Assig-Reading Summary

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2025). Qualita ve inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publica ons.

1 INTRODUCTION TO QUALITATIVE INQUIRY AND RESEARCH DESIGN Ques ons for Discussion Why focus on examining five approaches to qualita ve inquiry? What does posi oning oneself as a qualita ve researcher involve? What are the dis nguishing characteris cs of qualita ve research? What are the key readings for each of the five selected approaches? The idea for this book was inspired by conversa ons that took place during a summer qualita ve research seminar in Vail, Colorado, sponsored by the University of Denver under the able guidance of Edith King of the College of Educa on. At that 1994 seminar, while discussing qualita ve data analysis, John began on a personal note, introducing one of his recently completed qualita ve studies—a case study of a campus response to a student gun incident (Asmussen & Creswell, 1995). John knew this case might provoke some discussion and present some complex analysis issues. It involved a Midwestern university’s reac on to a gunman who entered an actuarial science undergraduate class with a semiautoma c rifle and a empted to fire on students in his class. The rifle jammed and did not discharge, and the gunman fled and was captured a few miles away. Standing before the group, John chronicled the events of the case, the themes, and the lessons we learned about a university reac on to a near tragic event. Then, unplanned, Harry Wolco of the University of Oregon, another resource person for this seminar, raised his hand and asked for the podium. He explained how he would approach the study as a cultural anthropologist. To John’s surprise, Harry had “turned” his case study into ethnography, framing the study in an en rely new way. A er Harry had concluded, Les Goodchild, then of University of Denver, discussed how he would examine the gunman case from a historical perspec ve. Together the three had, then, offered mul ple renderings of the incident, to create surprising “turns” of the ini al case study using different qualita ve approaches. It was this event that sparked an idea that John had long harbored—that the design of a qualita ve study is related to the specific approach taken to qualita ve research (see the glossary for defini ons of bold terms). John began to write the first edi on of this book, guided by a single, compelling ques on: How does the type or approach of qualita ve inquiry shape the design or procedures of a study? This chapter will introduce you to qualita ve research and the five approaches to inquiry examined in this book. We do this by describing our approach to this book including our ra onale for examining five qualita ve research approaches and our posi oning as qualita ve researchers. Then we help you begin to dis nguish qualita ve research by discussing our defini on and nine common characteris cs. Finally, alongside presen ng our selec on of the five qualita ve approaches examined in this book, we offer key book readings for narra ve research, phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, and case study.

RATIONALE FOR OUR APPROACH TO THE BOOK In this book, we examine five different approaches to qualita ve inquiry—narra ve, phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, and case studies—and put them side by side to compare and contrast. Differences across the five approaches are most vividly displayed by exploring their use throughout the process of qualita ve research, including the introduc on to a study through its purpose and research ques ons, data collec on, data analysis, report wri ng, and standards of valida on and evalua on. By studying published qualita ve journal ar cles, we can see, for example, that research ques ons framed from grounded theory are different from ques ons framed from a phenomenological study. This combina on of the different approaches and how their dis nc veness plays out in the process of research is what dis nguishes this book from others on qualita ve research that you may have read. Most qualita ve researchers focus on only one approach—say ethnography or grounded theory—and try to convince their readers of the value of that approach. This makes sense in our highly specialized world of academia. However, students and beginning qualita ve researchers need choices that fit their research problems and that suit their own interests in conduc ng research. We hope this book opens up the expanse of qualita ve research and invites readers to examine mul ple ways of engaging in the process of research. It provides qualita ve researchers with op ons for conduc ng qualita ve inquiry and helps them with decisions about what approach is best to use in studying their research problems. With so many books on qualita ve research in general and on the various approaches of inquiry, qualita ve researchers are o en at a loss for understanding what op ons (i.e., approaches) exist and how one makes an informed choice of an op on for research. By reading this book and engaging with the learning features, we hope that you will gain a be er understanding of the steps in the process of research, recognize the differences and similari es among the five qualita ve approaches to inquiry, and apply new understandings to inform the design of qualita ve research using the five approaches to inquiry. POSITIONING OURSELVES You need to know some informa on about our backgrounds in order to understand our approach to this book. The evolu on of this book has been influenced by the mul faceted and dynamic contexts in which we work and live and especially by the people with whom and the communi es with which we interact. This presents an opportunity for us to introduce (and model) the principle of being transparent about one’s posi onality when presen ng research— and in our case, a ra onale for our content. We write from the standpoint of conveying an understanding of the process of qualita ve research (whether you want to call it the scien fic method or something else), a focus on strong methods features such as extensive qualita ve data collec on, rigorous data analysis through mul ple steps, and the use of computer programs. Moreover, this book reflects John’s highligh ng the structure of wri ng, whether the wri ng is a qualita ve study, a poem, or crea ve nonfic on. An enduring interest of John’s has been the composi on of qualita ve research. This composi onal interest flows into how to best structure qualita ve inquiry and to visualize how the structure shi s and changes given different approaches to research. For Cheryl, a persistent research interest in promo ng use of

findings and processes has led to her focus on providing enhanced access to the genera on of findings in qualita ve research and seeking diverse formats for the communica on and evalua on of research. Cheryl was trained as a quan ta ve researcher within the biological natural sciences about 30 years ago. When working as a high school science teacher, she began to ques on the limita ons of the quan ta ve evidence test scores for assessing and repor ng student learning. Instead, she began to draw upon more qualita ve evidence to inform her communica on with students and parents. This was followed by a return to graduate school to gain exper se in qualita ve research methods and eventually to engage in the emerging field of mixed methods research. As an applied researcher and program evaluator, she is commi ed to building research capacity through mentoring her students and collaborators in rigorous methods across a variety of organiza onal se ngs. John’s interest in structured features has o en placed him in the camp of postposi vist writers in qualita ve inquiry (see Denzin & Lincoln, 2005), but like most researchers, he defies easy categoriza on. In an ar cle about a homeless shelter in Qualita ve Inquiry (D. W. Miller et al., 1998), John’s ethnography assumed a realist, a confessional, and an advocacy stance. Also, he is not advoca ng the acceptance of qualita ve research in a “quan ta ve” world (Ely et al., 1991). Qualita ve inquiry represents a legi mate mode of social and human science explora on, without apology or comparisons to quan ta ve research. In the same way, Cheryl draws on her experiences as a quan ta ve and mixed methods researcher in her qualita ve work but is careful to maintain the essen al characteris cs of qualita ve research discussed in this introductory chapter. John also tends to be oriented toward ci ng numerous ideas to document ar cles; to incorporate the latest wri ngs from the ever-growing, vast literature of qualita ve inquiry; and to advance an applied, prac cal form of conduc ng research. John concurs with Agger (1991), who says that readers and writers can understand methodology in less technical ways, thereby affording greater access to scholars and democra zing science. We con nue to seek and be influenced by our interac ons with beginning and more experienced researchers who are expanding their methodological exper se in our courses, workshops, and conferences. Always before us as we write is the picture of a beginning master’s or doctoral student who is learning qualita ve research for the first me. Because this picture remains central in our thinking, some may say that we oversimplify the cra of research. This picture may well blur the image for a more seasoned qualita ve writer—and especially one who seeks more advanced discussions and who looks for problema zing the process of research. It is important to both of us that, in this book, we provide access to learning about five qualita ve research approaches in a way that s mulates the beginning of a qualita ve inquiry journey.

DEFINING QUALITATIVE RESEARCH We typically begin a book about qualita ve research by posing a defini on for it. This seemingly uncomplicated approach has become more difficult in recent years. We note that some extremely useful introductory books on qualita ve research these days do not contain a defini on that can be easily located (e.g., Morse & Richards, 2002; Weis & Fine, 2000). Perhaps this has less to do with the authors’ decision to convey the nature of this inquiry and more to do with a reluctance to “fix” a defini on. Other authors advance a defini on. The evolving defini on in The SAGE Handbook of Qualita ve Research (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994, 2000, 2005, 2011b, 2018b) conveys the ever-changing nature of qualita ve inquiry from social construc on, to interpre vism, and then on to social jus ce in the world. We include the latest defini on here: Qualita ve research consists of a set of interpre ve, material prac ces that make the world visible. These prac ces transform the world. They turn the world into a series of representa ons, including field notes, interviews, conversa ons, photographs, recordings, and memos to the self. At this level, qualita ve research involves an interpre ve, naturalis c approach to the world. This means that qualita ve researchers study things in their natural se ngs, a emp ng to make sense of or interpret phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them. (Denzin & Lincoln, 2018a, p. 10) Although some of the tradi onal approaches to qualita ve research, such as the “interpre ve, naturalis c approach” and “meanings,” are evident in this defini on, the defini on also has a strong orienta on toward the impact of qualita ve research and its ability to transform the world. As applied research methodologists, our working defini ons of qualita ve research incorporate many of the Denzin and Lincoln elements, but it provides greater emphasis on the design of research and the use of dis nct approaches to inquiry (e.g., ethnography, narra ve). We adopt the following defini on: Qualita ve research begins with assump ons and the use of interpre ve/theore cal frameworks that inform the study of research problems addressing the meaning individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human problem. To study this problem, qualita ve researchers use an emerging qualita ve approach to inquiry, the collec on of data in a natural se ng sensi ve to the people and places under study, and data analysis that is both induc ve and deduc ve and establishes pa erns or themes. The final wri en report or presenta on includes the voices of par cipants, the reflexivity of the researcher, a complex descrip on and interpreta on of the problem, and its contribu on to the literature or a call for change. (Creswell, 2013, p. 44)

Dis nguishing Characteris cs Our ra onale underlying our working defini on of qualita ve research emphasizes the design of research and the use of dis nct approaches to inquiry (e.g., ethnography, narra ve). It is helpful to move from a more general defini on to specific characteris cs found in qualita ve research. We believe that the characteris cs have evolved over me (which we can see across the edi ons of this book!) and they certainly do not present a defini ve set of elements. Key among the shi s over me, qualita ve research today involves closer a en on to the interpre ve nature of the research; the role of the researcher and the methods used for data collec on; situa ng the study within the poli cal, social, and cultural context of the research se ng; and the reflexivity or “presence” of the researchers in the work they do and the accounts they present. Examine Table 1.1 for how these common characteris cs have remained unchanged or evolved in some way over me and across influen al introductory qualita ve research books. The nine common characteris cs of qualita ve research are as follows and are presented in no specific order of importance: Natural se ng. Qualita ve researchers o en collect data in the field at the site where par cipants experience the issue or problem under study. They do not bring individuals into a lab (a contrived situa on), nor do they typically send out instruments for individuals to complete, such as in survey research. Instead, qualita ve researchers gather informa on by talking directly to people and seeing them behave and act within their context. These interac ons might occur over me face-to-face and be influenced by technology. Researcher as key instrument. Qualita ve researchers collect data themselves through examining documents, observing behavior, and interviewing par cipants. They may use an instrument, but it is one designed by the researcher using open-ended ques ons. They do not tend to use or rely on ques onnaires or instruments developed by other researchers. A key excep on is when qualita ve researchers access exis ng qualita ve data for secondary analysis (see Chapter 7 for further informa on and cau ons). Mul ple methods. Qualita ve researchers typically gather mul ple forms of data, such as interviews, observa ons, and documents, rather than rely on a single data source. Then they review the data and make sense of it, organizing it into categories or themes that cut across all of the data sources. Complex reasoning through induc ve and deduc ve logic. Qualita ve researchers build their pa erns, categories, and themes from the “bo om up” by organizing the data induc vely into increasingly more abstract units of informa on. This induc ve process involves researchers working back and forth between the themes and the database un l they establish a comprehensive set of themes. It may also involve collabora ng with the par cipants interac vely so that they have a chance to shape the themes or abstrac ons that emerge from the process. Researchers also use deduc ve thinking in that they build themes that are constantly being checked against the data. The induc ve–deduc ve logic process means that the qualita ve researcher uses complex reasoning skills throughout the process of research. Par cipants’ mul ple perspec ves and meanings. In the en re qualita ve research process, the researchers keep a focus on learning the meaning that the par cipants hold about the problem or issue, not the meaning that the researchers bring to the research or writers from the

literature. The par cipant meanings further suggest mul ple perspec ves on a topic and diverse views. This is why a theme developed in a qualita ve report should reflect mul ple perspec ves of the par cipants in the study. Context-dependent. The research is situated within the context or se ng of par cipants or sites. In order to report the se ng in which the problem is being studied, the researcher must seek an understanding of contextual features and their influence on par cipants’ experiences (e.g., social, poli cal, and historical). This is essen al because the par cular contexts allow researchers to “understand how events, ac ons, and meaning are shaped by the unique circumstances in which these occur” (Maxwell, 2013, p. 30). It is important for the researcher to assume contexts are dynamic, to monitor for various changes over me, and to respond appropriately. Emergent design. The research process for qualita ve researchers is emergent. This means that the ini al plan for research cannot be ghtly prescribed and that all phases of the process may change or shi a er the researchers enter the field and begin to collect data. For example, the ques ons may change, the forms of data collec on may be altered, and the individuals studied and the sites visited may be modified during the process of conduc ng the study. The key idea behind qualita ve research is to learn about the problem or issue from par cipants and engage in the best prac ces to obtain that informa on. Our readers have a right to know about us. And they do not want to know whether we played in the high school band. They want to know what prompts our interest in the topics we inves gate, to whom we are repor ng, and what we personally stand to gain from our study. (p. 36) Complex account. Qualita ve researchers try to develop a complex picture of the problem or issue under study. This involves repor ng mul ple perspec ves, iden fying the many factors involved in a situa on, and generally sketching the larger picture that emerges. Researchers are bound not by cause-and-effect rela onships among factors but rather by describing the complex interac ons of factors in any situa on. Table 1.1 Dis nguishing Characteris cs of Qualita ve Research

SELECTION OF THE FIVE APPROACHES Those undertaking qualita ve studies have a baffling number of choices of approaches. One can gain a sense of this diversity by examining several classifica ons or typologies. Tesch (1990) provided a classifica on consis ng of 28 approaches organized into four branches of a flowchart, sor ng out these approaches based on the central interest of the inves gator. Wolco (1992) classified approaches in a “tree” diagram with branches of the tree designa ng strategies for data collec on. W. L. Miller and Crabtree (1992) organized 18 types according to the “domain” of human life of primary concern to the researcher, such as a focus on the individual, the social world, or the culture. In the field of educa on, Jacob (1987) categorized all qualita ve research into “tradi ons,” such as ecological psychology, symbolic interac onism, and holis c ethnography. Jacob’s categoriza on provided a key framework for the first edi on of this book. Lancy (1993) organized qualita ve inquiry into discipline perspec ves, such as anthropology, sociology, biology, cogni ve psychology, and history. Denzin and Lincoln (1994, 2005, 2011b, 2018b) have organized and reorganized their types of qualita ve strategies over the years. Table 1.2 provides these and other various classifica ons of qualita ve approaches that have surfaced. This list is not meant to be exhaus ve of the possibili es; it is intended to illustrate the diversity of approaches recommended by different authors and how the disciplines might emphasize some approaches over others. Table 1.2 Qualita ve Approaches Men oned by Authors and Their Disciplines/Fields

Looking closely at these classifica ons, we can discern that some approaches consistently appear, such as ethnography, grounded theory, phenomenology, and case studies. Also, a number of narra ve-related approaches have been discussed, such as life history, autoethnography, and biography. With so many possibili es, how was the selec on decision made to focus on the five approaches presented in this book?

The choice of the five approaches resulted from reflec ng on personal interests, selec ng different approaches popular in the social science and health science literature, and elec ng to choose representa ve discipline orienta ons. Both of us have had personal experience with all five approaches and have advised students and par cipated on research teams using these qualita ve approaches. Beyond these personal experiences, our reading of the qualita ve literature has been ongoing and our learning con nues. The five approaches discussed in this book reflect the types of qualita ve research that we most frequently see in the social, behavioral, and health science literature. It is not unusual, too, for authors to state that certain approaches are most important in their field (e.g., Morse & Field, 1995). Also, we prefer approaches with systema c procedures for inquiry. The books we have chosen to illustrate each approach tend to have rigorous data collec on procedures and analysis methods that are a rac ve to beginning researchers. The primary books chosen for each approach also represent different discipline perspec ves in the social, behavioral, and health sciences. This is an a rac ve feature to broaden the audience for the book and to recognize the diverse disciplines that have embraced qualita ve research. For example, narra ve originates from the humani es and social sciences, phenomenology from psychology and philosophy, grounded theory from sociology, ethnography from anthropology and sociology, and case studies from the human and social sciences and applied areas such as evalua on research. We recognize the possibility of including more than five approaches. We see the involvement of qualita ve scholars in, for example, discourse analysis (Cheek, 2004) and in par cipatory ac on research (Ivankova, 2015). A strong possibility for adding a sixth approach in future edi ons might be “descrip ve methods.” Several authors have described this approach as a “founda onal method,” “thema c analysis,” “descrip ve analysis,” or a “descrip ve” approach to inquiry (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Levi et al., 2018; Sandelowski, 2010). A descrip ve method approach involves the researcher staying close to the data, using limited frameworks and interpreta ons, and cataloging the data into themes. It is a popular approach among qualita ve health researchers. Also, recent standards from the American Psychological Associa on highlight “thema c analysis” as one of the qualita ve designs (American Psychological Associa on, 2020). It can be dis nguished from the “analy c tradi ons” found in discipline fields (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 78) and emphasized in this book (e.g., narra ve studies, phenomenology, ethnography). We chose, however, not to include “descrip ve methods” as a sixth, dis nct approach because our chapters emphasize the founda onal ideas (e.g., coding, themes) closely aligned with the “descrip ve method.” KEY BOOK READINGS The primary ideas that we use to discuss each approach come from select books. More specifically, we will rely heavily on two books for each approach. These are the books that we highly recommend for you to get started in learning a specific approach to qualita ve inquiry. These books include classics o en cited by authors, as well as new works. They also reflect diverse disciplines and perspec ves. In addi on, please see the essen al readings for each chapter listed under the Further Readings heading at the end of each chapter. Narra ve Research

Clandinin, D. J. (2023). Engaging in narra ve inquiry (2nd ed.). Routledge. In this updated edi on from the 2013 book, Jean Clandinin ar culates her inten on to “return to the ques on of what it is that narra ve inquirers do” (2023, p. 7). The first three chapters are noteworthy for her prac cal guidance detailing what it means to think and act narra vely. She illustrates this guidance by using updated examples. Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narra ve methods for the human sciences. Sage. Catherine Riessman uses cross-disciplinary exemplars alongside detailed descrip ons for four specific methods of narra ve analysis (thema c, structural, dialogic/performance, and visual). A unique contribu on is the discussion of visual analysis and how images can be used within qualita ve research. Phenomenology Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Sage. Clark Moustakas contributes a descrip on of a heuris c process in phenomenological analysis. His prac cal instruc ons in the systema c interpreta on of interview transcripts is helpful for extrac ng themes common across interviews or unique to an interview and then crea ng a conceptual link. van Manen, M. (2023). Phenomenology of prac ce: Meaning-giving methods in phenomenological research and wri ng (2nd ed.). Routledge. In this updated edi on, Max van Manen describes the evolu on of key phenomenological ideas, presents a range of methods, and discusses wri ng. Among the key contribu ons are his discussion of methodological issues and his descrip on of a variety of phenomenological orienta ons. Grounded Theory Charmaz, K. (2014). Construc ng grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage. Kathy Charmaz uses examples from varied disciplines and professions as well as reflec ons from scholars about doing grounded theory from a construc vist perspec ve. Her detailed descrip ons of coding and wri ng processes, including guidelines and examples, provide essen al prac cal guidance. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualita ve research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (4th ed.). Sage. To enrich the reader experience with viewpoints from former students and colleagues, Julie Corbin and Anselm Strauss use a pedagogical feature called Insider Insights. Of note is a summary of data analysis processes (see pp. 216–219). Ethnography Fe erman, D. M. (2019). Ethnography: Step-by-step (4th ed.). Sage.

In the fourth edi on, David Fe erman expands discussions of ethnography to highlight reflexivity and the use of theory. The revised chapter on anthropological concepts further emphasizes culture and contextualiza on during the cyclical processes of acquiring ethnographic knowledge of human life. This, along with the updated descrip ons of ethnographic equipment in Chapter 4 and the analy cal strategies described in Chapter 5, make this resource required reading. Wolco , H. F. (2008a). Ethnography: A way of seeing (2nd ed.). AltaMira Press. A good understanding of the nature of ethnography, the study of groups, and the development of an understanding of culture is provided by Harry Wolco . In par cular, his emphasis on both the ar s c and common sense elements involved in fieldwork provides a unique perspec ve. Case Study Thomas, G. (2021). How to do your case study (3rd ed.). Sage. Comprehensive guidance about when and how to use case studies is provided by Gary Thomas. In par cular, he expands coverage of naviga ng ethical issues and mul disciplinary case examples in the newest edi on. Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research and applica ons: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage. Robert Yin adds breadth and depth to this new edi on with his emphasis on systems and procedures for genera ng reliable findings and valid interpreta ons in designs (see Chapter 2), data collec on (see Chapter 4), and analysis (see Chapter 5). CHAPTER CHECK-IN Can you “see” how this book is dis nguished from other books in its focus on examining five approaches to qualita ve inquiry? Compare the purpose of this book with those of at least two other introductory qualita ve research books; for ideas see Table 1.2. Can you discern the influences of your lived experiences in your posi onality statement represen ng your approach to qualita ve research? Review your response to the Try this Now 1.1 ac vity. Can you recognize how authors incorporate the nine dis nguishing characteris cs of qualita ve research? Select one of the qualita ve ar cles presented in Appendices B through F. Begin with iden fying each of the characteris cs advanced in this chapter (summarized in Table 1.1) as they have been applied in the journal ar cle. Note which characteris cs are easy and which are more difficult to iden fy. SUMMARY In this chapter, we introduced ourselves and this book examining five approaches to qualita ve research. We began with a ra onale for why examining different approaches is helpful to qualita ve researchers followed by a descrip on of our backgrounds to understand our approach to this book. We asked you to consider some of your life experiences that may influence how you approach qualita ve research. We provided our defini on of qualita ve research as an approach to inquiry that begins with assump ons, an interpre ve or theore cal lens, and the study of research problems exploring the meaning individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human problem. Nine common characteris cs of qualita ve research were

described, including collec ng data in natural se ngs with a sensi vity to the people under study, using induc ve and deduc ve analysis strategies to establish pa erns or themes, and developing a complex descrip on and interpreta on of the problem that provides for the voices of par cipants and a reflexivity of the researchers. Recent introductory textbooks underscore the characteris cs embedded in this defini on. We described our selec on of the five approaches and the key book readings for each approach. CHAPTER KEY TERMS Approaches to inquiry Qualita ve research Research design FURTHER READINGS The following resources are offered as addi onal references for this chapter. The list should not be considered exhaus ve, and readers are encouraged to seek out other readings in the end-of- book reference list. Beck, C. T. (2021). Introduc on to phenomenology. Sage. Cheryl Tatano Beck draws on her depth of experience to contrast interpre ve and descrip ve phenomenology from design to repor ng specific key authors. See Chapters 5 and 7 describing the unique aspects of Clark Moustakas’s modifica on of Adrian van Kaam’s descrip ve phenomenological methodology and Max van Manen’s hermeneu c phenomenological approach, respec vely. Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S., Giardina, M. D., & Cannella, G. S. (2023). The SAGE handbook of qualita ve research (6th ed.). Sage. New topics and approaches are covered in this sixth edi on, including the theore cal frames of intersec onality, cri cal disability research, and postcolonial and decolonized knowledge from familiar and emerging authors. Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (2019). Ethnography: Principles in prac ce (4th ed.). Routledge. A new chapter on “ethnography in the digital world” and expanded discussions about the ethical issues involved in ethnographic research make this fourth edi on an excellent resource. See Chapter 1 for features that most ethnographic work involves. Kim, J.-H. (2015). Understanding narra ve inquiry: The cra ing and analysis of stories as research. Sage. Jeong-Hee Kim guides readers through the narra ve inquiry process with the author’s own research experiences, loca ng narra ve inquiry in the interdisciplinary context. Unique contribu ons include describing five genres of narra ve research (see Chapter 4) and discussions of the role of theory in narra ve inquiry. Morse, J. M., Bowers, B. J., Charmaz, K., Clarke, A. E., Cobin, J., & Poor, C. J. (with Stern, P. N.). (Eds.). (2021). Developing grounded theory: The second genera on revisited (2nd ed.). Routledge. In this updated edi on, the authors provide a succinct overview of the development of grounded theory and dis nguish among Glaserian and Straussian grounded theory as well as Charmaz’s construc vist grounded theory and Clarke’s situa onal analysis.

Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage. Through his personable style, Robert Stake offers insights gained from experience along with illustra ve examples. The book reads differently than a typical text, emphasizing the “art” involved in conduc ng a case study and the role of researcher’s intui on. 2 PHILOSOPHICAL ASSUMPTIONS AND INTERPRETIVE FRAMEWORKS Ques ons for Discussion Where do philosophy and interpre ve frameworks (theory) fit into the overall process of research? Why is it important to understand the philosophical assump ons? What four philosophical assump ons exist when you choose qualita ve research? How are these philosophical assump ons used and wri en into a qualita ve study? What interpre ve frameworks are commonly used in qualita ve research? How are interpre ve frameworks wri en into a qualita ve study? How are philosophical assump ons and interpre ve frameworks linked in a qualita ve study? Whether we are aware of it or not, as researchers, we always bring certain beliefs and philosophical assump ons to our research. These philosophical assump ons come from a researcher’s beliefs and values about conduc ng research. Some mes they are deeply ingrained views about the types of problems that we need to study, what research ques ons to ask, or how we go about gathering data. These beliefs are ins lled during our educa onal training through journal ar cles and books, through advice dispensed by our advisors, and through the scholarly communi es we engage with at conferences and scholarly mee ngs. The challenge lies in becoming aware of these assump ons and beliefs and then in deciding whether we will ac vely incorporate them into our qualita ve studies. O en, at a less abstract level, these philosophical assump ons are applied through interpre ve frameworks or theories in our research. These interpre ve frameworks come from the literature where researchers form interpreta ons to explore individuals (e.g., women, or persons with disabili es) or frame approaches to conduc ng research (e.g., social construc vism). Interpre ve frameworks or theories are more apparent in our qualita ve studies than are philosophical assump ons, and researchers, o en trained in the use of frameworks or theories, typically make them explicit in research studies. Qualita ve researchers have underscored the importance of not only understanding the beliefs and theories that inform our research but also ac vely wri ng about them in our reports and studies. This chapter highlights various philosophical assump ons that have occupied the minds of qualita ve researchers for some years and the various interpre ve and theore cal frameworks that enact these beliefs. A close e exists between the philosophy brought to research and how one proceeds to apply a framework to inform their inquiry. Making explicit the philosophical assump ons and interpre ve frameworks for a qualita ve study is essen al yet is not always done. Caine et al. (2022) describe a concerning trend they see

that o en makes research a technical exercise focused on methods. There is an absence of philosophical discussion, in both academia and the public realm, about the ways in which we take methodological turns as well as about the mul ple ways to think about, and see, the world. (p. 3) Qualita ve researchers benefit from opportuni es to reflect upon and make explicit the experien al and theore cal influences on their designs. This chapter will help you begin to explore your philosophical assump ons and inform decisions about the influence of theories in your qualita ve research. We do this by presen ng a framework for understanding how both philosophy and theory fit into the large schema of the research process. Then we present details about philosophical assump ons common to qualita ve researchers, consider the types of philosophical assump ons, and explore how they are o en used or made explicit in qualita ve studies. Finally, various interpre ve frameworks are suggested that link back to philosophical assump ons with embedded commentary related to how these frameworks play out in the actual prac ce of research. SITUATING PHILOSOPHY AND INTERPRETIVE FRAMEWORKS WITHIN THE RESEARCH PROCESS To examine the influence of philosophical assump ons and interpre ve frameworks in qualita ve research, we restate our working defini on from Chapter 1 here: Qualita ve research begins with assump ons and the use of interpre ve/theore cal frameworks that inform the study of research problems addressing the meaning individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human problem. To study this problem, qualita ve researchers use an emerging qualita ve approach to inquiry, the collec on of data in a natural se ng sensi ve to the people and places under study, and data analysis that is both induc ve and deduc ve and establishes pa erns or themes. The final wri en report or presenta on includes the voices of par cipants, the reflexivity of the researcher, a complex descrip on and interpreta on of the problem, and its contribu on to the literature or a call for change. (Creswell, 2013, p. 44) No ce in this defini on that the process of research is described as flowing from philosophical assump ons to interpre ve lens, and on to the procedures involved in studying social or human problems. Developing an understanding of the philosophical assump ons behind qualita ve research begins with assessing where it fits within the overall process of research and considering how to write it into a study design. To help in this itera ve process, we use a framework to guide understanding of how philosophical assump ons and interpre ve frameworks (paradigm perspec ves and theore cal orienta ons) are situated within and influen al to the research process. It is here that adap ng an overview of the process of research compiled by Denzin and Lincoln (2018a, p. 17), as shown in Figure 2.1, helps us situate philosophy and interpreta ve frameworks into perspec ve in the research process. The ques ons embedded within each phase help you begin to explore the philosophical assump ons you bring to research. No ce in Figure 2.1 that the phases tend to build upon each other (as indicated by the larger arrows), yet it is also possible for answers to invite a revisit of a previous phase (as indicated by the smaller arrows).

Figure 2.1 Situa ng Philosophy and Interpre ve Frameworks Within the Research Process Source: Adapted from Denzin and Lincoln (2018a), Table 1.1, p. 18, and from Cro y (1998). Used with permission from Sage. This conceptualiza on of the research process begins in Phase 1 with the researchers considering the mul faceted experiences that they bring to the inquiry, such as their personal histories, cultural assump ons, research tradi ons, views of themselves and others, and ethical and poli cal beliefs. Researchers o en overlook this phase, so it is helpful to have it highlighted and posi oned early in the research process. In Phase 2, the researcher brings to the inquiry certain philosophical assump ons and interpre ve frameworks. These are stances taken by the researcher that provide direc on for the study, such as the researcher’s view of reality (ontology), how the researcher knows reality (epistemology), the value-stance taken by the inquirer (axiology), and the procedures used in the study (methodology). These assump ons, in turn, are o en applied in research through paradigms and theories (or, as we call them, interpre ve frameworks). Paradigms are a “basic set of beliefs that guides ac on” (Guba, 1990, p. 17). These beliefs are brought to the process of research by the inves gator and they may be

called worldviews (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018). Theories or theore cal orienta ons, on the other hand, are found in the literature and they provide a general explana on as to what the researcher hopes to find in a study or a lens through which to view the needs of par cipants and communi es in a study. Granted, the difference between the philosophical assump ons, paradigms, and theore cal orienta on is not always clear, but sor ng out what exists at a broad philosophical level (assump ons) and what operates at a more prac cal level (interpre ve frameworks) is a helpful heuris c. In Phase 2, we find the philosophical and paradigm/theore cal interpreta ve frameworks addressed in this chapter. The following chapters in this book are devoted, then, to the Phase 3 research strategies, called approaches in this book, that will be enumerated as they relate to the research process. Finally, the inquirer engages in Phase 4 methods of data collec on and analysis, followed by Phase 5, the interpreta on and evalua on of the data. Taking Figure 2.1 in its en rety, we see that research involves differing levels of abstrac on from the broad assessment of individual characteris cs brought by the researcher through the researcher’s philosophy and theory that lay the founda on for more specific approaches and methods of data collec on, analysis, and interpreta on. Also implicit in Figure 2.1 is the importance of having an understanding of philosophy and interpreta ve frameworks that inform a qualita ve study. PHILOSOPHICAL ASSUMPTIONS Why Philosophy Is Important Philosophy refers to the use of abstract ideas and beliefs that inform our research. We can begin by thinking about why it is important to understand the philosophical assump ons that underlie qualita ve research and to be able to ar culate them in a research study or present them to an audience. Huff (2009) is helpful in ar cula ng the importance of philosophy in research. Philosophy provides direc on for research goals and outcomes. How we formulate our problem and research ques ons to study is shaped by our assump ons and, in turn, influences how we seek informa on to answer the ques ons. A cause-and-effect type of ques on in which certain variables are predicted to explain an outcome is different from an explora on of a single phenomenon as found in qualita ve research. Philosophy relates to training and research experiences. These assump ons are deeply rooted in our training and reinforced by the scholarly community in which we work. Granted, some communi es are more eclec c and borrow from many disciplines (e.g., educa on), while others are more narrowly focused on studying specific research problems, using par cular methods, and adding certain research knowledge. Philosophy informs evalua ve criteria for research-related decisions. Unques onably, reviewers make philosophical assump ons about a study when they evaluate it. Knowing how reviewers stand on issues of epistemology is helpful to author-researchers. When the assump ons between the author and the reviewer diverge, the author’s work may not receive a fair hearing, and conclusions may be drawn that it does not contribute to the literature. This unfair hearing may occur within the context of a graduate student presen ng to a commi ee, an author submi ng to a scholarly journal, or an inves gator sending a proposal to a funding agency. On

the reverse side, understanding the assump ons used by a reviewer may enable a researcher to resolve points of difference before they become a focal point for cri que. The ques on as to whether key assump ons can change and/or whether mul ple philosophical assump ons can influence a given study needs to be addressed. Our stance is that assump ons can change over me and over a career, and they o en do, especially a er a scholar leaves the enclave of their discipline and begins to work in more of a trans- or mul disciplinary way. Whether mul ple assump ons can be wri en into a given study is open to debate, and again, it may be related to the research experiences of the inves gator, their openness to exploring differing assump ons, and the acceptability of ideas in the larger scien fic community of which the inves gator is a part. Looking across the four philosophical assump ons described next can be helpful for monitoring individual changes over me. Four Philosophical Assump ons What are the philosophical assump ons made by researchers when they undertake a qualita ve study? These assump ons have been ar culated throughout the past 20 years in the various edi ons of The SAGE Handbook of Qualita ve Research (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994, 2000, 2005, 2011b, 2018b) as guiding the philosophical stances behind qualita ve research. These stances relate beliefs about ontology (the nature of reality), epistemology (what counts as knowledge and how knowledge claims are jus fied), axiology (the role of values and ethics in research), and methodology (the process of research). We will next discuss each of these four categories of philosophy, detail how the philosophical assump ons might be used and wri en into qualita ve research, and then link them to different interpre ve frameworks that operate at a more specific level in the process of research (see Table 2.1). Table 2.1 Prac cal Implica ons of Philosophical Assump ons for Qualita ve Researchers

Ontological assump ons relate the nature of reality and its characteris cs. When researchers conduct qualita ve research, they are embracing the idea of mul ple reali es. Different researchers embrace different reali es, as do the individuals being studied and the readers of a qualita ve study. When studying individuals, qualita ve researchers conduct a study with the intent of repor ng these mul ple reali es. Evidence of mul ple reali es includes the use of numerous forms of evidence through themes, using the actual words of different individuals, and presen ng varying or mul ple perspec ves. For example, when writers compile a phenomenology, they report how individuals par cipa ng in the study view their experiences

differently (Moustakas, 1994). A qualita ve researcher’s ontological assump ons can impact the topic they choose to study, the focus of the research ques ons, and the approach they select for guiding the study (Hesse-Biber, 2016). At the core of epistemological assump ons is rela ng what counts as knowledge. Conduc ng a qualita ve study means that researchers “study things in their natural se ngs, a emp ng to make sense of or interpret phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2018a, p. 10). Therefore, subjec ve evidence is assembled based on individual views. This is how knowledge is known—through the subjec ve experiences of people. It becomes important, then, to conduct studies in their natural se ng, where the par cipants live and work; these are important contexts for understanding what the par cipants are saying. The longer researchers know the par cipants and their natural se ng, the more they “know what they know” from firsthand informa on. For example, a good ethnography requires a prolonged stay at the research site (Wolco , 2008a). In short, qualita ve researchers try to minimize the “distance” or “objec ve separateness” (Guba & Lincoln, 1988, p. 94) between them and those being researched to accurately represent what is shared with them. All researchers bring values to a study, but qualita ve researchers make their values known in a study. Axiological assump ons relate the values and ethics that characterize qualita ve research. In a qualita ve study, the inquirers admit the value-laden nature of the study and ac vely report their values and biases as well as the value-laden nature of informa on gathered from par cipants and their natural se ngs. We say that researchers “posi on themselves” by iden fying their “posi onality” in rela on to the context and se ng of the research (see Chapter 1). Among the aspects described are the researchers’ social posi on (e.g., gender, age, race, immigra on status), personal experiences, and poli cal and professional beliefs (Berger, 2015). In an interpre ve biography, for example, the researcher’s presence is apparent in the text, and the author admits that the stories voiced represent an interpreta on of the author as much as the subject of the study (Denzin, 1989). The procedures of qualita ve research, or its methodology, are characterized as induc ve, emerging, and shaped by the researcher’s experience in collec ng and analyzing the data. Methodological assump ons relate how researchers go about their qualita ve study. The logic that the qualita ve researcher follows is induc ve, from the ground up, rather than handed down en rely from a theory or from the perspec ves of the inquirer. Some mes the research ques ons change in the middle of the study to reflect be er the types of ques ons needed to understand the research problem. In response, the data collec on strategy, planned before the study, needs to be modified to accompany the new ques ons. During the data analysis, the researcher follows a path of analyzing the data to develop an increasingly detailed knowledge of the topic being studied. Try This Now 2.1 Unpacking Your Philosophical Assump ons as a Qualita ve Researcher Philosophical assump ons relate beliefs about ontology (the nature of reality), epistemology (what counts as knowledge and how knowledge claims are jus fied), axiology (the role of values

and ethics in research), and methodology (the process of research). What are some key aspects of your ontological and epistemological assump ons that may influence your work as a qualita ve researcher? Use the guiding ques ons in Table 2.1 to get you started. Wri ng Philosophical Assump ons Into Qualita ve Studies One further thought is important about philosophical assump ons. In some qualita ve studies they remain hidden from view; they can be deduced, however, by the discerning reader who sees the mul ple views that appear in the themes, the detailed rendering of the subjec ve quotes of par cipants, the carefully laid-out biases of the researcher, or the emerging design that evolves in ever-expanding levels of abstrac on from descrip on to themes to broad generaliza ons. In other studies, the philosophy is made explicit by a special sec on in the study—typically in the descrip on of the characteris cs of qualita ve inquiry o en found in the methods sec on. Here, the inquirer talks about ontology, epistemology, and other assump ons explicitly and details how they are exemplified in the study. The intent of this discussion is to convey the assump ons, to provide defini ons for them, and to discuss how they are illustrated in the study. References to the literature about the philosophy of qualita ve research round out the discussion. Sec ons of this nature are o en found in doctoral disserta ons, in journal ar cles reported in major qualita ve journals, and in conference paper presenta ons where the audience may ask about the underlying philosophy of the study. While there are infinite ways for authors to go about describing their philosophical assump ons and implica ons for research prac ce, we offer three descrip ons from journal ar cles to examine in Example 2.1. Example 2.1 Descrip ons of Underlying Philosophical Assump ons No ce how each of the four major philosophical assump ons (ontology—what is reality? epistemology—how is reality known? axiology—how are values of the research expressed? and methodology—how is the research conducted?) are made explicit in the following journal ar cles:

1. Healey, G. K. (2014). Inuit family understandings of sexual health and rela onships in Nunavut. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 105(2), e133–e137. h ps://doi.org/10.17269/cjph.105.4189

See the “methods” sec on (pp. e134-e135) in Healey (2014) for the full descrip on of the five Inuit concepts informing the research approach for the Piliriqa giinniq, the Partnership Community Health research model, calling “a en on to indigenous ways of knowing and the research approaches that grow from an indigenous worldview” (p. e135), and emphasizing connec ons between people in all aspects of the research: Piliriqa giinniq (the concept of working together for the common good); Pi arniq (the concept of being good or kind); Inuuqa giinniq (the concept of being respec ul of others); Unikkaaqa giinniq (the philosophy of story-telling and/or the power and meaning of story); and Iqqaumaqa giinniq (the concept that ideas or thoughts may come into “one”) (p. e135)

2. Brown, J., Sorrell, J. H., McClaren, J., & Creswell, J. W. (2006). Wai ng for a liver transplant. Qualita ve Health Research, 16(1), 119–136.

ps://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305284011 See the “phenomenological approach” sec on (p. 122) inspired by Frankl (1997) in Brown et al. (2006) for the full descrip on and ra onale of the choice of qualita ve approach for the study examining the meaning that people with liver failure ascribe to the experience of wai ng for a liver transplant: Living with ESLD [end-stage liver disease] and wai ng for a transplant become experiences in and of themselves as the illness progresses and outcomes are not known. It is with this understanding that we chose phenomenology as the tradi on of inquiry. (p. 122)

3. Jungnickel, K. (2014). Ge ng there . . . and back: How ethnographic commu ng (by bicycle) shaped a study of Australian backyard technologists. Qualita ve Research, 14(6), 640–655. h ps://doi.org/10.1177/1468794113481792

See the “posi oning the mobile ethnographer” sec on (p. 642) in Jungnickel (2014) for the full statement of the researcher posi onality descrip on for the study of Australian backyard technologists: Regardless of the nature of distance (physical, virtual or symbolic), movement and travel are deemed vital to the development of an authen c ethnographic presence and authorita ve voice . . . In this sec on, I a empt, by no means exhaus vely, to categorise four types of ethnographer mobility and a ending issues of posi onality with the aim of loca ng the case study and a discussion of the ethnographic commute. (p. 642) INTERPRETIVE FRAMEWORKS As shown in Figure 2.1, philosophical assump ons are o en applied within interpre ve frameworks that qualita ve researchers use when they conduct a study. Thus, Denzin and Lincoln (2018a) consider the philosophical assump ons as key premises that are folded into interpre ve frameworks used in qualita ve research. What are these interpre ve frameworks? They may be paradigms or beliefs that the researcher brings to the process of research, or they may be theories or theore cal orienta ons that guide the prac ce of research. Paradigm interpreta ve frameworks may be postposi vism, social construc vism, transforma ve, and postmodern. Theories may be social science theories to frame their theore cal lens in studies, such as the use of these theories in ethnography (see Chapter 4). Social science theories may be theories of leadership, a ribu on, poli cal influence and control, and hundreds of other possibili es that are taught in the social science disciplines. On the other hand, the theories may be social jus ce theories seeking to bring about change or address social jus ce issues in our socie es. John W. Creswell and his coauthor J. David Creswell (2023) state, “researchers increasingly use a theore cal standpoint in qualita ve research to provide an overall orien ng lens for the study ques ons about gender, class, and race (or other issues of marginalized groups). This lens becomes a transforma ve perspec ve to bring about change, li the voices of underrepresented groups, and uncover largely hidden assump ons of individuals” (p. 60).

The interpre ve frameworks are ever expanding, and the list in Figure 2.1 does not account for all that are popularly used in qualita ve research. Other approaches that have been extensively discussed elsewhere involve the realist perspec ve and intersec onality. The realist perspec ve combines a realist ontology (the belief that a real world exists independently of our beliefs and construc ons) and a construc vist epistemology (knowledge of the world is inevitably our own construc on; see Maxwell, 2012). Intersec onality helps qualita ve researchers generate nuanced understandings of social rela ons and structural inequali es by examining how an array of socially constructed dimensions of difference shape experiences and ac ons (see Abrams et al., 2020; Esposito & Evans-Winters, 2021). Consequently, any discussion (including this one) can only be a par al descrip on of possibili es, but a review of several commonly used interpre ve frameworks can provide a sense of op ons. The par cipants in these interpre ve, theore cally oriented projects o en represent underrepresented or marginalized groups, whether those differences take the form of economic levels, gender, race/ethnicity, religion, immigrant or Indigenous status, sexual iden ty, disability, or geography or some intersec on of these differences. Postposi vism Those who engage in qualita ve research using a belief system grounded in postposi vism will take a scien fic approach to research. They will employ a social science theore cal lens. We will use the term postposi vism rather than posi vism to denote this approach because postposi vists do not believe in strict cause and effect but rather recognize that all cause and effect is a probability that may or may not occur. Postposi vism has the elements of being reduc onis c, logical, empirical, cause-and-effect oriented, and determinis c based on a priori theories. We can see this approach at work among individuals with prior quan ta ve research training and in fields such as the health sciences in which qualita ve research o en plays a suppor ve role to quan ta ve research and must be couched in terms acceptable to quan ta ve researchers and funding agents (e.g., the a priori use of theory; see Barbour, 2000). Good overviews of postposi vist approaches are available in Phillips and Burbules (2000) and Mertens (2019). In prac ce, postposi vist researchers view inquiry as a series of logically related steps, believe in mul ple perspec ves from par cipants rather than a single reality, and espouse rigorous methods of qualita ve data collec on and analysis. They use mul ple levels of data analysis for rigor, employ computer programs to assist in their analysis, encourage the use of validity approaches, and write their qualita ve studies in the form of scien fic reports, with a structure resembling quan ta ve ar cles (e.g., problem, ques ons, data collec on, results, conclusions). We see a postposi vist approach in the construc vist grounded theory study example by Churchill et al. (2007) to develop a theore cal model from the mothers’ perspec ve of what low-income rural families with young children do for fun. In this example, researchers used the MAXQDA computer so ware program to systema cally analyze and generate themes from a database of 368 interviews. In their methods, the researchers described several valida on strategies including purposeful sampling and debriefings.

Our approaches to qualita ve research have been iden fied as tending toward postposi vism (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005, 2011b, 2018b), as have the approaches of others (e.g., Taylor et al., 2015). We do use this belief system, although neither of us would characterize our research as en rely framed within a postposi vist qualita ve orienta on (e.g., see the construc vist approach in McVea et al., 1999; the social jus ce perspec ve in D. W. Miller et al., 1998; and the pragma c approach in Henderson, 2011). This postposi vist interpre ve framework is exemplified in the systema c procedures of grounded theory found in Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1998) and Corbin and Strauss (2007, 2015), the analy c data analysis steps in phenomenology (Moustakas, 1994), and the data analysis strategies of case comparisons of Yin (2017). Social Construc vism Social construc vism (which is o en described as interpre vism, see Denzin & Lincoln, 2018b; and construc vism, see Mertens, 2019) is another paradigm or worldview. In social construc vism, individuals seek understanding of the world in which they live and work. They develop subjec ve meanings of their experiences—meanings directed toward certain objects or things. These meanings are varied and mul ple, leading the researcher to look for the complexity of views rather than narrowing the meanings into a few categories or ideas. The goal of research, then, is to rely as much as possible on the par cipants’ views of the situa on. O en these subjec ve meanings are nego ated socially and historically. In other words, they are not simply imprinted on individuals but are formed through interac on with others (hence social construc on) and through historical and cultural norms that operate in individuals’ lives. Rather than star ng with a theory (as in postposi vism), inquirers generate or induc vely develop a theory or pa ern of meaning. Examples of writers who have summarized this posi on are Burr (2015), Cro y (1998), Gergen (2023), Lincoln and Guba (2000), and Schwandt (2015). In terms of prac ce, the ques ons become broad and general so that the par cipants can construct the meaning of a situa on, a meaning typically forged in discussions or interac ons with other persons. The more open-ended the ques oning, the be er, as the researcher listens carefully to what people say or do in their life se ng. Thus, construc vist researchers o en address the “processes” of interac on among individuals. They also focus on the specific contexts in which people live and work to understand the historical and cultural se ngs of the par cipants. Researchers recognize that their own background shapes their interpreta on, and they “posi on themselves” in the research to acknowledge how their interpreta on flows from their own personal, cultural, and historical experiences. The researcher’s intent, then, is to make sense of (or interpret) the meanings others have about the world. This is why qualita ve research is o en called interpre ve research. The researchers make an interpreta on of what they find, an interpreta on shaped by their own experiences and background; for example, see study impetus described by Brown et al. (2006). In this phenomenological inquiry, the researchers iden fy one of the authors as a psychiatrist with responsibility “for the assessment and selec on of all pa ents with end-stage liver disease who present as candidates for liver transplanta on at a large midwestern transplant center” (Brown et al., 2006, p. 119). The nature of the rela onship of one of the researchers to the research topic and context was important to disclose because of its

usefulness for contribu ng to the data interpreta on. Thus, we see the construc vist worldview manifest in phenomenological studies, in which individuals describe their experiences (Moustakas, 1994), and in the grounded theory perspec ve of Charmaz (2014), in which she grounds her theore cal orienta on in the views or perspec ves of individuals. Transforma ve Frameworks Researchers might use a transforma ve framework because the postposi vists impose structural laws and theories that do not fit marginalized individuals or groups and the construc vists do not go far enough in advoca ng ac on to help individuals. The basic tenet of this transforma ve framework is that knowledge is not neutral, and it reflects the power and social rela onships within society; thus, the purpose of knowledge construc on is to aid people to improve society (Mertens, 2003). These individuals include marginalized groups such as Indigenous groups, lesbians, gay people, bisexuals, transgender persons, and socie es that need a more hopeful, posi ve psychology and resilience (Mertens, 2009, 2019). Qualita ve research, then, should contain an ac on agenda for reform that may change the lives of par cipants, the ins tu ons in which they live and work, or even the researchers’ lives. Mavrogordato and White (2020) describe case studies examining the role school leaders play in enac ng equity policies for historically marginalized groups such as students studying English as a foreign language. The findings were used to generate a framework for helping school leaders with important implica ons for students, schools, and communi es. The issues facing marginalized groups are of paramount importance to study—issues such as oppression, domina on, suppression, aliena on, and hegemony. As these issues are studied and exposed, the researchers provide a voice for these par cipants, raising their consciousness and improving their lives. Mertens (2021) describes the transforma ve framework as characterized by An ethical stance that promotes social inclusion and challenges oppressive structures that sustain inequality and discrimina on. A par cipatory and reflec ve entry process into a community, designed to build trust, address power differences, and make goals and strategies more transparent. The dissemina on of findings in ways that encourage the use of results to enhance human rights and social, economic, and environmental jus ce. A commitment to addressing the intersec onality of relevant dimensions of diversity—such as gender, disability, indigeneity, poverty status, and language—by incorpora ng culturally responsive, equity-focused, feminist, and indigenous approaches. (p. 3) Other research approaches are informed by this worldview including par cipatory ac on research (Kemmis & Wilkinson, 1998), Maori research based on the principles of “by Maori, for Maori, with Maori” (L. T. Smith, 2005, 2021), and ac on research (Bradbury, 2015; Reason & Bradbury, 2006). In prac ce, the transforma ve framework has shaped several approaches to inquiry. Specific social issues (e.g., domina on, oppression, inequity) help organize the research ques ons. Not wan ng to further marginalize the individuals par cipa ng in the research, transforma ve inquirers collaborate with research par cipants. They may ask par cipants to help with designing the ques ons, collec ng the data, analyzing it, and shaping the final report of the research. It should be noted that the level and type of community involvement will vary

depending on the research context but that the rela onship with par cipants should be reciprocal (Mertens, 2009, 2021). In this way, the “voice” of the par cipants becomes heard throughout the research process and the research products are meaningful for all involved. It is encouraging to see guiding research resources emerge from the perspec ves of marginalized groups (e.g., Lovern & Locust, 2013; Mertens et al., 2013). The research also contains an ac on agenda for reform, a specific plan for addressing the injus ces of the marginalized group. These prac ces will be seen in the ethnographic approaches to research with a social jus ce agenda found in Denzin and Lincoln (2018a) and in the change-oriented (Daiute & Ligh oot, 2004) and equity-seeking (Clandinin, 2023) forms of narra ve research. Postmodern Perspec ves Postmodernism (which is also described as poststructuralism, although the rela onship between the terms remains under debate among scholars) might be considered a family of theories and perspec ves that have something in common (Slife & Williams, 1995). Postmodernists advance a reac on to or cri que of the 19th-century Enlightenment and early 20th-century emphasis on technology, ra onality, reason, universals, science, and the posi vist, scien fic method (Bloland, 1995; Stringer, 1993). The basic concept is that knowledge claims must be set within the condi ons of the world today and in the mul ple perspec ves of class, race, gender, and other group affilia ons. These condi ons are well ar culated by individuals such as Foucault, Derrida, Lyotard, Giroux, and Freire (Bloland, 1995). These are nega ve condi ons, and they show themselves in the presence of hierarchies, power and control by individuals, and the mul ple meanings of language. The condi ons include the importance of different discourses, the importance of marginalized people and groups (the “other”), and the presence of “metanarra ves” or universals that hold true regardless of the social condi ons. As an example, Chipango (2021) adopts a postmodern perspec ve to examine the nature of the discourse surrounding Zimbabwe’s mismatch between energy supply and demand, also known as energy poverty. From her case study drawing upon interviews and documents, Chipango (2021) concludes that “energy poverty cannot be understood outside of the poli cal-economic discourse that constructs and interprets it” (p. 1). Also included is the need to examine texts in terms of language, their reading and wri ng, and bringing to the surface concealed hierarchies as well as domina ons, opposi ons, inconsistencies, and contradic ons (Bloland, 1995; Clarke, 2005; Stringer, 1993). Postmoderism highlights the usefulness of researcher reflexivity and crea vity in represen ng the mul ple voices and perspec ves that have become dis nguishing characteris cs in qualita ve research (Chris ans, 2018; Clandinin, 2023). These prac ces are seen in Denzin’s (1989) approach to “interpre ve” biography, Clandinin and Connelly’s (2000) approach to narra ve research, and Clarke’s (2005) perspec ve on grounded theory. Postmodernism researchers study turning points, or problema c situa ons in which people find themselves during transi on periods (Borga a & Borga a, 1992). Regarding a “postmodern- influenced ethnography,” J. Thomas (1993) writes that such a study might “confront the centrality of media-created reali es and the influence of informa on technologies” (p. 25). Thomas also comments that narra ve texts need to be challenged (and wri en), according to the postmodernists, for their “subtexts” of dominant meanings. These ways of knowing have

been important for researchers who are open to uncertainty, plurality, and want to recognize the complexity inherent in their qualita ve studies (O’leary, 2021). Pragma sm There are many forms of pragma sm. Individuals holding an interpre ve framework based on pragma sm focus on the outcomes of the research—the ac ons, situa ons, and consequences of inquiry—rather than antecedent condi ons (as in postposi vism). As a theore cal stance, pragma sm privileges prac ce and method over all else (Denzin & Lincoln, 2018a). There is a concern with applica ons—“what works”—and solu ons to problems (Pa on, 1990). In Hammond et al. (2022), we see their choice of in-depth interviews with 15 women who were sutured following birth as the most appropriate method for improving women’s experiences of perineal suturing. Cherryholmes (1992), Murphy (1990), and Rorty (1990) provide direc on for the basic ideas of pragma sm: Pragma sm is not commi ed to any one system of philosophy and reality. Individual researchers have a freedom of choice. They are “free” to choose the methods, techniques, and procedures of research that best meet their needs and purposes. Pragma sts do not see the world as an absolute unity. In a similar way, researchers look to many approaches to collec ng and analyzing data rather than subscribing to only one way (e.g., mul ple qualita ve approaches). Truth is what works at the me; it is not based in a dualism between reality independent of the mind or within the mind. Pragma st researchers look to the “what” and “how” of research based on its intended consequences—where they want to go with it. Pragma sts agree that research always occurs in social, historical, poli cal, and other contexts. Pragma sts have believed in an external world independent of the mind as well as those lodged in the mind. They believe (Cherryholmes, 1992) that we need to stop asking ques ons about reality and the laws of nature. “They would simply like to change the subject” (Rorty, 1983, p. xiv). In prac ce, the individual using pragma sm will use mul ple methods of data collec on to best answer the research ques on, will employ mul ple sources of data collec on, will focus on the prac cal implica ons of the research, and will emphasize the importance of conduc ng research that best addresses the research problem. Not surprisingly, researchers o en link pragma sm with mixed methods research, in which the inquirers integrate both quan ta ve and qualita ve research (Creswell, 2021; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). In the discussion here of the five approaches to research, you will see this framework at work when ethnographers employ both quan ta ve (e.g., surveys) and qualita ve data collec on (LeCompte & Schensul, 1999) and when case study researchers use both quan ta ve and qualita ve data (Luck et al., 2006; Yin, 2017). Feminist Theories Feminism draws on different theore cal and pragma c orienta ons, different interna onal contexts, and different dynamic developments (Olesen, 2018). Brisolara (2014) describes most feminist theories as intending to contribute to ‘the promo on of greater equity, the

establishment of equal rights and opportuni es, and the end of oppression” (p. 4). Feminist research approaches center on women’s diverse situa ons and the ins tu ons that frame those situa ons. Feminist research embraces many of the tenets of postmodern and poststructuralist cri ques as a challenge to the injus ces of current society. In feminist research approaches, the goals are to establish collabora ve and nonexploita ve rela onships, to place the researcher within the study to avoid objec fica on, and to conduct research that is transforma ve. Research topics may include a postcolonial thought related to forms of feminism depending on the context of na onalism, globaliza on, and diverse interna onal contexts (e.g., sex workers, domes c servants); social dispari es within and across na ons; and specific issues such as sexual violence against women as instruments of war and the con nued overrepresenta on of women, women of color, and women-headed families in poverty rates. S. Harding (1990, 2012) documented the transforma on of standpoint theories and their contribu ons to understandings about specific groups of women (e.g., lesbians, women with disabili es, women with tribal affilia ons, and women of color). The theme of domina on prevails in the feminist literature as well, but the subject ma er is o en gender domina on within a patriarchal society. One of the leading scholars of this approach, Lather (1991), comments on the essen al perspec ves of this framework. Feminist researchers see gender as a basic organizing principle that shapes the condi ons of their lives. It is “a lens that brings into focus par cular ques ons” (Fox-Keller, 1985, p. 6). The ques ons feminists pose relate to the centrality of gender in the shaping of our consciousness. Olesen (2018) notes the dominant, con nuing theme in feminist research as the issue of knowledge: “Whose knowledges? Where and how obtained, by whom, from whom, and for what purposes?” (p. 152). The aim of this ideological research is to “correct both the invisibility and distor on of female experience in ways relevant to ending women’s unequal social posi on” (Lather, 1991, p. 71). Another writer, A. J. Stewart (1994), views women as having agency, the ability to make choices and resist oppression, and she suggests that researchers need to inquire into how women understand gender, acknowledging that gender is a social construct that differs for each individual. Such essen al recogni on of the heterogeneity of women around the world means that relevant dimensions of diversity can be considered (Mertens, 2014) and inclusive spaces can be created (Be cher, 2015). Discussions indicate that the approach of finding appropriate methods for feminist research has given way to the thought that any method can be made feminist (Deem, 2002; Moss, 2007). DeVault (2018) describes several emerging lines of feminist qualita ve inquiry research methods using visual (e.g., textbooks, adver sements, images) and online (e.g., blogs, social media, photo-sharing sites) techniques. In prac ce, a feminist researcher can use a variety of approaches and methods. Malecki et al. (2022) describe a feminist phenomenological approach employing an arts-based research technique called body mapping. Researchers used the life- sized outline of eight women to explore and visually represent how the experience of child abuse influenced the development of anorexia. Cri cal work con nues to address protec ng Indigenous knowledge and the intersec onality of feminist research (e.g., the intersec on of race, class, gender, sexuality, able-bodiedness, and

age; Olesen, 2018). Olesen (2018) summarizes the current state of feminist research under a number of transforma ve developments (e.g., globaliza on, transna onal feminism, and standpoint research), cri cal trends (e.g., endarkened, decolonizing research and intersec onality), con nuing issues (e.g., destabilizing insider–outsider, troubling tradi onal concepts), enduring concerns (e.g., bias, reflexivity, par cipants’ voices, ethics), influences on feminist work (e.g., the academy and publishing), and challenges of the future (e.g., the interplay of mul ple factors in women’s lives, hidden oppressions). Recent discussions about emergent prac ces integrate interna onal perspec ves (e.g., Brisolara et al., 2014; Denzin et al., 2023) and new research technologies (e.g., DeVault, 2018; Hesse-Biber, 2012). Cri cal Theory Cri cal theory perspec ves are concerned with empowering human beings to transcend the constraints placed on them by race, class, and gender (Fay, 1987). Cri cal theory provides new and valuable lenses to view our world and ourselves and gain new insights (Tyson, 2023). Researchers need to acknowledge their own power, privilege, and bias; engage in dialogues; and use theory to interpret or illuminate social ac on (Madison, 2019). Central themes that a cri cal researcher might explore include the scien fic study of social ins tu ons and their transforma ons through interpre ng the meanings of social life; the historical problems of domina on, aliena on, and social struggles; and a cri que of society and the envisioning of new possibili es (Fay, 1987; R. A. Morrow, 1994). With the aim of uncovering the cultural factors that impeded maintaining pa ents’ dignity in a hospital intensive care se ng, Bidabadi et al. (2019) used a cri cal ethnographic approach to inform a culture shi in therapeu c rela onships. In research, cri cal theory can be defined by the configura on of methodological postures it embraces. The cri cal researcher might design, for example, an ethnographic study to include changes in how people think; encourage people to interact, form networks, become ac vists, and form ac on-oriented groups; and help individuals examine the condi ons of their existence (Madison, 2019; J. Thomas, 1993). The end goal of the study might be social theorizing, which R. A. Morrow (1994) define as “the desire to comprehend and, in some cases, transform (through praxis) the underlying orders of social life—those social and systemic rela ons that cons tute society” (p. 211). The inves gator accomplishes this, for example, through an intensive case study or across a small number of historically comparable cases of specific actors (biographies), media ons, or systems and through “ethnographic accounts (interpre ve social psychology), componen al taxonomies (cogni ve anthropology), and formal models (mathema cal sociology)” (p. 212). In cri cal ac on research in teacher educa on, for example, Kincheloe (1991/2012) recommends that the “cri cal teacher” exposes the assump ons of exis ng research orienta ons; cri ques the knowledge base; and through these cri ques, reveals ideological effects on teachers, schools, and the culture’s view of educa on. An example of a study using cri cal intersec onality was a review of literature seeking to understand the secondary school experiences of trans youth with the intent to address the pa erns of educa onal disadvantage that reflect broader structures of social inequality (McBride, 2020). The design of research within a cri cal theory approach, according to sociologist Agger (1991), falls into two broad categories: methodological, in that it affects the ways in which people write

and read, and substan ve, in the theories and topics of the inves gator (e.g., theorizing about the role of the state and culture in advanced capitalism). An o en-cited classic of cri cal theory is the ethnography from Willis (1977) of the “lads” who par cipated in behavior as opposi on to authority, as informal groups “having a laff” (p. 29) as a form of resistance to their school. In a study of the manifesta ons of resistance and state regula on, R. A. Morrow (1994) highlight ways in which actors come to terms with and struggle against cultural forms that dominate them. Resistance is also the theme addressed in an ethnography of a subcultural group of youths (Haenfler, 2004). Cri cal Race Theory Cri cal race theory is a set of theories commi ed to social jus ce that rely on “intersec onality (i.e., the nexus of race, gender, class, etc.), a cri que of liberalism, the use of cri cal social science, a combina on of structural and poststructural analysis, the denial of neutrality in scholarship, and the incorpora on of storytelling, or … ‘counternarra ves,’ to speak back against dominant discourses” (Donnor & Ladson-Billings, 2018, p. 202). Others have described cri cal race theory as a “collec on of ac vists and scholars engaged in studying and transforming the rela onship among race, racism, and power” (Delgado & Stefancic, 2023, p. 2). Race and racism is deeply embedded within the framework of American society (Parker & Lynn, 2002) and has directly shaped the U.S. legal system and the ways people think about the law, racial categories, and privilege (C. Harris, 1993). Through the use of diverse research methods (e.g., observa ons of natural se ngs such as classrooms and reviews of personal and public documents), researchers seek missing voices to contribute to “dispelling no ons of color-blindness and post- racial imaginings so that we can be er understand and remedy the dispari es that are prevalent in our society” (Donnor & Ladson-Billings, 2018, p. 209). Counternarra ves are emerging as promising tool for s mula ng transforma ve ac on for educa onal equity (R. Miller et al., 2020). According to Chapman and Crawford (2023), cri cal race theory provides scholars with tools to cri que and ques on with a goal to “move marginalized peoples by challenging stock stories and stereotypes and offering new, contextualized stories and perspec ves” (p. 80), which they argue is key to achieving racial jus ce. Parker and Lynn (2002) advance three aims of cri cal race theory. The first aim presents stories about discrimina on from the perspec ve of people of color. These may be qualita ve case studies of descrip ons and interviews. These cases may then be drawn together to build cases against racially biased officials or discriminatory prac ces. Since many stories advance White privilege through “majoritarian” master narra ves, counter stories by people of color can help to sha er the complacency that may accompany such privilege and challenge the dominant discourses that serve to suppress people on the margins of society (Solorzano & Yosso, 2002). The second aim recognizes that race is a social construct, meaning that race is not a fixed term but one that is fluid and con nually shaped by poli cal pressures and informed by individual lived experiences. The third aim addresses other areas of difference, such as gender, class, and any inequi es experienced by individuals. As Parker and Lynn (2002) comment, “in the case of Black women, race does not exist outside of gender and gender does not exist outside of race” (p. 12).

In prac ce, the use of cri cal race theory methodology means that the researcher foregrounds race and racism in all aspects of the research process; challenges the tradi onal research paradigms, texts, and theories used to explain the experiences of people of color; and offers transforma ve solu ons to racial, gender, and class subordina on in our societal and ins tu onal structures. Researchers some mes use cri cal race theory in concert with other frameworks—for example, disability studies (Annamma et al., 2020; Wa s & Erevelles, 2004) or feminist theories (Chepp, 2015; Mendoza Aviña et al. 2023). Postcolonial Theories A postcolonial lens assesses how knowledge produc on and theories of the past and the present have been shaped by ideas and power rela ons of imperialism, colonialism, neocolonialism, globaliza on, and racism. We honor the diverse perspec ves and note the lack of agreement for terminology to describe Indigenous understandings as applied to theories, approaches, and paradigms. According to Chilisa and Phatshwane (2022), postcolonial theories provide a lens through which to “plan and conduct a study that is without prejudices and is respec ul of all groups of people, including the marginalized in our communi es” (p. 225). A postcolonial lens holds great poten al for diverse roles in decolonizing research prac ce by focusing on, for example, the role of literature and language in the construc on of knowledge and how we collect, analyze, and interpret data. A key characteris c of a postcolonial lens is to bring to its center the voices of those who have been muted by the dominance of Euro-Western methodologies. In prac ce, some postcolonial theory promotes the use of data collec on interac ons that invoke Indigenous worldviews; for example, by informing the type of interview ques ons and the analysis of that data, postcolonial theory can mi gate power rela onships where the researcher can become a colonizer (Chilisa & Phatshwane, 2022). In other studies, researchers intersect postcolonial theore cal frameworks with another lens. For example, Arur and DeJaeghere (2019) describe a study using postcolonial feminist perspec ves to inform their study addressing gender oppression in life skills programming. The researchers describe how over me, they “had to unlearn some of the ways of thinking that inform [their] knowledge produc on, and to consider what we did not know because of how [they] have framed the [interview] ques ons and ideas around gender rela ons, power and schooling” (p. 495). Chilisa and Phatshwane (2022) describe the call by Indigenous scholars (e.g., Grande, 2000; G. H. Smith, 2000) for the inclusion of survivance in postcolonial theory. They describe the concept of survivance as going “beyond survival, endurance, and resistance to colonial domina on, calling for the colonizers and the colonized to learn from each other” (p. 229). Chilisa and Mertens (2021) discuss nine principles for building rela onships between the researchers and the communi es and connec ng with the environment: rela onality, responsibility, reverence, reciprocity, respec ul representa on, reflexivity, responsivity, rights and regula ons, and decoloniza on. Queer Theory

According to Alexander (2018), queer theory “is a collec ve of intellectual specula ons and challenges to the social and poli cal construc ons of sexualized and gender iden ty” (p. 278). de Laure s (1991) coined the phrase “queer theory” and outlined a complete rethinking of sexuality divorced from the binaries and standards defined by heterosexual power structures. Queer theory, also referred to as LGBTQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer) theory (Mertens, 2019), is characterized by a variety of methods and strategies rela ng to individual iden ty (Plummer, 2011a; K. Watson, 2005). As a body of literature con nuing to evolve, it explores the myriad complexi es of the construct, iden ty, and how iden es reproduce and “perform” in social forums. Queer theory intends to remap the terrain of gender, iden ty, and cultural studies. Milani and Borba (2022) explain, “what characterizes queer theore cal approaches is a staunch commitment to unveiling and ac vely opposing regimes of sexual normality” (p. 195), ques oning all aspects of normality—for example, its origins, contexts, and interests—and not exclusively in the realm of sexuality and gender. Writers also use a postmodern or poststructural orienta on to cri que and deconstruct dominant theories related to iden ty (Plummer, 2011a, 2011b; Watson, 2005). Most queer theorists work to challenge and undercut iden ty as singular, fixed, or normal (Watson, 2005). Queer theorists have engaged in research and/or poli cal ac vi es and provide important insights for informing policies and prac ces. One such example described by Adams et al. (2014) generated vital health service informa on about how to appropriately engage with men who have sex with other men but who resist being labeled as gay. Plummer (2011a) provides a concise overview of the queer theory stance including a decentering of iden es; an openness, fluidity, and nonfixedness of iden es; and abandonment of deviance perspec ves. Queer theorists can seek to understand par cular popula ons such as queer people of color (Johnson & Henderson, 2005) and use methods that find expression in a rereading of cultural texts. Plummer (2011a) describes cultural texts as including a wide range of formats such as films and literature; ethnographies and case studies of sexual worlds that challenge assump ons; data sources that contain mul ple texts; documentaries; and projects that focus on individuals. Disability Theories Disability inquiry addresses the meaning of inclusion in schools and encompasses administrators, teachers, students, and parents who have children with disabili es (Mertens, 2009, 2019). Mertens (2003) recounts how disability research has moved through stages of development, from the medical model of disability (sickness and the role of the medical community in threatening it) to an environmental response to individuals with a disability. Researchers using disability theories as an interpre ve lens focus on disability as a dimension of human difference and not from a deficit perspec ve. As a human difference, the meaning of disability is derived from social construc on (Mertens, 2003). According to Shildrick (2020), cri cal disability theories intend to “unse le entrenched ways of thinking on both sides of the puta ve divide between disabled and non-disabled, and to offer an analysis of how and why certain defini ons are constructed and maintained” (p. 37). Viewing individuals with disabili es as different is reflected in the research process, such as the types of ques ons asked, the labels applied to these individuals, the benefits of data collec on

for the community, the appropriateness of communica on methods, and the report of data respec ul of power rela onships. The lead researcher for an Australian study of people with a disability described having a lived experience of disability and as working in conjunc on with industry and community service partners to provide the support needed for the involvement of par cipants with many different disabili es (Darcy et al., 2022). Mertens et al. (2011) have also linked cri cal disability theory with transforma ve frameworks because of its use as an intersec on for many sources of discrimina on. Further examples of disability theory with feminist theories, postmodern perspec ves, queer theory, and cri cal race theory provide important areas for future development (Shildrick, 2020). Also, see Kroll et al. (2007) as a resource for guiding research informed by disability theories. THE PRACTICE OF USING INTERPRETIVE FRAMEWORKS IN QUALITATIVE RESEARCH The prac ce of using interpre ve frameworks in a qualita ve study varies, and it depends on the framework being used and the par cular researcher’s approach. Each of the descrip ons of the interpre ve frameworks highlighted unique researcher influences, goals, and prac ces. Qualita ve researchers have found it helpful to dis nguish among the interpre ve frameworks. See an overall summary in Table 2.2. Once researchers can dis nguish among the interpre ve frameworks, then it is easier to see how they are applied in prac ce. At the most fundamental level, there are differences and commonali es based on the goals of the research. Seeking an understanding of the world is different from genera ng solu ons to real-world problems. Poten al similari es among the goals should also be noted. Feminist theories, cri cal theory and cri cal race theory, queer theories, and disability theories share a general intent for researchers to call for ac on and document struggles. Some common elements for prac cing interpre ve frameworks are as follows: Researchers focus on understanding specific issues or topics. The problems and the research ques ons explored aim to allow the researcher to understand specific issues or topics—the condi ons that serve to disadvantage and exclude individuals or cultures, such as hierarchy, hegemony, racism, sexism, unequal power rela ons, iden ty, or inequi es in our society. Research procedures are sensi ve to par cipants and context. The procedures of research, such as data collec on, data analysis, represen ng the material to audiences, and standards of evalua on and ethics, emphasize an interpre ve stance. During data collec on, the researcher does not further marginalize the par cipants but respects the par cipants and the sites for research. Further, researchers provide reciprocity by giving back to those who par cipate in research, and they focus on the mul ple individual stories and those who tell the stories. Researchers are also sensi ve to power imbalances during all facets of the research process. They respect individual differences and avoid tradi onal aggrega on of categories such as gender. Researchers are respec ul co-constructors of knowledge. Ethical prac ces of the researchers recognize the importance of the subjec vity of their own lens, acknowledge the powerful posi on they have in the research, and admit that the par cipants or the co-constructors of the account between the researchers and the par cipants are the true owners of the informa on collected.

Research is reported in diverse formats and calls for societal change. The research may be presented in tradi onal ways, such as journal ar cles, or in experimental approaches, such as theater or poetry. Using an interpre ve lens may also lead to the call for ac on and transforma on—the aims of social jus ce—in which the qualita ve project ends with dis nct steps of reform and an incitement to ac on. Try This Now 2.2 Exploring Your Use of Interpre ve Frameworks in Qualita ve Research The use of theory can vary greatly in qualita ve research and be influenced by the goals a researcher is trying to accomplish. What might influence the ways you use interpre ve frameworks in qualita ve research? Table 2.2 Comparing Major Interpre ve Frameworks

LINKING PHILOSOPHY AND INTERPRETIVE FRAMEWORKS IN QUALITATIVE RESEARCH Although the philosophical assump ons are not always stated, the interpre ve frameworks do convey different philosophical assump ons, and qualita ve researchers need to be aware of this connec on. A though ul chapter by Lincoln and colleagues (2018) makes this connec on explicit. We have taken their overview of this connec on and adapted it to fit the interpre ve communi es discussed in this chapter. As shown in Table 2.3, the philosophical assump ons of ontology, epistemology, axiology, and methodology take different forms given the interpre ve framework used by the inquirer. Table 2.3 Interpre ve Frameworks and Associated Philosophical Beliefs

The use of informa on from Table 2.3 in a qualita ve study would be to discuss the interpre ve framework used in a project by weaving together the framework, discussing its central tenets, and iden fying how it informs the problem to a study, the research ques ons, the data collec on and analysis, and the interpreta on. A sec on of this discussion would also men on the philosophical assump ons (ontology, epistemology, axiology, methodology) associated with the interpre ve framework. Thus, there would be two ways to discuss the interpre ve framework: its nature and use in the study, and its philosophical assump ons. As we proceed to examine the five qualita ve approaches in this book, recognize that each one might use any of the interpre ve frameworks. For example, if a grounded theory study were presented as a scien fic paper using a postposi vist interpre ve framework, the study would place major emphasis on objec vity, result in a theore cal model, report researcher’s bias, and provide a systema c rendering of data analysis. On the other hand, if the intent of the qualita ve narra ve study was to examine a marginalized group of learners with disabili es with the aim of documen ng their struggles for iden ty about prostheses that they wear, the researcher might use a disability interpreta ve framework. This framework would highlight

utmost respect for their views and values and end the study with a call for a more inclusive society. We could see using any of the interpre ve frameworks with any of the five approaches advanced in this book. CHAPTER CHECK-IN

1. Can you see the differences among the associated philosophical beliefs among interpre ve frameworks (postposi vism, social construc vism, transforma ve frameworks, postmodern perspec ves, pragma sm, feminist theories, cri cal theory, cri cal race theory, postcolonial theory, queer theory, and disability theories)?

Read qualita ve journal ar cles that adopt different interpre ve lenses (see Table 2.2 for examples) and iden fy how ar cles differ in their interpre ve frameworks.

2. Can you iden fy unique elements within specific interpre ve frameworks? Read one of the example qualita ve journal ar cles listed in Table 2.2 and iden fy unique elements for the specific interpre ve framework.

3. Can you discern the differences among interpre ve frameworks when used in combina ons?

Examine qualita ve journal ar cles that adopt a combina on of different interpre ve lenses, such as Chepp (2015) from feminist and cri cal race theory frameworks and Wa s and Erevelles (2004) from disabili es and cri cal race theory frameworks. Iden fy examples of influence from each interpre ve framework using Tables 2.2 and 2.3 in this chapter as a guide. Chepp, V. (2015). Black feminist theory and the poli cs of irreverence: The case of women’s rap. Feminist Theory, 16(2), 207–226. h ps://doi.org/10.1177/1464700115585705 Wa s, I. E., & Erevelles, N. (2004). These deadly mes: Reconceptualizing school violence by using cri cal race theory and disability studies. American Journal of Educa onal Research, 41, 271–299. h ps://doi.org/10.3102/00028312041002271 SUMMARY This chapter began with an overview of the research process so that philosophical assump ons and interpre ve frameworks could be seen as posi oned at the beginning of the process and informing the procedures that follow, including the selec on and use of one of the five approaches in this book. Then the philosophical assump ons of ontology, epistemology, axiology, and methodology were discussed, as were the key ques ons being asked for each assump on, its major characteris cs, and the implica on for the prac ce of wri ng a qualita ve study. Furthermore, the popular interpre ve frameworks (paradigm perspec ves and theore cal orienta ons) used in qualita ve research were advanced. How these interpre ve frameworks are used in a qualita ve study was suggested. Finally, a link was made between the philosophical assump ons and the interpre ve frameworks, and a discussion followed about how to connect the two in a qualita ve project.