Search results

Qualitative research suffers from “contestation” and a lack of “boilerplate” problems to assessing and presenting qualitative data, which have hampered its development and the broader acceptance of qualitative research. This paper aims to address this gap by marrying the constructivist methodology and RQDA, a relatively new open-source computer-assisted qualitative data analysis (CAQDAS)-based R extension and demonstrate how the software can increase the rigor, transparency and validity of qualitative research.

This paper highlights the constructivist approach as an important paradigm in qualitative research and demonstrates how it can be operationalized and enhanced using RQDA. It provides a technical and methodological review of RQDA, along with its main strengths and weaknesses, in relation with two popular CAQDAS tools, ATLAS.ti and NVivo. Using samples of customer-generated e-complaints and e-praises in the electronics/computer sector, this paper demonstrates the development of a process model of customer e-complaint rhetoric.

This study offers step-by-step instructions for installing and using RQDA for data coding, aggregation, plotting and theory building. It emphasizes the importance of techniques for sharing coding outputs among researchers and journal gatekeepers to better disseminate and share research findings. It also describes the authors’ use of RQDA in classrooms of undergraduates and graduate students.

This paper addresses the “contestation” and “boilerplate” gaps, offering practical, step-by-step instructions to operationalize and enhance the constructivist approach using the RQDA-based approach. This opens new opportunities for existing R users to “cross over” to analyzing textual data as well as for computer-savvy scholars, analysts and research students in academia and industry who wish to transition to CAQDAS-based qualitative research because RQDA is free and can leverage the strengths of the R computing platform.

This study offers the first published review and demonstration of the RQDA-based constructivist methodology that provide the processes needed to enhance the rigor, transparency and validity of qualitative research. It demonstrates the systematic development of a data structure and a process model of customer e-complaint rhetoric using RQDA.

The conventional distinction between quantitative and qualitative research is constructed around a familiar dichotomy. Within it, the former is construed as more “factual” and “objective” and it is contrasted with the more interpretative approaches of qualitative research. The latter, in this account, is enlisted to enhance understanding of the consumer even if it is considered inherently less reliable and less “valid” in nature. The purpose of this paper is to challenge this familiar distinction and propose a more fundamental one in its place.

Qualitative research is conventionally understood within a framework delineated by modern psychology. The task of qualitative research within this model is to understand the motivations of consumers and to provide explanations that are deeper and less “on the surface” than those elicited by quantitative methods. Such a perspective on qualitative research ignores the fact, however, that the distinctions which exist between the two methodologies are much more profound. We need to look at the underlying philosophical foundations of the two approaches and recognise that they can be distinguished at a more critical level. This paper will argue that they can be understood with much greater clarity in terms of how subjects and predicates are related to each other.

This reframing of the theoretical assumptions of qualitative research would lead, one might expect, to a radical reinterpretation of qualitative research. This paper goes on to demonstrate, however, that, paradoxically, this is not the case. What will be demonstrated is that some of the more important methodologies developed in qualitative research correspond precisely with the new theoretical model that is being put forward. As such, they tend to confirm the fundamental assumptions of the subject/predicate model proposed.

The value of this paper is to encourage greater theoretical perspective on the nature of qualitative research and its methodologies.

Qualitative social research strives to deepen our understanding of aspects of everyday human life and the narrative metaphor of people living storied lives is re‐created in the focus group method. The purpose of this paper is to propose an innovative methodology for social research, that is, chiasmatic interpretative communities (CIC).

The importance of evidence‐based research to inform future social policy and practice depends on trustworthy information and the chosen research design or methodology must fit the purpose. The strengths and limitations of the focus group method are critically evaluated. Potential issues of accuracy during analysis are resolved by informing the interpretation of the discourse with experts from the community.

Chiasmatic interpretative communities offer a re‐imagined synthesis of a repeated focus group approach, with community experts as interpreters.

This blurs two methodological boundaries to enhance academic rigor. They are, the temporal blurring of linear sequential phases in research design (data collection and then data analysis) and the spatial blurring of power relations within the researcher:participant dyad.

This transformative methodology is described from a pragmatist standpoint within an evaluative framework.

This innovative methodology potentially provides an emic perspective to inform social policy decisions. It aims to bring participants into the research process that might shape their future social services.

A final section discusses the foresight of CIC and describes the bricolage of this critical qualitative research methodology.

Working creatively as a researcher should be a core foundation in doctoral studies, though it may be an isolating, even risky, endeavour. The purpose of this paper is to share the author’s journey through the “darkness” of innovation in research methodology.

At the heart of this research journey was Portraiture (Lawrence-Lightfoot, 1983), which emerged early in the post-modern evolution of qualitative research. While exploring Portraiture, the author found researchers used this methodology in varying ways: application, appropriation and interpretation. In stumbling through Portraiture, the author discovered patchwork as their bricoleur’s toolbag. Patchwork provided a torch that gave light to the darkness of the research process enabling interpretation of Portraiture for alignment of method and research problematic[1].

Looking back at the research journey, the author recognises the steps into post-qualitative research and the need for methodological innovators to share their journeys for inspiration, to develop understanding and open the way to greater creativity and innovation during the research process.

This paper provides an original view to Portraiture along with the addition of patchwork as a way of engaging with methodology as well as data.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a methodology by which qualitative analyses serve as rich source materials for discovery of theoretically cogent interrelations between latent variables.

In an illustrative case, qualitative data are collected from US franchisee managers from a single branded franchise of automotive repair outlets. Qualitative analysis of franchisee experiences and attitudes is critical for construction of a causal model used to predict conflict intensity between franchisee managers and franchisors.

The model is based on franchisees' normative expectations for resource allocation within the franchise; and their perceptions of franchisor normative violations, which are determinative of grievances, distrust, and hostility. This theoretical orientation serves to generate a system of interrelated empirically testable propositions.

In principle, the primary limitation of using qualitative analysis for the construction of causal models is the fruitfulness of the theoretical orientation shared by the qualitative analyst and the causal modeler.

The methodological approach advanced in this paper advances qualitative research and causal modeling beyond the individual contributions. Qualitative analysis infuses variables and process imagery into causal modeling. In turn, causal modeling elaborates the qualitative analysis and makes explicit logical connections between variables.

This paper advances a methodology by which qualitative analysis and causal model construction may be usefully integrated. Theory‐based qualitative analysis may be formalized to map latent concepts and their interrelations. Further, operational measures of these concepts may be adduced from the analysis of textual data.

The purpose of this paper is to present a framework intended to guide students and novice researchers in learning about the necessary dimensions for assessing the rigour of qualitative research studies. The framework has four dimensions – (T)rustworthiness, (A)uditability, (C)redibility and (T)ransferability. The development of TACT is informed by various discourses of rigour in the qualitative research methods literature. Results of an empirical verification of TACT suggests that postgraduate students and faculty learning qualitative research found the framework useful for learning rigour in qualitative research methods. TACT also serves as an important theoretical tool for setting directions for further discourses on teaching and learning critical aspects of rigour in qualitative research methodology.

The formal verification of the TACT started with a development of a rating tool. The tool consisted of a total of 16 items, 4 items per each dimension. The items were ranked on five-scale Likert points (1=very important, 2=important, 3=neutral, 4=less important, 5=not important). The instrument was piloted and tested for reliability revealing an overall Cronbach’s α (α=0.86), which indicates a good level of internal consistency (George and Mallery, 2003) among the dimensions. The tool was put online and sent out to participants enroled in workshops on “assessing rigour in qualitative research studies”.

Overall, participants found TACT to be a useful framework for learning different dimensions for assessing qualitative research. They saw various benefits associated with the use of the framework including providing a better process for undertaking and reporting outcomes of qualitative research and for exploring different dimensions of rigour. Participants also indicated that using TACT facilitates reflexivity and fosters dependability of research outcomes. They stated that TACT could help researchers think about their personal relationship with a phenomenon being studied as well as the quality of data collected. Others said that TACT allows researchers to think about achieving transference and gaining confidence in the research findings.

TACT is best suited as a teaching toolkit in qualitative research methodology courses. It is also useful as a platform for fostering a shared language in undertaking peer-review of methodological dimensions of qualitative research studies.

Though a general framework for accessing rigour in qualitative research studies is highly desirable, the usefulness of TACT in rendering rigour is subject to a particular academic tradition.

TACT facilitates the exploration of different dimensions for assessing the outcome of qualitative research.

TACT is a general framework drawn from the literature and teaching practice and empirically validated.

The chapter discusses abductive thematic analysis as an innovative qualitative methodology in hospitality and tourism research. The novelty of the abductive approach is to combine the power of both deductive and inductive reasoning: it is possible to initiate the research starting from an existing theoretical, without renouncing to a creative phase where the researcher interprets the phenomenon beyond the words utilized and theorizes dependencies between concepts. The chapter further presents a case study to illustrate how abductive thematic analysis can be applied to study small hospitality and tourism businesses. The chapter further highlights the benefits of adapting thematic analysis to abductive reasoning, which is a paradigmatic position thus adding rigor to hospitality and tourism. The chapter finally highlights future avenues for development of methodology research toward adding further rigor to this novel methodology.