Qualitative Research PDF

 1 Some very important starting information OVERVIEW What is quali...

 1 Some very important starting information OVERVIEW What is qualitative research? Qualitative research as a paradigm The emergence of a qualitative research paradigm (in psychology) What do I need to become a good qualitative researcher? Why we love qualitative research Our approach in this book We’re about to introduce you to the wonderful world of qualitative research. It’s vast and exciting, full of new areas to discover. We hope you’ll learn to love and feel as passion- ate about it as we do. As we know that won’t be the case for everyone, we want you to feel that you really ‘get’ it: that you understand both the purpose and premise of qualita- tive research, and, crucially, that you know how to actually go about doing a qualitative research project. In order for this to happen, you may need to put aside ideas you have about what research is, and approach this field with ‘open eyes’ – like an explorer who can only understand a completely different culture if they don’t view and judge it by the perspectives and values of their own culture. WHAT IS QUALITATIVE RESEARCH? The most basic definition of qualitative research is that it uses words as data (see Chapter 2), collected and analysed in all sorts of ways. Quantitative research, in contrast, uses 01-Braun & Clarke_Ch-01-Section 1.indd 3 27/02/2013 3:52:49 PM  4 Successfully getting started in qualitative research numbers as data and analyses them using statistical techniques. The term qualitative research is used to refer both to techniques (of data collection or data analysis) and to a wider framework for conducting research, or paradigm. Paradigm here refers to the beliefs, assumptions, values and practices shared by a research community (see Kuhn, 1962), and it provides an overarching framework for research. Qualitative research, as we define it, is not just about data and techniques – it’s about the application of qualitative techniques within a qualitative paradigm, which is quite different from a quantitative paradigm (see Table 1.1). It has been referred to as Big Q qualitative research, and contrasted with small q qualita- tive research (Kidder & Fine, 1987), which is the use of specific qualitative data collection and techniques, not (necessarily) within a qualitative paradigm (see Box 1.1). Table 1.1 Some broad differences between qualitative and quantitative paradigms Quantitative Qualitative Numbers used as data Words – written and spoken language – (and images) used as data Seeks to identify relationships between variables, Seeks to understand and interpret more to explain or predict – with the aim of generalising local meanings; recognises data as the findings to a wider population gathered in a context; sometimes produces knowledge that contributes to more general understandings Generates ‘shallow’ but broad data – not a lot of Generates ‘narrow’ but rich data, ‘thick complex detail obtained from each participant, descriptions’ – detailed and complex accounts but lots of participants take part (to generate the from each participant; not many take part necessary statistical power) Seeks consensus, norms, or general patterns; often Tends to seek patterns, but accommodates aims to reduce diversity of responses to an average and explores difference and divergence within response data Tends to be theory-testing, and deductive Tends to be theory generating, and inductive (working up from the data) Values detachment and impartiality (objectivity) Values personal involvement and partiality (subjectivity, reflexivity) Has a fixed method (harder to change focus once Method is less fixed (can accommodate a shift data collection has begun) in focus in the same study) Can be completed quickly Tends to take longer to complete because it is interpretative and there is no formula Adapted (and expanded) from Tolich & Davidson (2003) 01-Braun & Clarke_Ch-01-Section 1.indd 4 27/02/2013 3:52:50 PM  Some very important starting information 5 BOX 1.1 EXAMPLES OF SMALL Q QUALITATIVE RESEARCH The use of qualitative techniques outside a qualitative paradigm (small q qualitative research) happens in different ways: A qualitative research project may be conducted in a realist, positivist way, where the values and assumptions of Big Q qualitative research are rejected. Qualitative methods can be used as a precursor for quantitative research. For example, in a study of the effects of the experiences of depression, US professors of psychiatry and nursing James Coyne and Margaret Calarco (1995) conducted two focus groups and thematically organised participants’ statements into eight categories, drawing on these to develop a survey, which they used to generate the data they analysed. It can be used alongside quantitative methods as part of a mixed methods design (see Mertens, 2005). In many mixed method designs, the qualitative component may be subsumed within a primarily quantitative, realist project, and it is rarely Big Q qualitative research. For instance, in food and farming researcher Charlotte Weatherall and colleagues’ (2003) study of UK consumer’s perceptions of food, farming and buying locally produced goods, the qualitative data from six focus groups were used to identify consumers priorities when buying food, perceptions of farming/food provision, and interest in local food production, and informed the development of a quantitative survey. The qualitative analysis was presented and interpreted alongside the quantitative results. The analysis described the content of what was said, assuming a direct relationship between what people say and what they believe (and do). Qualitative data might be converted to a numerical representation, and analysed quantitatively. For instance, public health researchers Mary Story and Patricia Faulkner (1990) collated a selection of episodes of 11 of the most popular US prime-time TV shows and coded the text of those programmes according to food references. The frequency of codes was compared, and was used to determine messages about food and eating presented during prime-time. Overall, they reported ‘pervasive’ (p. 740) references to food, the majority of which were related to low-nutritional-value snacks, and concluded that the shows and advertising promote poor nutritional practice. The typical method here is content analysis, where qualitative data are coded and analysed numerically, and there is debate about whether it is, or can be, a qualitative method. Many say no – for instance, The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005b) barely discusses it; we don’t consider it in this book because we want to focus on wholly qualitative methods. The quantitative focus in content analysis has been substantively critiqued (Mayring, 2004), and more interpretative forms developed – often referred to as qualitative content analysis (e.g. Hsieh & Shannon, 2005; Mayring, 2004), which is similar to thematic analysis. 01-Braun & Clarke_Ch-01-Section 1.indd 5 27/02/2013 3:52:50 PM  6 Successfully getting started in qualitative research QUALITATIVE RESEARCH AS A PARADIGM A broad cluster of features and assumptions make up a non-positivist qualitative research paradigm. One thing absolutely fundamental is that it tends not to assume there is only one correct version of reality or knowledge. Instead, it comes from a perspective that argues that there are multiple versions of reality – even for the same person – and that these are very closely linked to the context they occur in. Most quali- tative researchers would argue that we should not, even must not, consider knowl- edge outside of the context in which it was generated. This refers both to the context of data generation, such as an interview setting, and to the broader sociocultural and political contexts of the research. New Zealand psychologists Maree Burns and Nicola Gavey’s (2004) work on the meanings and discourses of body weight, body size and body practices provides a nice illustration of this (which they actually built into their research design). They contextualised their analysis of the talk of women who practise bulimia through also analysing public health messages promot- ing ‘healthy weight’ (as a response to the ‘obesity epidemic’), and demonstrated a conceptual linking of ‘healthy weight’ to slenderness. This common-sense meaning was deployed by women who practised bulimia to explain and justify their purging and compensating practices (e.g. vomiting, excessive exercise): such practices were framed as about obtaining a ‘healthy’ (i.e. slim) body. Through contextualising the women’s accounts, and specifically analysing public health messages, their analysis provided a compelling insight into the ways something which seems to be a useful message in one domain – that of ‘healthy weight’ – can actually be deployed in very ‘unhealthy’ ways in another. Other elements of a qualitative paradigm include (Silverman, 2000: 8): the use of qualitative data, and the analysis of words which are not reducible to numbers; the use of more ‘naturally’ occurring data collection methods that more closely resemble real life (compared to other possibilities, such as experiments) – this develops from the idea that we cannot make sense of data in isolation from context; an interest in meanings rather than reports and measures of behaviour or internal cognitions; the use of inductive, theory-generating research; a rejection of the natural sciences as a model of research, including the rejection of the idea of the objective (unbiased) scientist; the recognition that researchers bring their subjectivity (their views, perspectives, frameworks for making sense of the world; their politics, their passions) into the research process – this is seen as a strength rather than a weakness. So the qualitative paradigm is quite different from the quantitative one. Depending on where you are in your studies, and what you’re studying, this might contradict what you’ve been taught constitutes good research – controlled, rigorous, reliable, validated, quantitative and experimental. We’re teaching you about a whole different world of 01-Braun & Clarke_Ch-01-Section 1.indd 6 27/02/2013 3:52:50 PM  Some very important starting information 7 research that grew as a response and challenge to the perceived limits of that model of research. THE EMERGENCE OF A QUALITATIVE RESEARCH PARADIGM (IN PSYCHOLOGY) Quantitative approaches and ‘the scientific method’ have dominated psychology (in a way that isn’t the case in all other social sciences). It’s tempting to see the emergence of qualitative research in two ways: a) as a new development; and b) as simply offer- ing a complementary data collection and analysis toolkit for quantitative psychology. We would warn against both conclusions, and offer a very brief history of qualitative research in psychology to illustrate why. From the emergence of psychology as a discipline in the second half of the nine- teenth century, it has been marked by contestation over the ‘appropriate’ ways to research and theorise the things we study in psychology. The focus, topic and purpose of psychology itself are similarly contested, but we won’t discuss those here. Qualitative ideas and approaches have been part of psychology from its inception. However, first with behaviourism in the early twentieth century, and subsequently with the cognitive revolution in the second half of the twentieth century, quantitative methods employed within a (post)positivist, experimental paradigm dominated the discipline (Ashworth, 2003; Howitt, 2010). Such approaches situated themselves in opposition to the more subjective, interpretative introspective (qualitative) techniques of early psychology, which became classified as ‘unscientific’ – a criticism of qualitative research which continues to this day, from some quarters, although that of course depends on how we define science itself (Kvale, 1996). What we think of as psychology, and indeed how you do it, has been strongly shaped by the behavioural and cognitive traditions. Within such approaches, psychology should seek to understand and determine an observable, objective (universal) psychological reality. The dominance of behaviourism and then cognitive experimentalism meant that it wasn’t until the 1980s that qualitative approaches regained a foothold, and subsequently flourished, in some areas of psychology (their history in other social sciences, such as sociology, is different, e.g. Vidich & Lyman, 1994). Their (re)appearance reflected the development of a number of oppositional approaches within the social sciences, which challenged mainstream (post)positivist empiricist research design and practice, and the bases on which psychology and the other social sciences theorised and concep- tualised their subjects (Ashworth, 2003; Howitt, 2010). Approaches including femi- nism (Crawford & Unger, 2004), poststructuralism (Gavey, 1989), postmodernism (Gergen, 1990), social constructionism (Burr, 2003), hermeneutics (Schwandt, 2000) and phenomenology (Langdridge, 2007) in different ways questioned or rejected the idea of an observable, independent (singular and universal) reality, with humans under- stood as responding to external and internal influences. Instead, the person was theorised as operating within a subjective, interpreted world, the organisation of which offered 01-Braun & Clarke_Ch-01-Section 1.indd 7 27/02/2013 3:52:50 PM  8 Successfully getting started in qualitative research a certain version of reality. The relationship between person and context was seen as more fluid and reciprocal, with influence in both directions. Qualitative methods were touted as allowing access to people’s subjective worlds and meanings, and to groups marginalised (e.g. by their gender, sexuality, race/ethnicity/culture) and often invisible within western psychology. They were seen as crucial for identifying and theorising dif- ferent constructed versions of reality, and for the ways people are both constructed by, and constructors of, reality (see Box 1.2 for a classic example). The use of a qualitative paradigm was in many cases then an implicit and often explicit rejection of the val- ues, assumptions and practices of quantitative, experimental psychology (although see Michell, 2004). This rejection was driven from anything from theoretical convictions to political social change agendas. What we wish to emphasise is that qualitative research has a long, but often mar- ginal, history in psychology, and its strong emergence in certain places (e.g. the UK) in recent decades reflects a shakeup of the very foundations of the discipline. That explains why, in some cases, the response to qualitative research is hostile. You don’t need to know much of this history to do qualitative research, but it’s important to understand that it’s not simply a complementary approach to a quantitative research paradigm, and why this is. BOX 1.2 A CLASSIC OF QUALITATIVE PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH British social psychologist Michael Billig’s (1978a, 1978b) interview-study of members of the British far-right group the National Front provided profound insights into the nature of the organisation, and into the frameworks of meaning and logic that National Front members deployed when talking about race, racism and their ideal of a ‘white only’ Britain. Like many others who have been shown to ‘do racism without being racist’, National Front members often denied they were racist, and instead argued that their position was a logical response to the situation of increased non-white migration to the UK. In simultaneously providing compelling insights into this group, and demonstrating the limitations of social cognitive frameworks (e.g. attitudes) for explaining these insights, Billig’s study was at the forefront of the development a new approach to social psychology, providing the foundations for the critique and alternative approaches of what would soon become discursive (Potter & Wetherell, 1987) and rhetorical psychology (Billig, 1987) (see Chapter 8). CONTEXTS OF LEARNING Reflecting this history, within the psychology undergraduate curriculum, qualitative meth- ods tend to be sidelined in favour of quantitative methods. This occurs even in the UK, where they are required in any British Psychological Society (BPS)-accredited psychology 01-Braun & Clarke_Ch-01-Section 1.indd 8 27/02/2013 3:52:50 PM  Some very important starting information 9 curriculum. If taught, qualitative methods are typically allocated far less time on the cur- riculum than quantitative methods, and often treated as a single approach, rather than a field as diverse as ‘quantitative methods’. They are also often taught after quantita- tive methods and experimental design have been presented. If this is the case, qualitative research often comes as a culture shock (Howitt, 2010) at best; at worst, it is seen as ‘unscientific’ or as anxiety provoking because it lacks the clarity and control of quantita- tive research and experimentation, which have often been presented as the pinnacles of research excellence. To become a good qualitative researcher requires a different way of thinking about research. WHAT DO I NEED TO BECOME A GOOD QUALITATIVE RESEARCHER? Obviously, there’s quite a bit you need to know – you’ll learn that throughout this book. Do you need a whole lot of technical skills? Not really. If you’re a bit of a Luddite (like Victoria), you’ve found a home in qualitative research! Assuming you know basic word processing, and are familiar with the internet, qualitative research is unlikely to pose technical chal- lenges. However, if you’re a tech-savvy gadget kid (which Virginia tries to be), qualita- tive research also offers you a home. Qualitative research can be conducted low-tech or high-tech, so there’s something for everyone. But there is one thing that’s really essential: developing a qualitative sensibility. A QUALITATIVE SENSIBILITY A qualitative sensibility refers to an orientation towards research – in terms of research questions, and analysing data – that fits within the qualitative paradigm. Certain skills or orientations that make up a qualitative sensibility include: an interest in process and meaning, over and above cause and effect; a critical and questioning approach to life and knowledge – you don’t take things at face value and simply accept the way they are, but ask questions about why they may be that way, whose interests are served by them and how they could be different; the ability to reflect on, and step outside, your cultural membership, to become a cultural commentator – so that you can see, and question, the shared values and assumptions that make up being a member of a particular society – this involves identifying your own assumptions, and then putting them aside (referred to as bracketing them off) so that your research is not automatically shaped by these. It is hard to do, but vitally important for being able to get ‘deep’ into qualitative data; the development of a double-consciousness or an analytic ‘eye’ or ‘ear’, where you can listen intently, and critically reflect on what is said, simultaneously (e.g. in an interview, being able to focus both on the content of what is being said, and 01-Braun & Clarke_Ch-01-Section 1.indd 9 27/02/2013 3:52:50 PM  10 Successfully getting started in qualitative research possible analytic ideas within it) – this helps produce much better (more complex, richer) data; reflexivity: critical reflection on the research process and on one’s own role as researcher (Finlay, 2002a, 2002b), including our various insider and outsider positions (Gallais, 2008) – we have insider status when we share some group identity with our participants (for example, a male researcher researching men would be an insider), and outsider status when we do not share some group iden- tity with our participants (for example, a white man researching Asian men would be an outsider), but for any research, we are likely to have multiple insider and outsider positions; good interactional skills – a warm/friendly manner that puts people at ease and helps establish ‘rapport’ and ‘trust’. This is does not mean you need to be really extroverted or outgoing. Some of these may come naturally to you; others may be a bit of a struggle. Give them time. In addition, to become a good qualitative researcher, the following need to be added to the qualitative sensibility you have and are developing: a basic grasp of some methods of data collection and analysis, which you build to in-depth understanding; a conceptual understanding of qualitative approaches. The skills you will develop in doing qualitative research don’t just apply to this field: reading and engaging with information critically; learning to discern and distil out what is vital from a large body of information; active listening; writing and presenting inter- esting and compelling ‘stories’ – all these skills will stand you in good stead in the ‘real world’, as well as in qualitative research. WHY WE LOVE QUALITATIVE RESEARCH We love qualitative research: it’s rich, exciting, and challenging in lots of ways; it cap- tures the complexity, mess and contradiction that characterises the real world, yet allows us to make sense of patterns of meaning. In line with the importance of reflexivity and contextualisation for qualitative research (see Chapter 2), you can find out a bit about why we each love qualitative research, and what we each bring to it as researchers, in Boxes 1.3 and 1.4. OUR APPROACH IN THIS BOOK Learning to do qualitative research has been seen by some as akin to riding a bike. British psychologist Jonathan Potter (1997) likened the analytic method discourse analysis (see Chapter 8) to a ‘craft skill’, something that not only takes time to learn, but also requires the ‘doing’. This suggests it cannot be learnt by following a recipe, 01-Braun & Clarke_Ch-01-Section 1.indd 10 27/02/2013 3:52:50 PM  Some very important starting information 11 BOX 1.3 MEET VIRGINIA BRAUN I have been doing qualitative research in psychology for over 15 years, on topics like cervical cancer prevention policy (e.g. Braun & Gavey, 1999), female genital cosmetic surgery (e.g. Braun, 2010), and (hetero)sexual health and ‘risk’ (e.g. Braun, 2008). What drew me to qualitative research wasn’t that I hated statistics; I liked and had always been good at maths and stats. But from my first moments of learning about qualitative research in only a handful of lectures in my undergraduate degree, qualitative research captivated me. I felt it captured ways of knowing, and the richness of real complex lives, in ways that quantitative approaches couldn’t, and was compelled to use it. I’ve never looked back. While I always emphasise that the methods you use must be determined by your research question, I find that the questions I have are typically most suited to qualitative approaches – although I do dabble in quantitative research from time to time. A long way on from those first lectures, my passion for qualitative research has only grown. Qualitative research emphasises that we see things from a perspective. So what are some of my influences? As a researcher, I come from both a traditional and non-traditional background. It is ‘traditional’ in that following a ‘bored senseless’ gap year, I went to university, completing a bachelors, masters (both at The University of Auckland, Aotearoa/New Zealand), and PhD (at Loughborough University, UK), and then jumped straight into an academic job. And I occupy a raft of categories of privilege: white, middle-class, heterosexual, able-bodied, thin. Yet this surface belies a more complex background that informs my ‘lefty’ politics and my strong commitment to social justice, and my awareness of and reflection on those positions of privilege. My parents (mother: teacher; father: academic) separated when I was very young; for eight years, to the start of my teens, I lived with my mother (and others) on a very remote hippy commune. It had no electricity or flushing toilets. Road access was a half-hour walk away, but we had no car and there was no public transport. I don’t share the pop-cultural knowledge of my peers. I grew up on the margins of western culture, occupying simultaneously positions of privilege and of marginalisation; at primary school, I occupied the lowest social category, and experienced frequent marginalisation and bullying from students and teachers. My experience of white privilege is also tempered by my location: as a Pākehā New Zealander, whiteness cannot be an unproblematic or unquestioned category of privilege – and rightly so! I am part of a collective who have been, and continue to be, privileged as a result of New Zealand’s colonised past (and present), which continues to significantly negatively impact Māori, who were colonised by people ‘like me’. And I am a woman. Despite my strong, amazing, busy, achieving mother and my alternative secondary school education, it wasn’t until university that I discovered feminism. It was a natural fit, and, along with critical psychology, provided a framework to bring this all together. I cannot turn off a tendency to critically analyse socially and systemically, rather than individually, representations and constructs which reinforce inequitable social arrangements, marginalisation and discrimination (and privilege). 01-Braun & Clarke_Ch-01-Section 1.indd 11 27/02/2013 3:52:50 PM  12 Successfully getting started in qualitative research BOX 1.4 MEET VICTORIA CLARKE When I was at school, although I was good at maths and science, I really loved subjects like English literature and history that were less about right and wrong answers and more about interpretation. When studying for my A levels, I was fascinated by debates in sociology about paradigms and methodologies, and critiques of science. So when I began studying psychology as an undergraduate at Brunel University (UK), I was already committed to qualitative and interpretive approaches to research, and their emphasis on the provisional, multiple and context-bound nature of knowledge. In addition, I am drawn to qualitative approaches because they afford us a privileged insight into worlds we have no direct personal experience of – doing qualitative research has allowed me to see ways of life and to hear about experiences that are far removed from my own in rich, vivid detail. Like Virginia, I have been doing qualitative research for over 15 years, on topics such as lesbian and gay parenting (e.g. Clarke, 2001), partner relationships (e.g. Clarke, Burgoyne, & Burns, 2006), and sexuality and appearance (e.g. Clarke & Turner, 2007). Although I am strongly committed to qualitative approaches in general, I’m not, as are many researchers, wedded to a particular qualitative approach; rather my view is that different qualitative approaches can capture something useful and interesting about the complex and messy world in which we all live. Like Virginia, my research is strongly informed by my left-leaning politics and a commitment to social justice. In many ways my life is shaped by social privilege – as white, as middle class, as a member of a ‘respectable’ profession like university lecturing – yet these positions of privilege intersect with experiences of social marginality as non-heterosexual, as a woman and, currently, as disabled (by virtue of a chronic health condition). Unlike Virginia, I grew up in fairly conventional circumstances – in the ‘burbs with my mother and father. Our outer London, largely working-class town had a large South Asian (Indian sub-continent) immigrant community and I quickly became sensitised to issues of race and racism when I was often the only white child to attend the birthday parties of my South Asian class mates. I was a passionate feminist by my early teens and my passion was further fuelled by a teacher who gave me the books of radical feminists like Sheila Jeffreys to read. I came out as a lesbian in my early twenties, during my undergraduate degree (I now identity as non-heterosexual), and this was highly influential in my choice of lesbian and gay parenting as a topic for my PhD research (at Loughborough University, UK). My training in qualitative research was almost exclusively unpinned by critical frameworks such as feminism, social constructionism, poststructuralism and discourse analysis. This training, combined with my personal commitments to criticality and social justice, means that most of my research is conducted through a critical lens. 01-Braun & Clarke_Ch-01-Section 1.indd 12 27/02/2013 3:52:50 PM  Some very important starting information 13 or picked up from a ‘how to’ guide; others feel the same about qualitative research in general. In contrast, some (e.g. McLeod, 2001) argue that clear guidance is vital for demystifying qualitative research, and making it accessible to everyone, and in recent years there has been an increased focus on practical guidance (e.g. Smith, Flowers, & Larkin, 2009). Both positions hold validity: clear guidelines are important for learn- ing, but doing qualitative research remains an essential part of the learning process. The point is nicely expressed by a British student talking about his experience of learning qualitative methods: ‘the more you do [qualitative research] the better you get, it’s practice, it’s like art you have to do it to learn it you can’t just sit there read a book and think “oh that’s how I do it,” it’s not like you can just pick up a manual and go how do I analyse this, not like with stats’ (PD in Shaw, Dyson, & Peel, 2008: 187). We have designed this book as a practical introduction to qualitative research, for people relatively new to the field. It is intended to demystify the process of qualitative research, and help emerging qualitative researchers feel they have a grasp of what they need to do to be a successful qualitative researcher. Our experience tells us that practi- cally oriented information and the use of examples from real research projects are cru- cial for a productive learning experience. Because of this, we do some things differently in this book, compared to most other qualitative teaching guides: We prioritise practice over theory; we aim to teach you what you need to know to do qualitative research, from design to data collection, analysis and report- ing, without deeply engaging with theory. Obviously theory is important. It’s absolutely vital for developing a fuller and deeper understanding of qualitative methods and methodologies, and what knowledge we can and cannot gener- ate from the methods we use. But these debates can be inaccessible (and less meaningful) if you first don’t have some basic understanding of qualitative data and what you might do with it, analytically. Requiring deep theoretical engage- ment at the start can actually cloud the process, making qualitative research (in general) harder to understand than it needs to be. In contrast to the usual model of learning theory first, we believe that the theory can more easily become clear, and relevant, to people, through the process of starting to actually do qualitative research – that is, ‘getting your hands dirty’ with data collection and analysis. So we suggest you only need limited theoretical knowledge before you jump right in and start doing qualitative research, and for this reason, our discussion of theory is limited to an introduction in Chapter 2, and theory specific to certain analytic approaches in Chapter 8. Once you feel you have understood the basics of what qualitative research is, and how you do it, we encourage you to start to read more deeply into theory (e.g. Burr, 2003; Guba & Lincoln, 2005; Nightingale & Cromby, 1999) to enhance your analytic skills. We understand qualitative data analysis as having one of three basic forms or frameworks: searching for patterns, looking at interaction, or looking at stories. We focus on pattern-based analysis, as the most basic and common qualitative approach (in psychology), and teach you to analyse qualitative data within this 01-Braun & Clarke_Ch-01-Section 1.indd 13 27/02/2013 3:52:51 PM  14 Successfully getting started in qualitative research patterns framework. We aim to teach ‘basic’ and ‘generic’ qualitative research skills and knowledge, which can be applied to different analytic methods. So instead of providing several chapters on different analysis ‘methods’, we system- atically walk you through a basic thematic approach, and compare and contrast this with other approaches, where relevant. This different approach to teaching analysis ensures you understand the core premise and purpose of pattern-based ways of analysing qualitative data, and the similarities and differences between different methods, and their language and concepts. We aim to guide you through the entire process of qualitative research. In keeping with our very practical orientation, we do so using lots of ‘real’ research exam- ples, both in the text itself, and on the companion website. WHO WE’VE WRITTEN THE BOOK FOR This book is written first and foremost for students learning qualitative research within a (undergraduate or taught postgraduate) psychology degree (we are both psycholo- gists). The book supports a teaching block on qualitative methods, and is designed as a resource for students doing a qualitative research project – from the process of research design to the writing-up of the report. Students learning and doing qualitative research in the context of other social and health disciplines should also find it useful, as will more established researchers encountering or doing qualitative research for the first time. Although we’re both psychologists, and a lot of the material orients to psychology, qualitative psychology isn’t clearly disciplinary-bound: it bleeds across the boundaries of related disciplines such as sociology, social work, counselling, nursing, education, social anthropology, socio-legal studies and social geography. We therefore use exam- ples from within and outside psychology and we draw from qualitative research around the globe; in fitting with qualitative psychology’s emphasis on knowledge as contextual (see Chapter 2), we always note where the research examples are from. SOME INFORMATION ABOUT OUR TAKE ON THINGS, INCLUSIONS AND EXCLUSIONS There are a few other specific things that will be useful to know in reading and making sense of this book: We’re not neutral when it comes to qualitative research – we think it’s fantastic! But more specifically, we also advocate particular forms of qualitative research – those that are contextualist or constructionist in their orientation (see Chapter 2), and typically part of a Big Q approach. Given that, we don’t discuss qualitative research used in a (post)positivist (small q) way. To give some sense of coherence and comparability, many of our examples come from research related to weight, eating, diet and ‘obesity’ (including the focus group [FG] data we analyse in Chapters 9–11). You’ll quickly see we often use the language of fat. This might seem shocking to some readers, and may be taken as derogatory. On the contrary, in line with fat politics, fat is 01-Braun & Clarke_Ch-01-Section 1.indd 14 27/02/2013 3:52:51 PM  Some very important starting information 15 not a ‘dirty word’ (Wann, 2009) – or indeed a ‘dirty’ state of embodiment – and in order to counter fat phobia, we must shift from euphemistic language around fatness. Terms like ‘obesity’, which have the ring of medical neutrality, also are far from neutral, and convey a whole lot of (problematic) values and assumptions. Given that qualitative research is a diverse field, and given that this is an introduc- tory textbook, we can’t cover everything. Our decisions on what to include and exclude reflect a combination of factors: a) methods that are generally consid- ered to be core in qualitative psychology; b) methods we feel are realistically usea- ble within a limited amount of time; c) methods that require limited resources, and which are thus amenable to student projects; d) methods which don’t require a lot of technical expertise; and e) methods which are primarily text based. This means we don’t discuss in any depth increasingly popular conversation analytic (e.g. Hutchby & Wooffitt, 2008), discursive psychological (e.g. Edwards & Potter, 1992), narrative analytic (e.g. Riessman, 2007) or visual methods (e.g. Frith, Riley, Archer, & Gleeson, 2005), various participatory or action research approaches (e.g. Kemmis & McTaggart, 2005) including memory work (e.g. Willig, 2008) and ethnography (e.g. Griffin & Bengry-Howell, 2008), or methods which can blur qualitative/ quantitative boundaries, such as Q-methodology (e.g. Watts & Stenner, 2005) or repertory grids (e.g. Jancowicz, 2004). Throughout the book we refer to small, medium and large projects. To give some examples of what we mean by these terms, we provide examples of student pro- jects from our own universities in Table 1.2. THE WAY WE’VE STRUCTURED THE BOOK There are three types of questions in qualitative research: 1 your research question(s): what you’re trying to find out; 2 the questions you ask participants to generate data (NB: only in qualitative research that collects data from participants); 3 the questions you ask of your data, in order to answer your research question(s). Each of these types of questions is different, and they are the focus of different stages in the research process. The book guides you through the entire research process from con- ceiving and designing qualitative research, through to collecting and analysing qualitative data and writing up, evaluating and disseminating qualitative research, in a more or less sequential order. Section 1: Successfully getting started in qualitative research deals with some of the basic issues in qualitative research, and covers aspects of planning and design. We recommend definitely reading these chapters first if you’re (relatively) new to qualitative research, or research at all. Section 2: Successfully collecting qualitative data covers various methods of data collection. Because interactive methods (where the researcher interacts with participants to generate data) are very common, two chapters are devoted to the 01-Braun & Clarke_Ch-01-Section 1.indd 15 27/02/2013 3:52:51 PM  16 Successfully getting started in qualitative research Table 1.2 Sizes of projects in different countries Country Small Project Medium Project Large Project UK (Department Final year undergraduate MSc dissertation PhD thesis of Psychology, project 1 year PT 3–4 years FT University of the 7½ months part time 15,000 word report* 80,000 word West of England) (PT) report* MPhil thesis 10,000 word report* 18–36 months full time (FT); 40,000 word report* Professional doctorate thesis 3 years PT 30–40,000 word report* Aotearoa/ Honours dissertation MA/MSc thesis Professional New Zealand 7½ months PT 9–12 months FT doctorate (Department of 8–10,000 word 35–40,000 word report (DClinPsy) Psychology, The report (length only a dissertation University of guideline)* 3 years PT Auckland) 60,000 word report PhD thesis 3–4 years FT 100,000 word report *Excludes reference list and appendices most widely used of these (interview and FGs). We have also included some textual approaches which are particularly useful for small-scale, time-limited projects. Section 3: Successfully analysing qualitative data includes five chapters, first describing the process of transcription, then introducing different approaches to analysis and finally moving to a practical discussion and demonstration of the stages of doing analysis. Section 4: Successfully completing qualitative research covers the very important issue of how to ensure that your qualitative research is of an excellent standard, and the dissemination of your results through reports and presentations. This structure invokes a simple, directional process for qualitative research, from design to completion, like climbing a staircase where you start at one point and finish at the other with no chance of digression. Is qualitative research like this? Not at all, sorry! Qualitative research is instead a recursive rather than linear process; it often involves going sideways and backwards, as well as forwards, to reach the answers you’re looking for. While you can read the book from end to end, you may also want to move back and forth through it, to match where you are in your learning or research 01-Braun & Clarke_Ch-01-Section 1.indd 16 27/02/2013 3:52:51 PM  Some very important starting information 17 process, and definitely revisit questions of theory (Chapters 2 and 8) as you learn more. PEDAGOGICAL FEATURES YOU’LL FIND IN THE BOOK The book contains a range of distinct pedagogical features to assist your learning: a succinct overview and summary of each chapter; suggestions for further resources relevant to the focus of each chapter (e.g. further reading, online resources, content on the companion website); classroom exercises and questions for discussion – usually at least four provided for each chapter; research examples – demonstrating the use of a particular method; tables – for easy comparisons and reference; boxes – to highlight particular bits of information; a glossary of terms to demystify some of the jargon of qualitative research – the first time a glossary term appears in the text, it will be emboldened; a set of research design tables to aid in determining the scope of your research project and in ensuring an appropriate fit between all aspects of your qualitative project (Tables 3.1–3.3); some material examples to guide you in producing research materials. The book is supported and expanded by a thorough companion website (www.sage pub.co.uk/braunandclarke) that includes multiple additional resources, including: an extensive qualitative data archive (the full transcript of the weight and obesity FG we ran for the book; a full transcript and audio file from a second FG on body art; various sample textual datasets); an extensive collection of material resources which provide examples of different qualitative research documents (some additionally annotated); information about an additional textual data collection method (vignettes); examples of qualitative presentations and posters; chapter-by-chapter learning resources, including extended examples of certain boxes and tables; self-test multiple-choice questions for each section of the book; an interactive flashcard glossary; answers to certain chapter exercises; links to the Sage journal articles recommended as further reading. CHAPTER SUMMARY This chapter: provided a brief introduction to what qualitative research is; introduced the idea of research paradigms, and outlined a qualitative paradigm; briefly summarised the emergence of qualitative research (within psychology); explained the all-important qualitative sensibility; 01-Braun & Clarke_Ch-01-Section 1.indd 17 27/02/2013 3:52:51 PM  18 Successfully getting started in qualitative research introduced ourselves and our perspectives; introduced the approach and scope of this book. FURTHER RESOURCES Further reading: For accessible introductions to the history and emergence of qualitative psychology, we recommend: Ashworth, P. (2003). The origins of qualitative psychology. In J. A. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (pp. 4–24). London: Sage. Howitt, D. (2010). Part 1 Background to qualitative methods in psychology, especially Chapter 2, How qualitative methods developed in psychology. In Introduction to qualitative methods in psychology. Harlow: Prentice Hall. www. Online resources: See the companion website (www.sagepub.co.uk/braunandclarke) for: self-test multiple choice questions relating to Section 1; the flashcard glossary – test yourself on the definitions of key terms used in this chapter; further readings (articles from Sage journals). 01-Braun & Clarke_Ch-01-Section 1.indd 18 27/02/2013 3:52:51 PM  2 Ten fundamentals of qualitative research OVERVIEW Qualitative research is about meaning, not numbers Qualitative research doesn’t provide a single answer Qualitative research treats context as important Qualitative research can be experiential or critical Qualitative research is underpinned by ontological assumptions Qualitative research is underpinned by epistemological assumptions Qualitative research involves a qualitative methodology Qualitative research uses all sorts of data Qualitative research involves ‘thinking qualitatively’ Qualitative research values subjectivity and reflexivity Knowing what you now know, is qualitative research right for your project? If you’re travelling to a completely foreign country, some basic knowledge – such as what language is spoken and what the key aspects of culture and etiquette are – is vital for a successful trip. This chapter provides such an introduction for qualitative research, so that rather than blundering uninitiated into the wilderness of qualitative research, and potentially getting lost or making some fundamental errors, you can walk confidently, with solid ground beneath your feet. We introduce ten basic things you really need to know about qualitative research before you start to do it, and then discuss how you determine the suitability of qualitative research for a project. Before we begin, it’s important to note that qualitative research is a rich, diverse and complex field (see Madill & Gough, 2008). It can aim to do one or more different things: ‘give voice’ to a group of people or an issue; provide a detailed description of events or 02-Braun & Clarke_Ch-02.indd 19 28/02/2013 7:33:34 PM  20 Successfully getting started in qualitative research experiences; develop theory; interrogate the meaning in texts; identify discourses or dem- onstrate the discursive features of a text; and/or engage in social critique. Qualitative research is not a single thing, although people who don’t understand it often treat it as if it were. QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IS ABOUT MEANING, NOT NUMBERS In a nutshell, if asked what the central thing that distinguishes qualitative research as a field is, our answer would be that it deals with, and is interested in, meaning. At its core, qualitative research is about capturing some aspect of the social or psychological world. It records the messiness of real life, puts an organising framework around it and interprets it in some way. To gain an understanding of what it is, it’s also helpful to understand what it is not. As noted in Chapter 1, qualitative and quantitative research have quite different foci and purposes, and result in quite different knowledge and claims. Box 2.1 provides a useful comparison of two studies on the same broad topic, one using a qualitative approach and one using a quantitative approach; see also Table 1.1 in Chapter 1. Qualitative research is not about testing hypotheses, and not typically about seeking comparisons between groups. This isn’t to say you cannot make comparisons in qualitative analysis, but only quantitative methods provide a framework for testing difference between groups in any concrete or absolute way. And it does not aim for replication, either as a principle, or as the criterion by which the quality of research is established (see Chapter 12). Because of a focus on knowledge as something that comes from, and makes sense within, the con- texts it was generated from (see below), qualitative research does not assume the ‘same’ accounts will always be generated, every time, by any researcher. QUALITATIVE RESEARCH DOESN’T PROVIDE A SINGLE ANSWER If you love certainty, qualitative research is going to present you with some chal- lenges. Among most qualitative researchers, it’s generally agreed upon that there is more than one way of making meaning from the data that we analyse, which means there isn’t a single ‘right’ answer. One of the criticisms of qualitative research from some quantitative researchers is that, if that’s the case, then our analyses are simply ‘made up’ and don’t tell us anything meaningful; that ‘anything goes’ in qualitative research. This is emphatically not the case. An analysis of qualitative data tells one story among many that could be told about the data. The idea that analysis is like a story is a useful concept, but don’t think this means it’s fictional. Imagine you’ve gone on holiday with your family. When you come back, your story of the holiday may be quite different to your parents’ story – they may have had a fantastic time, while you were bored senseless. Each is an equally true story of the holiday. Qualitative researchers recognise that the data analyses we produce are like such stories – they are partial, and 02-Braun & Clarke_Ch-02.indd 20 28/02/2013 7:33:34 PM  Ten fundamentals of qualitative research 21 they are subjective (see below). But any good analysis needs to be plausible, coherent and grounded in the data. You don’t need to be claiming to tell the only or absolute truth to be telling a compelling ‘truth’ about your data. QUALITATIVE RESEARCH TREATS CONTEXT AS IMPORTANT Another key tenet of qualitative research is an appreciation that information and knowledge always come from somewhere. Qualitative data are understood as accounts that are not produced in the ether. Instead, they are seen to be produced in particular contexts, by participants who come from, and are located within, specific contexts. What does that mean? It means that, in contrast to the positivist/quantitative ideal of being able to obtain ‘uncontaminated’ knowledge, with all biases removed, qualita- tive research recognises that these exist, and incorporates them into the analysis. It recognises the subjectivity of the data we analyse, and the analyses we produce. Subjectivity basically refers to the idea that what we see and understand reflects our identities and experiences – the contexts we’ve existed in, a concept sometimes also referred to as ‘perspectival subjectivity’ (Kvale, 1996: 212). Qualitative research does not treat this subjectivity as bias to be eliminated from research, but tends to involve contextualised analysis, which takes this into account. QUALITATIVE RESEARCH CAN BE EXPERIENTIAL OR CRITICAL Qualitative research is exploratory, open-ended and organic, and produces in-depth, rich and detailed data from which to make claims. As a field, it can be divided into two broad camps (Reicher, 2000), which we term experiential and critical. Experiential qualita- tive research validates the meanings, views, perspectives, experiences and/or practices expressed in the data. We call it experiential because participants’ interpretations are prioritised, accepted and focused on, rather than being used as a basis for analysing something else. Critical qualitative research takes an interrogative stance towards the meanings or experiences expressed in the data, and uses them to explore some other phenomenon. Typically, it seeks to understand the factors influencing, and the effects of, the particular meanings or representations expressed. We call it critical because it doesn’t take data at face value. This means that analysts’ interpretations become more important than participants’. We’ll explain these two camps in a bit more detail. EXPERIENTIAL QUALITATIVE RESEARCH: TELLING IT ‘LIKE IT IS’ Experiential research is driven by a desire to know people’s own perspectives and mean- ings, to ‘get inside’ people’s heads as it were, and to prioritise them in reporting the research. Research becomes a process of collecting such information, and then putting an organising, interpretative framework around what is expressed in the data. 02-Braun & Clarke_Ch-02.indd 21 28/02/2013 7:33:34 PM  BOX 2.1 COMPARING A QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE APPROACH Here we contrast two studies (Christianson, Lalos, Westman, & Johansson, 2007; Herlitz & Ramstedt, 2005) on the same (broad) topic – 02-Braun & Clarke_Ch-02.indd 22 sexual risk – conducted in the same country (Sweden) to give you a sense of the different sorts of understandings that are generated by quantitative and qualitative research. Quantitative Study Qualitative Study Assessment of sexual behaviour, sexual attitudes, and sexual ‘Eyes wide shut’ – sexuality and risk in HIV-positive youth in Sweden risk in Sweden (1989–2003) (Herlitz & Ramstedt, 2005). (Christianson et al., 2007). Research aim: to identify changes in the general Swedish Research aim/question: to explore perceptions of sexual risk taking population’s attitudes, knowledge, beliefs and behaviours among HIV positive youth, and their understandings of why they related to HIV/AIDS, over time. Specific hypotheses: a) contracted HIV. sexually risky behaviour would have decreased; b) that attitudes to sex would be more conservative, due to risk of HIV/AIDS. Sample: a random sample, stratified for age, was generated Sample: a purposive sample of 10 HIV positive Swedish residents from the general population in 1989, 1994, 1997 and 2003 (five female; five male; seven born in Sweden; three born abroad) (n = 4000 each year), and a sample in 2000 randomly selected aged between 17 and 24. Participants were recruited through three but weighted toward urban dwellers (n = 6000). Overall HIV clinics/organisations. response rate was 63%, and total n = 13,762. Method of data collection: quantitative questionnaire (closed Method of data collection: in-depth semi-structured interviews (see response options), consisting of 85–90 items, delivered by mail Chapter 3); tape recorded; transcribed ‘verbatim’ (all utterances to sample. Up to three reminders were sent. transcribed as spoken). Method of data analysis: statistical. Multiple logistical Method of data analysis: grounded theory (see Chapter 8). Coding regression, a statistical method that allows determination and analysis began from the first interview. Analysis involved of the (relative) influence of multiple variables (e.g. age, multiple stages of (open) coding and re-coding and organising the sex, education level) on a particular outcome (e.g. practising data into core categories and subcategories; for credibility, four unsafe sex), in order to predict the likelihood of that participants also read and commented on the preliminary analysis outcome. (Chapter 12 discusses ‘member checking’). 28/02/2013 7:33:34 PM  Key results: neither hypothesis supported: significant Key results: identified two main clusters of factors that limited increases in casual sexual contacts without condoms, and the individuals’ possibilities for agency in sexual interactions: a) multiple partners, between 1989 and 2003; attitudes to ‘sex’ ‘sociocultural blinds’ referred to factors which make safer sex a 02-Braun & Clarke_Ch-02.indd 23 outside relationships more permissive in 2003 than 1989; hard topic to broach, like the idea that ‘being in love’ protects you attitudes were more liberal, with regard to acceptability of from sexual risk; b) ‘from consensual to forced sex’ referred to casual sex, than behaviour; youngest participants more likely factors within consensual encounters, like pleasure and trust, and to use condoms for casual sex than older participants. coercion, which resulted in risky sex. Conclusions: need for continuous, extensive sexuality education Conclusions: the data and analysis emphasise the context-bound to help reduce sexual risk which can be controlled by behaviour nature of sexual experiences and practices, and the way power and (e.g., condom-use). gender inflect most experiences. Contrary to the idea that informs health promotion, of a rational agent who makes (informed) choices about their behaviour, these accounts show that agency can be compromised by various factors beyond the individual’s control. This type of research can show: changes in sexual attitudes This type of research can show: the richness of (reported) real lived and practices (at a population level); factors that might experiences; nuances and diversity within accounts; patterns across predict particular outcomes a researcher might be accounts. Can offer insights into the lived complexity of negotiating interested in – can be useful for targeting interventions. safer sex practices. Can help understand how and why young people are at risk for HIV. This type of research cannot show: the meanings of different This type of research cannot show: general patterns across the experiences; why these changes may have occurred. population; cause and effect relationships. Evaluation: this sort of research is useful for mapping large Evaluation: this sort of research is useful for providing a compelling population-level patterns in behaviour – it provides a ‘breadth’ sense of what sexual risk/safety (or any other topic) really is like, of knowledge. The focus on association between factors can for individual people in their lives. It provides both rich and deep be very useful for targeting interventions. However, it does understandings of the ways people make sense of, and put into practice, not provide ‘deep’ or ‘rich’ understanding around sexual scientific ‘facts’ about sexual risk and safety. While it can inform attitudes, perceptions of risk, or behaviour, and so cannot interventions, it cannot be generalised to all people, and so cannot be offer understandings of why people do what they do. used to make population-level claims about sexual safety and risk. 28/02/2013 7:33:34 PM  24 Successfully getting started in qualitative research There are many reasons why a qualitative approach is more suitable than a quantita- tive one when trying to understand people’s meanings: it allows us to retain a focus on people’s own framing around issues, and their own terms of reference, rather than having it pre-framed by the researcher (e.g. items in a questionnaire); it allows a far richer (fuller, multi-faceted) or deeper understanding of a phenom- enon than using numbers, not least because the complexity of people’s meanings or experiences is revealed and retained in qualitative data; reality, meaning and experience for people often tend to be messy and contradic- tory; qualitative research can ‘embrace this messiness’ (Shaw et al., 2008: 188). Participants’ language can reveal both ‘mess’ and contradiction in a way quantita- tive methods cannot; as it can be open-ended, exploratory, organic and flexible, it can evolve to suit the needs of the project (such as accommodating unanticipated ideas expressed by participants); by collecting and analysing such data, we can find out things that we might never have imagined; things that would be lost using quantitative methods. This means the scope of knowledge and understanding is opened up considerably. What we can understand with qualitative research is not limited by the researcher’s imagination and existing knowledge in the field. Instead, participants’ experiences and meanings (personal and wider societal meanings) drive experiential qualitative research. For example, researchers wanting to understand more about young women and eating might conduct interviews or focus groups (FGs) to understand the meanings that ‘food’ has for a small group of young women, the place it has in their lives, and their experiences of eating (or not eating) food, instead of getting young women to complete a quantitative survey about food and eating which would involve them responding to categories and options pre-determined by the researcher. So experiential qualitative research seeks to make sense of how the world is seen, under- stood and experienced from the person’s perspective. Language is treated as if it provides a window to the person’s interior; it is understood as the way people report their experi- ences, practices and meanings in a straightforward fashion; it is the vehicle researchers use to access and make sense of that inner world. Research often involves what is talked about as ‘mapping’ or ‘giving voice’ to ‘the rich tapestry of people’s lives’ – analysis provides ‘rich’ or ‘thick’ descriptions of meaning and experience (see Box 2.2). BOX 2.2 ‘THICK’ OR ‘RICH’ DESCRIPTION The idea that qualitative research should provide thick description came from US anthro­pologist Clifford Geertz’s writing about ethnography in the 1970s (Geertz, 1973). Description was ‘thick’ when contexts of behaviour were described; it was ‘thin’ when context was excluded. Subsequently taken up in different ways throughout qualitative research, the idea now is often used synonymously with the term ‘rich’ to refer to detailed descriptions of the object of study, in which the complexity and contradictions of participants’ stories of their lives are included. 02-Braun & Clarke_Ch-02.indd 24 28/02/2013 7:33:35 PM  Ten fundamentals of qualitative research 25 CRITICAL QUALITATIVE RESEARCH: INTERROGATING THE STORIES WE COLLECT In critical qualitative research, in contrast, the focus is not on language as a means to get inside the person’s head, but on language as it is used ‘out there’ in the world. Its interest is in how language gives shape to certain social realities – and the impact of these. While critical qualitative research is essentially about language as a mode of communication, interest shifts away from only looking at the semantic content (the objects the words refer to). Rather, language is understood as the main mode by which the reality of our world is created, and so researchers within this tradition use language to explore the ways different versions of reality are created. They take what is called a constitutive or productive view of language; its central premise is that language creates rather than reflects reality (Weedon, 1997). For example, a project concerned with young women and eating might examine the ways young women talk about food in ways which construct distinct categories around different food types and eating patterns and habits (obvious ones might be healthy/unhealthy; good/bad; fattening/non-fattening; controlled/uncontrolled). Unlike experiential qualitative research, critical qualitative research doesn’t see such talk as offering a window into how these young women really feel about food/eating. Rather, talk is seen as depicting a reality about food that they are creating or constructing through the way they talk about it, and which reflects broader ways of understanding available in their sociocultural contexts (see Chapter 7 for more on this approach). Within this approach, research can broadly be divided between that interested in representation and construction and that interested in language practice. An inter- est in representation and/or construction is an interest in factors which shape or create meaning and the effects and implications of particular patterns of meaning. Language is one of the main means by which representation and construction occur; qualitative research is therefore ideal for researchers interested these. Qualitative research is used to understand the ways language (or imagery) tells particular stories about research objects. (Research objects – the things we study – can be concrete things, like clothing, or abstract things, like love.) To continue the previous example, a project concerned with young women and eating might analyse the ways weight and dieting are repre- sented in teen magazines, and the explicit and implicit ideas about food, weight and eating that exist there. One common representation might be of food as something that is a threat to health, self and well-being – with the implication that eating should be approached with caution, with the right types of food consumed in a controlled fashion. A key assumption is that there are numerous ways objects could be represented, and that different representations have different implications for individuals and society (Hall, 1997). For instance, the representations of body size as the result of genetics and hormones or of individual eating and exercise behaviour carry quite different inferences about how a person can or should feel, and indeed behave, regarding their body size. For a fat person, a genetic/hormonal account means that they are seen as not responsible for their fatness; an eating/exercise account makes them potentially responsible and blameworthy. Some research in this tradition involves the practice of deconstruction (Norris, C., 2002a; Parker, 1988), whereby texts are ‘taken apart’ and interrogated for the dominant and hidden assumptions (or oppositions) they rely on. 02-Braun & Clarke_Ch-02.indd 25 28/02/2013 7:33:35 PM  26 Successfully getting started in qualitative research In terms of language practice, qualitative research seeks to examine the ways lan- guage is used to create particular versions of reality. The analytic focus ranges widely: some is quite micro, with a focus on the detail of language use, such as the function of particular features of talk and texts (Hutchby, 2002). Hong Kong linguist Amy Tsui (1991), for instance, examined the ways the expression ‘I don’t know’ functions in con- versation not (just) to express a cognitive state, but to avoid or ameliorate certain deli- cate activities, such as a disagreement or making an assessment about something (see also Potter, 1997). Some is more macro, and considers the ways language produces a certain version of reality. For example, researchers have examined the ways people deploy different constructions of identity at different points in a conversation, identi- fying that these serve different purposes for the speaker (as Edley & Wetherell, 1997, show around heterosexual masculinities). For example, consider a fat man talking to a doctor about his desire to lose some weight. At one point in the conversation he may use language which suggests he is an ‘in control’ independent person who can choose to act in ways which will determine his weight. At another point, he may use language which suggests his fatness is not his ‘fault’, and that it results from forces beyond his control, such as biology or culture. Each construction has different implications, allow- ing the doctor to blame him, or not, for his weight, and to feel confident offering one of a range of weight-loss suggestions. A BRIEF SUMMARY, AND AN INTRODUCTION TO THEORY So qualitative research is concerned with words, and sometimes images, and is typically either experiential or critical. Each camp contains diverse interests (e.g. the critical camp is concerned with representation, construction or language practices). In whatever form it takes, qualitative research accesses the richness of the worlds we all exist in – whether they are the worlds that exist ‘in our heads’, or the social and physical worlds exter- nal to us. Regardless of which camp it’s in, qualitative research overall tends to come from a different theoretical position than quantitative and experimental research. And then different qualitative methodologies also have their own particular theoretical frame- works and do different sorts of things with data. In setting out a framework for research practice, methodology relies on ontology and epistemology (Ramazanoglu & Holland, 2002). These complicated-sounding words refer, respectively, to theories about the nature of reality or being and about the nature of knowledge. Each demarcates what can and Relativism Critical realism Realism ‘Reality’ is A pre-social A pre-social dependent on reality exists but reality exists that the ways we we can only ever we can access come to know it partially know it through research Figure 2.1 The ontology continuum 02-Braun & Clarke_Ch-02.indd 26 28/02/2013 7:33:35 PM  Ten fundamentals of qualitative research 27 cannot count as meaningful knowledge and informs our methodology and the process of producing that knowledge. Qualitative research often departs radically from quantitative research in both of these. QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IS UNDERPINNED BY ONTOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS Ontological positions specify the relationship between the world and our human inter- pretations and practices. Ontology determines whether or not we think reality exists entirely separate from human practices and understandings – including the research we conduct to find such things out – or whether we think it cannot be separated from human practices, and so knowledge is always going to reflect our perspective. There are many variations, which range along a continuum from a view where ‘reality’ is entirely independent of human ways of knowing about it – what has been described as a ‘mind- independent truth’ (Tebes, 2005) (known as realism) – to a view where reality is entirely depends on human interpretation and knowledge (known as relativism) (see Figure 2.1). Realism assumes a knowable world, which is comprehensible through research – that the truth (and there is only one) is ‘out there’ and can be accessed by the appropri- ate application of research techniques. In its most extreme or ‘naive’ version, it has been referred to as ‘a correspondence theory of truth’ (Madill, Jordan, & Shirley, 2000: 3), where what we observe is assumed to mirror truthfully what is there. Realism is the ontol- ogy underpinning most quantitative research, but it rarely informs qualitative research. Relativism, in contrast, argues that there are multiple constructed realities, rather than a single, pre-social reality or mind-independent truth, and that we can never get beyond these constructions (Cromby & Nightingale, 1999). Rather than being universal, what is ‘real’ and ‘true’ differs across time and context, so that what we can know reflects where and how knowledge is generated. A relativist ontology underpins some qualitative approaches, including some versions of discourse analysis, but it rarely informs quan- titative research. Somewhere in between sit critical realist positions, now quite com- monly adopted in qualitative research, which also invoke a real and knowable world which sits ‘behind’ the subjective and socially-located knowledge a researcher can access (Madill et al., 2000). Because knowledge is viewed as socially influenced, it is thought to reflect a separate reality that we can only partially access. The critical realist position holds that we need to claim that some ‘authentic’ reality exists to produce knowledge that might ‘make a difference’ (Stainton Rogers & Stainton Rogers, 1997). For example, we would need to be able to claim that the shame and embarrassment that (some) fat people experience in airline seats (Farrell, 2011) is real to produce knowledge that might mean airlines ch