DR 9000

Qualitative Research Method

Your study prospectus describes a generic qualitative inquiry. You will also see it called a basic qualitative study (Merriam & Tisdell) or qualitative descriptive design (Sandelowski). The three names refer to closely related designs. Pick one label and use it consistently throughout the proposal.

Generic qualitative inquiry fits your study especially well. Percy, Kostere, and Kostere (2015) describe it as the right design when researchers want people's opinions, attitudes, beliefs, or reflections on things in the outer world, rather than the inner, lived experience of a phenomenon. That is your study. Wardens, counselors, and volunteers are describing external conditions: structural, cultural, and technological changes affecting someone else's access to care. They are not describing their own lived experience.

That is also why phenomenology is not appropriate. You already state that the study does not claim to capture incarcerated adults' lived experiences, and that statement is the core justification for choosing a generic design.

Is it a method, a design, or an approach?

These words get used loosely, but proposals are usually expected to separate them:

Level	Your study
Methodology / research approach	Qualitative
Paradigm	Interpretivist / constructivist
Research design	Generic qualitative inquiry (or basic qualitative)
Data collection method	Semi-structured interviews
Sampling	Purposive (possibly with snowball)
Analytic approach	Thematic analysis, with the steps of reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke) or Percy et al.'s inductive analysis

In short, "qualitative" is the approach, "generic qualitative inquiry" is the design, and "thematic analysis" is the analytic approach. The "analytic" part of your question refers to the analysis level.

The analytic approach

Your research question already names three categories: structural, cultural, and technological. That shapes the analysis, and you have two options:

1. Hybrid deductive–inductive thematic analysis (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006). The three categories serve as an initial organizing frame, and themes are developed inductively within and beyond them. This is usually the best fit for an RQ worded like yours.

2. Purely inductive analysis (Percy et al., 2015). Data are coded without predetermined categories, and the findings are then related back to the three domains.

Whichever you choose, state it explicitly. Reviewers will notice if the RQ names categories but the analysis claims to be purely inductive.

Typical analytic steps:

1. Transcribe interviews verbatim and become familiar with the data.

2. Code initially, staying close to participants' words.

3. Cluster codes into patterns and categories.

4. Develop themes organized under the structural, cultural, and technological domains.

5. Review themes against the full data set, including cases that do not fit.

6. Define and name themes, and select illustrative participant quotations.

7. Write the findings in relation to the research question and the conceptual framework.

Language expected in the proposal

Sample wording you can adapt

Design statement:

This study uses a generic qualitative inquiry design (Percy et al., 2015) to explore how prison wardens, prison mental health counselors, and prison volunteers describe structural, cultural, and technological changes related to mental health care access for racial and ethnic minority incarcerated adults in U.S. prisons.

Justification:

A generic qualitative design is appropriate when the researcher seeks participants' perspectives, opinions, and descriptions of external phenomena rather than the essence of a lived experience (Caelli et al., 2003; Percy et al., 2015). Because this study examines stakeholders' interpretations of conditions affecting others' access to care, and does not claim to capture incarcerated adults' lived experiences, phenomenology was not selected.

Ruling out other designs (reviewers usually expect this):

Grounded theory was not selected because the study does not aim to generate a theory. Ethnography was not selected because the study does not involve prolonged immersion in a prison culture. A case study design was not selected because the study is not bounded to a single institution or program.

Analysis statement:

Data will be analyzed using thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006), following a hybrid deductive–inductive approach (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006) in which the structural, cultural, and technological domains of the research question serve as initial organizing categories, and themes are developed inductively within those domains.

Words to use and words to avoid

Use	Avoid
explore, describe, understand, examine perspectives	determine, measure, test, prove, predict
participants describe / perceive / report	participants' lived experiences (this is a phenomenology term)
stakeholder perspectives, perceptions, descriptions	the experience of incarcerated adults
factors described as influencing access	factors that cause, impact, or affect access (implies causation)
themes were developed / identified	themes emerged (increasingly discouraged)
findings	results
transferability	generalizability
trustworthiness (credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability)	validity, reliability
purposive sample, data saturation	random sample, statistical power
researcher as instrument, reflexivity	objective researcher

Alignment

Reviewers check that the same wording appears across the problem statement, purpose, RQ, design, and analysis. Repeat the exact phrase " as described by prison wardens, prison mental health counselors, and prison volunteers" in the purpose and RQ, and keep " perspectives" or " descriptions" as the focus throughout. The perspectival focus also keeps the study clear of incarcerated people as a protected population, which simplifies IRB review. You can mention that as a practical strength.

Limitations language

Findings reflect stakeholders' perspectives and interpretations and may not represent the views or experiences of incarcerated adults themselves.

Also acknowledge possible social desirability bias. Wardens, in particular, may present their institutions favorably.

Key citations for this design

· Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

· Caelli, K., Ray, L., & Mill, J. (2003). "Clear as mud": Toward greater clarity in generic qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(2), 1–13.

· Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92.

· Kahlke, R. M. (2014). Generic qualitative approaches: Pitfalls and benefits of methodological mixology. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 13(1), 37–52.

· Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (Jossey-Bass; cite the edition you use).

· Percy, W. H., Kostere, K., & Kostere, S. (2015). Generic qualitative research in psychology. The Qualitative Report, 20(2), 76–85.

· Sandelowski, M. (2000). Whatever happened to qualitative description? Research in Nursing & Health, 23(4), 334–340.

Please check these against the originals before citing.

2