D3- Five Approaches Summary

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

4 FIVE QUALITATIVE APPROACHES TO INQUIRY

We want to present a couple of scenarios to illustrate differences across the five qualita ve research approaches. In the first, the qualita ve researcher does not iden fy any specific approach to qualita ve research they are using. Perhaps the methods discussion is short and simply limited to the collec on of face-to-face interviews. The findings of the study are presented as a thema c workup of major categories of informa on collected during the interviews. Contrast this with a second scenario. The researcher adopts a specific approach to qualita ve research, such as a narra ve research approach. Now the methods sec on is detailed describing the meaning of such an approach, why it was used, and how it informed the procedures of the study. The findings in this study convey the specific story of an individual, and it is told chronologically, highligh ng some of the tensions in the story. Details about the specific organiza on in which the individual’s story takes place provide important contextual informa on. Which approach would you find to be the most scholarly? The most invi ng? The most sophis cated? We think that you would opt for the second approach. We need to iden fy our approach to qualita ve inquiry in order to present it as a sophis cated study; to offer it as a specific type so that reviewers can properly assess it; and, for the beginning researcher, who can profit from having wri ng structures to follow, to offer ways of organizing ideas that can be grounded in the scholarly literature of qualita ve research. Of course, this beginning researcher could choose several qualita ve approaches, such as narra ve research and phenomenological research, but we would leave this more advanced

methodological approach to more experienced researchers. We o en say that the beginning researcher needs to first understand one approach thoroughly and then venture out to try another approach before combining different ways of conduc ng qualita ve research. This chapter will help you begin the mastery of one of the qualita ve approaches to inquiry as well as to dis nguish among the five approaches: narra ve research, phenomenological research, grounded theory research, ethnographic research, and case study research. We take each approach, one by one, and provide a defini on, discuss its origin, iden fy the key defining features of it, explore the various types of ways to use it, and describe the procedures involved in conduc ng a study within the approach. Then we consider dilemmas that you will likely encounter as you proceed and outline the emerging direc ons associated with the approach. We conclude the chapter with a comparison of the five approaches across founda onal considera ons, data procedures, and research repor ng. DECIDING AMONG THE FIVE APPROACHES In this book, we use the term research approach to iden fy types of qualita ve research. In earlier edi ons of our book, we referred to these types as tradi ons, recognizing their origin as types o en found in discipline fields. Other qualita ve sources may refer to them as inquiry approaches (Denzin & Lincoln, 2018b; Levi et al., 2018). Regardless of the appropriate term, in this book we consider different styles of conduc ng qualita ve research. A er the need for iden fying an approach is established, the next pressing concern is deciding which among the five approaches is best suited to addressing your research focus. A research focus represents a more general area of study interest, such as a study objec ve or goal, and is dis nguishable from a more specific research problem. A research problem refers to the issue or concern that leads to a need to conduct the study. We will build upon these concepts in Chapter 5, where we examine how to introduce the research problem and create suitable research ques ons to guide each of the five approaches. The research ques on also makes clear the unit of analysis for the study. The unit of analysis refers to the main subject or en ty that the researcher intends to comment on, for example, an individual, a group of individuals, or individual experiences. Gaining founda onal knowledge about each of the five approaches is recommended, and the sec ons about each of the approaches can be read in any order. You may also read the chapters in the order that best fits your qualita ve research learning needs. Figure 4.1 guides researchers in assessing the fit of the five qualita ve research approaches when considering their research focus or overall intent, research par cipants, and desired research outcome for each. The research intent indicates what the inquirer intends to accomplish with the research. The par cipants indicate the typical individuals or groups from which data will be collected to address the intent. The outcomes indicate what the researcher hopes to end up with at the conclusion of a study. On all three dimensions of Figure 4.1, we see differences among the five approaches. Some mes the procedures of the five are similar; however, we see the outcomes of the five approaches to be quite different. As you begin to

decide on which approach best fits your problem, consider what outcome will result if you follow one approach or another.

NARRATIVE RESEARCH Defini on of Narra ve Research Narra ve research is a qualita ve research approach for exploring the life of one or more individuals. Narra ve research has many forms, uses a variety of analy c prac ces, and is

rooted in different social and humani es disciplines (Daiute & Ligh oot, 2004). “Narra ve” might be the phenomenon being studied, such as a narra ve of illness, or it might be the method used in a study, such as the procedures of analyzing stories told (Chase, 2005; Clandinin & Connelly, 2000; Pinnegar & Daynes, 2007). As a method, it begins with the experiences as expressed in lived and told stories of individuals. Clandinin (2023) makes the case for the need for a ending to the context in which the narra ve is embedded, advising, “the focus of narra ve inquiry is not only valorizing individuals’ experience but is also an explora on of the social, cultural, familial, linguis c, and ins tu onal narra ves within which individuals’ experiences were, and are, cons tuted, shaped, expressed and enacted” (p. 7). Writers have provided ways for analyzing and understanding the stories lived and told. Czarniawska (2004) defines narra ve research as a specific type of qualita ve design in which “narra ve is understood as a spoken or wri en text giving an account of an event/ac on or series of events/ac ons, chronologically connected” (p. 17). The procedures for implemen ng this research consist of focusing on studying one or more individuals, gathering data through the collec on of their stories, repor ng individual experiences, and chronologically ordering the meaning of those experiences (or using key life events). Origins of Narra ve Research Narra ve inquiry offers a means of opening many “possibili es to think about a complex and interconnected world” (Caine et al., 2022, p. 3) and is dis nc ve with its own defini ons and a well-established view as both a methodology and phenomenon (Clandinin, 2007, 2023). Narra ve research originated from literature, history, anthropology, sociology, sociolinguis cs, and educa on, yet different fields of study have adopted their own approaches (Chase, 2005; Kim, 2015). We find a postmodern, organiza onal orienta on in Czarniawska (2004); a human developmental perspec ve in Daiute and Ligh oot (2004); a psychological approach in Lieblich et al. (1998); sociological approaches in Cortazzi (1993) and Riessman (1993, 2008); and quan ta ve (e.g., sta s cal stories in event history modeling) and qualita ve approaches in Ellio (2005). Caine et al. (2022) point to the ontological and epistemological philosophical underpinnings of narra ve inquiry in the pragma c philosophy of the educa onal philosopher, John Dewey (1938). Interdisciplinary efforts at narra ve research have also been encouraged by The Narra ve Study of Lives annual series that began in 1993 (see, e.g., Josselson & Lieblich, 1993), the Handbook of Narra ve Inquiry (Clandinin, 2007), and the journal Narra ve Inquiry. Chase (2018) cites the publica on of many books and ar cles and the establishment of academic and professional centers around the world as evidence that narra ve inquiry is “s ll flourishing” (p. 546). In the discussion of narra ve research, we rely on an accessible book called Engaging in Narra ve Inquiry (Clandinin, 2023) that walks the reader through the jus fica ons and prac cali es of engaging in narra ve research. We also bring into the sec ons that follow the data collec on procedures and varied analy c strategies of Riessman (2008), two seminal works we o en cite (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000; Czarniawska, 2004), and two texts we recommend to narra ve researchers (Daiute, 2014; Kim, 2015). Defining Features of Narra ve Studies Reading through a number of narra ve ar cles published in journals and reviewing major books on narra ve inquiry, a specific set of features emerged that define its boundaries. Not all

narra ve projects contain these elements, but many do, and the list is not exhaus ve of possibili es. In Figure 4.2, we list the following common defining features of narra ve studies:

Narra ve researchers enable collabora ve storytelling about the lived experiences of individuals. These stories may emerge from a story told to the researcher, a story that is co-constructed between the researcher and the par cipant, and a story intended as a performance to convey some message or point (Riessman, 2008). Thus, a collabora ve feature is typical in narra ve research as the story emerges through the interac on or dialogue of the researcher and the par cipant(s) (Kim, 2015). Narra ve stories tell of individual experiences, and they may shed light on the iden es of individuals and how they see themselves. The stories of individual experiences can vary greatly in their focus. Social media represents a massive contemporary epic narra ve created by individuals with an eye to represen ng their lives using words and images to a vast network of actual and imagined audiences (Daiute, 2014). Narra ve stories occur and are described within specific places or situa ons. Temporality becomes important for the researcher’s telling of the story within a place. Such contextual details may include descrip ons of the physical, emo onal, and social situa ons (Clandinin, 2023). Narra ve stories are gathered through many different forms of data including conversa ons, observa ons, and ar facts. The methods used can vary but common forms of data include interviews and observa ons as primary forms of data collec on along with documents, pictures, and other sources of qualita ve data and ar facts. Narra ve stories are analyzed using varied strategies. An analysis can be made about what was said (thema cally), the nature of the telling of the story (structural), who the story is directed toward (dialogic/performance), or using visual analysis of images or interpre ng images alongside words (Riessman, 2008). Other op ons for analysis involve foci on values, plot, significance, or character mapping and me (Daiute, 2014). Narra ve stories heard by researchers and co-created with par cipants are o en shaped into a chronology. Stories may be conveyed chronologically although they may not be told that way by the par cipant(s). There is a temporal change that is conveyed when individuals talk about their experiences and their lives. They may talk about their past, their present, or their future (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000). Other op ons for telling stories involve using life course stages or key life events. Narra ve stories o en contain turning points as organizing structures. In addi on to turning points (Denzin, 1989), researchers also highlight specific tensions or transi ons or interrup ons in the telling of stories. Such incidents can help organize the recoun ng of the story, including the lead-up and consequences. Daiute (2014) iden fies four types of pa erns (across narra ves of one individual or two or more) for meaning-making related to similari es, differences, change, or coherence.

Figure 4.2 Defining Features of Narra ve Studies Types of and Varia ons Within Narra ve Research The many forms of narra ve inquiry result from various influences including (but not limited to) the narra ve studied (e.g., that of a life history, life story, biography, autobiography, or autoethnography), the lived experience explored (e.g., that of a single individual or mul ple individuals as members of a group such as a community, organiza on, or ins tu on), the interpre ve theories or frameworks guiding the study (e.g., feminist, cri cal, or cri cal race theory among many others; see also Chapter 2), the strategies for data collec ng, analyzing, interpre ng, and restorying). This is not meant to be an exhaus ve list but rather to provide a glimpse of the infinite possibili es narra ve studies afford researchers interested in exploring the life of an individual or individuals. We note the promising use of narra ve inquiry to bring to light the lived experiences of people who have experienced injus ces, oppression, and structural racism to enact important social change in our communi es and ins tu ons. We recognize as have others (e.g., Chase, 2018; Kim, 2015) that although this interest is not new for narra ve inquiry, further examples can be inspiring.

We differen ate narra ve studies along two main influences. The first line considers the data analysis strategy used by the narra ve researcher, whereas the second considers the types of narra ves studied. We see the choice between the two types of approaches influenced by (among other factors) the posi onality and disciplinary background of the researcher (see also Chapter 2), the nature of the life experiences explored, the story-genera ng process, and the audience for the narra ve. For example, if the experiences span much of a life, then it might make sense for the researcher to consider guiding the collec on as part of a life history, whereas the same story could also be analyzed using a thema c approach. The best guidance is finding a fit for the par cular story func on. Riessman (2008) outlines the variety of func ons a narra ve can serve from telling stories for individual and/or group iden ty forma on to claiming a point aimed at mobilizing marginalized groups and ini a ng poli cal ac on. With a focus on the data analysis strategy, Polkinghorne (1995) discusses narra ve in which the researcher extracts themes that hold across stories or taxonomies of types of stories, and a more storytelling mode in which the narra ve researcher shapes the stories based on a plotline, or a literary approach to analysis. Polkinghorne (1995) goes on to emphasize the second form in his wri ngs. Chase (2005) suggests analy c strategies based on parsing constraints on narra ves—narra ves that are composed interac vely between researchers and par cipants and the interpreta ons developed by various narrators. Combining both of these approaches, we see an insigh ul analysis of strategies for analyzing narra ves in Riessman (2008). She conveys three types of approaches used to analyze narra ve stories: a thema c analysis in which the researcher iden fies the themes “told” by a par cipant; a structural analysis in which the meaning shi s to the “telling” and the story can be cast during a conversa on in comic terms, tragedy, sa re, romance, or other forms; and a dialogic or performance analysis in which the focus turns to how the story is produced (i.e., interac vely between the researcher and the par cipant) and performed (i.e., meant to convey some message or point). Chase (2018) acknowledges both the difficul es narra ve researchers face in analysis and that narra ve researchers o en apply analy c strategies common to other qualita ve approaches. Narra ve researchers can select from various types of narra ves for guiding the collec on of stories including biographical, autobiographical, and art-based narra ve inquiry. A biographical study is a form of narra ve study in which the researcher writes and records the experiences of another person’s life. Common approaches involve the use of a life history and an oral history. A life history portrays an individual’s en re life, while a personal experience story is a narra ve study of an individual’s personal experience found in single or mul ple episodes, private situa ons, or communal folklore (Denzin, 1989). An oral history consists of gathering personal reflec ons of events and their causes and effects from one individual or several individuals (Plummer, 1983). An autobiographical study is a form of narra ve study in which the researcher takes themselves as the subject of study and uses “the story of the researcher’s self” (Kim, 2015, p. 121). A common approach, an autoethnography, is wri en and recorded by the individuals who are the subject of the study (Ellis, 2004; Muncey, 2010). Muncey (2010) defines autoethnography as the idea of mul ple layers of consciousness, the vulnerable self, the coherent self, cri quing the self in social contexts, the subversion of dominant discourses, and the evoca ve poten al. An autoethnography contains the personal story of the author as well

as the larger cultural meaning for the individual’s story. Arts-based study is a form of narra ve inquiry in which crea ve literary forms of wri ng (e.g., poetry, nonfic on) and use of visuals (e.g., photos, photovoice, digital storytelling) is part of the research product or performance (Kim, 2015). Digital storytelling refers to a short (e.g., 3-to-5-minute) visual narra ve integra ng any number of images of photos, artwork, and video with audio recordings of voice and music (Willox et al., 2012). Explore the varia ons in narra ve research in Example 4.1. Procedures for Conduc ng Narra ve Research Using the approach taken by Clandinin and Connelly (2000) as a general procedural guide, the methods of conduc ng a narra ve study do not follow a lockstep approach but instead represent an informal collec on of topics. Clandinin (2023) recently reiterated her stance by saying, I highlight narra ve inquiry as a fluid inquiry, not a set of procedures or linear steps to be followed but a rela onal inquiry methodology that is open to where stories of par cipants’ experience take each researcher. (p. 19) In Figure 4.3, we represent seven procedural topics diagramed as steps building on each other, but recognizing that in any given research project, the order may be altered to fit a par cular study. Determine if a narra ve approach is the best fit to study the research problem. Narra ve research is best for capturing the detailed stories or life experiences of a single individual or the lives of a small number of individuals. The individuals studied may represent a variety of lives, such as a person of dis nc on (recognized or not), one who struggles, another with a life cut short, or yet another having an ordinary life. Of importance is that your narra ve research seeks to explore how individuals make meaning of their life experiences. Select one or more individuals and gather their stories through mul ple types of informa on. Researchers may interview or observe individuals and record field notes. Research par cipants may record their stories in a journal or diary. Researchers may also collect le ers sent by the individuals; assemble stories about the individuals from family members; gather documents such as memos or official correspondence about the individuals; or obtain photographs, memory boxes (collec on of items that trigger memories), and other personal, family, or social ar facts. Consider how the data collec on and recording can take different forms and embed a collabora ve approach. Riessman (2008) illustrates different ways that researchers can transcribe interviews to develop different types of stories. The transcrip on can highlight the researcher as a listener or a ques oner, emphasize the interac on between the researcher and the par cipant, convey a conversa on that moves through me, or include shi ing meanings that may emerge through translated material. Embed informa on about the context of the stories into data collec on, analysis, and wri ng. Narra ve researchers situate individual stories within par cipants’ personal experiences (their

jobs, their homes), their culture (racial or ethnic), and their historical contexts ( me and place). Being context-sensi ve is considered essen al to narra ve inquiry (Czarniawska, 2004). Analyze the par cipants’ stories using the process of restorying. The researcher may take an ac ve role and “restory” the stories into a framework that makes sense. This framework may consist of gathering stories, analyzing them for key elements of the story (e.g., me, place, plot, and scene), and then rewri ng the stories to place them within a chronological sequence (Ollerenshaw & Creswell, 2002). Cortazzi (1993) suggests that the chronology of narra ve research, with an emphasis on sequence, sets narra ve apart from other genres of research. One aspect of the chronology is that the stories have a beginning, a middle, and an end. Similar to basic elements found in good novels, these aspects involve a predicament, conflict, or struggle; a protagonist, or main character; and a sequence with implied causality (i.e., a plot) during which the predicament is resolved in some fashion (Carter, 1993). Further, the story might include other elements typically found in novels, such as me, place, and scene (Connelly & Clandinin, 1990). The plot, or story line, may also include Clandinin and Connelly’s (2000) three-dimensional narra ve inquiry space: the personal and social (the interac on); the past, present, and future (con nuity); and the place (situa on). This story line may include informa on about the se ng or context of the par cipants’ experiences. Beyond the chronology, researchers might detail themes that arise from the story to provide a more detailed discussion of the meaning of the story (Huber & Whelan, 1999). Thus, the qualita ve data analysis may be a descrip on of both the story and themes that emerge from it. A postmodern narra ve writer, such as Czarniawska (2004), adds another element to the analysis: a deconstruc on of the stories, an unmaking of them by such analy c strategies as exposing dichotomies, examining silences, and a ending to disrup ons and contradic ons. Finally, the analysis process consists of the researcher looking for themes or categories; the researcher using a microlinguis c approach and probing for the meaning of words, phrases, and larger units of discourse, such as is o en done in conversa onal analysis (see Gee, 1991); or the researcher examining the stories for how they are produced interac vely between the researcher and the par cipant (or community) or performed by the par cipant to convey a specific agenda or message (Riessman, 2008). Embed a collabora ve approach throughout the telling and restorying processes. Clandinin and Connelly (2000) describe ac ve involvement of par cipants as central to their work; that is, “narra ve inquiry is a way of understanding experience; it is collabora on between researcher and par cipants, over me, in a place or series of places, and in social interac ons with milieus” (p. 17). As researchers hear stories, they nego ate rela onships, smooth transi ons, and provide ways to be useful to the par cipants. In narra ve research, a key theme has been the turn toward the rela onship between the researcher and the researched in which both par es will learn and change in the encounter (Pinnegar & Daynes, 2007). In this process, the par es nego ate the meaning of the stories, adding a valida on check to the analysis (Creswell & Miller, 2000). Within the story may be epiphanies, turning points, or disrup ons in which the story line changes direc on drama cally. Also within the par cipant’s story may also be an interwoven story of the researcher gaining insight into their own life (see Huber & Whelan, 1999). In the end, the narra ve study tells the story of individuals unfolding in a chronology of their experiences, set within their personal, social, and historical context, and including the

important themes in those lived experiences. Clandinin and Connelly (2000) say that “narra ve inquiry is stories lived and told” (p. 20). Present the narra ve in wri en form by adap ng the general narra ve wri ng structures as appropriate. The general wri ng structures for narra ve inquiry are as follows: an introduc on to familiarize the reader with the par cipant(s) and the intended purpose for the story; research procedures to provide a ra onale for use of a narra ve and details about data collec on and analysis; telling of the story to theorize about par cipant lives, with narra ve segments; and pa erns of meaning ar culated around events, processes, epiphanies, or themes; and a final interpreta on of the meaning of the story. A ending to all the different aspects of a life experience can be difficult to synthesize into a final report.

Figure 4.3 Procedures for Conduc ng Narra ve Research Challenges and Opportuni es in Narra ve Research Given these procedures and the characteris cs of narra ve research, narra ve research is a challenging approach to use. Here, we focus on three key challenges narra ve researchers can expect to encounter and prac cal ways to prepare. We conclude our discussion of narra ve research with a look forward to two opportuni es gaining prominence.

The collec on of extensive informa on about the par cipant(s) and their lived experiences needs to occur in ways that protect the well-being of everyone involved. It takes effort on the part of the researcher to recognize the poten al influence their posi oning (e.g., their personal history and background; see also Chapters 1 and 2) brings to the narra ve inquiry. It also takes a keen eye for the researcher to iden fy source material that gathers the par cular stories and captures the individual’s experiences. As Edel (1984) comments, it is important to uncover the “figure under the carpet” that explains the mul layered context of a life. We find engaging in reflec ve prac ce helpful to uncover our assump ons and minimize bias as narra ve inquirers. The collabora on of the researcher with the par cipant(s) is key to genera ng an understanding of the mul faceted contexts of the lived experience and shaping how they “restory” the account. Reflec ng the embedded nature of narra ve stories within the larger social, cultural, familial, linguis c, and ins tu onal dimensions allows a more complex understanding to be a ended to (Clandinin, 2023), yet is difficult to realize. It is not uncommon for researchers to find the process of finalizing reports challenging, “because it is at this point that we make our texts visible to public audiences, unknown audiences who may be far removed from the lived and told experiences of par cipants” (Clandinin, 2023, p. 31). We point to usefulness of the templates found in Chapter 7 of Daiute (2014) for organizing our findings as we engaged in wri ng. The ethical issue of power rela ons is of principal concern in narra ve inquiry (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000). Mul ple ethical issues can arise in the collec ng, analyzing, and telling of individual stories and building awareness of this responsibility is crucial (Czarniawska, 2004). We suggest narra ve researchers are well served by considering the following ques ons raised by Pinnegar and Daynes (2007): Who owns the story? Who can tell it? Who can change it? Whose version is convincing? What happens when narra ves compete? As a community, what do stories do among us? We also suggest reviewing the discussions about research ethics in Chapter 3 and consider any unique implica ons for narra ve research. We are encouraged by the ways narra ve studies are being used to advance social jus ce around the world. Tes monios have become powerful ways of promo ng social jus ce across a variety of research se ngs, such as repor ng women’s voices being silenced during South Africa’s Truth and Reconcilia on Commission hearings (Gready, 2013) or the distrust of forced migrants in purportedly protec ve spaces for refugees in the United States, Germany, and Hong Kong (Wi eborn, 2012). Oral histories may be told to disrupt the dominant discourse around teenage pregnancy (Muncey, 2010) or to highlight the isola on and limited access to maternal care in a rural community (Orkin & Newberry, 2014). We an cipate further use of arts-based narra ve inquiry for a aining more complex understandings. There are several ways that visuals, ar facts, and videos are being integrated and many more to be imagined—key among them are telling the story with arts-based methods, telling the story about the arts-based methods, and using arts-based methods to inform the storytelling (whether the art is found or made within the process). In addi on,

further bridges will need to be considered with both established and innova ve methodologies; for example, the use of photovoice within narra ve inquiry in research involving sensi ve topics such as gender-based research with South African schoolgirls (see Simmonds et al., 2015) and the use of printmaking with narra ve inquiry in research involving vulnerable popula ons, such as with trans young adults and refugee families from Syria with preschool children (see Lavoie & Caine, 2022).

PHENOMENOLOGICAL RESEARCH Defini on of Phenomenological Research Whereas a narra ve study reports the stories of experiences of a single individual or several individuals, a phenomenological study describes the common meaning for several individuals of

their lived experiences of a concept or a phenomenon. Phenomenologists focus on describing what all par cipants have in common as they experience a phenomenon (e.g., grief is universally experienced). The basic purpose of phenomenology is to reduce individual experiences with a phenomenon to a descrip on of the universal essence (a “grasp of the very nature of the thing”; van Manen, 1990, p. 177). To this end, qualita ve researchers iden fy a phenomenon, an “object” of human experience (van Manen, 1990, p. 163). Recently, van Manen (2014) describes phenomenological research as beginning “with wonder at what gives itself and how something gives itself. It can only be pursued while surrounding to a state of wonder” (p. 27). Beck (2020) describes the aim of phenomenology as “gaining a deeper understanding of the meaning of experiences in everyday life” (p. 1). This human experience may be a phenomenon such as insomnia, being le out, anger, grief, or undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery (Moustakas, 1994). The inquirer then collects data from persons who have experienced the phenomenon and develops a composite descrip on of the essence of the experience for all of the individuals. This descrip on consists of “what” they experienced and “how” they experienced it (Moustakas, 1994). Origins of Phenomenological Research Phenomenology has a strong philosophical component to it. It draws heavily on the wri ngs of the German mathema cian Edmund Husserl (1859–1938; 1970) and those who expanded on his views, such as Heidegger, Sartre, and Merleau-Ponty (Spiegelberg, 1982). Phenomenology is popular in the social and health sciences, especially in sociology (Borga a & Borga a, 1992; Swingewood, 1991), psychology (Giorgi, 1985, 2009; Polkinghorne, 1989; Wertz, 2005), nursing and the health sciences (Nieswiadomy, 1993; Oiler, 1986), and educa on (Tesch, 1988; van Manen, 1990, 2014). Husserl’s ideas are abstract, and Merleau-Ponty (1962) raised this ques on: “What is phenomenology?” In fact, Husserl was known to call any project currently under way “phenomenology” (Natanson, 1973). It was van Manen (2014, 2023) who adopted the phrase phenomenology of prac ce to describe the meaning-giving methods of phenomenology based on the primary literature of these scholars. Writers following in the footsteps of Husserl also seem to point to different philosophical arguments for the use of phenomenology today (contrast, e.g., the philosophical basis stated in Moustakas, 1994; in Stewart and Mickunas, 1990; and in van Manen, 1990). Looking across all of these perspec ves, however, we see that the philosophical assump ons rest on some common grounds: the study of the lived experiences of persons, the view that these experiences are conscious ones (van Manen, 2023), and the development of descrip ons of the essences of these experiences, not explana ons or analyses (Moustakas, 1994). At a broader level, Stewart and Mickunas (1990) emphasize four philosophical perspec ves in phenomenology:

A return to the tradi onal tasks of philosophy. By the end of the 19th century, philosophy had become limited to exploring a world by empirical means, which was called scien sm. The return to the tradi onal tasks of philosophy that existed before philosophy became enamored with empirical science is a return to the Greek concep on of philosophy as a search for wisdom.

A philosophy without presupposi ons. Phenomenology’s approach is to suspend all judgments about what is real—the “natural a tude”—un l they are founded on a more certain basis. The inten onality of consciousness. This idea is that consciousness is always directed toward an object. The reality of an object, then, is inextricably related to one’s consciousness of it. Thus, reality, according to Husserl involves the dual Cartesian nature of both subjects and objects as they appear in consciousness. The refusal of the subject–object dichotomy. This theme flows naturally from the inten onality of consciousness. The reality of an object is only perceived within the meaning of the experience of an individual.

An individual wri ng a phenomenology should include some discussion about the philosophical presupposi ons of phenomenology along with the methods in this form of inquiry. Moustakas (1994) devotes over 100 pages to the philosophical assump ons before he turns to the methods. We rely on two books for our primary informa on about phenomenology: van Manen (2023), based on a human science orienta on, and Moustakas (1994), taken from a psychological perspec ve. We also return to the substan al work of van Manen (1990) in our descrip ons of methods and tradi ons within phenomenology and we recommend Beck’s work for phenomenological researchers (Beck, 2020). Defining Features of Phenomenology There are several features that are typically included in all phenomenological studies. In Figure 4.4, we list the following common defining features of a phenomenology:

An emphasis on a phenomenon to be explored. The phenomenon is phrased in terms of a single concept or idea, such as the educa onal idea of “professional growth,” the psychological concept of “grief,” or the health idea of a “caring rela onship.” The explora on of the phenomenon with a group of individuals who have all experienced the phenomenon. Thus, the researcher iden fies a heterogeneous group with a shared experience that may vary in size from 3 to 4 individuals to 10 to 15. A philosophical discussion about the basic ideas involved in conduc ng a phenomenology. This turns on the lived experiences of individuals and how they have both subjec ve experiences of the phenomenon and objec ve experiences of something in common with other people. Thus, there is a rejec on of the subjec ve– objec ve perspec ve, and for these reasons, phenomenology lies somewhere on a con nuum between qualita ve and quan ta ve research. In some forms of phenomenology, the researcher brackets themselves out of the study by discussing personal experiences with the phenomenon. This does not take the researcher completely out of the study, but it does serve to iden fy personal experiences with the phenomenon and to partly set them aside so that the researcher can focus on the experiences of the par cipants in the study. This strategy is an ideal, but readers learn about the researcher’s experiences and can judge for themselves whether the researcher focused solely on the par cipants’ experiences in the

descrip on without bringing themselves into the picture. Giorgi (2009) sees this bracke ng as a ma er not of forge ng what has been experienced, but of not le ng past knowledge be engaged while determining experiences. He then cites other aspects of life where this same demand holds. For example, a juror in a criminal trial may hear a judge say that a piece of evidence is not admissible, or a scien fic researcher may hope that a pet hypothesis will be supported but then note that the results do not support it. Van Manen (2014, 2023) describes the processes of bracke ng and reduc on as phenomenological reflec on. Data collec on typically involves interviewing individuals who have experienced the phenomenon. This is not a universal trait, however, as some phenomenological studies involve varied sources of data, such as poems, observa ons, and documents. A systema c data analysis that moves from narrow units of analysis, to broader units, and a final descrip ve “essence” of the phenomenon. Data analysis follows systema c procedures that move from the narrow units of analysis (e.g., significant statements), to broader units (e.g., meaning units), and on to detailed descrip ons of the essence of the experience. A descrip ve ending for phenomenology of the essence of par cipants’ experience with the lived phenomenon. In this ending passage, the phenomenological researcher discusses the essence of the experience for individuals incorpora ng “what” they have experienced and “how” they have experienced it (Moustakas, 1994). The “essence” is the culmina ng aspect of a phenomenological study.

Figure 4.4 Defining Features of a Phenomenology Types of and Varia ons Within Phenomenology Two approaches to phenomenology are highlighted in this discussion. The first, hermeneu cal phenomenology (van Manen, 1990, 2023), is also known as interpre ve phenomenology (Beck, 2020; Suddick et al., 2020). Hermeneu cs involves the theory and prac ce of interpreta on, which in turn is essen al to understanding. In hermeneu c phenomenology, it is said that “understanding is achieved through co-construc ng the data with the research par cipants as understanding is achieved through a con nual movement between the parts and the whole of the text of the par cipants’ descrip ons” (Beck, 2020, p. 1). The second approach, transcendental phenomenology (Moustakas, 1994), is also known as descrip ve, empirical, or psychological phenomenology. Transcendental phenomenology focuses less on the interpreta ons of the researcher and more on a descrip on of the experiences of par cipants. Explore the types of phenomenology in Example 4.2. Note that researchers do not clearly iden fy the type of phenomenology they are using.

As an educator, van Manen (1990) has wri en an instruc ve book on hermeneu cal phenomenology in which he describes research as oriented toward lived experience (phenomenology) and interpre ng the “texts” of life (hermeneu cs; p. 4). Although van Manen does not approach phenomenology with a set of rules or methods, he discusses it as a dynamic interplay among six research ac vi es. Researchers first turn to a phenomenon, an “abiding concern” (van Manen, 1990, p. 31), which seriously interests them (e.g., reading, running, driving, mothering). In the process, they reflect on essen al themes, what cons tutes the nature of this lived experience. They write a descrip on of the phenomenon, maintaining a strong rela on to the topic of inquiry and balancing the parts of the wri ng to the whole. In so doing, the researcher makes an interpreta on of the meaning of the lived experiences (van Manen, 2023). With less involvement of the researcher in the interpre ve process, Moustakas’s (1994) transcendental phenomenology instead focuses on the researchers’ descrip on of the experiences of par cipants. In addi on, Moustakas focuses on one of Husserl’s concepts, epoché, also referred to by others as bracke ng, in which inves gators set aside their experiences, as much as possible, to take a fresh perspec ve toward the phenomenon under examina on. Hence, transcendental means “in which everything is perceived freshly, as if for the first me” (Moustakas, 1994, p. 34). Moustakas admits that this state is seldom perfectly achieved. However, we see researchers who embrace this idea when they begin a project by describing their own experiences with the phenomenon and bracke ng out their views before proceeding with the experiences of others. Besides bracke ng, transcendental phenomenology draws on the Duquesne Studies in Phenomenological Psychology (e.g., Giorgi, 1985, 2009) and the data analysis procedures of Van Kaam (1966) and Colaizzi (1978). The procedures, illustrated by Moustakas (1994), consist of iden fying a phenomenon to study, bracke ng out one’s experiences, and collec ng data from several persons who have experienced the phenomenon. The researcher then analyzes the data by reducing the informa on to significant statements or quotes and combines the statements into themes. Following that, the researcher develops a textural descrip on of the experiences of the persons (what par cipants experienced), a structural descrip on of their experiences (how they experienced it in terms of the condi ons, situa ons, or context), and a combina on of the textural and structural descrip ons to convey an overall essence of the experience. Procedures for Conduc ng Phenomenological Research We use the psychologist Moustakas’s (1994) approach because it has systema c steps in the data analysis procedure and guidelines for assembling the textual and structural descrip ons. The conduct of psychological phenomenology has been addressed in a number of wri ngs, including Dukes (1984), Tesch (1990), Giorgi (1985, 1994, 2009), Polkinghorne (1989), and, most recently, Moustakas (1994). Pereira (2012) offers reflec ons on the rigor in phenomenological research from the perspec ve of a novice researcher. In Figure 4.5, we represent the major procedural steps in the process as tending to build one upon the other. However, a researcher may engage in the steps in a different order than we present and return to prior steps for revisions.

Determine if the research problem is best examined using a phenomenological approach. The type of problem best suited for this form of research is one in which it is important to understand several individuals’ common or shared experiences of a phenomenon of lived experience. It would be important to understand these common experiences in order to develop prac ces or policies, or to develop a deeper understanding about the features of the phenomenon. Iden fy a phenomenon of interest to study and describe it. Examples of a phenomenon include emo onal states such as anger and social constructs such as professionalism. A phenomenon can also involve gaining understandings of a clinical descriptor—for example, what it means to be underweight or a professional descriptor like what it means to be a wrestler. Moustakas (1994) provides numerous examples of phenomena that have been studied, and van Manen (1990) iden fies such phenomena as the experience of learning, the beginning of fatherhood, riding a bicycle, and so on. Dis nguish and specify the broad philosophical assump ons of phenomenology. For example, one could write about the combina on of objec ve reality and individual experiences. These lived experiences are furthermore “conscious” and directed toward an object. To fully describe how par cipants view the phenomenon, researchers must bracket out, as much as possible, their own experiences. Collect data using in-depth and mul ple interviews from individuals who have experienced the phenomenon. Polkinghorne (1989) recommends that researchers interview from 5 to 25 individuals who have all experienced the phenomenon. The par cipants are asked two broad, general ques ons (Moustakas, 1994): What have you experienced in terms of the phenomenon? What contexts or situa ons have typically influenced or affected your experiences of the phenomenon? Other open-ended ques ons may also be asked, but these two, especially, focus a en on on gathering data that will lead to a textual and structural descrip on of the experiences, and ul mately provide an understanding of the common experiences of the par cipants. Other forms of data may also be collected, such as observa ons, journals, poetry, music, and other forms of art. Generate themes from the analysis of significant statements. Phenomenological data analysis steps are generally similar for all psychological phenomenologists who discuss the methods (Moustakas, 1994; Polkinghorne, 1989). Building on the data from the first and second research ques ons, data analysts go through the data (e.g., interview transcrip ons) and highlight “significant statements,” sentences, or quotes that provide an understanding of how the par cipants experienced the phenomenon. Moustakas (1994) calls this step horizontaliza on. Next, the researcher develops clusters of meaning from these significant statements into themes. Develop textural and structural descrip ons of the phenomenon. The significant statements and themes are then used to write a descrip on of what the par cipants experienced (textural descrip on). They are also used to write a descrip on of the context or se ng that influenced how the par cipants experienced the phenomenon, called structural descrip on or imagina ve varia on. Moustakas (1994) adds a further step: Researchers also write about their own experiences and the context and situa ons

that have influenced their experiences. We like to shorten Moustakas’s procedures and reflect these personal statements at the beginning of the phenomenology, or include them in a methods discussion of the role of the researcher (Marshall et al., 2021). Report the “essence” of the phenomenon by using a composite descrip on. From the structural and textural descrip ons, the researcher then writes a composite descrip on that presents the “essence” of the phenomenon, called the essen al, invariant structure (or essence). Primarily this passage focuses on the common experiences of the par cipants. For example, it means that all experiences have an underlying structure (grief is the same whether the loved one is a puppy, a parakeet, or a child). Present the understanding of the essence of the experience in wri en form. The prac ce of phenomenological inquiry is considered by van Manen (2014) to be inseparable from the prac ce of wri ng. He goes on to explain that one of the challenges with wri ng is that “one must bring into presence a phenomenon that cannot be represented in plain words” (p. 370). There are numerous “ways” of communica ng phenomenological research, including by systema c explora on, meaning the phenomenon is placed in the context of the existen al (e.g., temporality or spa ality), or by organizing the account reflec ve of an ever-deepening understanding of the phenomenon experienced. A general wri ng structure for phenomenology includes an introduc on to familiarize the reader with the phenomenon and in some cases, a personal statement of experiences from the researcher (Moustakas, 1994); research procedures to provide a ra onale for the use of phenomenology, and philosophical assump ons and details about data collec on and analysis; a report of how the phenomenon was experienced with significant statements; and a conclusion with a composite descrip on of the essence of the phenomenon.

Figure 4.5 Procedures for Conduc ng Phenomenological Research Challenges and Opportuni es in Phenomenological Research A phenomenology provides a deep understanding of a phenomenon as experienced by several individuals. Knowing some common experiences can be valuable for groups such as therapists, teachers, health personnel, and policymakers. Here, we focus on three challenges faced by phenomenological researchers and offer some prac cal sugges ons. Phenomenology requires at least some understanding of the broader philosophical assump ons, and researchers should iden fy these assump ons in their studies. These philosophical ideas are abstract concepts and not easily seen in a wri en phenomenological study. Bracke ng personal experiences may be difficult for the researcher to implement because interpreta ons of the data always incorporate the assump ons that the researcher brings to the topic (van Manen, 1990, 2014, 2023). Beck (2020) describes how researchers must a empt what is difficult, “to put aside their past experiences, biases, everyday understanding, and presupposi ons about what they are studying in order to learn to see the phenomenon with fresh eyes” (p. 1). Thus, the researcher needs to decide how and in what way their personal understandings will be introduced into the study and how to document the changes the researcher experiences as well. Indeed, the prac ce of engaging in phenomenological research has the poten al for las ng effects on the researcher, which merit further study as a phenomenon itself. Van Manen (1990) describes the poten al impact on the researcher, saying, “phenomenology projects and their methods o en have [a] transforma ve effect on the researcher himself or herself. Indeed, phenomenological research is o en itself a form of deep learning, leading to a transforma on of consciousness, heightened percep veness, increased though ulness” (p. 163). We suggest researchers can benefit from reading The Routledge Handbook of Phenomenology and Phenomenological Philosophy (De San s et al., 2021), which offers an in-depth discussion of the philosophical discussions influencing the development of and current phenomenological research prac ces. Phenomenology requires the careful selec on of individuals who have all experienced the phenomenon in ques on and extensive me for developing a descrip on of the lived phenomenon. Finding individuals who have all experienced the phenomenon and who are willing to par cipate may be difficult given par cular research topics. The ethical issue of free and informed consent and par cipants’ right to withdrawal is of principal concern in phenomenology. Phenomenology can involve a streamlined form of data collec on by including only a single rather than mul ple interviews with par cipants. To enhance feasibility, we suggest the Moustakas (1994) approach for analyzing the data, providing a structured approach for novice researchers. We also recognize that this approach may be too structured for some qualita ve researchers. A final challenge for phenomenological researchers is how (or for many if) interpre ve phenomenological analysis fits with phenomenology. J. A. Smith et al. (2009, 2022) have led the development of interpre ve phenomenological analysis as a qualita ve research

framework grounded in psychology and influenced by phenomenology and hermeneu cs, as well as idiography. With a focus on the par cular, a thorough and systema c approach to analysis examines “how a par cular phenomenon has been understood from the perspec ve of par cular people, in a par cular context” (J. A. Smith et al., 2009, p. 51). Interpre ve phenomenological analysis involves a double hermeneu c as it integrates not only the par cipant’s sense of their lived experience but also the researcher’s a empt to understand how the par cipant makes sense of their personal and social world (J. A. Smith et al., 2009). We note the usefulness of the structured approach to analyze the descrip ons provided by the par cipants’ interviews and the concept of a “gem” as a focal point. J. A. Smith (2017) defined a “gem” as “a singular u erance made by a par cipant with great resonance across the case and corpus” (p. 303).

GROUNDED THEORY RESEARCH Defini on of Grounded Theory Research

While narra ve research focuses on individual stories told by par cipants and phenomenology emphasizes the common experiences for a number of individuals, the intent of a grounded theory study is to move beyond descrip on and to generate or discover a theory, a “unified theore cal explana on” (Corbin & Strauss, 2007, p. 107) for a process or an ac on. Par cipants in the study would all have experienced the process, and the development of the theory might help explain a prac ce or provide a framework for further research. A key idea is that this theory development does not come “off the shelf” but rather is generated or “grounded” in data from par cipants who have experienced the process (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Thus, grounded theory is a qualita ve research design in which the inquirer generates a general explana on (a theory) of a process, an ac on, or an interac on shaped by the views of a large number of par cipants. We agree with Morse, Bowers, Clarke et al. (2021) who highlight the unique value of grounded theory as allowing for

Descrip on, understanding, and analysis of both ac on and change. Generaliza on through theore cal development and abstrac on. Broad applica on that is also applied, useful and widely used. (emphasis in original, p. 3)

Origins of Grounded Theory Research This qualita ve design was developed in sociology in 1967 by two researchers, Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss, who felt that theories used in research were o en inappropriate and ill- suited for par cipants under study. They elaborated on their ideas through several books (Corbin & Strauss, 2007, 2015; Glaser, 1978; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss, 1987; Strauss & Corbin, 1990, 1998). In contrast to the a priori, theore cal orienta ons in sociology, grounded theorists held that theories should be “grounded” in data from the field, especially in the ac ons, interac ons, and social processes of people. Thus, grounded theory provided for the genera on of a theory (complete with a diagram and hypotheses) of ac ons, interac ons, or processes through interrela ng categories of informa on based on data collected from individuals. Despite the ini al collabora on of Glaser and Strauss that produced such works as Awareness of Dying (Glaser & Strauss, 1965) and Time for Dying (Glaser & Strauss, 1968), the two authors ul mately disagreed about the meaning and procedures of grounded theory. Glaser has cri cized Strauss’s approach to grounded theory as too prescribed and structured (Glaser, 1992). Introducing another perspec ve into the conversa on about procedures is Charmaz’s (2006, 2014) advocacy for construc vist grounded theory. Through these different interpreta ons and publica ons such as The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007b) and The SAGE Handbook of Current Developments in Grounded Theory (Bryant & Charmaz, 2019), grounded theory has gained popularity across diverse fields. For concise historical accounts, see Bryant and Charmaz (2007a), Kenny and Fourie (2014), and Morse, Bowers, Clarke et al. (2021). Another recent grounded theory perspec ve is that of Clarke (Clarke, 2005; Clarke et al. 2015), who, along with Charmaz, seeks to reclaim grounded theory from its “posi vist roots” (Clarke et al., 2017, p. 15). Clarke, however, goes further than Charmaz, sugges ng that social “situa ons” should form our unit of analysis in grounded theory and that three sociological modes can be

useful in analyzing these social situa ons—situa onal, social world/arenas, and posi onal cartographic maps for collec ng and analyzing qualita ve data. Clarke further expands grounded theory “a er the postmodern turn” (Clarke, 2005, p. xxiv) and relies on postmodern perspec ves (i.e., the poli cal nature of research and interpreta on, reflexivity on the part of researchers, a recogni on of problems with represen ng informa on, ques ons of legi macy and authority, and reposi oning the researcher away from the “all knowing analyst” to the “acknowledged par cipant” [Clarke, 2005, pp. xxvii, xxviii]). Clarke frequently turns to the postmodern, poststructural writer Michel Foucault (1972) to base the grounded theory discourse. In our discussion of grounded theory, we rely on Corbin and Strauss (2015), who provide a structured approach to grounded theory, and Charmaz (2014), who offers a construc vist and interpre ve perspec ve on grounded theory. We also refer to two prac cal texts we recommend to grounded theory researchers (Birks & Mills, 2023; Urquhart, 2022). Defining Features of Grounded Theory There are several major characteris cs of grounded theory that might be incorporated into a research study. In Figure 4.6, we list the following common defining features of grounded theory studies:

Grounded theory research focuses on a process, ac on, or interac on that has dis nct steps or phases that occur over me. Thus, a grounded theory study has “movement” or some ac on that the researcher is a emp ng to explain. A process might be “developing a general educa on program” or the process of “suppor ng faculty to become good researchers.” In a grounded theory study, the researcher seeks, in the end, to develop a theory of this process, ac on, or interac on. There are many defini ons of a theory available in the literature, but in general, a theory is an explana on of something or an understanding that the researcher develops. This explana on or understanding is a drawing together, in grounded theory, of theore cal categories that are arrayed to show how the theory works. For example, a theory of support for faculty may show how faculty are supported over me by specific resources, by specific ac ons taken by individuals, and with individual outcomes that enhance the research performance of a faculty member (Creswell & Brown, 1992). Memoing involves the grounded theory researcher wri ng down ideas about the evolving theory. The process of memoing becomes part of developing the theory as the researcher writes down ideas as data are collected and analyzed. In these memos, the ideas are recorded in an effort to formulate the process seen by the researcher and to sketch out the flow of this process. The data and analysis procedures are considered to be undertaken simultaneously and itera vely. The primary form of data collec on is o en interviewing, in which the grounded theory researcher is constantly comparing data gleaned from par cipants with ideas about the emerging theory. The process consists of going back and forth between the par cipants, gathering new interviews, and then returning to the evolving theory to fill in the gaps and to elaborate on how it works. The induc ve procedures involved in data analysis are described in rela on to the type of grounded theory approach. The procedures can be structured and follow the pa ern

of developing open categories, one category (called a “core” phenomenon) to be the focus of the theory, and then detailing addi onal categories (axial coding) to form a theore cal model. The intersec on of the categories becomes the theory (called selec ve coding). This theory can be presented as a diagram, as proposi ons (or hypotheses), or as a discussion (Corbin & Strauss, 2015; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Data analysis can also be less structured and based on developing a theory by piecing together implicit meanings about a category (Charmaz, 2014). A detailed descrip on of the theore cal model emerging from the data is conveyed. This can take many different forms including both wri en and visual representa ons.

Figure 4.6 Defining Features of Grounded Theory Studies Types of and Varia ons Within Grounded Theory Studies The two popular approaches to grounded theory are the systema c procedures of Anselm Strauss and Juliet Corbin (Corbin & Strauss, 2007, 2015; Strauss & Corbin, 1990, 1998) and the construc vist approach of Kathy Charmaz (2005, 2006, 2014). Important concepts of the approach associated with Strauss and Corbin involve the categories, codes, and the systema c procedures guided by the constant comparison of data from the field with emerging categories.

In contrast, in the construc vist approach, Charmaz emphasizes theory development resul ng from a co-construc on process dependent upon researcher interac ons with par cipants in their natural se ngs. Explore the varia ons in grounded theory research in Example 4.3. In the more systema c, analy c procedures of Strauss and Corbin (Corbin & Strauss, 2007, 2015; Strauss & Corbin, 1990, 1998), the inves gator seeks to systema cally develop a theory that explains process, ac on, or interac on on a topic (e.g., the process of developing a curriculum, the therapeu c benefits of sharing psychological test results with clients). The researcher typically conducts 20 to 30 interviews based on several site visits to collect interview data to saturate the categories (or find informa on that con nues to add to them un l no more can be found). A category represents a unit of informa on that comprises events, happenings, and instances (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The researcher also collects and analyzes observa ons and documents, but these data forms are seldom used. While the researcher collects data, they also begin analysis. Our image for data collec on in a grounded theory study is a zigzag process: out to the field to gather informa on, into the office to analyze the data, back to the field to gather more informa on, into the office, and so forth. The par cipants interviewed are theore cally chosen (called theore cal sampling) to help the researcher best form the theory. How many mes the researcher returns to the data sources depends on whether the categories of informa on become saturated—usually considered to be reached when no new ideas are emerging—and whether the theory is elaborated in all of its complexity. This process of taking informa on from data collec on and comparing it to emerging categories is called the constant compara ve method of data analysis. The researcher begins with open coding, that is, coding the data for its major categories of informa on. Coding involves a data aggrega ng and meaning-making process described as “doing analysis and deno ng concepts to stand for data” (Corbin & Strauss, 2015, p. 216). When researchers use the exact words of the interviewee in naming the codes, these are referred to as in vivo codes. From open coding, axial coding emerges, in which the researcher iden fies one open coding category to focus on (called the “core” phenomenon) and then goes back to the data and creates categories around this core phenomenon. Strauss and Corbin (1990) prescribe the types of categories iden fied around the core phenomenon. They consist of causal condi ons (what factors caused the core phenomenon), strategies (ac ons taken in response to the core phenomenon), contextual and intervening condi ons (broad and specific situa onal factors that influence the strategies), and consequences (outcomes from using the strategies). These categories relate to and surround the core phenomenon in a visual model called the axial coding paradigm. The final step, then, is selec ve coding, in which the researcher takes the model and develops proposi ons (or hypotheses) that interrelate the categories in the model or assembles a story that describes the interrela onship of categories in the model. This theory, developed by the researcher, is ar culated toward the end of a study, and can assume several forms (Urquhart, 2022), such as a narra ve statement (Strauss & Corbin, 1990), a visual picture (S. L. Morrow & Smith, 1995), or a series of hypotheses or proposi ons (Creswell & Brown, 1992).

In their discussion of grounded theory, Corbin and Strauss (2015) take the model one step further to develop a condi onal or consequen al matrix. They advance the condi onal matrix as an analysis strategy to help the researcher make connec ons between the macro and micro condi ons influencing the phenomenon, and in turn iden fy the range of consequences that result from the interac ons. This matrix is a set of expanding concentric circles with labels that build outward from the individual, group, and organiza on to the community, region, na on, and global world. In our experience, this matrix is seldom used in grounded theory research, and researchers typically end their studies with a theory developed in selec ve coding, a theory that might be viewed as a substan ve, low-level theory rather than an abstract, grand theory (e.g., see Creswell & Brown, 1992). Although making connec ons between the substan ve theory and its larger implica ons for the community, na on, and world in the condi onal matrix is important (e.g., a model of work flow in a hospital, the shortage of gloves, and the na onal guidelines on AIDS may all be connected; see this example provided by Strauss & Corbin, 1998), grounded theorists seldom have the data, me, or resources to employ the condi onal matrix. A further example explores the larger historical, social, poli cal, cultural, and environmental condi ons in which the Vietnam War combat experience took place and was survived by U.S. soldiers, and includes the use of a consequen al matrix (see Corbin & Strauss, 2015). A second variant of grounded theory is found in the construc vist wri ng of Charmaz (2005, 2006, 2014). Instead of embracing the study of a single process or core category as in the Strauss and Corbin (1998) approach, a social construc vist perspec ve emphasizes diverse local worlds, mul ple reali es, and the complexi es of worlds, views, and ac ons (Charmaz, 2014). According to Charmaz (2006, 2014), construc vist grounded theory lies squarely within the interpre ve approach to qualita ve research with flexible guidelines; a focus on theory developed that depends on the researcher’s view; and learning about the experience within embedded, hidden networks, situa ons, and rela onships, as well as making visible hierarchies of power, communica on, and opportunity. Charmaz places more emphasis on the views, values, beliefs, feelings, assump ons, and ideologies of individuals than on the methods of research, although she does describe the prac ces of gathering rich data, coding the data, memoing, and using theore cal sampling (Charmaz, 2006, 2014). She suggests that complex terms or jargon, diagrams, conceptual maps, and systema c approaches (such as Strauss & Corbin, 1990) detract from grounded theory and represent an a empt to gain power in their use. She advocates using ac ve codes, such as gerund-based phrases like recas ng life. Moreover, for Charmaz, a grounded theory procedure does not minimize the role of the researcher in the process. The researcher makes decisions about the categories throughout the process, brings ques ons to the data, and advances personal values, experiences, and priori es. Any conclusions developed by grounded theorists are, according to Charmaz (2005), sugges ve, incomplete, and inconclusive. Procedures for Conduc ng Grounded Theory Research In this discussion, we include Charmaz’s (2014) interpre ve approach (e.g., reflexivity, being flexible in structure, as discussed in Chapter 2) and rely on Corbin and Strauss’s (2015) helpful systema c approach for learning about and applying grounded theory research procedures.

In so doing, we adopt the advice offered by Charmaz (2014): “Grounded theory guidelines describe steps of the research process and provide a path through it. You can adopt and adapt them to solve varied problems and to conduct diverse studies” (p. 16). In Figure 4.7, we represent eight procedures as tending to build upon each other, and yet, the outcomes can result in revisions to the previous procedures in a cycle.

Determine if grounded theory is the best fit to study the research problem. Grounded theory is a good design to use when a theory is not available to explain or understand a process. The literature may have models available, but they were developed and tested on samples and popula ons other than those of interest to the qualita ve researcher. Also, theories may be present, but they are incomplete because they do not address poten ally valuable variables or categories of interest to the researcher. On the prac cal side, a theory may be needed to explain how people are experiencing a phenomenon, and the grounded theory developed by the researcher will provide such a general framework. Focus the interview ques ons on understanding how individuals experience the process and iden fy the steps in the process. Researchers use ques ons such as What was the process? How did it unfold? A er exploring these ini al ques ons, the researcher then returns to the par cipants and asks more detailed ques ons that help to shape the axial coding phase by iden fying the core phenomenon, causal condi ons, strategies, and consequences, such as What was central to the process? What influenced or caused this phenomenon to occur? What strategies were employed during the process? What effect occurred? These ques ons are typically asked in interviews, although other forms of data may also be collected, such as observa onal accounts, wri en documents, and visual items. The point is to gather enough informa on to fully develop (or saturate) the model. This may involve 20 to 60 interviews. Theory-building emerges through the simultaneous and itera ve data collec on, analysis, and memoing processes. In memoing, the researcher writes down ideas about the evolving theory throughout the data procedures in an effort to discover pa erns (Birks & Mills, 2023; Lempert, 2007). The role of memoing as an essen al habit for theory development is highlighted by Corbin and Strauss (2015): “Wri ng memos should begin with the first analy cal session and con nue throughout the research process” (p. 117) and “memos begin as rudimentary representa ons of thought and grow in complexity, density, clarity, and accuracy as the research progresses” (p. 117). Structure the various analysis procedures as general coding and/or axial and selec ve coding. In open coding, the researcher forms categories of informa on about the phenomenon being studied by segmen ng informa on. Within each category, the inves gator finds several proper es, or subcategories, and looks for data to be dimensionalized, to show the extreme possibili es on a con nuum of the property. In axial coding, the inves gator assembles the data in new ways a er open coding. In this structured approach, the inves gator presents a coding paradigm or logic diagram (i.e., a visual model) in which they iden fy a central phenomenon (i.e., a core category about the phenomenon), explore causal condi ons (i.e., categories of condi ons that influence the phenomenon), specify strategies (i.e., the ac ons or interac ons that

result from the central phenomenon), iden fy the condi onal context and intervening condi ons (i.e., the narrow and broad condi ons that influence the strategies), and delineate the consequences or outcomes of the strategies for this phenomenon. Researchers are advised when focusing on a par cular theory component (i.e., condi on) that the “explana on needs to remain at a conceptual level, using selected data fragments to provide suppor ng evidence” (Birks & Mills, 2023, p. 225). In selec ve coding, the researcher may write a “story line” that connects the categories. Alterna vely, proposi ons or hypotheses may be specified that state predicted rela onships. A model can serve as a helpful visual representa on of the rela onships among categories (Urquhart, 2022) and serve to increase grounded theory research impact (Birks & Mills, 2023). Ar culate a substan ve-level theory for communica on purposes. A substan ve-level theory is wri en by a researcher close to a specific problem or popula on of people. Alterna vely, the study may end at this point with the genera on of a theory as the goal of the research. The focus on presenta on for communica on purposes is made by Charmaz et al. (2018) in advancing the poten al for grounded theory methods to change the world for the be er. They argue that this change is only possible if findings are presented in such a way that substan ve-level theory can make an impact. Present the theory as a discussion or model. Wri ng is intertwined into every aspect of conduc ng grounded theory research and how a grounded theory is presented depends on the audience and the process being explained (e.g., see Birks & Mills, 2023; Charmaz, 2014; Corbin & Strauss, 2015). A general wri ng structure for a grounded theory study includes an introduc on to familiarize the reader with the process (or ac on) that the theory is intended to explain; research procedures to provide a ra onale for grounded theory and details about data collec on and analysis; a theory descrip on involving the major categories from open coding; condi ons around a core phenomenon from axial coding; and a proposi on describing the interrela onships of categories in the model from selec ve coding. A model can be useful for providing a summa ve, concise visual representa on of the theory and conclude with a discussion of the theory and (if appropriate) connec ons and contradic ons with extant literature, significance of findings, and implica ons and limita ons.

Figure 4.7 Procedures for Conduc ng Grounded Theory Research Challenges and Opportuni es in Grounded Theory Research A grounded theory study challenges researchers for numerous reasons. The inves gator needs to set aside, as much as possible, theore cal ideas or no ons so that the analy c, substan ve theory can emerge. Despite the evolving, induc ve nature of this form of qualita ve inquiry, the researcher must recognize that this is a systema c approach to research with specific steps in data analysis, if approached from the Corbin and Strauss (2007, 2015) perspec ve. Wide adop on of grounded theory has resulted in greater a en on and the emergence of guidance for researchers for some of the more abstract procedural concepts—for example, memoing (Lempert, 2007) and satura on. The grounded theory researcher faces the difficulty of determining when categories are saturated or when the theory is sufficiently detailed. Corbin and Strauss (2015) note that satura on is “more than a ma er of no new concepts. It also denotes the development of concepts in terms of their proper es and includes showing their dimensional varia on” (p. 134). Thus, the researcher needs to recognize that the primary study outcome is a theory, grounded in data, with specific components: a core phenomenon, causal condi ons, strategies, condi ons and context, and consequences. These are prescribed categories of informa on in the theory, so the Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1998) or Corbin and Strauss (2007, 2015) approach may not have the flexibility desired by some qualita ve researchers. In this case, the Charmaz (2006, 2014) approach, which is less structured and more adaptable, may be used.

The use of grounded theory research and the benefits from conduc ng grounded theory research are well established (Morse, Bowers, Charmaz et al., 2021), including genera ng theory relevant to the context of the study and providing flexibility for addressing real-world issues (Corbin & Strauss, 2015). Using different theore cal lenses and frameworks can contribute in important ways to social jus ce; for example, Hadley (2019) iden fies cri cal grounded theory as highligh ng “social process and phenomena pertaining to the problems of power inequality and discrimina on in all its varied manifesta ons” (p. 565). We an cipate further broadening of the data collected and the theore cal lenses chosen by the grounded theory researcher because of the influence of these choices on the substan ve area of enquiry studied. We have seen increased interest in research designs intersec ng grounded theory with mixed methods. Mixed methods–grounded theory designs are useful for tes ng the empirical verifica on of the substan ve-level theory with quan ta ve data to determine if it can be generalized to a sample and popula on (for addi onal discussions, see Creamer, 2022; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018).

ETHNOGRAPHIC RESEARCH Defini on of Ethnographic Research Although a grounded theory researcher develops a theory from examining many individuals who share in the same process, ac on, or interac on, the study par cipants are not likely to be in the same place or interact in a way that they develop shared pa erns of behavior, beliefs, and language. An ethnographer is interested in examining these shared pa erns, and the unit of analysis is typically larger than the 20 or so individuals involved in a grounded theory study. An ethnography focuses on an en re culture-sharing group. Granted, some mes this cultural group may be small (a few teachers, a few social workers), but typically it is large, involving many people who interact over me (teachers in an en re school, a community social work group). Thus, ethnography is a qualita ve design in which the researcher describes and interprets the shared and learned pa erns of values, behaviors, beliefs, and language of a culture-sharing group (M. Harris, 1968). As both a process and an outcome of research (Agar, 1996), ethnography is a way of studying a culture-sharing group as well as the final, wri en product of that research. As a process, ethnography involves extended observa ons of the group, most o en through par cipant observa on, in which the researcher is immersed in the day-to-day lives of the people and observes and interviews the group par cipants. Ethnographers study the meaning of the behavior, the language, and the interac on among members of the culture- sharing group. Origins of Ethnographic Research

Ethnography had its beginning in compara ve cultural anthropology conducted by early 20th-century anthropologists, such as Boas, Malinowski, Radcliffe-Brown, and Mead.

Although these researchers ini ally took the natural sciences as a model for research, they differed from those using tradi onal scien fic approaches through the firsthand collec on of data concerning exis ng “primi ve” cultures (Atkinson & Hammersley, 1994). In the 1920s and 1930s, sociologists such as Park, Dewey, and Mead adapted anthropological field methods to the study of cultural groups in the United States (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992). Scien fic approaches to ethnography have expanded to include “schools” or subtypes of ethnography with different theore cal orienta ons and aims, such as structural func onalism, symbolic interac onism, cultural and cogni ve anthropology, feminism, Marxism, ethnomethodology, cri cal theory, cultural studies, and postmodernism (Atkinson & Hammersley, 1994). This has led to a lack of orthodoxy in ethnography and has resulted in pluralis c approaches. Many excellent books are available on ethnography, including those by Van Maanen (1988, 2011) on the many forms of ethnography; LeCompte and Schensul (1999) on procedures of ethnography presented in a tool kit of short books; Przybylski (2020) on use of hybrid ethnography; Shrum and Sco (2017) on use of video ethnography; Atkinson (2015) on ethnographic fieldwork; and Madison (2019) on cri cal ethnography. Major ideas about ethnography developed in our discussion will draw on Fe erman’s (2019) and Wolco ’s (2008a) approaches, in addi on to Wolco ’s (2010) companion “primer” on ethnographic lessons and Hammersley and Atkinson (2019) on the prac ces of ethnography. Defining Features of Ethnographies From a review of published ethnographies, a brief list of defining characteris cs of ethnographies can be assembled. In Figure 4.8, we list the following common defining features of ethnographic studies:

Ethnographic research focuses on developing a complex, complete descrip on of the culture of a group—the en re culture-sharing group or a subset of a group. The culture-sharing group must have been intact and interac ng for long enough to develop social behaviors of an iden fiable group for study. Key to ethnographic research is the focus on these discernible working pa erns, not the study of a culture (Wolco , 2008a). Ethnographic researchers look for pa erns among the group’s various ac vi es that develop over me. Pa erns are also described as rituals, customary social behaviors, or regulari es of the group’s mental ac vi es, such as their ideas and beliefs expressed through language, or material ac vi es, such as how they behave within the group as expressed through their ac ons observed by the researcher (Fe erman, 2019). Said in another way, the researcher looks for pa erns of social organiza on (e.g., social networks) and idea onal systems (e.g., worldview, ideas; Wolco , 2008a). Ethnographic researchers use theory to focus their a en on. Theory plays an important role in focusing the researcher’s a en on when conduc ng an ethnography. For example, ethnographers start with a theory—a broad explana on as to what they hope to find—drawn from cogni ve science to understand ideas and beliefs, or from materialist theories, such as techno-

environmentalism, Marxism, accultura on, or innova on, to observe how individuals in the culture-sharing group behave and talk (Fe erman, 2019). Ethnographic researchers engage in extensive data collec on and fieldwork. Using the theory and looking for pa erns of a culture-sharing group involves engaging in extensive fieldwork, collec ng data primarily through interviews, observa ons, symbols, ar facts, and many diverse sources of data (Atkinson, 2015; Fe erman, 2019). An ethnography includes verba m quotes as well as the views of the par cipants (emic) and of the researcher (e c). In an analysis of this data, the researcher relies on the par cipants’ views as an insider emic perspec ve and reports them in verba m quotes and then synthesizes the data filtering it through the researchers’ e c scien fic perspec ve to develop an overall cultural interpreta on. This cultural interpreta on is a descrip on of the group and themes related to the theore cal concepts being explored in the study. Typically, in good ethnographies, not much is known about how the group func ons (e.g., how a gang operates), and the reader develops a new, and novel, understanding of the group. An ethnography o en contains a cultural portrait of a culture-sharing group or a subset of a group. An ethnography describes an understanding of how the culture-sharing group works—how it func ons, the group’s way of life. Wolco (2010) provides two helpful ques ons that, in the end, must be answered in an ethnography: “What do people in this se ng have to know and do to make this system work?” and “If culture, some mes defined simply as shared knowledge, is mostly caught rather than taught, how do those being inducted into the group find their ‘way in’ so that an adequate level of sharing is achieved?” (p. 74).

Figure 4.8 Defining Features of an Ethnography Types of and Varia ons Within Ethnographies There are many forms of ethnography, such as a confessional ethnography, life histories, autoethnography, feminist ethnography, ethnographic novels, as well as the visual ethnography found in photography, video, and electronic media (Denzin, 1989; Fe erman, 2019; LeCompte et al., 1992; Pink, 2013; Van Maanen, 1988). Two popular forms of ethnography will be emphasized here: the realist ethnography and the cri cal ethnography. Explore the varia ons of ethnographic studies in Example 4.4. The realist ethnography is a tradi onal approach used by cultural anthropologists. Characterized by Van Maanen (1988, 2011), it reflects a par cular stance taken by the researcher toward the individuals being studied. Realist ethnography is an objec ve account of the situa on, typically wri en in the third-person point of view and repor ng objec vely on the informa on learned from par cipants at a site. In this ethnographic approach, the realist ethnographer narrates the study in a third-person dispassionate voice and reports on what is observed or heard from par cipants. The ethnographer remains in the background as an omniscient reporter of the “facts.” The realist also reports objec ve data in a measured style uncontaminated by personal bias, poli cal goals, and judgment. The researcher may provide mundane details of everyday life among the people studied. The ethnographer also uses standard categories for cultural descrip on (e.g., family life, communica on networks, work life, social networks, status systems). The ethnographer produces the par cipants’ views through closely edited quota ons and has the final word on how the culture is to be interpreted and presented. For many researchers, ethnography employs a “cri cal” approach (Carspecken & Apple, 1992; Madison, 2019; J. Thomas, 1993) by including in the research an advocacy perspec ve. This approach is in response to current society, in which the systems of power, pres ge, privilege, and authority serve to marginalize individuals who are from different classes, races, and genders. The cri cal ethnography is a type of ethnographic research in which the authors advocate for the emancipa on of groups marginalized in society (J. Thomas, 1993). Cri cal researchers typically are poli cally minded individuals who seek, through their research, to speak out against inequality and domina on (Carspecken & Apple, 1992). For example, cri cal ethnographers might study schools that provide privileges to certain types of students, or counseling prac ces that serve to overlook the needs of underrepresented groups. The major components of a cri cal ethnography include a value-laden orienta on, empowering people by giving them more authority, challenging the status quo, and addressing concerns about power and control. A cri cal ethnographer will study issues of power, empowerment, inequality, inequity, dominance, repression, hegemony, and vic miza on using a variety of approaches or theore cal frameworks to guide their study (e.g., par cipatory, cri cal race theory, autoethnography). Procedures for Conduc ng an Ethnography

As with all qualita ve inquiry, there is no single way to conduct ethnographic research. Although current wri ngs provide more guidance to this approach than ever (e.g., see the excellent overview found in Wolco , 2008a; and for a concise descrip on, see Jachyra et al., 2015), the approach taken here includes elements of both realist ethnography and cri cal approaches. In Figure 4.9, we represent the seven procedural steps we would use to conduct an ethnography as tending to build upon each other, and yet are interac ve with revisions made as the study progresses.

Determine if ethnography is the most appropriate design for studying the research problem. Ethnography is appropriate if the needs are to describe how a cultural group works and to explore the beliefs, language, behaviors, and issues facing the group, such as how power, resistance, and dominance emerge over

me. The literature may be deficient in knowing how the group works because the group is not in the mainstream, people may not be familiar with the group, or its ways are so different that readers may not iden fy with the group. Iden fy and locate a culture-sharing group to study and consider how to gain access. Typically, this group is one whose members have been together for an extended period of me so that their shared language, pa erns of behavior, and a tudes have merged into discernable pa erns. This may also be a group that has been marginalized by society. Because ethnographers spend me talking with and observing this group, access may require finding one or more individuals in the group who will allow the researcher into the culture-sharing group. Select cultural themes, issues, or theories to study about the group. These themes, issues, and theories provide an orien ng framework for the study of the culture-sharing group. It also informs the analysis of the culture-sharing group. The themes may include such topics as encultura on, socializa on, learning, cogni on, domina on, inequality, or child and adult development (LeCompte et al., 1992). As discussed by Hammersley and Atkinson (2019), Wolco (1987, 1994, 2008a), and Fe erman (2019), the ethnographer begins the study by examining people in interac on in ordinary se ngs and discerns pervasive pa erns such as life cycles, events, and cultural themes. Determine which type of ethnography to use to study cultural concepts. Perhaps how the group works needs to be described, or a cri cal ethnography can expose issues such as power, hegemony, and advocacy for certain groups. A cri cal ethnographer, for example, might address an inequity in society or some part of it; use the research to advocate and call for changes; and specify an issue to explore, such as inequality, dominance, oppression, or empowerment. Gather informa on in the context where the group works or lives through extensive ethnographic fieldwork. This fieldwork o en involves key informants (or par cipants; Wolco , 2008a). Gathering the types of informa on typically needed in an ethnography involves going to the research site, respec ng the daily lives of individuals at the site, and collec ng a wide variety of materials. The a en on of the ethnographer can be focused on the cultural behaviors,

interac ons, and language of the group studied. It is important to realize that these pa erns develop over me. The group needs to be together for a considerable me for these pa erns to become set. Also, the ethnographer needs to spend considerable me gathering data from the group. LeCompte and Schensul (1999) organize types of ethnographic data into observa ons, tests and measures, surveys, interviews, content analysis, elicita on methods, audiovisual methods, spa al mapping, and network research. Par cipant observa on (as a complete par cipant) is a common role researchers play as they fully engage with people they are observing. It is also possible to engage in nonpar cipant observa on such as watching an ac vity as part of the data collec on or as a complete observer where the researcher is neither seen nor no ced by par cipants. Generate an overall cultural interpreta on of the group from the analysis of pa erns across many data sources. The researcher begins by compiling a detailed descrip on of the culture-sharing group, focusing on a single event, on several ac vi es, or on the group over a prolonged period of me. The ethnographer moves into a theme analysis of pa erns or topics that signifies how the cultural group works and lives, and ends with an “overall picture of how a system works” (Fe erman, 2019, p. 13). Fe erman (2019) describes the func on of thick descrip on for the reader, sta ng, “ideally the ethnographer shares the par cipant’s understanding of the situa on with the reader. Thick descrip on is a wri en record of cultural interpreta on” (p. 134). This descrip on includes verba m quotes reflec ve of cultural concepts such as social structure, kinship, poli cal structure, and the social rela ons or func ons among members incorpora ng the views of the par cipants (emic) as well as the views of the researcher (e c). Present the pa erns of the culture-sharing group in a holis c cultural portrait using wri en or performance formats. This is o en accomplished by describing a working set of rules or generaliza ons as to how the culture-sharing group func ons. This may also be referred to as a holis c cultural portrait. Wri ng ethnographies involves an interac ve analysis and wri ng process o en begun during fieldwork. A general wri ng structure for an ethnography includes an introduc on to familiarize the reader with the culture-sharing group; research procedures to provide a ra onale for the use of an ethnography; details about data collec on and analysis; and an interpreta on of the culture using a variety of methods. The final product is a holis c cultural portrait of the group from the par cipants and the interpreta on by the researcher, which might also advocate for the needs of the group or suggest changes in society. Other products may be more performance based, such as theatrical plays or poems.

Figure 4.9 Procedures for Conduc ng Ethnographic Research Challenges and Opportuni es in Ethnographic Research Ethnography is challenging to use for several reasons. Culture is a broad yet central concept in ethnography. The ethnographic researcher needs to understand cultural anthropology, the meaning of a social–cultural system, and the concepts typically explored by those studying cultures. Here we focus on challenges o en encountered in ethnography and offer some prac cal sugges ons for embedding responsive prac ces. Ethnographers are tasked with documen ng the complexi es inherent to a culture- sharing group. Fe erman (2019) describes culture as “dynamic (not sta c), constantly evolving, and co-created, making descrip on difficult and largely an illusion in reality” (p. 21). We agree that culture is an amorphous term and it is something researchers a ribute to a group when looking for pa erns of its social world. It is inferred from the words and ac ons of members of the group, and it is assigned to this group by the researcher. It consists of what people do (behaviors), what they say (language), the poten al tension between what they do and ought to do, and what they make and use, such as ar facts (Spradley, 1980). Such themes are diverse, as illustrated in Winthrop’s (1991) Dic onary of Concepts in Cultural Anthropology. Fe erman (2019) discusses how ethnographers describe a holis c perspec ve of the group’s history, religion, poli cs, economy, and environment. In this work, researchers must keep an open mind about the groups or cultures they are studying and minimize the influences of their biases and assump ons (Fe erman, 2019). There is a possibility that the researcher becomes compromised in or unable to complete the study. This is but one issue in the complex

array of fieldwork issues facing ethnographers who venture into an unfamiliar cultural group or system. Ethnographic fieldwork requires close a en on to the ethical issues of respect, reciprocity, deciding who owns the data, and others (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2019). Ethnographers bring a sensi vity to fieldwork issues such as a ending to how they gain access, giving back or reciproca ng with the par cipants, and engaging in ethical research, such as presen ng themselves honestly and describing the purpose of the study. Sensi vity to the needs of individuals being studied is especially important, and the researcher must access and report their impact in conduc ng the study on the people and the places being explored. Decep on, involving the researcher inten onally deceiving the informants to gain informa on, is a field issue that has become less of a problem since ethical standards were introduced in the 1960s requiring informed consent. For an ethnography-specific discussion of research ethics including informed consent, see Hammersley and Atkinson (2019). Ethnographers must be agile in their thinking and invested with their me and energy. Fe erman (2019) describes how ethnographers must consider mul ple perspec ves and interpreta ons as they straddle the roles of storyteller and scien st saying, “the ethnographic study allows mul ple interpreta ons of reality and alterna ve interpreta ons of data throughout the study” (p. 1). The me to collect data for an ethnography is extensive, involving prolonged me engaged in fieldwork, yet discussions abound about how funding o en limits me for ethnographic fieldwork. The data collected naturally shapes the genera on of a compelling ethnography. In much ethnography, the narra ves are wri en in a literary, almost storytelling approach, an approach that may limit the audience for the work and may be challenging for authors accustomed to tradi onal approaches to scien fic wri ng. We suggest Hammersley and Atkinson’s (2019) discussion of wri ng ethnography and their reminder that images and other materials can accompany wri en text and “unless and un l we ‘write up,’ any ethnography remains largely inert and invisible” (p. 198). We an cipate further use of cri cal and realist lenses both separately and likely in combina on by ethnographers. Among the key challenge for researchers is the lack of guiding examples. As described by Banfield (2020), “while specific applica ons of cri cal realism to ethnography are few, theore cal developments are promising and await more widespread development. This is especially the case for progressive and cri cal forms of ethnography that strive to be, in cri cal realist terms, an ‘emancipatory science’” (p. 1034).

CASE STUDY RESEARCH Defini on of Case Study Research The en re culture-sharing group in ethnography may be considered a case, but the intent in ethnography is to determine how the culture works rather than to either develop an in-depth understanding of a single case or explore an issue or problem using the case as a specific illustra on. Thus, case study research involves the study of a case (or cases) within a real-life, contemporary context or se ng (Yin, 2017). This case may

be a concrete en ty, such as an individual, a small group, an organiza on, or a partnership. At a less concrete level, it may be a community, a rela onship, a decision process, or a specific project (see Yin, 2017). G. Thomas (2021) describes case studies as “analyses of persons, events, decisions, periods, projects, policies, ins tu ons or other phenomena which are studied holis cally by one or more methods to illuminate and explicate some analy cal theme” (p. 23). Stake (2005) states that case study research is not a methodology but a choice of what is to be studied (i.e., a case within a bounded system, bounded by me and place) whereas others present it as a strategy of inquiry, a methodology, or a comprehensive research strategy (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015; Yin, 2017). Similar to Stake (2005), G. Thomas (2021) argues, “Your case study is defined not so much by the methods that you are using to do the study, but the edges you put around the case” (p. 19). We choose to view case study research as a methodology: a type of design in qualita ve research that may be an object of study as well as a product of the inquiry. Case study research is defined as a qualita ve approach in which the inves gator explores a real- life, contemporary bounded system (a case) or mul ple bounded systems (cases) over

me, through detailed, in-depth data collec on involving mul ple sources of informa on (e.g., observa ons, interviews, audiovisual materials, and documents and reports), and reports a case descrip on and case themes. The unit of analysis in the case study might be mul ple cases (a mul site case study) or a single case (a within-site case study). Origins of Case Study Research The case study approach is familiar to social scien sts because of its popularity in psychology (Freud), medicine (case analysis of a problem), law (case law), and poli cal science (case reports). Case study research has a long, dis nguished history across many disciplines. Hamel, Dufour, and For n (1993) trace the origin of modern social science case studies through anthropology and sociology. They cite anthropologist Malinowski’s study of the Trobriand Islands, French sociologist LePlay’s study of families, and the case studies of the University of Chicago Department of Sociology from the 1920s and 1930s through the 1950s (e.g., W. I. Thomas and Znaniecki’s 1958 study of Polish peasants in Europe and America) as antecedents of qualita ve case study research. Today, the case study writer has a large array of texts and approaches from which to choose. Yin (2017), for example, espouses both quan ta ve and qualita ve approaches to case study development and discusses explanatory, exploratory, and descrip ve qualita ve case studies. Merriam and Tisdell (2015) advocate a general approach to qualita ve case studies in the field of educa on. Stake (1995) systema cally establishes procedures for case study research and cites them extensively in his example of “Harper School.” Stake’s (2006) most recent book on mul ple case study analysis presents a step-by-step approach and provides rich illustra ons of mul ple case studies in Ukraine, Slovakia, and Romania. In discussing the case study approach, we will rely on G. Thomas (2021) and Yin (2017) to form the dis nc ve features of this approach. We also return to the impac ul work of Stake (1995, 2005).

Defining Features of Case Studies A review of many qualita ve case studies reported in the literature yields several defining characteris cs of most of them. In Figure 4.10, we list the following common defining features of case studies:

Case study research begins with the iden fica on of an inten on for the case study and a focus of analysis on the specific case or cases that will be described and analyzed. Examples of a case for study are an individual, a community, a decision process, or an event. A single case can be selected or mul ple cases iden fied so that they can be compared. Typically, case study researchers study current, real-life cases that are in progress so that they can gather accurate informa on not lost by me. The key to the case iden fica on is that it is bounded and relevant to the intent of conduc ng the case study. A bounded case means it can be defined or described within certain parameters. Examples of parameters for bounding a case study are the specific place where the case is located and the me frame in which the case is studied. On occasion, certain people involved in the case may also be defined as a parameter. The intent of conduc ng the case study is important to focus the procedures for the par cular type. A qualita ve case study can be composed to illustrate a unique case, a case that has unusual interest in and of itself and needs to be described and detailed. This is called an intrinsic case (Stake, 1995). Alterna vely, the intent of the case study may be to understand a specific issue, problem, or concern (e.g., teenage pregnancy) and a case or cases selected to best understand the problem. This is called an instrumental case (Stake, 1995). A case study presents an in-depth understanding of the case drawing on many forms of data. To accomplish this, the researcher collects and integrates many forms of qualita ve data, ranging from interviews, to observa ons, to documents, to audiovisual materials. Relying on one source of data is typically not enough to develop this in-depth understanding. The selec on of how to approach the data analysis in a case study will differ and o en depend on type. Some case studies involve the analysis of mul ple units within the case (e.g., the students, the school, the school district), while others report on the en re case (e.g., the school district). Also, in some studies, the researcher selects mul ple cases to analyze and compare while, in other case studies, a single case is analyzed. The case descrip on involves iden fying and interpre ng themes. These themes may also represent issues or specific situa ons to study in each case. A complete findings sec on of a case study would then involve both a descrip on of the case and themes or issues that the researcher has uncovered in studying the case. Examples of how the case themes might be organized by the researcher include a chronology, an analysis across cases to extract similari es and differences among the cases, or a presenta on as a theore cal model. Case studies o en end with conclusions formed by the researcher about the overall meaning delivered from the case(s). These are called asser ons by Stake

(1995) or building “pa erns” or “explana ons” by Yin (2017). We think of these as general lessons learned from studying the case(s).

Figure 4.10 Defining Features of Case Studies Types of and Varia ons Within Case Studies Qualita ve case studies differ by the focus of analysis for the bounded case, such as whether the case involves studying one individual, several individuals, a group, an en re program, or an ac vity. They may also be dis nguished in terms of the intent of the case analysis, such as whether to gain insights of the par cular case or the issue, to demonstrate differing perspec ves within a group of cases, to evaluate the effec veness of an interven on (Stake, 1995; G. Thomas, 2021; Yin, 2017). We focus here on three common types: the single instrumental case study, the collec ve or mul ple case study, and the intrinsic case study. Explore the varia ons in case study research in Example 4.5. In a single instrumental case study, the researcher focuses on an issue or concern and then selects one bounded case to illustrate this issue. Stake (1995) describes his use of an instrumental case study as having “a research ques on, a puzzlement, a need for

general understanding, and feel that we may get insight into the ques on by studying a par cular case” (p. 3). A single instrumental case study is used to gain insights about a specific case that in turn, illuminates the subject of interest of the case more generally. In a collec ve case study (or mul ple case study), the one issue or concern is again selected, but the inquirer selects mul ple case studies to illustrate the issue. The researcher might select for study several programs from several research sites or mul ple programs within a single site. O en the inquirer purposefully selects mul ple cases to show different perspec ves on the issue. Some researchers, like Lieberson (2000), argue for the use of a small group of comparison cases because of the poten al to draw otherwise inaccessible conclusions. Yin (2017) suggests that the mul ple case study design uses the logic of replica on, in which the inquirer replicates the procedures for each case. As a general rule, qualita ve researchers are reluctant to generalize from one case to another because the contexts of cases differ. To best generalize, however, the inquirer needs to select representa ve cases for inclusion in the qualita ve study. The final type of case study design is an intrinsic case study in which the focus is on the case itself (e.g., evalua ng a program, or studying a student having difficulty; see Stake, 1995; G. Thomas, 2021) because the case presents an unusual or unique situa on. This resembles the focus of narra ve research, but the case study analy c procedures of a detailed descrip on of the case, set within its context or surroundings, s ll hold true. Stake (2005) suggests that the case study is intrinsic “if the study is undertaken because, first and last, one wants be er understanding of this par cular case. It is not undertaken primarily because the case represents other cases or because it illustrates a par cular trait or problem, but instead because, in all its par cularity and ordinariness, the case itself is of interest” (p. 445). An intrinsic case study is also referred to as descrip ve or holis c by Yin (2017). Procedures for Conduc ng a Case Study Several procedures are available for conduc ng case studies (see Merriam & Tisdell, 2015; Stake, 1995; G. Thomas, 2021; Yin, 2017). For a concise descrip on from a novice perspec ve, see also Baxter and Jack (2008). In Figure 4.11, we represent five procedural topics we would use to conduct a case study as tending to build upon each other, and yet are also itera ve.

Determine if a case study approach is appropriate for studying the research problem. A case study is a good approach when the inquirer has clearly iden fiable cases with boundaries and seeks to provide an in-depth understanding of the cases or a comparison of several cases. Iden fy the intent of the study and select the case (or cases). In conduc ng case study research, we recommend that inves gators consider the intent of the study (i.e., to focus on a single case or collec ve cases, mul site cases or within-site cases) and the type of case study (i.e., intrinsic, instrumental). The case(s) selected may involve an individual, several individuals, a program, an event, or an ac vity (Stake, 1995; Yin, 2017) with an array of possibili es for purposeful case

sampling. O en we have found selec ng cases that show different perspec ves on the problem, process, or event preferable (called purposeful maximal sampling; see Creswell & Creswell, 2023), but ordinary cases, accessible cases, or unusual cases are also desirable op ons. Develop procedures for conduc ng the extensive data collec on, drawing on mul ple data sources. Among the common sources of informa on are observa ons, interviews, documents, and audiovisual materials. For example, Yin (2017) recommends six types of informa on to collect: documents, archival records, interviews, direct observa ons, par cipant observa on, and physical ar facts. A researcher will then iden fy pa erns and look for correspondence across data sources. Specify the analysis approach on which the case descrip on integrates analysis themes and contextual informa on. The type of analysis of these data can be a holis c analysis of the en re case or an embedded analysis of a specific aspect of the case (Yin, 2017). Through data collec ng and analysis, a detailed descrip on of the case (Stake, 1995) emerges in which the researcher details such aspects as the history of the case, the chronology of events, or a day-by-day rendering of the ac vi es of the case. For example, the gunman case study (Asmussen & Creswell, 1995) involved tracing the campus response to a gunman for 2 weeks immediately following the near-tragedy on campus. Then the researcher might focus on a few key issues (or analysis of themes, or case themes), not for generalizing beyond the case but for understanding the complexity of the case. One analy c strategy would be to iden fy issues within each case and then look for common themes that transcend the cases (Yin, 2017). This analysis is rich in the context of the case or se ng in which the case presents itself (Merriam, 1988). Another analy c strategy would be direct interpreta on, where the researcher looks at a single instance and draws meaning from it without looking for mul ple instances of it (Stake, 1995). When mul ple cases are chosen, a typical format is to provide first a detailed descrip on of each case and themes within each case, called a within-case analysis, followed by a thema c analysis across the cases, called a cross-case analysis, as well as asser ons or an interpreta on of the meaning of the case. Researchers can derive meaning from learning about the issue of the case (an instrumental case) or learning about an unusual situa on (an intrinsic case). As Lincoln and Guba (1985) men on, this phase cons tutes the lessons learned from the case, and Stake (1995) describes them as asser ons. Stake (1995) focuses some of the asser ons on lessons learned about the case, sta ng, “Having presented a body of rela vely uninterpreted observa ons, I will summarize what I feel I understand about the case and how my generaliza ons about the case have changed conceptually or in level of confidence” (Stake, 1995, p. 123). In so doing, a case study researcher makes clear what the reader learns from the case that may be applicable to other cases—also known as naturalis c generaliza ons. Report the case study and lessons learned using case asser ons. Wri ng case descrip ons involves a reflec ve process, and the sooner you begin, our

experiences tell us, the easier it is to finish. Certainly, the architecture for what works best for individual studies will emerge and be shaped differently by the study asser ons. We adopt the advice forwarded by Stake (1995): “The report needs to be organized with readers in mind” (p. 122). A general wri ng structure for a case study includes an entry vigne e to provide the reader with an invi ng introduc on to the feel of the context in which the case takes place, an introduc on to familiarize the reader with the central features including ra onale and research procedures, an extensive narra ve descrip on of the case or cases and its or their context, which may include historical and organiza onal informa on important for understanding the case. Then the issue descrip on draws from addi onal data sources and integrates with the researcher’s own interpreta ons of the issues and both confirming and disproving evidence are presented followed by the presenta on of overall case asser ons. Finally, a closing vigne e provides the reader with a final experience. Stake (1995) portrays the purpose of the closing vigne e as a way of cau oning the reader to the specific case context, saying, “I like to close on an experien al note, reminding the reader that the report is just one person’s encounter with a complex case” (p. 123).

Figure 4.11 Procedures for Conduc ng Case Study Research Challenges and Opportuni es in Case Study Research A case study challenges researchers in several ways. The case study researcher must develop a detailed case descrip on and analysis of a bounded en ty. Researchers need to recognize when they have collected “sufficient” informa on about a case. Despite its complexi es, encouraging the use of case study research is an expressed goal of the editors of the Encyclopedia of Case Study Research (Mills et al., 2010). Here we focus on

three challenges encountered by case study researchers and conclude our discussion with a look to the future. One of the challenges inherent in qualita ve case study development is that the researcher must iden fy and bound the case. The case selected may be broad in scope (e.g., the Boy Scout organiza on) or narrow in scope (e.g., a decision-making process at a specific college). Case selec on requires establishing a ra onale for its purposeful sampling and for gathering informa on about the case. Iden fying the type of case study is helpful as is crea ng a data collec on matrix to plan the informa on to be collected about the case. Deciding the “boundaries” of a case—how it might be constrained in terms of me, events, and processes—may be challenging. Some case studies may not have clean beginning and ending points, and the researcher will need to set boundaries that adequately surround the case. The case study researcher must decide which bounded system to study, recognizing that several might be possible candidates for this selec on and realizing that either the case itself or an issue, which a case or cases are selected to illustrate, is worthy of study. The researcher must consider whether to study a single case or mul ple cases. Feasibility issues can limit the use of mul ple or collec ve case studies. As the use of mul ple case studies increases, it is important to consider three issues: resource limita ons, case selec on, and cross-case analysis. First, it is not surprising given resource limita ons (i.e., both me and financial) that the study of more than one case dilutes the overall analysis; the more cases an individual studies, the less the depth in any single case can be. Second, when a researcher chooses mul ple cases, the issue becomes, “How many cases?” There is no one answer to this ques on. However, researchers typically choose no more than four or five cases. What mo vates the researcher to consider a large number of cases is the idea of generalizability, a term that holds li le meaning for most qualita ve researchers (Glesne & Peshkin, 1992; Lincoln & Guba, 2000). Finally, “What guides the cross-case analysis?” In the analysis of single case studies, we are guided by instrumental or intrinsic purposes; in mul ple case studies, such explicit purpose iden fica on up-front is not always made. Having enough informa on to present an in-depth picture of the case limits the value of some case studies. One of the concerns that has historically plagued case study research is the rigor. Certainly, evidence of poor quality case study research exists, and it is with providing illustra ve examples that we can con nue to curtail such prac ces. Our students find G. Thomas’s (2021) Chapter 4 discussion of rigor and quality in case study helpful to get started. Case study research has experienced growing recogni on during the past 30 years, evidenced by its more frequent applica on in published research and increased availability of reference works (e.g., G. Thomas, 2021; Yin, 2017). Engaging researchers is a focus of a number of publica ons aimed at guiding those new to the approach (e.g., Baxter & Jack, 2008; Flyvbjerg, 2006; Schwandt & Gates, 2018). We an cipate that we

will see more diverse forms of data collected as a part of case study and further applica ons of various theore cal frameworks guiding our case study work. We, like others (e.g., Schwandt & Gates, 2018) have seen an increased interest in case study designs informed by insights from the field of complexity sciences. Studying complex systems as cases or cases as complex systems opens up new ways of thinking about boundaries and requires new ways of thinking about data to capture an in-depth understanding.

COMPARING THE FIVE APPROACHES All five approaches have in common the general process of research that begins with a research problem and proceeds to the ques ons, the data, the data analysis and interpreta ons, and the research report. Qualita ve researchers have found it helpful at this point to see an overall sketch for each of the five approaches. From these sketches of the five approaches, we can iden fy fundamental differences among these types of qualita ve research. Finally, we compare the five approaches rela ng the dimensions of founda onal considera ons (Table 4.1), data procedures (Table 4.2), and research repor ng (Table 4.3). Table 4.1 Contras ng Founda onal Considera ons of Five Qualita ve Approaches

In Table 4.1, we present four dimensions for dis nguishing among the founda onal considera ons for the five approaches. At a most fundamental level, the five differ in what they are trying to accomplish—their research foci or the primary objec ves of the studies. Exploring a life is different from genera ng a theory or describing the behavior of a cultural group. A couple of poten al similari es among the designs should be noted. Narra ve research, ethnography, and case study research may seem similar when the unit of analysis is a single individual. True, one may approach the study of a single individual from any of these three approaches; however, the types of data one would collect and analyze would differ considerably. In narra ve research, the inquirer focuses on the stories told by the individual and arranges these stories o en in chronological order; in ethnography, the focus is on se ng the individuals’ stories within the context of their culture and culture-sharing group; in case study research, the single case is typically selected to illustrate an issue, and the researcher compiles a detailed descrip on of the se ng for the case. Our approach is to recommend—if the researcher wants to study a single individual—the narra ve approach or a single case study because ethnography requires a much broader picture of the culture. Then, when comparing a narra ve study and a single case to study a single individual, we feel that the narra ve approach is seen as more appropriate because narra ve studies tend to focus on a single individual, whereas case studies o en involve more than one individual within a bounded case. The process of developing research ques on(s), which is covered in Chapter 6, can o en be helpful in determining the suitability of the research problem for a specific approach. Moreover, although overlaps exist in discipline origin, some approaches have single-disciplinary tradi ons (e.g., grounded theory origina ng in sociology, ethnography founded in anthropology or sociology), and others have broad interdisciplinary backgrounds (e.g., narra ve, case study). The approaches employ similar data collec on processes, including, in varying degrees, interviews, observa ons, documents, ar facts, and audiovisual and social media materials (see Table 4.2). The differences are apparent in terms of emphasis (e.g., more observa ons in ethnography, more interviews in grounded theory) and extent of data collec on (e.g., only interviews in phenomenology, mul ple forms in case study research to provide the in-depth case picture). At the data analysis stage, the differences are most

pronounced. Not only is the dis nc on one of specificity of the analysis phase (e.g., grounded theory most specific, narra ve research less defined) but the number of steps to be undertaken can vary (e.g., extensive steps in phenomenology, fewer steps in ethnography). We hesitate to offer exact sample sizes because samples can vary greatly and depend on various factors. Key considera ons for researchers involve the me and financial resources available for the study as well as the study topic and the number of par cipants willing and available to be involved. The research repor ng of each approach, the wri en report, takes shape from all the processes before it (see Table 4.3). Stories about an individual’s life comprise narra ve research. A descrip on of the essence of the experience of the phenomenon becomes a phenomenology. A theory, o en portrayed in a visual model, emerges in grounded theory, and a holis c view of how a culture-sharing group works results in an ethnography. An in-depth study of a bounded system or a case (or several cases) becomes a case study. The general wri ng structures of the study report may be used in designing a journal-ar cle-length study. However, because of the numerous steps in each, they also have applicability as chapters of a disserta on or a book-length work. We discuss the differences here because the reader, with an introductory knowledge of each approach, now can sketch the general “architecture” of a study within each approach. Certainly, this architecture will emerge and be shaped differently by the conclusion of the study, but it provides a framework for the design issues to follow. For each approach, the introduc on describes the par cular focus of the research and tends to familiarize the reader to the research problem and research ques on(s). The research procedures are subsequently outlined, o en including a ra onale for use of the approach and details related to the data procedures for the study. Note the unique organizing framework related to each approach and specifically the varia ons in how the research outcomes can be presented. Providing in-depth descrip ons is common across all the approaches, but how the descrip ons are organized varies; whereas narra ve research might use a chronology for telling stories, a phenomenology may use significant statements as the organizing structure for repor ng how the phenomenon was experienced. Similarly, how a research report concludes also varies by the approach; whereas it is common prac ce to use a closing vigne e in a case study, a cultural portrait is commonly used in an ethnography referring to overall interpreta ons, lessons learned, and ques ons raised represen ng the group. These structures should be considered as general templates at this me. In Chapter 5, we will examine five published journal ar cles, with each study illustra ng one of the five approaches, and further explore the wri ng structure of each.

SUMMARY In this chapter, we introduced each of the five approaches to qualita ve research— narra ve studies, phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, and case study. In each descrip on, we provided a focus and defini on, some history of the development of the approach, defining features, and the popular forms it has assumed, as well as detailed major procedures for conduc ng each approach. Finally, we discussed some of the major challenges in conduc ng each approach, and emerging direc ons. To highlight some of the differences among the approaches, we provided overview tables that contrast founda onal considera ons (research focus, unit of analysis, type of research problem, nature of disciplinary origins), data procedures (forms of data collec on, sample size ranges, and data analysis strategies), and research repor ng (research outcomes and structure of wri en report). In the next chapter, we will examine five studies that illustrate each approach and look more closely at the composi onal structure of each type of approach.