Research method - grounded theory or thematic analysis or other?
Hi
Can I add an IMO?
A PhD thesis is a formalised exercise, rather like show-jumping. You have to clear all the different jumps, in the right order, before you get to the end of the course. Missing out a jump, or indeed riding straight from the beginning to the end it is a supremely logical solution that will get you a record time, but the judges will disqualify you for not jumping over all the gates. The aim is to get to the end in the approved way and not knock down or clatter enough jumps to wake up the judges :p
Now who's been watching too much Olympic coverage? ;-)
Yes indeed - or give the appearance of having done so! Mind you in the hurdles, show-jumping and indeed the canoeing/kayaking, you can hit the hurdles/fences/gates - you just get penalised for it!
You'll also need a fair idea of your epistemology/ontology which although it doesn't have to, should probably link with your methodology.
E.g. I used template analysis with my qual data because I come from a post-positivist discipline, but was adopting a pragmatic approach in my thesis. Template analysis meant I could use existing theory to drive my thematic analysis (like you would in post-positivism) but also be reflexive about what came out of my data, explore the context in a rich qual way - more like a constructivist position.
You don't have to talk about this stuff in your thesis, but you should have a solid idea of what you're doing and why otherwise you'll look like a twonk in the viva.
Absolutely - I have my philosophical assumptions worked out, which is complex because it's an interdisciplinary project so I have to use two different sets of philosophical assumptions. The problem arises from the fact that I haven't had any convincing tuition in grounded theory - that has been the basis for what I'm doing, but I'm just not using QDA software as it doesn't help me. It just irked me the rather 'shoot from the hip' characterization of this as cursory (not sure why 'ad hoc' per se is a criticism, given the nature of construction of grounded theory).
Decided to see what has become of this thread. Mea culpa, DocInsanity. I did rather shoot from the hip in this case and should have asked more questions for the purposes of clarification. As well as my eye brows starting to go curly with old age, I'm developing a curmudgeonly attitude. Nice to see you've sorted out your philosophical assumptions.
Don't worry too much about the interdisciplinary aspect of your work - your worldview is your worldview and doesn't have to be shared by others, or aligned with others as long as you can rationalise and defend it.
I see that you' may have settled on template analysis as your mode of qualitative data analysis. Just in case you haven't come across it already, I know of a really nice site for template analysis: http://www2.hud.ac.uk/hhs/research/template_analysis/
Good luck with your research!
:-)
On the information I gave it wasn't an unreasonable comment walminskipeas, but it's very gracious of you. The main issue for me is that the lack of decent research training in this area, and hence the mild panic which occasioned my question.
Thanks for the link, it looks good and I feel a lot happier now that I am on more solid ground!
Thanks everyone for your help :)
Hi
I'm new to the forum so just stumbling though threads at the moment - maybe this reply will have come too late, I'm not sure.
My PhD is in health psychology, specifically using qualitative methods.
My two-pence worth probably is along the lines of this: like any research, I think it all boils down to what it is you're asking in terms of the research question. I can't really make any assumptions about what you've done in terms of interviews - i.e. were they semi-structured/structured, group, individual etc. I find it interesting what you say about QDA software though - how do you mean it hinders the creative process? The research I do is based on Foucauldian discourse analysis, and so takes a macroscopic look at discourse to look at understandings and perceptions surrounding a topic area. Very different to, say, IPA wherein the purpose of the analysis largely sits with gaining an insight into experience.
Anyway, you've probably got all of this sussed by now - but thought I'd say 'hi' and attempt to understand your problem.
Heather :-)
I find that the thing with QDA software is partly that it's meant to help you make connections. I make better connections just through my transcripts, plus I do my own transcription so I'm close to my data. My remit is not loose enough to be genuine grounded theory, depending on what definition of grounded theory you use of course!
My interviews have been semi-structured interviews of individuals.
