I have struggled year with many academic jargon and concepts (such as positivism,
hypothetico-deductivist, epistemology, ontology, etc.). Though I have read those over and
over again what they mean – but I forget them. I have felt that maybe I’m too practical,
incapable for abstractive thinking or I have dyslexia.
I try therefore this time to make a difference, to open each and every concept to myself,
simplify them and open the meanings personally for myself. I will try to do this by
implementing the readings to my own interest and to my graduate theses.
I found the book Qualitative Methods in Business Research (2011) written by Päivi Eriksson
and Anne Kovalainen really useful. My own back ground is in business. I have been working
in human resources from year 2000 and I have a candidate degree in business and
administration. I like the book as it is very practical and it avoids difficult theoretical
concepts. The following presentation about basic concepts is lengthy as I tried to open up
concepts to myself as practically as I possibly could. So I apologize for this. Writing was very
rewarding and educational process to me. It is worth to mention too that main philosophical
concepts are used in somewhat differing way by scientists; same issues can be found under
different titles in other methodology books (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2011, p. 17.). As
Eriksson’s and Kovalainen’s book opened up to me really well, I decided to focus on it.
Qualitative methods were developed as there were too many limitations of the positivist
quantitative approach. How to investigate e.g. experiences in a deeper level? (Chamberlain,
p. 122.) General Qualitative research is concerned with meanings. The objective of
qualitative research is to describe, to understand, and sometimes also to explain but never
to predict (Willig, 2012. Ref. Couttier, 2014).
In every research there are philosophical aspects and questions that should be considered
when planning the research, in order to be able to design solid piece of study that delivers
what it promises. (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2011, 11.)
When specifying your research design and strategy, you set the directions for your research.
You need to make decisions regarding the type of data you collect, how to analyze it, rules
3
how to interpret the analyses and ideas how you present your results. (Eriksson &
Kovalainen, 2011. 11.)
Being reflexive is to interrogate research practice at a deeper level. Researcher makes
decisions which ways to proceed and determines what can be accomplished in the research.
Acknowledging and evaluating the potential impact of the positioning of the researcher and
explicating what are the underlying assumptions. Being aware of them, how they shape and
affect the research process altogether. Reflexivity is about turning back on oneself and
questioning. (Chamberlain.)
Being Ethical means that we consider such issues as informed consent and the minimization
of harm – acknowledge if there is danger of stigmatization, distress, discrimination or
oppression in power relations. Also issues as the uses of data, voluntary participation,
confidentiality, privacy and anonymity for participants should be acknowledged in the
research. (Chamberlain, p.129.) Eriksson and Kovalainen (2011, p. 66-75) mention also issues
of sponsorship relations, professional integrity (openness to criticism and comments in
scientific community) and issue of plagiarism.
Reflexivity means that you consider how your knowledge is produced, described and
justified. Reflect what are your epistemological assumptions and commitments in your
research. Epistemology refers to theory of knowledge. How and what can you know. What is
the nature of knowledge for you, what are the sources and limits of knowledge and how
knowledge can be conducted? On what basis knowledge is argued for and claimed?
Epistemological assumptions are important to discuss, as it opens up the relationship that
exist between you as a researcher and your subject of interest. (Erikson & Kovalainen, 2011.
p. 12, 14.)
In Epistemology there is also objectivist and subjectivist view. In objective view there exists a
world that is external and theory neutral. Subjective epistemological view, no access to the
external world beyond our own observations and interpretations is possible. (Erikson &
Kovalainen, 2011, p. 14). To take an example: Subjectivism views reality being socially
constructed, knowledge is available only through social actors. This type o epistemological
view (differs from e.g. objectivism) is associated to position of interpretivism.
4
I try to understand above mentioned and put together other epistemological view below
(might be misguided also, but I give a try). There are other epistemological views as well, eg.
Critical realism that relates to substantialism, which refers that reality is material, but
acknowledge that people interpret it differently in different times and contexts. Objectivism
as epistemological view considers that reality is constituted observable material things –
empiricism. Philosophical position is positivism. (compare Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2011. p.
15).
Ontology concerns ideas about existence and relationships. Many qualitative approaches are
based on ontological assumption in which reality is understood as subjective. Also term
constructionism is used to refer to the social nature of reality. Quantitative research instead
often assumes that the reality is distinctive and separate, i.e. objective. (Eriksson &
Kovalainen, 2011, p. 13.) In constructionist view reality does not exist outside individuals, it’s
always about individuals’ and groups’ interpretations (Blaikie, 1993, p. 94; ref. Eriksson &
Kovalainen, 2011. p. 13). In your research – your ontological position means that you should
think and open up what do you see as fundamental in the social worlds that are worth
studying. Present what are you are interested and what beliefs you have about it. This way
you present what is your world view, what is essential in existence and being and what
should be studied and how. In other words ontology refers; what are your assumptions
about the nature of your research (Erikson & Kovalainen, 2011. p. 14.)
Methodologies concern practically how we come to know the world (Epistemology involves
the philosophy). Methodology describes how a given issue can be studied. This includes the
way how getting information, how we formulate and argue information. It studies the
philosophical assumptions and how they are related to method. In the Methodology section
the researcher presents his/her ontological and epistemological assumptions and methods
that are used in a study. (Erikson & Kovalainen, 2011. p.15-16.)
Methodology can be presented as follows: It is a qualitative research, using case study /
participant observation / interviews / document research. Methodology tells the specific
ways we can use in research (methods) when trying to understand the issue better.
Methods are divided to data collection (interviews, participant observation, diaries) and
5
methods of data analysis (e.g. thematic analysis, narrative analysis, IPA, ethnography).
(Erikson & Kovalainen, 2011. p. 16.)
Thomas Kuhn (1970) naturalistic scientist defined paradigm as set of practices that define a
scientific discipline during particular period of time. Later the term sifted away from Kuhn’s
original remarks. In 1994 Cuba and Lincoln identified positivism, postpositivism, critical
theory and constructivism as the major paradigms in social science research. (ref. Eriksson &
Kovalainen, 2011. p. 16-17.) I guess one could say that paradigm refers to guiding thoughts
behind the scientific activities that are generally or publicly accepted.
Referencies
Blaikie, N. (1993). Approaches to Social Enquiry. Polity Press. Cambridge. London. Ref. Erikson
& Kovalainen (2011).
Chamberlain, K. Research Methods and Health Psychology. Chapter 7, Qualitative Research,
Reflexivity and Context. p. 121 – 136.
Cottier, P. (2014). Course material. SP032 Workshop on the Qualitative Research Process.
Univeristy of Helsinki.
Eriksson, P. & Kovalainen, A. (2011). Qualitative Methods in Business Research. London.
Sage.
Guba, E.G. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research. In K. Denzin
and Y.S. Lincoln (eds). Handbook of Qualitative Research (p. 105 – 117). Sage. Ref. Erikson &
Kovalainen (2011).
Kuhn, T.S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd ed). Chicago, IL. University of
Chigago Press. Ref. Erikson & Kovalainen (2011).
Willig, C. (2012). Qualitative Interpretation and Analysis in Psychology. New York.McGraw-
Hill. Ref. Cottier 2014.
Learning Diary 3: Documentary Research
Document research is originating from ethnomethology. Documents can be used on their own or
together with other types of data (Gibson & Brown, 2009). In my thesis I have started to consider if I
6
could gather some of the data with diary-documents that I ask my participants to write. I reflect this
idea in this learning diary and I bring up my main insights.
Diaries are used often to generate information (Gibson & Brown, 2009, p. 77). In my study I am
interested that people could record in diaries their experiences about circle-way sessions (the case
related to this specific intervention).
In my thesis the diary-documents would represent primary data (Gibson & Brow, 2009, p.66), as they
will be written by the participants. I am interested to collect subjective information about the
experience of the circle-way discussion (that I will be hosting myself). The reason I started to consider
collecting also data in a document form was, that after reading the Gibson’s & Brown’s article (2009)
I began to reflect that on my theses subject. I am interested to know how Circle-Way discussion
intervention is experienced by the participants and I came to think that maybe personal semi-
structured interviews will not be the only productive way to figure out those experiences. It is a
matter of how comfortable the participants feel with writing. I enjoy sometimes myself to write my
experiences in complete freedom, especially if I feel that the experience has been powerful. Gibson
and Brown (2009, p. 78) present that using diaries can be empowering method for participants as
they have bigger freedom use their own voice.
Pre-structured diary method includes some questions or sections that should be completed. I like the
idea, as it will ensure that I get the type of data that is relevant (e.g. my interest is related to
usefulness, practicalities, and difficulties, how CW relates to willingness to cooperate,
contact/presence, effectiveness, empathy, and self-disclosure). However I feel that the open-ended
questions are really important – just to see what is it that attracts/irritates or is meaningful for
people (and not just my own perceptions as listed before). Dilemma of instructing too much or too
little is obvious here. Gibson and Brown (2009, p. 79) say that “The design and application of diary
research is most successful where it is directed by a conception of the nature of the data required
and its relation to the questions being asked”. Piloting would be really interesting to do before the
research, just to ask people to record what they felt and whatever came to their minds. And then
design the instructions for writing the diary. (Gibson & Brown, 2009, p. 77-78.)
I have thought that some piloting work is necessary anyhow; as I need to practice hosting and I want
to test my ideas and questions. Also method of data collection would be good to test, to see if
interviews or diaries will work as I have intended.
In my theses, my interest is to collect subjective experiences about one certain case that I am
interested – Cirle Way-method used in the organization context. This is really narrow perspective
7
compared studies of life narratives e.g. how people construct their lives. In my case the data would
be produced only for this certain purpose (KvaliMOTV).
References
Gibson,W. & Brown, A. (2009). Working with Qualitative Data. London.Sage.
KvaliMOTV. Qualitativa Methods Learning Environment. Documents and Records. Available at: http://www.fsd.uta.fi/menetelmaopetus/kvali/L6_6_4.html (Accessed 18.12.2014)
Learning Diary 4: Ethnography and Participant Observation
Ethnography is a method. We discussed in our group about the role of the researcher in the
ethnographic research. Researcher is integral part of the research process. Observations are always
guided by the researcher’s theoretical interests (Methods of Social Research, lecture readings p.144).
The research topic can also be very close and intimate to the researcher or the topic might become
emotionally heavy for the researcher. We discussed in our group how these things may affect into
the interpretations and the research as a whole. How can it be measured what are the effects of the
researcher on the social scene he/she is studying (ib. p.139).
Participant observation could be used successfully in field studies, e.g. how school children behave in
gym class or what are the practices in multinational companies with women CEO’s etc.
I have considered using observation as some type of “additional method” in my theses (together with
IPA interviewing and diaries). Though the situation will not be “natural” but excluding this method
completely feels unnatural as I will be hosting and participating the Circle-Way discussions. My
interest is to observe generally at the same time while participating what happens in the meeting
situation in this specific organizational context, with those people who gather. Originally participant
observation was used in studies about certain cultures or practices in natural settings to get an
insider’s view of a culture, so I don’t know if I can use the term ethnographic study at all really in my
thesis. But some form of short time intervention observation is naturally included in my research.
In my research power relations will obviously be present. That is an ethical issue that I will have to
ponder. Trust as a factor is important as I should become accepted in a group at least to some extent
in order to host the circle successfully. (Methods of Social Research, lecture readings. p.140-141.)
8
Ethical questions in ethnographic research means e.g. that researcher makes the goals and objectives
clear to the members of the study and gain informed consent of these people before starting the
project. Anonymity as well may be important factor to members. (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2011, p.
143).
In the lecture, it was mentioned that Action Research originates from participant
observation/ethnography. Action research is interested to find out if an intervention has an impact
on some phenomenon or if the intervention can change something in a social situation. According to
Denscombe (2010, p. 6; ref. Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2011) action research strategy's purpose is to
solve a particular problem and to produce guidelines for best practice. I have understood that action
research is more used in longer projects as in the doctoral thesis (and not in master’s thesis).
However I think it would be beneficial for me to read about it too, as my thesis is however, is a type
of tiny intervention case-study or pilot study about specific meeting strategy or method.
References:
Denscombe M. 2010. Good Research Guide : For small-scale social research projects (4th Edition). Ref. Eriksson & Kovalainen (2011).
Eriksson, P. & Kovalainen, A. (2011). Qualitative Methods in Business Research. London. Sage.
Methods of Social Research, Chap 7. Participant observation: perspectives and practice. (p.132-156) Lecture readings session 4.
Learningn Diary 5: Interviewing
I have done interviews twice in my life. Both were conducted while I studied. First one I made when I
was taking my first courses of qualitative methods in the university (personal interviews). The second
time I conducted focus group interviews for my bachelor degree while I studied in human resources
in business polytechnic. My aim is to reflect in this learning diary my own research plan (for my
master’s) and to clarify theoretical points that have been vague to me.
Interview is a data gathering method in a research project, not a methodological approach.
Interviewer focuses normally on particular issues that are related to the topic and research questions
of the study. In my theses my aim is to find out how people explain their experiences of Circle Way –
discussions and how they found in their explanations the method compared to common business
meetings in the organization.
9
I realized that I am interested also what is it that happens in the circle, but I realized that I may have
to ask this instead from my candidates (what happens there according to them), as I have no
resources to include also complete observations or video recordings (and analysis) of the circle way. I
will be doing observations as a participant myself but I prefer to be as much as possible a fully
participant than an observer. Observing would take me away from being present in the situation –
and being present is the essence of the circle way. However video recordings would be really
interesting extra material for later use, as I am really interested of the circling phenomena. But I think
that I will drop out video recordings.
It is really important to keep the research questions in mind when developing interview questions
(Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2011, p. 79). It is really easy to confuse and get lost in your research (forget
the focus and take “too big bites”, too many interesting aspects and ideas) and ask questions that are
not anymore giving answers to your research questions. This is especially something I should really
pay attention to!
Silverman (p. 119-131) provides a typology of interview studies: positivist, emotionalist and
constructionist. All of them require different types of interview questions. Emotionalist approach
would be close to my intention, as I am interested in participants’ authentic experiences. Instead of
objective information of what happened in the situation (that I could investigate from video
recordings) but now I am interested in people’s perceptions and emotions what happened and how
they felt.
Eriksson and Kovalainen (2011, p. 80) present good examples of this type of interview questions. I
could be asking: What happened to you when you were part of the circle? How would you describe
your feelings? How it differed from the usual meetings you have had with your colleagues? How
would you describe what happened in the circle (participants perception as prior interest)? How did
this effect on you? (Positive and negative feelings or emotional experiences?) Emotionalists consider
that interviews are a pathway to the experiences and they consider that emotions are central to lived
experiences (Silverman, p. 123).
I personally feel that interview responses are descriptions of experiences (interpretations that person
makes of his experiences). Can we reach “real” and totally authentic experiences? Aren’t they always
interpretations and we all experience things in different way, depending on our life history and
gained experiences? This question is really philosophical. Myself I hope to not be completely
involved with the respondent, in a sense that I want to hear “their story” not mine. What wordings
are they using, what symbols they use in their speech? Emotionalists, according Reason and Rowan
(1981, p. 205; ref. Silverman, p. 124) should try to become peers or companions with the respondent
10
and to achieve deep mutual understanding with them. This is something I would be cautious about.
However, I am interested to follow the ideas of Denzin (1970; ref. Silverman, p. 124-125) how to
conduct the interview. He presented following: allow respondent to use their unique ways of
defining the world and to allow respondent to raise important issues (which are not necessarily
contained in the interview schedule).
Silverman (p.125-127) presents good points about the limits of emotionalist approach that should
also be considered. For example, how much cultural resources are used when answering interview
questions? Are emotions and experiences respondent’s own or are they more products of cultural
norms that they have deeply adopted?
Here it is good to continue with Constructionist approach. They emphasize instead how meanings
are produced through the interaction in Interview (Silverman 2001; ref.Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2011,
80). Kitzinger (2004, p. 128) presents that talk is not an evidence of the experience, but a discourse,
account or repertoire – which presents culturally available way of packaging experience. She also
refers that experience is newer raw and it is embedded in social interpretations and re-
interpretations. (ref. Silverman, p. 129.)
I personally agree partly both approaches: emotionalists and constructionist. As Eriksson and
Kovalainen (2011, 80) are writing, the best research is done by combining approaches – especially
either positivist or emotionalist with constructionist approach. I guess I could benefit both
approaches when exploring the interview answers– consider e.g. how much the produced answer is
constructed culturally and how much of what has been said is truly “authentic”.
References
Silverman, D. (year?). Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing Talk, Text and Interaction.
Sage. London. (Chp. 4, Interviews (p. 109-152).
Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting Qualitative data. Methods for Analysing Talk, Text and Interaction.
Sage. London.
Eriksson, P. & Kovalainen, A. (2011). Qualitative Methods in Business Research. Sage. London.
11
Learningn Diary 6: Focus Groups
Focus group discussions are familiar to me as I conducted 4-5 group discussions for my bachelor
degree. That time I analyzed the data with simple thematic analysis. Group dynamics and interaction
dynamics make focus groups very interesting tool for data collection.
Wilkinson states that focus groups are in fact suitable to investigate sensitive topics and moreover
could enable personal admissions. I think this is true when the group is supportive or if people share
similar experiences. I am personally excited about supportive peer groups, where people who don’t
know each other can share common experiences and get empower by that.
Focus groups is a type of data collection. Variety of data analysis can be undertaken for focus group
data: content, thematic, phenomenological, narrative, and discursive and conversation analysis. The
type of analysis used depends upon the theoretical framework of the researcher (Wilkinson, p. 187-
188.)
I focused in my comments in Moodle about the performances, roles, negotiations, norms that are
present in the group context. Now I want to explore what Wilkinson presents as essentialist
approach. Focus groups conducted within an essentialist framework rest on the assumption that the
task of the researcher is to access or elicit the “cognitions” (understandings and opinions of the
participant). (Wilkinson, p. 188.)
In my thesis I haven’t thought about really using focus groups, but it would certainly be a good
method as well. The reason I didn’t choose focus groups this time - is that the intervention and the
subject of my research is circle-way meeting and that is already a form of group work. I am interested
also the very private experiences not what group members construct together. However it may be
that private single interviews won’t be any better method (who knows?). I have also thought about
using diary-method, so that those participants who are comfortable with writing and who prefer that
to interviewing – are free to choose so. They write down their thoughts and experiences in a diary
after each conducted circle - meetings.
Eriksson and Kovalainen (2011, p. 176) mention that focus groups has been used as a method of its
own right but often also side by side with other methods. Here I got an idea, as my thesis is rather
new topic for myself – I have seriously started to think that I need to do some pilot work before the
actual thesis project. To conduct circle-way discussions in different contexts (privately with friends,
associations etc.) that would be a good practice for myself as host and facilitating a short a group
discussion after the session would probably give me really good ideas what to ask in the interview
sessions and how to instruct the pre-structured diary assignment.
12
During this course we have studied so many methods and social psychology is about how we behave
in groups, how we perform ourselves, what narratives we have, how we construct ourselves and
world to ourselves…and so forth (konstructionism as paradigm). I feel that the longer I have studied –
I look at things differently nowadays. And I still wonder what is it behind the social performance? I
look for places, people and contexts - where it is possible to drop all this. Not perform. And then
again, if I feel that I have found “my true self” - have I constructed something else, a new identity,
and a new performance? It is confusing to make any conclusions as it seems that it is an ongoing
process. However, I guess many of us can recognize sometimes the moment when we feel that now
we are “at home” or a situation that seems so right and so true to ourselves.
References
Eriksson, P. & Kovalainen, A. (2011). Qualitative Methods in Business Research. London.Sage.
Wilkinson, S (year?). Qualitative Psychology. Chap. 9: Focus Groups (p. 186 -206).
Learningn Diary 7: Thematic Analysis
Thematic analysis is type of analysis and it can be used in many data that is transcribed into text. It is
fundamental because I think it can be beneficial to almost any kind of research – to read the data
text and do “preliminary thematic analysis”.
Thematic analysis not associated with any specific theoretical orientation, but can be applied across
different approaches. It is often data led but can be also theory driven – in the latter, the themes are
from the theory and researcher tries to identify those from the data text (Hovitt & Cramer, 2011. p.
328, 332).
It was very good practice to do analysis in the course. It was easy to find the themes, but difficult to
refine and name them. It was good that we shared our findings within the group and discussed how
to label the themes. Hovitt and Cramer (2011) points out that the themes do not simply “arise” from
the data but the researcher makes choices and utilize own imagination. In spite of this the themes
have to be well grounded by the data.
It was interesting to start doing thematic analysis without any research question; what came up from
the text to us and why. On the other hand if I know the research question, then I can try to identify
key themes that capture something important regarding the research question. Howitt and Cramer
(2011) also mentioned that thematic analysis can be patterns that we recognize. I guess this means,
13
that e.g. if we have life stories of certain people with similar back-ground – we may find certain
patterns in their stories.
I will certainly do some thematic analysis as preliminary step when getting to know the data that I
have gathered for my master’s thesis. I will probably have interview materials and documents (diary
format). My interest is to find out, how my participants experienced circle-way meeting. I have some
knowledge of previous studies about the subject (and strong own experience) but I would like first to
see if my participants will be naming any of those key themes (that have been mentioned in the
previous studies and what I experienced). So in this respect I assume diary-method (that is not
strictly structured) would give me the best results in this respect. Just to see what kind of themes will
come up – and maybe opposite or completely new themes will appear instead.
I could also think of doing theory-led approach. The theoretical background is related to Circle-Way
method (that is just an ancient way for people to gather and solve problems in the entire universe). I
don’t know if there is a single theory about it, I have not yet come across to that. There is some
related research that shows that circling can increase empathy/compassion and listening skills in a
school environment (see. Meriruoho, 2012). So if these type of studies can be used as theory, then it
would be possible to theory-led analysis. However I don’t see much point in that, as then I probably
won’t get at any rate (!) anything new as a result.
Next I hope to explore what is the difference between thematic analysis and IPA (interpretative
phenomenological analysis). Or is thematic analysis a pre stage of analysis and is IPA just more
sophisticated or more develop analysis that has its’ basis in thematic analysis?
References
Hovitt, D & Cramer, D. (2011). Introduction to Research Methods in Psychology (3rd). Harlow England.
Parentice Hall.
Meriruoho, M. (2012). Keskustelupiirit koululuokan ryhmäkoheesion edistäjinä. Tutkimuksia 339.
Helsingin Yliopisto, käyttäytymistieteellinen tiedekunta. Opettajankoulutuslaitos.
Learning Diary 8: Grounded Theory
Grounded theory (GT) approach is data-driven and it is maybe one of the most demanding qualitative
approaches for the researcher. Grounded theory is epistemologically related to positivism and
14
constructionism (Cottier, 2014). Its philosophical foundation is originated from symbolic
interactionism and phenomenology (Mead, 1934). It has elements from positivistic and interpretive
research; it uses logical and systematical techniques to study external world and it stresses how
actions, meanings and intentions are constructed (Charmaz, 2007, p.84).
Grounded theory name refers also to method and it proceeds from classification of events and facts
into an abstract theory of the phenomenon – from description to abstraction. (Cottier, 2014.)
Strauss and Corbin (1988, 158) claim that “theory evolves during actual research and it does this
through continuous interplay between analysis and data collection” (ref.Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2011,
155).
The original goal of grounded theory is to achieve a point of theoretical saturation, where no
additional data are needed (Strauss, 1987, p. 21; ref. Cassell & Symon, 1997, p. 26).
Social Psychologist Riitta Rönkkö (2003) studied in her master’s thesis what grandparents mean to
grandchildren in three different age groups (15, 40 and 60 years old people). She used successfully
grounded theory in this research. One reason for choosing grounded theory, was probably that there
was nearly no earlier research about the subject.
GT is systematic and it keeps researcher interacting continuously with the data. Researcher compares
and writes emerging ideas from the data. (Charmaz, 2007, p. 82.) I guess most peculiar about this
approach is, as Glaser and Strauss (1967) are also saying is that researcher should be delaying the
literature review until after forming the analysis (ref.Charmaz, 2007, p. 83). My question is that can it
turned out that there is nothing new appearing but something what researchers have already found?
Is the research then just a repetition on something that was already known?
In GT memo writing takes place throughout the research. It is way of capturing ideas, clarification of
categories, making comparisons, elaborating interpretations, or collecting analytical responses that
comes along the process. This moves the work beyond individual cases through defining patterns.
(Charmaz, 2007, p. 101.)
How grounded theory differs from narrative and discursive approaches then? It differs in dealing and
handling the data, way of thinking about the role and position of theory in research, how knowledge
is produced and in need for result generalizations. (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2011, 157.)
Evaluating the grounded theory reports, should include according to Glaser (1987): fit, workability,
relevance and modifiability. Charmaz (2006, 527) adds to this: credibility, originality, resonance and
“Narrative knowing acknowledges the value of language practices in constructing our understanding
about reality (e.g. Polkinghorne 1988; ref. Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2011. p. 210). Storytelling is one of
21
the first communication forms among humans and it is argued that it is one of the fundamental ways
we organize, understand and explain our life and connect with others.
Polkinghorne (1995), narrative psychologist makes a distinction between analysis of narratives and
narrative analysis. In the former researcher collects stories that are told by people and then analyses
plots, structures and types of stories. Researcher analyzes the stories e.g. according to their meaning,
content and their structure. In narrative analysis focus is on narrative as a mode of analysis.
Researcher organizes and interprets empirical data, which can be non-narrative texts - describing
events and actions in a way that allows the researcher to construct narrative. (ref. Eriksson &
Kovalainen, 2011, p.217-218).
Narrative analysis is wider approach and during the course we focused mainly to narrative
psychology. As said in the beginning the narrative analysis is closely tied to social constructionism
which has been criticized for rejecting the realist view of one stable, essential self. According to social
constructionists, self is constructed by linguistic practices which are influenced by history and cultural
aspects. Crossley (2007, p. 133) states that narrative psychology enables both; the appreciation of
the linguistic and discursive structuring of the self and a sense of the real nature of individual
subjectivity.
IPA and narrative psychology share realist epistemology (that believes that there is external reality
about which we can reach knowledge by doing research). Both IPA and narrative psychology
recognize the internal subjectivity and the existing discourses/constructions. (Crossley, 2007.)
Myself I have huge difficulties to piece together the whole picture of social constructionism versus
traditional psychology/positivism (which are some type of scientific frame of references, paradigms)
and what epistemological assumptions they have, what approaches are under which frame of
reference. But I manage to get some idea, if I constantly write mind-maps about the issues. The
Crossley’s article forced me once again to formulate the field in front of my eyes.
My own biggest insight I got in Crossley’s article, when she wrote about human motivations in
narratives. According to McAdams (1993), the two main motivations of human life are: power and
love. How the needs of power and love are expressed in narratives? (ref. Crossley, 2007, p. 141.) I
think there is a seed of truth in this; at least this insight touched me deeply.
22
References
Crossley, M. (2007). Narrative Analysis. In E. Lyons & A. Coyle, Analysing Qualitative Data in Psychology (p.131-144). London. Sage.
Eriksson, P. & Kovalainen, A. (2011). Qualitative Methods in Business Research. London. Sage.
Josselson, R. & Lieblich, A. (Eds.) (1993). Narrative study of lives, Vol. 1. Newbury Park,CA: Sage. Ref. Eriksson & Kovalainen (2011).
Polkinghorne, D. E. (1988). Narrative Knowing and the Human Sciences. State University of New York Press. Albany, NY. Ref. Eriksson & Kovalainen (2011).
Polkinghorne, D. E. (1995). Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis. Qualitative Studies in Education, 8: 5-23. Ref. Eriksson & Kovalainen (2011).
SUMMARY
I found this course really good; if I leave a side that I didn’t start working early enough for the
assignments. However I think that first time in my whole life I have some sort of understanding of the
field of (qualitative) research and how different concepts are related to it.
Here I try to collect my thought and categorize concepts and show how they are related to each
other.
It is important to have some basic knowledge about basic philosophical concepts and ideas in order
to be able to design clear study that delivers what it promises. This helps to make decisions about the
type of empirical data, how to analyze it, rules how to interpret the analysis and how to present
conclusions. What kinds of questions can you ask in your research and what ways you can answer
those questions. Reflexivity is about being reflective about the decisions to be made in the research
and being aware of assumptions the researcher has. Reflexivity is to be aware of these; how they
shape and affect the research process.
Main paradigms in social sciencies (and in social psychology) are positivism and social
constructionism. Under positivism there are concepts such as social cognitivism, traditional
psychology, behaviorism, objective truth and idea that objects are measurable. It is possible to make
claims about human nature (e.g. self). Social constructionism developed because they criticized the
positivistic world view. Under social constructionism, there are concepts such as hermeneutics,
subjective, discursive, context/history/culture specific, language based and meanings.
23
Both paradigms have their views about social reality and how it can be reached. Constructionist relies
on relativism and positivist relies on realist world view. These mean how paradigms conceptualize
the social world and how it can be reached and what kind of frame of reference is possible to take.
Social constructionism and positivism have also both their epistemological and ontological positions
accordingly (regarding how they view the social reality and what they consider as knowledge).
Researcher declares and clarifies his theoretical framework of the research by opening up his own
epistemological and ontological assumptions in the methodologies section of the research. These
guide the way he set or position his research questions.
Epistemological assumptions relate to theory of knowledge. How and what can I know as a
researcher? What is the nature of knowledge to me? What are the sources and limits of knowledge?
How knowledge can be conducted? On what basis knowledge is argued or claimed? This type of
questions reveals researcher’s relationship to his interest subject.
Ontology refers to reality. What is the nature of the phenomena I am interested in? What is real for
me? What I see fundamental in the social world that is worth studying? Ontology refers to
researcher’s beliefs and assumptions about the nature of the research.
Different methodologies have different methodological expectations. When we look at methods, we
can divide those to data collection techniques/methods and data analysis methods. Examples of data
collection methods are: Interviews, focus groups, document research and participant observation.
