This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (2) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Carter, S. M. Articles by Little, M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Carter, S. M. Articles by Little, M. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Justifying Knowledge, Justifying Method, Taking Action: Epistemologies, Methodologies, and Methods in Qualitative Research

The University of Sydney

Miles Little

The University of Sydney

In this article, the authors clarify a framework for qualitative research, in particular for evaluating its quality, founded on epistemology, methodology, and method. They define these elements and discuss their respective contributions and interrelationships. Epistemology determines and is made visible through method, particularly in the participant— researcher relationship, measures of research quality, and form, voice, and representation in analysis and writing. Epistemology guides methodological choices and is axiological. Methodology shapes and is shaped by research objectives, questions, and study design. Methodologies can prescribe choices of method, resonate with particular academic disciplines, and encourage or discourage the use and/or development of theory. Method is constrained by and makes visible methodological and epistemic choices. If we define good quality qualitative research as research that attends to all three elements and demonstrates internal consistency between them, standardized checklists can be transcended and innovation and diversity in qualitative research practice facilitated.

Key Words: qualitative research • research design • epistemology • methodology • method • research quality • evidence-based medicine

References

• Angen, M.J. (2000). Evaluating interpretive inquiry: Reviewing the validity debate and opening the dialogue. Qualitative Health Research, 10, 378-395.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Atkinson, P. (1995). Some perils of paradigms. Qualitative Health Research, 5, 117-124.[Free Full Text]
• Beverley, J. (2000). Testimonio, subalternity and narrative authority. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 555-565). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Blackburn, S. (1993). Essays in quasi-realism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Carspecken, P. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research: A theoretical and practical guide. New York: Routledge.
• Charmaz, K. (2004). Premises, principles, and practices in qualitative research: Revisiting the foundations. Qualitative Health Research, 14, 976-993.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage.
• Clarke, A. (2005). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the postmodern turn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Cochrane Qualitative Research Methods Group. ( 2006). What is qualitative research?: And what is its role in evidence review? Retrieved August 31, 2006, from http://www.joannabriggs.edu.au/cqrmg/role.html
• Cortazzi, M. (1993). Narrative analysis. London: Falmer.
• Creswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. London: Sage.
• Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (2000). Part III: Strategies of inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 366-378). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
• Dick, B. (2003, December 30). Action research resources. Retrieved August 3, 2006, from http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arhome.html
• Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
• Gee, J. ( 2005). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
• Giorgi, A. (Ed.). (1985). Phenomenology and psychology research. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.
• Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
• Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1995). Ethnography: Principles in practice (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
• Harding, S. (1987). Introduction: is there a feminist method? In S. Harding (Ed.), Feminism and methodology: Social science issues (pp. 1-14). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
• Hurwitz, B., Greenhalgh, T., & Skultans, V. (Eds.). (2004). Narrative research in health and illness. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
• Johnson, M., Long, T., & White, A. (2001). Arguments for "British pluralism " in qualitative health research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 33(2), 243-249.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Kaplan, A. (1964). The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for behavioral science. San Francisco: Chandler.
• Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2000). Participatory action research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 567-606). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Kitcher, P. (2002). Scientific knowledge. In P. Moser (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of epistemology (pp. 385-407). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Lieblich, A., Tuval-Mashiach, R., & Zilber, T. (1998). Narrative research: Reading, analysis and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Mantzoukas, S. (2004). Issues of representation within qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Health Research, 14, 994-1007.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Mauthner, N.S., & Doucet, A. (2003). Reflexive accounts and accounts of reflexivity in qualitative data analysis. Sociology: Journal of the British Sociological Association, 37(3), 413-431.
• McCall, M. (2000). Performance ethnography: A brief history and some advice. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 421-434). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Moser, P. (2002). Introduction. In P. Moser (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of epistemology (pp. 3-24). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Moutsakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Pound, P., Britten, N., Morgan, M., Yardley, L., Pope, C., Daker-White, G., et al. (2005). Resisting medicines: A synthesis of qualitative studies of medicine taking. Social Science & Medicine, 61(1), 133-155.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Richardson, L. (2000). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 923-948). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., & Elam, G. (2003). Designing and selecting samples. In J. Ritchie & J. Lewis (Eds.), Qualitative research practice (pp. 77-108). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Rolfe, G. (2006). Validity, trustworthiness and rigour: Quality and the idea of qualitative research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 53(3), 304-310.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Schwandt, T.A. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 189-214). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Schwandt, T.A. (2001). Dictionary of qualitative inquiry (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Valle, R., & Halling, S. (Eds.). (1989). Phenomenological research methods. New York: Plenum.
• Yin, R.K. (2002). Case study research, design and methods (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Zimmer, L. (2006). Qualitative meta-synthesis: A question of dialoguing with texts. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 53(3), 311-318.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 17, No. 10, 1316-1328 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/1049732307306927


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				B. Stige, K. Malterud, and T. Midtgarden Toward an Agenda for Evaluation of Qualitative Research Qual Health Res, October 1, 2009; 19(10): 1504 - 1516. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Alsaker, R. Bongaardt, and S. Josephsson Studying Narrative-in-Action in Women With Chronic Rheumatic Conditions Qual Health Res, August 1, 2009; 19(8): 1154 - 1161. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. M. Carter, C. F. C. Jordens, C. McGrath, and M. Little You Have to Make Something of All That Rubbish, Do You? An Empirical Investigation of the Social Process of Qualitative Research Qual Health Res, September 1, 2008; 18(9): 1264 - 1276. [Abstract] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (2) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Carter, S. M. Articles by Little, M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Carter, S. M. Articles by Little, M. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?