No abstract

Naturalistic inquiry is a label given to certain forms of phenomenological inquiry, including some qualitative research, much interpretive research, and many other forms of non‐experimental and non‐positivist inquiry, which relies heavily on the assumption that sensemaking or meaning‐making activities constitute forms of reality[ies] as meaningful, or more meaningful, to study than physical realities when dealing with human research. While positivist and experimental forms of inquiry rely heavily on factors which can be weighed, measured, assessed, or otherwise quantified, naturalistic inquiry – or constructivist inquiry, as it is more accurately labeled today – balances the inquiry focus by moving beyond tangible or measurable variables to focus on the social constructions of research participants. Social constructions are those products of the meaning making, sensemaking (Weick 1995) mental activities that human beings engage in as a consequence of interaction with other human beings.

The emergence of a new paradigm of inquiry (naturalistic) has, unsurprisingly enough, led to a demand for rigorous criteria that meet traditional standards of inquiry. Two sets are suggested, one of which, the “trustworthiness” criteria, parallels conventional criteria, while the second, “authenticity” criteria, is implied directly by new paradigm assumptions.

Not only are the boundaries of interpretive research as yet undefined, but criteria for judging the quality of such research are even more fluid and emergent. Developing criteria are nominated and cautions in applying them are discussed. The author also suggests two critical insights: The most promising of these criteria are relational, and they effectively collapse the distinction between quality (rigor) and research ethics.

No abstract

No abstract

This chapter situates Guba and Lincoln's chapter within the broad philosophical debate about the justifiability of interpretations.The emergence of a new paradigm of inquiry (naturalistic) has, unsurprisingly enough, led to a demand for rigorous criteria that meet traditional standards of inquiry. Two sets are suggested, one of which, the “trustworthiness” criteria, parallels conventional criteria, while the second, “ authenticity” criteria, is implied directly by new paradigm assumptions.

No abstract