A good deal has been written about paradigms in qualitative research as they relate to assessing quality (Greene, 1994; Lather, 2004; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Morrow, 2005; Patton, 1978; Ponterotto, 2013; Rolfe, 2006). Some scholars, such as Rolfe (2006), start from the premise that
“any attempt to establish a consensus on quality criteria for qualitative research is unlikely to succeed for the simple reason that there is no unified body or theory [i.e., an accepted paradigm], methodology or method that can collectively be described as qualitative research; indeed, [I believe] that the very idea of qualitative research is open to question” (p. 305, emphasis in original).
Rolfe opines that “if there is no unified qualitative research paradigm, then it makes little sense to attempt to establish a set of generic criteria for making quality judgments about qualitative research studies” (2006, p. 304). This line of thinking, however, confounds attention to methods and Read Full Text
Research Design Review is a blog devoted to qualitative and quantitative research design issues. Yet, there is an imbalance in these discussions with many of the posts dedicated to qualitative design and methods. The reason boils down to the fact that there is simply a lot to say about qualitative design. And this is because relatively little is written or discussed in the research community in answer to such questions as, “What is the basis of sound qualitative research design?” “What are the necessary components to a ‘quality’ qualitative design?” and “How does the researcher effectively put into practice these quality design elements?” These are the questions routinely addressed among dedicated survey researchers yet too often absent in the qualitative orbit.
An underlying current running throughout RDR is the idea that quality design issues are important to all research, regardless of whether the researcher leans more to the qualitative or to the quantitative side of the equation. Pushing this idea one step further, there is an even more subtle suggestion lingering in RDR that researchers might do well to free themselves from their qualitative or quantitative “hats” and instead take on the mantle of Read Full Text
The October 2012 issue of the American Psychological Association’s Monitor on Psychology includes an interview with developmental psychologist, Jerome Kagan. In this interview he talks about psychology’s research “ghosts,” referring to the dubious generalizations psychologist’s make from their often-limited research. Kagan’s primary point is that “it’s absolutely necessary to gather more than one source of data, no matter what you’re studying,” and that these multiple sources of data should come from verbal and behavioral as well as physiological measures. Only by combining these various perspectives on an issue or situation – that is, utilizing data taken in different contexts and by way of alternative methods and modes – can the researcher come to a legitimate conclusion.
This is not unlike triangulation, esp., in the social and health sciences, which is used to gauge the trustworthiness of research outcomes. Triangulation is the technique of examining a specific research topic by comparing data obtained from: two or more methods, two or more segments of the sample population, and/or two or more investigators. In this way, the researcher is looking for patterns of convergence and divergence in the data. Triangulation is a particularly important design feature in qualitative research – where measures of validity and reliability can be elusive – because it furthers the researcher’s ability to gain a comprehensive view of the research question and come closer to a plausible interpretation of final results.
Where is this multifaceted process in the commercial world of qualitative marketing research? Academics talk about the importance of including some form of triangulation in research design yet there is not a lot of evidence that this occurs in marketing research. While there are an increasing number of ways to gather qualitative feedback – particularly via social media and mobile – that provide researchers with convenient sources of data, there needs to be more discussion on case studies that have utilized multiple data sources and methods to find reliable themes in the outcomes. Importantly, it is further hoped that marketing researchers use this contrast-and-compare approach to scrutinize the research issue from both traditional (e.g., face-to-face group discussions, in-depth interviews, in-home ethnography) and new (e.g., online based, smartphone) information-gathering strategies.
The triangulation concept is just one way that marketing researchers can begin to bring rigor to their research designs and manage the “ghosts” of groundless assumptions and misguided interpretations.