school as well as the experimental approaches utilized in psychological research. Of particular note, phenomenology informs a great deal of the work in psychiatry because of its emphasis on symptoms and understanding the lived experience of patients (Bruce & Raue, 2013 ). Despite the influence of phenomenology within the field of psychology, over time, its theoretical premise has been challenged by some of the field’s giants: James, Skinner, and Watson have at various times all challenged phenomenology and advocated for a more scientific approach to the discipline of psychology. The debate continues today, and many researchers still question what constitutes phenomenological research as well as its merits as a philosophical framework.

Phenomenology is rooted in the notion that all our knowledge and understanding of the world comes from our experiences (Hein & Austin, 2001 ). At their core, there are significant similarities between phenomenology and symbolic interactionism in that both focus on the ways our engagement with society affects our worldviews. However, whereas symbolic interactionism focuses on the ways that social interactions affect our meaning, phenomenology takes the broader aim of studying experiences (phenomena). But, like symbolic interactionism, the focus is not on the events themselves, but rather on the ways in which we experience things and the meanings these experiences create for us. As Kockelmans ( 1973 ) wrote, it is “bringing to light the usually hidden meanings which motivate the concrete modes of man’s orientation toward the world” (p. 274). As such, those who utilize the phenomenological approach seek to make explicit the “taken-for-grantedness” assumptions that guide our experiences (Hein & Austin, 2001 , p. 6). In essence, there is no objective reality; rather, it is our experiences and our perceptions of these experiences (i.e., our lived experiences) that are our reality. Given that the meanings we create from our experiences are largely based on the social context (Smith, 2011 ), there is a clear link to symbolic interactionism.

Additionally, phenomenologists believe that behavior is a reflection of our previous experiences; we act in response to our temporal and spatial memories of past experiences or, as Keen ( 1975 ) wrote, “behavior is an expression of being in the world” (p. 27). Thinking about behavior as a product of our past experiences forces us to consider action and individual agency as embedded in a broader social context. Related to this question of behavior is the notion of intentionality, namely, the idea that every experience is in response to or connected to some past experience. Thus, attempting to examine the experience as in the moment is, from a phenomenological perspective, missing the unique understandings the individual brought to the current experience.

As a research method, phenomenology involves studying how we make sense of our experiences or “participant perspectives” (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998 , p. 26). Therefore, as researchers, we cannot assume that we know what meanings people make of certain events. For example, even though we may think the standard response is to be sad after the death of a parent, we cannot presume that a participant in our study feels this or any other emotion. The job of the researcher is to uncover what it is people take for granted (i.e., what they might not even think to tell us in an interview and what we might not think to ask because we assume they think like we do). To do this, the researcher must first come to understand the assumptions and biases he or she brings to the research. Underlying phenomenological research is the notion of bracketing assumptions, which is the idea that, before we can conduct any analysis of our data, we must first explore our own biases, or the taken-for-grantedness (Hein & Austin, 2001 , p. 6), that make up our unique perspectives. There is no way we, as researchers, can operate outside our assumptions and experiences. However, the self-reflection for which phenomenologists advocate does at least charge the researcher with keeping these biases in mind when conducting analysis. This is a constant and iterative process for the researcher.

Approaching a research question with the assumption that experience forms the basis for behavior and understanding fundamentally lends itself to certain research methods. In particular, utilizing methods that emphasize gathering data on lived experience from the participant’s perspective is essential. To that end, methods such as ethnomethodology, ethnography, and narrative analysis are particularly relevant for researchers utilizing the phenomenological approach because all these methods focus on uncovering the meanings individuals give to their experiences.

A great deal of the research in psychotherapy is rooted in the phenomenological approach because many scholars in this field see as their goal “discovering psychological meanings by identifying the essential psychological structure of an interviewee’s description of an experience” (Camic et al., 2003 , p. 8). As Creswell ( 2007 ) articulated so clearly, it is a process of coming to understand the “essence” of an experience such as grief (p. 76). A concrete example of this comes from Carl Rogers’s client-centered therapy (1951). Rogers found that many of his patients struggled not with what actually happened—that is, the in-the-moment reality—but with their perceptions and feelings about what happened. As a result, therapy must be targeted to address the individual’s set of perceptions and understandings. To follow up with the example of a person dealing with the death of a parent, a therapist cannot follow a preset protocol for helping the client because each patient’s experiences and feelings about death will be different.

From the perspective of social psychology, the phenomenological approach has implications for how we conduct and think about research on identity. In its most general sense, phenomenology de-emphasizes the self as a unique individual, which has implications for the types of research questions we ask, as well as for the methods we utilize. A phenomenological study of identity allows for open-ended questions that allow participants to present, through the construction of a narrative, for example, what identity means to them and how it functions in their lives. This is especially relevant for factors such as gender, race and ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, which, depending on our context, can constrain or enhance our experiences and interactions. One example of this type of work is Friedman, Friedlander, and Blustein’s ( 2005 ) study, which used a phenomenological approach to develop an understanding of how Jews construct their collective religious and ethnic identity as a highly assimilated but still distinct population within the United States. Research using a phenomenological approach to study body dysmorphia (e.g., Mitchell, 2016 ) provides another interesting example. In this case, phenomenology offers researchers a way to conceptualize the lived experiences of people who become obsessed by perceived defects in their appearance.

A well-defined method with some roots in phenomenology (among other approaches) is consensual qualitative research (Hill et al., 2005 ; Hill, Thompson, & Williams, 1997 ). It is a method for interview research that has been used in numerous studies in psychology, especially within counseling psychology. Consensual qualitative research is constructivist in ontology, in that it assumes multiple realities, and in epistemology because the researcher experience matters and informs interview question development. However, it also has postpositivistic leanings, with its emphasis on consensus among a team of researchers in the construction of findings, close adherence to a systematic approach, and interest in generalizability of findings (Hill et al., 2005 ).

In consensual qualitative research, consistent data are collected across participants through semistructured interviews and then analyzed by multiple “judges” who must come to a consensus about the meaning of the data. At least one “auditor” also checks the “primary team of judges” to work against the potential for groupthink. Data analysis is carried out in three steps. First, participant responses to the open-ended interview questions are divided into domains or topic areas. Then, core ideas, which are abstracts or brief “summaries of the data that capture the essence of what was said in fewer words and with greater clarity,” are constructed within each domain for each individual case (Hill et al., 2005 , p. 200). Finally, cross-case analysis is carried out by developing categories that describe the common themes reflected in the core ideas within domains across cases.

Consensus is at the core of the consensual qualitative research method, with the assumption being that consideration of multiple perspectives brings us closer in our approximation of the “truth” and reduces the influence of researcher bias (Hill et al., 1997 , 2005 ). Using teams of three to five analysts, coders first look at the data independently and then come together to discuss their ideas until consensus about the single best representation of the data is reached. The goal is not what is typically thought of as interrater reliability, wherein preagreement about how to code data is established and then carried out with the goal of achieving the highest levels of accuracy in agreement in coding. Rather, it is expected, and even hoped, that team members will begin with different ideas about the data so that the final product reflects and integrates multiple perspectives and is less fraught with individual bias. The potential for groupthink is minimized through the use of one or two additional team members who serve as auditors to review and check the primary team’s interpretations and judgments. The auditors review the work of the primary team once the core ideas for each domain have been established consensually and then again when the cross-case categories have been determined. At each stage, the auditors review the raw material and provide comments back to the primary team, who must then carefully consider each comment and determine through discussion whether to accept or reject it.

Critical Theory

Critical theory as an approach represents a key postmodern paradigm and offers alternatives to the postpositivist and constructivist lenses. In the context of research, the application of critical theory emphasizes the ways by which the values of the researcher and the individuals studied impact the social world. This point of view contributed to a larger shift in research since the 1990’s (Kidd & Kral, 2005 ), one that privileges meaning and requires a rethinking of knowledge (Goodman & Fisher, 1995 ). Critical theory has been engaged recently as an orientation important to “pushing back” against an overreliance on “evidence” that may primarily or only privilege voices in power.

Critical theory has had many distinct historical phases that cross several generations. The birth of this paradigm is considered to have taken place through the Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt am Main during 1929–1930. During this time, the arrival of the Frankfurt school philosophers and social theorists (Creswell, 2007 ), including Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and Herbert Marcuse, marked an idealistic, utopian vision that stretched beyond the more customary “positivist” tradition of the time. This emergence offered criticism to the status, structure, and goal of the traditional social sciences (Adorno et al., 1969 ). The German philosophers and social theorists of the Frankfurt school were influenced by the barbarism of World War I and what was perceived as the inhumanity of postwar capitalism so widespread in Europe at the time. During World War II, several key contributors to the school moved to the United States in an effort to escape the war. Once in the United States, these thinkers were struck by the gulf between the stated progressive agenda within the United States and the very real differences between races and social classes present, in large part because of discrimination (Ponterotto, 2005 ).

According to these theorists, critical theory may be distinguished from traditional theories to the extent that it seeks human emancipation and a disruption of the status quo. Ontologically, critical theory challenges the idea that reality is natural and objective as shaped by social, political, cultural, economic, ethnic, and gender-based forces into social structures. Instead, critical theorists assume that reality can only come to be known through a subjective frame and as shaped by values and mediated by power relations that are socially and historically constituted.

More recently, Jurgen Habermas’s ( 1988 , 1990) work on communicative reason and linguistic intersubjectivity has represented iconic work in critical theory in the more modern era. Habermas’s work has enabled strategies of community building and social movements based on his work in communication. This work has not taken place without scrutiny, however. Theorists such as Nikolas Kompridis have opposed some of Habermas’s ideas (Kompridis, 2006 ), claiming that these recent approaches have undermined the original aims of social change espoused by critical theory, particularly in terms of the critique of modern capitalism.

According to Horkheimer, a critical theory is adequate only if it is explanatory, practical, and normative (1972). In other words, it must address what is wrong with current social reality, identify the actors to change it, provide clear norms for criticism, and identify practical goals for social transformation. The orientation of this theory is toward transformation, traditionally of capitalism, into a “real democracy.”

Foundation ideals are based on a fundamental struggle for equality and social justice. Knowledge is used to emancipate the oppressed, and “validity is found when research creates action” (Lincoln, Lynham, & Guba, 2011 , p. 114). Given this definition, a number of critical theories have been developed to demonstrate differences in power in the areas of gender, race and ethnicity, class, sexual orientation, and disabilities, many of which have emerged in connection with the social movements associated with these areas, particularly in the United States. In short, a critical theory provides the basis and groundwork for research aimed at decreasing domination and increasing freedom.

Critical theory by and large rejects the assumption that a scientific or objective basis of criticism must be grounded in a grand theory. Rather, epistemologically, critical theory privileges agents’ own knowledge and understandings, with an assumption that these understandings can be a basis for social criticism in themselves. In other words, theories can have “a relative legitimacy” (Habermas, 1988 , p. 3). Habermas also argued that, relative to other existing theories, the role of critical theory is to unify these multiple theories, considering their varied methods and presuppositions (Habermas, 1988 ). Given this role, it stands to reason that any social scientific method or explanation-producing theory can be potentially critical.

Similarly, in critical theory, the relationship between researcher and participant is transactional, subjective, and dialectic. According to this theory, what can be known is inextricably tied to the interaction between an investigator and an object or group. Insofar as one can separate oneself from marginalized groups in an effort to remain “objective,” one removes oneself from one’s “share” of the social condition studied, likely perpetuating the inequalities that contribute to the adverse social conditions often of interest to social scientists.

Researchers who employ critical theory take values a step further than constructivists do, in that they hope and expect their value biases to influence the research process and outcome. Critical scholars who make use of qualitative methods share a commitment to “expose and critique” elements of inequality and discrimination that shape daily life (Garoian & Gaudelius, 2008 ). Critical theory “is a call for … qualitative research that matters in the lives of those who daily experience social injustice” (Denzin, 2017 , p. 8). Because critical theory concerns itself with unequal distributions of power and the resultant oppression of subjugated groups, a preset goal of the research is to empower participants to transform the status quo and emancipate themselves from ongoing oppression. Thus, critical theorist researchers acknowledge at the outset that they expect results to document the high levels of stress or disadvantage of the group under study. Beyond this, such researchers aim to use the results and report of the study in some way to advocate for improvement of the examined group, often in an effort to address social injustice through the process of inquiry itself.

Critical theorists, given their stance on the importance of researcher–participant interaction and the significance of understanding values as influencing the reality under study, more often use naturalistic designs in which the researcher is engaged in the daily life of participants. Critical theoretical approaches tend to rely on dialogic methods, which may combine data collection methods (e.g., participant observation, in-depth interviewing, first-person written reports) with opportunity for reflection. This approach intentionally invites a questioning of the “natural” status quo and order and an exploration of the tensions that characterize the social issue under exploration. Inherently challenging, this approach values transparency and welcomes opportunities for alternative paradigms to be considered as part of the learning process itself. Contemporary research that employs this approach often focuses on social inequity in the economy, education, employment, the environment, health, housing, food, and water (Denzin, 2017 ) and can espouse values of peace and justice as core to the inquiry itself.

Methodologically, contexts are conceptualized not merely as variables, but as essential parts of subjectivity according to critical theory. In terms of the field of psychology, this approach invites us to consider the role of research in terms of how liberation might take shape across the lifespan. Qualitative approaches in which a researcher’s social justice values help direct inquiry, such as PAR (Kidd & Kral, 2005 ), provide ample example of critical theory at work in the research context.

Application in the Field

Many researchers suggest that research informed by a critical approach is increasingly important in our current political and social context (e.g., Denzin, 2017 ). However, despite its increasing importance, the application of critical theory to research remains somewhat of a paradox. First, this is in part because the research “construct” has historically often been used to support those in power. Second, researchers, and those who generate knowledge, often maintain positions of power themselves, further complicating the effort to apply critical theory and approaches to inquiry. Finally, although qualitative methods have often been used to challenge dominant paradigms and assumptions, there remains a pull even within these methodologies to return to a more traditional focus and implications (Cannella & Lincoln, 2015 ). Therefore, when applying critical theory through qualitative research, it is critical to consider application of the theory to each stage of the process.

Critical theory can be applied across qualitative methods, including autoethnography, ethnography, participant observation, arts-based research, critical discourse analysis, and other textual methods (Framer & Chevrette, 2017 ). Across these methods and forms of data generation, qualitative research employing this approach challenges the privileging of certain voices over others while maintaining awareness of the inherent privilege involved in knowledge development (Framer & Chevrette, 2017 ). Participatory action research is one form or inquiry that lends itself well to the use of a critical lens. This approach is anchored in the belief that the research process itself serves as a mechanism for social change. At its core, PAR is geared toward empowerment of participants that leads to emancipation from oppression and enhanced quality of life. In laypersons’ terms, “you get people affected by a problem together, figure out what is going on as a group, and then do something about it” (Kidd & Kral, 2005 , p. 187).

According to Kemmis and McTaggart ( 2005 ), PAR often involves a cycle of self-reflection and action in addressing a community problem. Participants and researchers establish a collaborative relationship as they ask critical questions about the current life situation. This dialogue moves the group to action as they develop knowledge and further explore the problem and how it can be addressed. In this way, collaborators using PAR begin to set a stage of social action to instigate change.

The process of change emerges and shifts as part of the self-reflective cycles, but typically is not predetermined by a clear series of procedural and analytic steps. Instead, during the reflective and action spiral, PAR investigators rely on a wide variety of methods and procedures as they gradually better understand the needs of the community. As such, many studies that use PAR take on varied methods such as storytelling, sharing experiences, individual and focus group interviews, participant observation, drawings, and even the more structured qualitative interview or quantitative survey as the need merits.

When engaged in a PAR process, study participants are expected to participate fully. However, the creation of such participatory contexts is challenging and time-consuming and is not the norm (Kidd & Kral, 2005 ). Disempowered groups are seldom given the opportunity and at times are discouraged from this type of action. Further compounding this problem is the tendency for established forums (e.g., academia) to claim exclusive ownership of methods of knowledge gathering and avenues for change. In addition, the process of research as informed by critical theory often lacks guidance in terms of how to engage this theory in applied qualitative research (Fletcher, 2017 ).

All these challenges further lend the process of PAR to be informed by critical theory. As a specific example, Dentith, Measor, and O’Malley ( 2012 ) outlined the practice of using critical theory across three separate research projects involving young people facing various life difficulties and vulnerabilities. In so doing, they highlight the dilemmas they face within the context of more traditional, positivist approaches frequently favored in academic research settings. Participatory action research is somewhat new to the field of psychology and has not historically been utilized frequently in this field. This is likely at least in part because of the axiology of PAR as a critical theory method that advocates a value-directed (rather than value-neutral postpositivism or value-bracketed constructivism) stance. Traditionally trained psychologists may be made initially uncomfortable by research that is value mediated because psychological training often conceives of research as objective, in which participants are studied without changing themselves or the researchers.

Feminist Theories

Feminist theories are used to frame and understand research approaches across a range of disciplines and social problems. They developed, in part, as a response to prevailing ideas that more traditional scientific inquiry tended to exclude women from the discourse and deny them epistemic authority (Anderson, 1995 ). Although feminist theories contributed significantly to the development of critical theory, they are rarely explicitly identified as such and instead are discretely referenced (Payne, 2014 ).

According to Foucault ( 1972 ), the predominant aim of feminist theory is to illustrate how gender inequalities are propagated within society and how women have been continually oppressed by the patriarchy. One of the principal tenets of the theory contends that the way gender roles are taught to individuals during childhood places men in positions of power and authority, whereas women are socialized to be subservient caretakers. In practice, feminist theory extols the need to empower women and raise consciousness about how social structures maintain and, in some cases, encourage gender inequalities (Bell & Naugle, 2008 ; Payne, 2014 ). To eschew the patriarchy, feminist theory encourages society to question and challenge assumptions about individuals and categories (i.e., the gender binary) to elevate women and, more recently, trans-identified individuals to their rightful, equal place compared to men within society (Yodanis, 2004 ).

The origins of feminist perspectives date back as far as the 19th century, making it one of the oldest and most well-known theories within the academic literature (Payne, 2014 ). Because of the versatile set of conceptual tools and methodological procedures feminist theories embody, several disciplines including history, philosophy, sociology, and psychology have applied it to a broad range of research topics. Burgeoned by the women’s movement in the 1970s, feminist scholars embraced second-wave, radical feminism to challenge societal structures imposed by the patriarchy. As part of this movement, the tenets of the philosophy of science were questioned and ultimately modified to create feminist approaches to research. According to feminist paradigms, the traditional philosophy of science produced theories that represent women, their activities, and interests as inferior to their male counterparts. Further, “feminine” cognitive styles have been discounted by traditional research inquiry, which instead reinforces unequal power dynamics (Anderson, 1995 ).

Feminist theories “place gender at the center of inquiry” and yet “increasingly incorporate multiple … intersectionalities of identity,” including sexuality, race, religion, and social class (Marshall & Rossman, 2010 , p. 27). Inspired by the work of Paulo Freire, feminist theories strive to create awareness to enable social change through the process of conscientization. Ultimately, these theories adopt a dialogic, collaborative approach to stimulate the process of turning thought into action (Marshall & Rossman, 2010 ). In so doing, feminist theories advocate not only for women oppressed by the patriarchy, but also for all marginalized groups whose position within society has become compromised (Payne, 2014 ).

Epistemologically, feminist theories focus on the accounts of women (and other historically marginalized groups) as core sources of knowledge. Of note, feminist theories are not distinguished so much by their substantive topic (i.e., women’s issues, gender, reproductive rights) or by the gender of the researcher (i.e., male, female, or trans*) but rather by their orientation and guiding philosophy or methodology.

Since the beginning of the 21st century, feminist scholars have developed alternative approaches to guide the research process. Feminist methodologies attempt to eradicate sexist bias in research while capturing women’s voices, particularly those consistent with feminist ideals. Work guided by feminist theories often employs qualitative methods to explore power imbalances, starting with that between the researcher and the researched (Marshall & Rossman, 2010 ), to create trust and collect accurate data. Feminist theory research has often been overlooked in academia because of its emphasis on social context and the value placed on rooting research in the lived experience of those who are oppressed (Turner, 2017 ). In this way, feminist theories effectively mirror the core values of critical theory, which champion mutual learning and reciprocity between the researcher and the researched.

Because of their emphasis on exploring the importance of the day-to-day experiences of marginalized groups, qualitative approaches are particularly well suited to capturing the richness of these accounts. Qualitative methods can better account for the nuanced emotions and other less tangible aspects of experience than can quantitative methods alone. Narrative approaches and data collection methods such as interviews, focus groups, and ethnographies have been particularly germane to the feminist ideology. However, new research has begun to incorporate more mixed methods designs (Knudson-Martin, 2012 ).

A feminist approach to research can be employed across the social and physical sciences. Feminist researchers seek to capture women’s voices by devoting time to explore the richness of women’s lived experiences, while also advocating for the dissolution of gender bias. This perspective aligns closely with research inquiries into the experiences of domestic workers as well as both victims and perpetrators of intimate partner and domestic violence. Core to the use of feminist theory is the understanding that ways of knowing are constantly evolving as both the body of knowledge and the capacities of the “knowers” broaden. As research continues to utilize feminist theories, social problems under investigation often appear to become only further convoluted and complex; this is characteristic of feminist methodologies and, within the discourse, is lauded as a technique that enables critical thinking and results in more intimate understanding. Part of this discourse involves critical analysis of epistemological assumptions made explicit in research. Such analysis is a hallmark of feminist work (e.g., Fishman, Mamo, & Grzanka, 2016 ) and acknowledges the multiple systems of inequality implicated in research. Such an approach is also characterized by reducing the hierarchical relationship between researchers and participants to facilitate a level of trust that gives rise to reflecting on the emotionality of women’s lives.

Queer Theory

With the rise of the gay liberation movement in the post-Stonewall era, gay and lesbian perspectives began to contribute to politics, philosophy, and social theory. Initially, these perspectives were often connected to feminist ideology. However, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, queer theory was developed as its own framework. The term queer , as opposed to gay and lesbian , also distinguished the theory from those that preceded it, specifically gay liberation theories. Similar to feminist theory, queer theory was accompanied by social movements, and its emergence evolved in part as a reaction to the marginalization of the lesbian, bisexual, gay, transgender, and queer community and the ways by which “science” had historically been used against this community (Minton, 1997 ).

Queer theory found a more natural home in qualitative research because this form had historically been focused less on objective reality and more on subjective experiences (Downing & Gillett, 2011 ). However, its emergence has occurred within an ongoing evolution in terms of how we consider sexuality and marginalization in research and in society at large. In the early 1900s, the scientific examination of individuals in same-sex relationships was perpetually challenged by the stigma and silence faced by this group. In short, this population was hard to identify and find, much less research. The second half of the 20th century, however, shifted this as lesbian and gay studies expanded exponentially (Gamson, 2000 ), focusing explicitly on the lives of those who identify as gay or lesbian. Queer theory, a more recent arrival on the scene, has introduced a poststructuralist critique by suggesting that the self cannot and should not be solely identified by sexuality or sexual orientation, thereby challenging the importance of studying sexuality as a “subject” of inquiry. Although the tension proposed by these shifts is often applauded within the qualitative research world (e.g., Gamson, 2000 ), it is this context in which queer theory has emerged.

Queer theory was separate from gay liberation theories in several ways. First, queer theory defined itself as not just specific to sexuality. Instead, queer theory refers not to a nature, be it sexual or otherwise, but rather to a relational construct. Queer refers specifically to being “outside the norm”; this norm can vary relative to context. In other words, “queer is … whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant. There is nothing in particular to which it necessarily refers . It is an identity without an essence” (Halperin, 1995 , p. 62; emphasis in the original).

Because queer theory does not suggest a specific nature or essence, it therefore is inclusive of those who may express themselves outside any norm, including that of the gay and lesbian community. In other words, sadomasochism, perhaps marginalized by some constructs, is not so according to queer theory. Additionally, this lack of focus on a specific essence allows gays and lesbians to identify by their sexuality or by any other aspect of their identity, thereby placing the focus on personal meaning, as opposed to societally ascribed labels.

A central claim of queer theorists, which is that identity is understood exclusively as a social construct (rather than given by nature), significantly affects how research is carried out within this approach. Most immediately, it implies that research must be evaluated for biases, however subtle, that privilege heterosexuality (Butler, 1990 , 1993 ). Based on the concern that queer theory places on false dichotomies (e.g., “closeted,” “out”), this theory also is critical of other dichotomies implied in research, particularly as it relates to assumptions regarding what is natural or artificial and what is masculine versus feminine. Instead, queer theory emphasizes the importance of understanding categories more fluidly, an approach that lends itself more toward qualitative methods, which seek to explore social phenomena with an eye toward complexity rather than standardization. These values within queer theory lend themselves well to use of a more intersectional lens across levels, including analysis not only of personal identity but also of structures of power and privilege, as one way of understanding categories as fluid and intersecting (Moradi & Grzanka, 2017 ).

Queer theory has been applied to multiple social problems and developmental issues and is largely characterized by questioning that which is normative; notably, queer theory is in part distinguished by not presuming any particular personal identity marker (Fish & Russell, 2018 ). However, it is most often applied to questions concerning empowerment, resistance to domination (e.g., heterosexism, homophobia), gender identity, and marginalization as a result of gender, sexual orientation, or sexual behavior. Because queer theory is concerned with the nonessential nature of sexual identity, this theory pushes the field to consider identity from multiple perspectives and invites cultural as well as race-related inquiries. It is well suited to inquiry through qualitative methods, in that deconstructing systems and uncovering difference in experience and meaning is facilitated by qualitative investigation (Fish & Russell, 2018 ).

Conclusion and Future Directions

It is impossible to fully represent the richness of any one of these philosophical approaches in a single chapter. We have instead tried to convey a sense of the breadth of the field and to illuminate at least some of the meaningful distinctions in the major approaches to qualitative research in psychology today, while recognizing that this account is by no means exhaustive. In this last section, we turn our attention to the future and identify three overarching, interrelated, and contested issues with which the field is being confronted and will be compelled to address as we move forward: retaining the rich diversity that has defined the field, the articulation of recognizable standards for qualitative research, and the commensurability of differing approaches. Although there has been some progress made toward addressing these issues since the publication of the first edition of this volume, they remain unresolved and are as relevant and important today as they were a few years ago. The continued contested nature of these issues stems in part from the very diversity of philosophical approaches that has defined the field. Here, again, we cannot possibly represent the considerable thought behind and debate around each of these matters, but instead highlight these issues to further future conversations.

The diversity of approaches represented in the field of qualitative research speaks to the strength of the movement and bodes well for our efforts to both advance and deepen our understanding of the psychological world. As Ann Hartman ( 1990 ) wrote many years ago, “each way of knowing deepens our understanding and adds another dimension to our view of the world” (p. 3). Just as no single research design or data collection method can adequately capture the multidimensional nature of human psychology, no one philosophical approach can suitably guide our efforts to address the full range of questions that must be pursued to develop the knowledge needed “to benefit society and improve people’s lives” (American Psychological Association, 2013 ).

However, this diversity in approaches to qualitative research also creates significant tensions and makes attempts to “define” the field quite challenging. Despite the substantial work done by many scholars (cf., Denzin & Lincoln, 2013 ) to delineate these contrasting perspectives and approaches, a lack of awareness remains, especially (but not exclusively) among those not well versed in qualitative methods. The predictable misunderstandings and strong differences in beliefs about what is “credible” research that can result continue to plague those of us who practice qualitative research as we strive to get our work funded and published more widely. Peer reviews of qualitative research can often be riddled with contradictory assessments of its rigor and even of its basic value or contribution. (cf., Ceglowski, Bacigalupa, & Peck, 2011 ).

Continued efforts to make clear the diversity of approaches, the philosophical assumptions guiding these approaches, and the particular contributions the differing approaches make to our understanding of psychology are critical. We must be cautious about making general claims about rigor and the “right” way to do qualitative research that are framed within our own narrower terms or experience with certain approaches. Keeping the richness of the field alive will require discipline on all of our parts to respond to questions about how best to go about engaging in high-quality qualitative research or evaluating the quality of the work of others by first acknowledging that “it depends” and then inquiring about the philosophical approach, aims, and context of the work.

One of the biggest challenges before us remains the continued articulation of recognizable standards for qualitative research that represent, and ideally can be applied to, the full range of approaches. The very differences in purpose and aims and in philosophical approaches that comprise the rich field of qualitative research today makes such efforts seem impossible. However, ignoring this task in the era of what has been called the scientifically based research movement (National Research Council, 2002; Torrance, 2008 ), defined largely in terms of experimental design and methods and with randomized controlled trials heralded as the gold standard, leaves the array of approaches that do not readily fit this mold highly vulnerable. But what is the best way to address these complex and high-stakes issues?

Researchers taking a more postpositivistic approach have argued that there are separate but parallel sets of standards for validity and reliability in qualitative and quantitative research (e.g., Hammersley, 1992 ; Kuzel & Engel, 2001 ). Some constructivists have put forth that a common set of standards can be established, but because the foundational philosophical approaches between postpositivism and constructivism are so different, a separate and distinct set of criteria must be applied. Models using concepts such as trustworthiness, transferability, and authenticity have been developed (e.g., Guba & Lincoln, 1989 ), and it is estimated that more than 100 quality appraisal forms have been put forth (Saini & Shlonsky, 2012 ). Unfortunately, most do not make clear the philosophical assumptions that undergird them (Saini & Shlonsky, 2012 ), which unfortunately further muddies the water. Moreover, other adherents to constructivist approaches hold that the contextual and relational nature of knowledge construction precludes the possibility of establishing such standards (e.g., Lincoln, 1995 ; Schwandt, 1996 ). Finally, many working from within critical theory and related approaches suggest that such standards are inevitably formed by the power structures in which they are housed, thereby potentially further perpetuating the inequalities the research aims to address or study (e.g., Garrett & Hodkinson, 1998 ). They assert that the quality of the research should be based on an assessment of whether it empowered participants to effect meaningful and lasting changes (Correa, 2013 ).

Some have tried to resolve these tensions by suggesting guidelines they believe account for and are applicable across the diversity of approaches to qualitative research (e.g., Drisko, 1997 ; Saini & Shlonsky, 2012 ; Saldaña, 2013 ; Tracy, 2010 ). The guidelines in these more unified approaches focus on the different components of the research process, such as clear identification of the philosophical approach and aims of the research, specification of methods and congruence between these approaches and the stated philosophical approach and aims, and transparency and clarity in sampling, data collection, and data analytic procedures. Most recently, a task force of the American Psychosocial Association issued a set of guidelines that uses this type of approach (Levitt, Motulsky, Wertz, Morrow, & Ponterotto, 2017 ). An overarching principle called methodological integrity is offered, which the authors assert is achieved when the research designs and procedures support the research goals, respect the researcher’s philosophical approach, and are tailored to the “fundamental characteristics of the subject matter and the investigators” (Levitt et al., 2017 , pp. 9–10). They further delineate two central components of methodological integrity, which are fidelity, or the “intimate connection” to the phenomenon being studied, and utility, defined as the effectiveness of the research design and methods in achieving the study goals (p. 10). Offering specific guidelines for applying and assessing each of these components, this group has offered the most comprehensive unified approach to date for applying these approaches through qualitative research.

Alternatively, another thought leader (i.e., Gergen, 2014 ) argued for the more tailored approach to what he referred to as the emergence of “excellence” within communities of practice, highlighting the distinctiveness of some of the major approaches to qualitative research represented in the literature today, namely, phenomenology, discourse analysis, narrative study, autoethnography, and action research. Noting the different philosophical assumptions, values, and purposes undergirding each of these approaches, he argued that one standard of excellence cannot, and should not, be applied to all. Rather, agreed-on practices established within these traditions that have emerged, and will inevitably shift and change over time, should be respected.

Although the imperative to tackle these issues is clear, the way forward in doing this is less so. Should we push further toward agreeing on a shared set of standards that can be applied across traditions, as proffered by the recent American Psychosocial Association task force, or invest in more localized standards tailored specifically to particular approaches (e.g., thematic analysis) and developed by scholars practicing them (Nowell, Norris, White, & Moules, 2017 ), as Gergen ( 2014 ) would have us do, or both? How might the myriad elements of research, including the many gatekeeping activities in the research and scholarship enterprise, from funding through publication of research findings, address and accommodate these standards in their expectations and processes? What is clear is that the diversity of approaches to qualitative research must be fully represented in any efforts to further define and move the field forward on this front.

Embracing and fully representing the diversity of approaches and coming to terms with standards for them leaves unaddressed a third concern for the field moving forward, namely, what has been referred to as the commensurability of approaches , that is, whether approaches rooted in the differing philosophical approaches can be “retrofitted to each other in ways that make the simultaneously practice of both possible” (Lincoln et al., 2013 , p. 238). Some, such as critical and feminist theorists, have argued that epistemological differences between methods can render research paradigms incompatible (Lincoln et al., 2013 ). Others have dismissed assertions about irreconcilable differences between philosophical approaches and research paradigms and argue for what they call a pragmatic approach, particularly in the service of carrying out mixed methods research (e.g., Creswell, 2009 ; Creswell & Clark, 2007 ; Maxcy, 2003 ). Lincoln et al. ( 2013 ) took a middle position and offered a “cautious” endorsement of the commensurability of approaches. They asserted that some approaches share elements that are similar or strongly related and therefore can be effectively and meaningfully combined, whereas others are more “contradictory and mutually exclusive” (Lincoln et al., 2013 , p. 239). Preissle ( 2013 ), in her consideration of the future of the field, made a pragmatic argument of a different sort for commensurability. Citing the work of her students that has combined approaches in unconventional yet highly productive ways, she observed that the novice scholars of today are “challenging, even transgressing, epistemological and theoretical boundaries” that will ultimately move research forward in unexpected ways” (p. 536).

There is nothing new about these questions. They have been debated for decades, and clarity seems no nearer. What has changed is the climate. It is at once more open to qualitative methods than ever before and less accommodating of the rich diversity among the approaches taken to this work. Increasing numbers of graduate students are being trained in multiple methodologies. Although, unfortunately, there does not yet appear to be a cry for purely qualitative studies on the horizon, most major funding sources are at least indicating a preference for the use of multiple methods, in some cases even quite strongly so. Qualitative studies can be found in journals of differing ilk, not just within the confines of those dedicated to publishing qualitative research. However, what is deemed acceptable or credible qualitative research is narrowing. In the parlance of the old expression “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing,” the widening exposure and reach of qualitative work means that many more scholars are encountering and engaging with it in some way; these scholars often do not realize that what they know is but a small slice of a now large and long-standing field. Researchers outside the field of qualitative research who participate in setting the standards for research more broadly may be friendly to particular kinds of approaches, such as seeing a place for qualitative work only in the exploration of new areas of inquiry to offer “thick description” and examples, or to complement or round out the quantitative findings, but much less so to stand-alone work or work aimed at explicating processes and mechanisms at work in human psychology. Scholars from within who are joining in the work of setting the standards of research can sometimes allow certain kinds of qualitative research to stand for the field, which can serve to belie and even shut out other, often more transgressive, forms. These perhaps seemingly old and familiar questions about philosophies of science, rigor, and commensurability are alive and well, taking new forms, and they are, in some ways, more important now than ever before.

Adorno, T. , Albert, R. , Dahrendorf, H. , Habermas, J. , Pilot, H. , & Popper, K. ( 1969 ). The positivist dispute in German sociology . London, England: Heinemann.

Google Scholar

Google Preview

American Psychological Association. (2013). About APA . Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/about/3/27/2013

Anderson, E. ( 1995 ). Feminist epistemology: An interpretation and defense. Hypatia, 10, 50–84.

Bell, K.M. , & Naugle, A.E. ( 2008 ). Intimate partner violence theoretical considerations: Moving towards a contextual framework. Clinical Psychology Review, 28(7), 1096–1107.

Berger, P. , & Luckmann, T. ( 1966 ). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge . New York, NY: Anchor Books.

Birks, M. , & Mills, J. ( 2011 ). Grounded theory: A practical guide . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Blumer, H. ( 1969 ). Symbolic interactionism: Perspectives and method . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bogdan, R. C. , & Biklen, S. K. ( 1998 ). Foundations of qualitative research in education (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

boyd, danah . ( 2007 ). Why youth (heart) social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenage social life.” In D. Buckingham (Ed.), MacArthur Foundation series on digital learning—youth, identity, and digital media . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bruce, M. L. , & Raue, P. J. ( 2013 ). Mental illness as psychiatric disorder. In C. Aneshensel , J. Phelan , & A. Bierman (Eds.), Handbook of the sociology of mental health (2nd ed., pp. 41–60). New York, NY: Springer.

Bryant, A. , & Charmaz, K. ( 2010 ). Grounded theory in historical perspective: An epistemological account. In K. Charmaz & A. Bryant (Eds.), Handbook of grounded theory (pp. 31–57). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Burr, Vi . ( 1998 ). Gender and social psychology . London, England: Routledge.

Butler, J. ( 1990 ). Gender trouble . London, England: Routledge.

Butler, J. ( 1993 ). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of “sex. ” London, England: Routledge.

Camic, P. M. , Rhodes, J. E. , & Yardley, L. ( 2003 ). Naming the stars: Integrating qualitative methods into psychological research. In P. M. Camic , J. E. Rhodes , & L. Yardley (Eds.), Qualitative research in psychology: Expanding perspectives in methodology and design (pp. 3–15). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Cannella, G. S. , & Lincoln, Y. S. ( 2015 ). Deploying qualitative methods for critical social purposes. In G. S. Cannella , M. S. Perez , & P. A. Pasque (Eds.), Critical qualitative inquiry: Foundations and futures (pp. 243–264). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

Ceglowski, D. , Bacigalupa, C. , & Peck, E. ( 2011 ). Aced out: Censorship of qualitative research in the age of “scientifically based research. ” Qualitative Inquiry, 17, 679–686.

Charmaz, K. ( 2000 ). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 509–535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Charmaz, K. ( 2014 ). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cook, W. L. , & Douglas, E. M. ( 1998 ). The looking-glass self in family context: A social relational analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 12, 299–309.

Correa, F. P. ( 2013 ). The evaluation of qualitative research: A reflection from a justice perspective. Qualitative Inquiry, 19, 209–218.

Creswell, J. W. ( 2007 ). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. ( 2009 ). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. , & Clark, V. L. P. ( 2007 ). Designing and conducting mixed methods research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dentith, A. M. , Measor, L. , & O’Malley, M. P. ( 2012 ). The research imagination amid dilemmas of engaging young people in critical participatory work. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 13(1), Art. 17. Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1788/3309

Denzin, N. K. , & Lincoln, Y. S. ( 2013 ). The landscape of qualitative research (4th ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Denzin, N. K. ( 2017 ). Critical Qualitative Inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 23 (1), 9–18.

Dilthey, W. ( 1984 /1977). Ideas concerning a descriptive and analytic psychology. In R. M. Zaner & K. L. Heiges (Trans.), Descriptive psychology and historical understanding (pp. 21–120). The Hague, the Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.

Downing, L. , & Gillett, R. ( 2011 ). Viewing critical psychology through the lens of queer. Psychology & Sexuality, 2, 4–15.

Drisko, J. ( 1997 ). Strengthening qualitative studies and reports: Standards to enhance academic integrity. Journal of Social Work Education, 33, 1–13.

Fish, J. N. , & Russell, S. T. ( 2018 ). Queering methodologies to understand queer families. Family Relations, 67, 12–25.

Fishman, J. R. , Mamo, L. , & Grzanka, P. R. ( 2016 ). Sex, gender, & sexuality in biomedicine. In U. Felt , R. Fouché , C. Miller , & L. Smith-Doer (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (4th ed., pp. 379–405). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Fletcher, A. J. ( 2017 ). Applying critical realism in qualitative research: methodology meets method. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 20(2), 181–194.

Foucault, M. ( 1972 ). The discourse on language. In Medina & D. Wood (Eds.), Truth: Engagements across philosophical traditions (pp. 315–335). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Framer, M. , & Chevrette, R. ( 2017 ). Critical theory and research. In J. Matthes , C. S. Davis , & R. F. Potter (Eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods, (pp.1–2). Wiley-Blackwell.

Friedman, M. , Friedlander, M. , & Blustein, D. ( 2005 ). Toward an understanding of Jewish identity: A phenomenological study. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 77–83.

Gamson, J. ( 2000 ). Sexualities, queer theory, and qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 347–365). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Garoian, C. R. , & Gaudelius, Y. M. ( 2008 ). Spectacle pedagogy: Art, politics and visual culture . Albany: State University of New York Press.

Garrett, D. , & Hodkinson, P. ( 1998 ). Can there be criteria for selecting research criteria? A hermeneutical analysis of an inescapable dilemma. Qualitative Inquiry, 4, 515–539.

Geertz, C. ( 1983 ). Local knowledge . New York, NY: Basic Books.

Gergen, K. J. ( 1996 ). Social psychology as social construction: The emerging vision. In C. McGarty & A. Haslam (Eds.), For the message of social psychology: Perspectives on mind in society (pp. 113–128). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Gergen, K. J. ( 2014 ). Pursuing excellence in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Psychology, 1, 49–60.

Glaser, B. G. , & Strauss, A. L. ( 1967 ). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research . Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Goffman, E. ( 1955 ). On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes, 18(3), 213–231.

Goffman, E. ( 1959 ). The presentation of self in everyday life . New York, NY: Anchor Books, Doubleday.

Goodman, F. , & Fisher, W. (Eds.). ( 1995 ). Rethinking knowledge: Reflections across the disciplines . Albany: State University of New York Press.

Guba, E. G. , & Lincoln, Y. S. ( 1989 ). Fourth generation evaluation . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Guba, E. G. , & Lincoln, Y. S. ( 2008 ). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research (3 rd ed.) (pp. 255–286). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Habermas, J. ( 1988 ). On the logic of the social sciences ( S. W. Nicholsen & J. A. Stark , Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Habermas, J. ( 1990 ). Moral consciousness and communicative action . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Halperin, D. M. ( 1995 ). Saint Foucault: Towards a gay hagiography . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Hammersley, M. ( 1992 ). What’s wrong with ethnography? London, England: Routledge.

Hartman, A. ( 1990 ). Many ways of knowing. Social Work, 35, 3–4.

Hays, D. G. , & Singh, A. A. ( 2012 ). Qualitative inquiry in clinical and educational settings . New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Hein, S. F. , & Austin, W. J. ( 2001 ). Empirical and hermeneutic approaches to phenomenological research in psychology: A comparison. Psychological Methods, 4, 3–17.

Hill, C. E. , Knox, S. , Thompson, B. J. , Williams, E. N. , Hess, S. A. , & Ladany, N. ( 2005 ). Consensual qualitative research: An update. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 196–205.

Hill, C. E. , Thompson, B. J. , & Williams, E. N. ( 1997 ). A guide to conducting consensual qualitative research. The Counseling Psychologist, 25, 517–572.

Hogan, B. ( 2010 ). The presentation of self in the age of social media: Distinguishing performances and exhibitions online. Bulletin of Science, Technology, and Society, 30, 377–386.

Horkheimer, M. ( 1972 ). Critical theory: Selected essays . New York, NY: Continuum.

Jost, J. T. , & Kruglanski, A. W. ( 2002 ). The estrangement of social constructionism and experimental social psychology: History of the rift and prospects for reconciliation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 168–187.

Jurgenson, N. , & Rey, P. J. ( 2012 ). Comment on Sarah Ford’s ‘reconceptualization of privacy and publicity ’. Information, Communication & Society, 15(2), 287–293.

Keen, E. ( 1975 ). A primer in phenomenological psychology . Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Kemmis, S. , & McTaggart, R. ( 2005 ). Participatory action research: Communicative action and the public sphere. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 559–604). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kidd, S. A. , & Kral, M. J. ( 2005 ). Practicing participatory research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 187–195.

Knudson-Martin, C. ( 2012 ). Attachment in adult relationships: A feminist perspective. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 4, 299–305.

Kockelmans, J. ( 1973 ). Theoretical problems in phenomenological psychology. In M. Natanson (Ed.), Phenomenology and the social sciences (Vol. 1, pp. 225–280). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

Kompridis, N. ( 2006 ). Critique and disclosure: Critical theory between past and future . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kuzel, A. , & Engel, J. ( 2001 ). Some pragmatic thought on evaluating qualitative health research. In J. Morse , J. Swanson , & A. Kuzel (Eds.), The nature of qualitative evidence (pp. 114–138). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Levitt, H. M. , Motulsky, S. L. , Wertz, F. J. , Morrow, S. L. , & Ponterotto, J. G. ( 2017 ). Recommendations for designing and reviewing qualitative research in psychology: Promoting methodological integrity. Qualitative psychology, 4(1), 2.

Lincoln, Y. S. ( 1995 ). Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive research. Qualitative Inquiry, 1, 275–289.

Lincoln, Y. S. , Lynham, S. A. , & Guba, E. G. ( 2011 ). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences revisited. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 97–128). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lincoln, Y. S. , Lynham, S. A. , & Guba, E. G. ( 2013 ). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences revisited. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 199–265). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Marshall, C. , & Rossman, G. B. ( 2010 ). Designing qualitative research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Maxcy, S. J. ( 2003 ). Pragmatic threads in mixed methods research in the social sciences: The search for multiple modes of inquiry and the end of the philosophy of formalism. In C. Teddlie & A. Tashakkori (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 51–89). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mead, G. H. ( 1913 ). The social self. Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods, 10(14), 374–380.

Mendelson, A. L. , & Papacharissi, Z. ( 2010 ). Look at us: Collective narcissism in college students’ Facebook photo galleries. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), The networked self: Identity, community and culture on social network sites (pp. 1–37). New York, NY: Routledge.

Milgram, S. ( 1974 ). Obedience to authority: An experimental view . New York, NY: Harper Perennial.

Minton, H. L. ( 1997 ). Queer theory: Historical roots and implications for psychology. Theory & Psychology, 7, 337–353.

Mitchell, D. ( 2016 ). Body dysmorphia and the phenomenology of embodiment. Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology, 48, 16–27.

Moradi, B. , & Grzanka, P. R. ( 2017 ). Using intersectionality responsibly: Toward critical epistemology, structural analysis, and social justice activism. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 64, 500–513. doi:10.1037/cou0000203 10.1037/cou0000203

National Research Council, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Center for Education, Committee on Scientific Principles for Education Research. ( 2002 ). Scientific research in education ( R. J. Shavelson & L. Towne , Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Nowell, L. S. , Norris, J. M. , White, D. E. , & Moules, N. J. ( 2017 ). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16, doi:1609406917733847 10.0000/1609406917733847

Packer, M. J. ( 2011 ). The science of qualitative research . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Payne, M. ( 2014 ). Modern social work theory (4th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Phoenix, A. , & Woollett, A. ( 1991 ). Motherhood: Social construction, politics, and psychology. In A. Phoenix , A. Woollett , & E. Lloyd (Eds.), Gender and psychology. Motherhood: Meanings, practices and ideologies (pp. 13–27). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ponterotto, J. G. ( 2005 ). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A primer on research paradigms and philosophy of science. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 126–136.

Ponterotto, J. G. , Casas, J. M. , Suzuki, L. A. , & Alexander, C. M. ( 2010 ). Handbook of multicultural counseling (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ponticelli, C. ( 1999 ). Crafting stories of sexual identity reconstruction. Social Science Quarterly, 62, 157–172.

Popper, K. R. ( 1934 /1959). The logic of scientific inquiry . New York, NY: Basic Books.

Preissle, J. ( 2013 ). Qualitative futures: Where we might go from here. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 517–543). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Raskin, J. D. ( 2002 ). Constructivism in psychology: Personal construct psychology, radical constructivism, and social constructionism, American Communication Journal, 5, 1–26.

Rennie, D. L. , Watson, K. D. , & Monteiro, A. M. ( 2002 ). The rise of qualitative research in psychology. Canadian Psychology, 43, 179–189.

Rieker, P. P. , & Carmen, E. ( 1986 ). The victim-to-patient process: The disconfirmation and transformation of abuse. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 56, 360–370.

Rogers, C. R. ( 1951 ). Client-centered therapy . Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Saini, M. , & Shlonsky, A. ( 2012 ). Systematic synthesis of qualitative research . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Saldaña, J. ( 2013 ). Fundamentals of qualitative research . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Sandstrom, K. L. , Martin, D. D. , & Fine, G. A. ( 2006 ). Symbols, selves, and social reality: A symbolic interactionist approach (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.

Schwandt, T. A. ( 1996 ). Farewell to criteriology. Qualitative Inquiry, 2, 58–72.

Smith, D. W. ( 2011 ). Phenomenology. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy . Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2011/entries/phenomenology

Snow, D. A. , & Anderson, L. ( 1987 ). Identity work among the homeless: The verbal construction and avowal of personal identities. The American Journal of Sociology, 92, 1336–1371.

Strauss, A. , & Corbin, J. ( 1998 ). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stryker, S. ( 1987 ). The vitalization of symbolic interactionism. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 83–94.

Torrance, H. ( 2008 ). Building confidence in qualitative research: Engaging the demands of policy. Qualitative Inquiry, 14, 507–527.

Tracy, S. J. ( 2010 ). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 837–851.

Tufecki, Zeynep . ( 2008 ). Can you see me now? Audience and disclosure regulation in online social networking sites. Bulletin of Science in Technology and Society, 28 , 20–36.

Turner, F. J. (Ed.). ( 2017 ). Social work treatment: Interlocking theoretical approaches (6th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Walther, Joseph B. ( 2008 ). The role of friends’ appearance and behavior on evaluations of individuals on Facebook: Are we known by the company we keep? Human Communication Research, 34, 28–49.

Wertz, F. J. ( 2011 ). A phenomenological psychological approach to trauma and resilience. In F. J. Wertz , K. Charmaz , L. M. McMullen , R. Josselson , R. Anderson , & E. McSpadden (Eds.), Five ways of doing qualitative analysis: Phenomenological psychology, grounded theory, discourse analysis, narrative research, and intuitive inquiry (pp. 124–164). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Wertz, F. J. , Charmaz, K. , McMullen, L. J. , Josselson, R. , Anderson, R. , & McSpadden, E. (Eds.) ( 2011 ). Five ways of doing qualitative analysis: Phenomenological psychology, grounded theory, discourse analysis, narrative research, and intuitive inquiry . New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Yodanis, C. L. ( 2004 ). Gender Inequality, Violence Against Women, and Fear: A Cross-National Test of the Feminist Theory of Violence Against Women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(6), 655–675.

Zarghooni, S. ( 2007 , Autumn). A study of self-presentation in light of Facebook . Institute of Psychology, University of Oslo.

About Oxford Academic
Publish journals with us
University press partners
What we publish
New features
Open access
Institutional account management
Rights and permissions
Get help with access
Accessibility
Advertising
Media enquiries
Oxford University Press
Oxford Languages
University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
Cookie settings
Cookie policy
Privacy policy
Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Help & FAQ

An interpretive approach to case study research: underlying philosophy and its implications for fieldwork

Research output : Contribution to conference › Paper › peer-review

case studies
interpretivism
interpretivist methodology
qualitative research
qualitative methodology
qualitative
qualitative study

Access to Document

2017 05 10 Kwiatkowski Interpretive accepted Accepted author manuscript, 116 KB

Fingerprint

business service Social Sciences 100%
experiential knowledge Social Sciences 91%
interview Social Sciences 58%
literature Social Sciences 56%
research planning Social Sciences 56%
data analysis Social Sciences 51%
research project Social Sciences 49%
methodology Social Sciences 34%

An interpretive approach to case study research : underlying philosophy and its implications for fieldwork. / Kwiatkowski, Wojciech .

T1 - An interpretive approach to case study research

T2 - Manchester Methods Exchanges Conference

AU - Kwiatkowski, Wojciech

PY - 2017/5/10

Y1 - 2017/5/10

N2 - Drawing on Cunliffe's (2011) framework of metatheoretical assumptions and research methodologies employed in organisational and management studies, the paper reviews extant literature on case study research and distinguishes between its two forms - a positivist inclined conventional approach (e.g. Eisenhardt, 1989; Gerring, 2004; Yin, 2009) and an interpretivist-inspired alternative approach (e.g. Flyvberg, 2006; Stake, 1995; Thomas, 2010, 2011). In comparison with past publications, the paper does not devote much attention to discussing the latter variety as a critique of the former. Instead it offers a detailed exploration of how the philosophical underpinnings of the interpretivist approach affect the practice of doing case study research. Interpretivist case study research is defined as a reflexive endeavour emphasising experiential knowledge extrapolated from research participants' accounts for the purpose of generating rich, holistic analyses rather than generalisable theoretical constructs. The paper then makes a much needed contribution to case study literature by offering comprehensive guidance on collecting interview, documentary and observational data during fieldwork, data analysis and writing-up of case reports in a manner consistent with the underlying philosophy of interpretivist case study research. Examples from the author's on-going multiple-case research project on the delivery of knowledge-intensive business services, which utilises interview and documentary data, are invoked and discussed to demonstrate how these guidelines can inform research design.

AB - Drawing on Cunliffe's (2011) framework of metatheoretical assumptions and research methodologies employed in organisational and management studies, the paper reviews extant literature on case study research and distinguishes between its two forms - a positivist inclined conventional approach (e.g. Eisenhardt, 1989; Gerring, 2004; Yin, 2009) and an interpretivist-inspired alternative approach (e.g. Flyvberg, 2006; Stake, 1995; Thomas, 2010, 2011). In comparison with past publications, the paper does not devote much attention to discussing the latter variety as a critique of the former. Instead it offers a detailed exploration of how the philosophical underpinnings of the interpretivist approach affect the practice of doing case study research. Interpretivist case study research is defined as a reflexive endeavour emphasising experiential knowledge extrapolated from research participants' accounts for the purpose of generating rich, holistic analyses rather than generalisable theoretical constructs. The paper then makes a much needed contribution to case study literature by offering comprehensive guidance on collecting interview, documentary and observational data during fieldwork, data analysis and writing-up of case reports in a manner consistent with the underlying philosophy of interpretivist case study research. Examples from the author's on-going multiple-case research project on the delivery of knowledge-intensive business services, which utilises interview and documentary data, are invoked and discussed to demonstrate how these guidelines can inform research design.

KW - case studies

KW - case study

KW - interpretivism

KW - interpretivist methodology

KW - qualitative research

KW - qualitative methodology

KW - qualitative

KW - qualitative study

UR - http://www.methodsnorthwest.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/MNW-Conference-Programme-2017-FINAL.pdf

UR - http://blogs.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/humsresearchers/2017/03/30/2736/

Y2 - 10 May 2017

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

Knowledge Base

Methodology

What Is a Case Study? | Definition, Examples & Methods

What Is a Case Study? | Definition, Examples & Methods

Published on May 8, 2019 by Shona McCombes . Revised on November 20, 2023.

A case study is a detailed study of a specific subject, such as a person, group, place, event, organization, or phenomenon. Case studies are commonly used in social, educational, clinical, and business research.

A case study research design usually involves qualitative methods , but quantitative methods are sometimes also used. Case studies are good for describing , comparing, evaluating and understanding different aspects of a research problem .

When to do a case study, step 1: select a case, step 2: build a theoretical framework, step 3: collect your data, step 4: describe and analyze the case, other interesting articles.

A case study is an appropriate research design when you want to gain concrete, contextual, in-depth knowledge about a specific real-world subject. It allows you to explore the key characteristics, meanings, and implications of the case.

Case studies are often a good choice in a thesis or dissertation . They keep your project focused and manageable when you don’t have the time or resources to do large-scale research.

You might use just one complex case study where you explore a single subject in depth, or conduct multiple case studies to compare and illuminate different aspects of your research problem.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Once you have developed your problem statement and research questions , you should be ready to choose the specific case that you want to focus on. A good case study should have the potential to:

Provide new or unexpected insights into the subject
Challenge or complicate existing assumptions and theories
Propose practical courses of action to resolve a problem
Open up new directions for future research

TipIf your research is more practical in nature and aims to simultaneously investigate an issue as you solve it, consider conducting action research instead.

Unlike quantitative or experimental research , a strong case study does not require a random or representative sample. In fact, case studies often deliberately focus on unusual, neglected, or outlying cases which may shed new light on the research problem.

Example of an outlying case studyIn the 1960s the town of Roseto, Pennsylvania was discovered to have extremely low rates of heart disease compared to the US average. It became an important case study for understanding previously neglected causes of heart disease.

However, you can also choose a more common or representative case to exemplify a particular category, experience or phenomenon.

Example of a representative case studyIn the 1920s, two sociologists used Muncie, Indiana as a case study of a typical American city that supposedly exemplified the changing culture of the US at the time.

While case studies focus more on concrete details than general theories, they should usually have some connection with theory in the field. This way the case study is not just an isolated description, but is integrated into existing knowledge about the topic. It might aim to:

Exemplify a theory by showing how it explains the case under investigation
Expand on a theory by uncovering new concepts and ideas that need to be incorporated
Challenge a theory by exploring an outlier case that doesn’t fit with established assumptions

To ensure that your analysis of the case has a solid academic grounding, you should conduct a literature review of sources related to the topic and develop a theoretical framework . This means identifying key concepts and theories to guide your analysis and interpretation.

There are many different research methods you can use to collect data on your subject. Case studies tend to focus on qualitative data using methods such as interviews , observations , and analysis of primary and secondary sources (e.g., newspaper articles, photographs, official records). Sometimes a case study will also collect quantitative data.

Example of a mixed methods case studyFor a case study of a wind farm development in a rural area, you could collect quantitative data on employment rates and business revenue, collect qualitative data on local people’s perceptions and experiences, and analyze local and national media coverage of the development.

The aim is to gain as thorough an understanding as possible of the case and its context.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

Academic style
Vague sentences
Style consistency

See an example

can case studies be used for philosophical research

In writing up the case study, you need to bring together all the relevant aspects to give as complete a picture as possible of the subject.

How you report your findings depends on the type of research you are doing. Some case studies are structured like a standard scientific paper or thesis , with separate sections or chapters for the methods , results and discussion .

Others are written in a more narrative style, aiming to explore the case from various angles and analyze its meanings and implications (for example, by using textual analysis or discourse analysis ).

In all cases, though, make sure to give contextual details about the case, connect it back to the literature and theory, and discuss how it fits into wider patterns or debates.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

Normal distribution
Degrees of freedom
Null hypothesis
Discourse analysis
Control groups
Mixed methods research
Non-probability sampling
Quantitative research
Ecological validity

Research bias

Rosenthal effect
Implicit bias
Cognitive bias
Selection bias
Negativity bias
Status quo bias

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, November 20). What Is a Case Study? | Definition, Examples & Methods. Scribbr. Retrieved April 9, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/case-study/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, primary vs. secondary sources | difference & examples, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is action research | definition & examples, what is your plagiarism score.

Information Systems Research pp 23–34 Cite as

Research Philosophies in Social Science and Information Systems Research

Mohammed Ali 2
First Online: 16 September 2023

235 Accesses

This chapter offers a philosophical background to the research paradigms and approaches associated with IS research. It covers contemporary IS through the lens of design science, as well as the ontological and epistemological perspectives of positivist, interpretivist and critical worldviews when studying the social paradigm shifts and global changes resulting from such systems. Therefore, this chapter aims to emphasise the importance of considering the philosophical stances of conducting research in contemporary IS research. In addition to the chapter contents, definitions, facts, tables, figures, activities, and case studies are provided to reinforce researcher and practitioner learning of the research philosophies and paradigms associated with contemporary IS research.

Information systems
Research philosophy
Research paradigm
Social sciences

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

Available as PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Available as EPUB and PDF
Compact, lightweight edition
Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2017). Research methods in education . Taylor & Francis.

Book Google Scholar

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2017). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research . SAGE Publications.

Google Scholar

Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., Jackson, P. R., & Jaspersen, L. J. (2018). Management and business research . SAGE Publications.

Fazlıoğulları, O. (2012). Scientific research paradigms in social sciences. International Journal of Educational Policies, 6 (1), 41–55.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2 (163–194), 105.

Hassan, N. R., Mingers, J., & Stahl, B. (2018). Philosophy and information systems: Where are we and where should we go? European Journal of Information Systems, 27 (3), 263–277.

Article Google Scholar

Jackson, M. C. (2019). Critical systems thinking and the management of complexity . Wiley.

Kanellis, P., & Papadopoulos, T. (2009). Conducting research in information systems: An epistemological journey. In A. Cater-Steel & L. Al-Hakim (Eds.), Information systems research methods, epistemology, and applications (pp. 1–34). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60566-040-0.ch001

Mackenzie, N., & Knipe, S. (2006). Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods, and methodology. Issues in Educational Research, 16 (2), 193–205.

Myers, M. D. (1994). A disaster for everyone to see: An interpretive analysis of a failed is project. Accounting, Management, and Information Technologies, 4 (4), 185–201.

Myers, M. D., & Avison, D. (1997). Qualitative research in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 21 (2), 241–259.

Myers, M. D., & Avison, D. (2002). Qualitative research in information systems: A reader . SAGE Publications.

Oates, B. J., Griffiths, M., & McLean, R. (2006). Researching information systems and computing (1st ed.). SAGE Publications.

Oates, B. J., Griffiths, M., & McLean, R. (2022). Researching information systems and computing (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2019). Research methods for business students . Pearson.

Somekh, B., & Lewin, C. (2005). Research methods in the social sciences . Sage.

Walsham, G. (1993). Interpreting information systems in organizations . Wiley.

Willcocks, L. P., Sauer, C., & Lacity, M. C. (2016). Enacting research methods in information systems (Vol. 1). Palgrave Macmillan.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Salford Business School, University of Salford, Manchester, UK

Mohammed Ali

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohammed Ali .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Ali, M. (2023). Research Philosophies in Social Science and Information Systems Research. In: Information Systems Research. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25470-3_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25470-3_2

Published : 16 September 2023

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-25469-7

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-25470-3

eBook Packages : Computer Science Computer Science (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

Research Philosophy

Research philosophy is a vast topic and here we will not be discussing this topic in great details. Research philosophy is associated with assumption, knowledge and nature of the study. It deals with the specific way of developing knowledge. This matter needs to be addressed because researchers may have different assumptions about the nature of truth and knowledge and philosophy helps us to understand their assumptions.

In business and economics dissertations at Bachelor’s level, you are not expected to discuss research philosophy in a great level of depth, and about one page in methodology chapter devoted to research philosophy usually suffices. For a business dissertation at Master’s level, on the other hand, you may need to provide more discussion of the philosophy of your study. But even there, about two pages of discussions are usually accepted as sufficient by supervisors.

Discussion of research philosophy in your dissertation should include the following:

You need to specify the research philosophy of your study. Your research philosophy can be pragmatism , positivism , realism or interpretivism as discussed below in more details.
The reasons behind philosophical classifications of the study need to be provided.
You need to discuss the implications of your research philosophy on the research strategy in general and the choice of primary data collection methods in particular.

The Essence of Research Philosophy

Research philosophy deals with the source, nature and development of knowledge [1] . In simple terms, research philosophy is belief about the ways in which data about a phenomenon should be collected, analysed and used.

Although the idea of knowledge creation may appear to be profound, you are engaged in knowledge creation as part of completing your dissertation. You will collect secondary and primary data and engage in data analysis to answer the research question and this answer marks the creation of new knowledge.

In respect to business and economics philosophy has the following important three functions [2] :

Demystifying : Exposing, criticising and explaining the unsustainable assumptions, inconsistencies and confusions these may contain.
Informing : Helping researchers to understand where they stand in the wider field of knowledge-producing activities, and helping to make them aware of potentialities they might explore.
Method-facilitating : Dissecting and better understanding the methods which economists or, more generally, scientists do, or could, use, and thereby to refine the methods on offer and/or to clarify their conditions of usage.

In essence, addressing research philosophy in your dissertation involves being aware and formulating your beliefs and assumptions. As illustrated in figure below, the identification of research philosophy is positioned at the outer layer of the ‘research onion’. Accordingly it is the first topic to be clarified in research methodology chapter of your dissertation.

Research philosophy in the ‘research onion’ [2]

Each stage of the research process is based on assumptions about the sources and the nature of knowledge. Research philosophy will reflect the author’s important assumptions and these assumptions serve as base for the research strategy. Generally, research philosophy has many branches related to a wide range of disciplines. Within the scope of business studies in particular there are four main research philosophies:

Interpretivism (Interpretivist)

The Choice of Research Philosophy

The choice of a specific research philosophy is impacted by practical implications. There are important philosophical differences between studies that focus on facts and numbers such as an analysis of the impact of foreign direct investment on the level of GDP growth and qualitative studies such as an analysis of leadership style on employee motivation in organizations.

The choice between positivist and interpretivist research philosophies or between quantitative and qualitative research methods has traditionally represented a major point of debate. However, the latest developments in the practice of conducting studies have increased the popularity of pragmatism and realism philosophies as well.

Moreover, as it is illustrated in table below, there are popular data collection methods associated with each research philosophy.

Research philosophies and data collection methods [3]

My e-book, The Ultimate Guide to Writing a Dissertation in Business Studies: a step by step assistance contains discussions of theory and application of research philosophy. The e-book also explains all stages of the research process starting from the selection of the research area to writing personal reflection. Important elements of dissertations such as research philosophy , research approach , research design , methods of data collection and data analysis are explained in this e-book in simple words.

John Dudovskiy

[1] Bajpai, N. (2011) “Business Research Methods” Pearson Education India

[2] Tsung, E.W.K. (2016) “The Philosophy of Management Research” Routledge

[3] Table adapted from Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2012) “Research Methods for Business Students” 6 th edition, Pearson Education Limited

IMAGES

Case Study
How to Create a Case Study + 14 Case Study Templates
Everything you should know about the Case studies
(PDF) Understanding philosophical underpinnings of research with
Case Study: Types, Advantages And Disadvantages
PPT

VIDEO

Philosophical Chairs @ The Elementary Level
Entering the Library of the Philosophical Research Society
Educational philosophy meaning relationship between philosophy and education notes b.ed 1st semester
Discussing philosophy in the backrooms
As They Burn
Case Study

COMMENTS

Case Study Research, Philosophical Position and Theory Building: A Methodological Discussion
Abstract. Case study research though increasingly popular in social sciences for positivist and intrepretivist research, a kind of confusion is prevalent when it is used ignoring its philosophical ...
Methodological Reflections on Normative Case Studies: What They are and
Yet, as the use of case studies and other empirically engaged philosophical approaches has grown, concerns have been raised about whether these methods risk reducing philosophy to social science and, in turn, burdening philosophy with the constraints of social science research. 1 I believe responding to these concerns calls for more attention ...
Case Study Methodology of Qualitative Research: Key Attributes and
A case study is one of the most commonly used methodologies of social research. This article attempts to look into the various dimensions of a case study research strategy, the different epistemological strands which determine the particular case study type and approach adopted in the field, discusses the factors which can enhance the effectiveness of a case study research, and the debate ...
The Case Study Method in Philosophy of Science: An Empirical Study
Abstract. There is an ongoing methodological debate in philosophy of science concerning the use of case studies as evidence for and/or against theories about science. In this paper, I aim to make a contribution to this debate by taking an empirical approach. I present the results of a systematic survey of the PhilSci-Archive, which suggest that a sizeable proportion of papers in philosophy of ...
Case Study Research, Philosophical Position and Theory Building: A
Case study research though increasingly popular in social sciences for positivist and intrepretivist research, a kind of confusion is prevalent when it is used ignoring its philosophical position. Arguably, the case study research is considered more appropriate for qualitative research because of its foremost strength ˗ the in-depth study of complex issues. This paper, drawing from the ...
5 Philosophical Approaches to Qualitative Research
Once dominated by quantitative methods anchored in positivistic and post-positivistic research paradigms, a greater balance in the use of methodological and philosophical approaches is now being utilized in psychological research (Ponterotto, 2005; Rennie, Watson, & Monteiro, 2002).The importance of qualitative research has long been justified by many on the basis of Dilthey's argument that ...
Full article: Philosophical Paradigms in Qualitative Research Methods
Similar recommendations are found in Wagner et al.'s systematic review, which identified several studies that recommended that "students should be exposed to philosophy of science and epistemological debates related to qualitative research" (Citation 2019, p. 12), and that "paradigms linked to qualitative research be introduced in the first year and sustained throughout a curriculum ...
Case Study Research and Theory Building
Abstract. The problem and the solution. This chapter overviews case study research and proposes a manner in which case study research can contribute to theory building in applied disciplines. Although theory building using case study research has been discussed previously in the literature, there is no clarity as to how case study research can ...
5 Philosophical Approaches to Qualitative Research
Once dominated by quantitative methods anchored in positivistic and postpositivistic research paradigms, a greater balance in the use of methodological and philosophical approaches is now being utilized in psychological research (Ponterotto, 2005; Rennie, Watson, & Monteiro, 2002).The importance of qualitative research has long been justified by many on the basis of Dilthey's argument that ...
An interpretive approach to case study research: underlying philosophy
Drawing on Cunliffe's (2011) framework of metatheoretical assumptions and research methodologies employed in organisational and management studies, the paper reviews extant literature on case study research and distinguishes between its two forms - a positivist inclined conventional approach (e.g. Eisenhardt, 1989; Gerring, 2004; Yin, 2009) and an interpretivist-inspired alternative approach ...
A Philosophical Framework for Case Studies
A Philosophical Framework for Case Studies 27. application of a moral rule to a specific case can be used by ill-intentioned individuals to justify. all sorts of behavior which common sense judges. to be immoral. Moreover, actions done with the. best of intentions by virtuous people may.
Exploring the Four Core Philosophical Assumptions in Qualitative Research
Understanding the Four Core Philosophical Assumptions. The four underlying philosophical approaches when using qualitative research are ontological, epistemological, axiological, and methodological (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Depending on the type of research, any assumption can be employed and utilized.
PDF Philosophical Assumptions and Interpretive Frameworks post
Why Philosophy Is Important. We can begin by thinking about why it is important to understand the philosophical . assumptions that underlie qualitative research and to be able to articulate them in a research study or present them to an audience. Huff (2009) is helpful in articulating the importance of philosophy in research.
What Is a Case Study?
Revised on November 20, 2023. A case study is a detailed study of a specific subject, such as a person, group, place, event, organization, or phenomenon. Case studies are commonly used in social, educational, clinical, and business research. A case study research design usually involves qualitative methods, but quantitative methods are ...
Case Study Method: A Step-by-Step Guide for Business Researchers
Although case studies have been discussed extensively in the literature, little has been written about the specific steps one may use to conduct case study research effectively (Gagnon, 2010; Hancock & Algozzine, 2016).Baskarada (2014) also emphasized the need to have a succinct guideline that can be practically followed as it is actually tough to execute a case study well in practice.
Philosophy of Research: An Introduction
General steps in the research process are: Design and develop the new product, to upgrade available one, to study and analyze the effects of the product specifications. Objective of research must be SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Time-bound). Scope for research/gap in research.
(PDF) Research philosophies and why they matter
Informing this decision should be the philosophical assumptions the researcher brings to the study; procedures of inquiry (called research designs); and specific research methods of data ...
Research Philosophies in Social Science and Information Systems
A scientific research philosophy can also be a mode of thought that leads to the discovery of new information about the object of study. 2. A paradigm of scientific research is a broad framework that encompasses perceptions, beliefs, and knowledge of various scientific investigation theories and practises. 3.
Philosophical Stances and Theoretical Perspectives in Submissions to
PMJ publishes research that advances theory, meaningful discussion, and evidence-based practice. This research is not limited to particular philosophical stances and theoretical perspectives. With the former, we refer to the onto-epistemological choices made at the outset of a study, such as the nature of investigated reality (i.e., ontology), be it, for example, merely objective and ...
Research Philosophy
Research philosophy deals with the source, nature and development of knowledge [1]. In simple terms, research philosophy is belief about the ways in which data about a phenomenon should be collected, analysed and used. Although the idea of knowledge creation may appear to be profound, you are engaged in knowledge creation as part of completing ...
Sustainability
Meeting the personalized needs of users is the key to achieving the sustainable success of a product. It depends not only on the product's functionality but also on satisfying users' emotional needs for the product's appearance. Therefore, researchers have been conducting research focusing on Kansei engineering theory to determine users' emotional needs effectively. The initial process ...
Three principles of pragmatism for research on organizational processes
This article explicates pragmatism as a relevant and useful paradigm for qualitative research on organizational processes. The article focuses on three core methodological principles that underlie a pragmatic approach to inquiry: (1) an emphasis on actionable knowledge, (2) recognition of the interconnectedness between experience, knowing and acting and (3) inquiry as an experiential process.

The Case Study Method in Philosophy of Science: An Empirical Study

Client Account

A product of The MIT Press

Information

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

5 Philosophical Approaches to Qualitative Research

Philosophical Approaches

Foundational Assumptions

Implications for Research Methods

Application

Social Constructionism

Symbolic Interactionism

Phenomenology

Critical Theory

Application in the Field

Feminist Theories

Queer Theory

Conclusion and Future Directions

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

An interpretive approach to case study research: underlying philosophy and its implications for fieldwork

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Have a language expert improve your writing

What Is a Case Study? | Definition, Examples & Methods

Table of contents

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Cite this Scribbr article

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Research Philosophies in Social Science and Information Systems Research

Buying options

Author information

Corresponding author

Rights and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Download citation

Share this chapter

Research Philosophy

The Essence of Research Philosophy

The Choice of Research Philosophy

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS