Doing Qualitative Research in Language Education

Abstract

translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Investigating individual differences with qualitative research methods: Results of a meta-analysis of leading applied linguistics journals

“…The conceptual framework and the means to ensure good quality research seem to be more straightforward in quantitative studies: the overarching terms of validity and reliability and their related concepts and subcategories comprise the theoretical framework while different sampling and statistical procedures provide the means for implementing those ideals (Dörnyei, 2007). Although, according to Mirhosseini (2020), students or beginner qualitative researchers who were mainly trained in the positivist tradition might believe that the ideals of objectivity, reliability and generalizability can be extended to and applied in qualitative research, he claims that this approach goes against the very nature of qualitative enquiry as "qualitative research is not unbiased, replicable, and generalizable" (p. 178). Hence, in what follows, we provide a succinct overview of the most important, overall quality control issues, but, as in this study we mainly concentrate on the most often used data collection tools, the section ends with a discussion of tool-related quality insurance.…”

“…What seems to be the recent trend is that authors working within the qualitative paradigm attempt to break with those ideals of good research that are rooted in positivism and create their own criteria organically from the philosophical underpinnings of the qualitative research paradigm (cf. Creswell, 2018;Mirhosseini, 2020;Rallis & Rossman, 2009;Tracy, 2019). However, the existence of the many different qualitative research traditions such as phenomenology, narrative enquiry, ethnography or conversation analysis, to mention just a few, makes the creation of a unified framework similar to what exists in the positivist research tradition nearly impossible.…”

“…Similarly to the meaning proposed by Guba (1981), credibility aims to ensure that the reality represented in the research is plausible or appears to be true, whereas resonance refers to the effect that a study or its written account has on the audience. One of the final two tents house ethical issues, which, despite the fact that they are missing from Guba's (1981) original framework, feature increasingly prominently in more recent quality guidelines (Howitt, 2016;Mirhosseini, 2020;Rallis & Rossman, 2009). The other calls for meaningful coherence, which is a rather broad concept, and it reflects on the whole research process stating that qualitative studies should: "(a) achieve their stated purpose; (b) accomplish what they espouse to be about; (c) use methods and representation practices that partner well with espoused theories and paradigms; and (d) attentively interconnect literature reviewed with research foci, methods, and findings" (Tracy, 2010, p. 848).…”

“…Although the labels used for describing good quality research in qualitative studies clearly proliferate, there seems to be more common ground and agreement with regard to the steps or procedures that can be used to ensure that these ideals are met. Triangulation, thick description, member checks, peer debriefing, inter-coder reliability, audit trail, and ethical issues feature very frequently in the majority of works discussing quality control issues in qualitative research (see e.g., Creswell, 2018;Dörnyei, 2007;Guba, 1981;Mirhosseini, 2020;Patton, 2015;Rallies & Rossman, 2009;Tracy, 2019). Therefore, we would like to briefly explain what each of these concepts covers.…”

“…Despite their growing popularity as data collection tools, tasks are less established instruments than interviews or observations, which is evident from that fact that while research methodology handbooks all contain chapters on interviews and observation, tasks are hardly ever mentioned although they probably fit the broad category of elicited learner language (Mirhosseini, 2020). Nevertheless, recording and piloting as well as providing a brief description of content or even sample tasks in the text or supplementary materials seem to be justifiable expectations in connection with them as well.…”