Introduction to the special section: Questioning established qualitative methods and assumptions.

Abstract

Almost since its very beginning, psychological methods have been shaped by assumptions tied to objectivism and behaviorism. These epistemological perspectives have influenced not only the articulation of quantitative methods but beliefs about the logic and limitations of qualitative inquiry. In this introduction to the special section, Questioning Established Qualitative Methods and Assumptions, I consider reasons why it has been challenging to conceptualize qualitative methods coherently and the shifts in the field that have provided conceptual tools and language that have made this form of reasoning more possible. I frame articles by four authors who question prior assumptions and describe new approaches to considering qualitative methods that break from these ill-fitting confines. Each describes a method or assumption that has been seen as foundational by many in the field of qualitative research. These concern the relationship between consensus, intersubjective confirmation, and epistemic privilege; the use of member checking as an evaluation of methodological integrity; the role of replication in qualitative methods; and the contributions of qualitative methods in investigations of causality. This introduction to the section summarizes the central problem that each article is wrestling with and considers why at this point, qualitative researchers are actively engaged in a rethinking of the coherence of their methodology.

“I Constantly Feel Worn Out”: Mixed-methodology Approach to Seafarers’ Sleep on Board

“…Post-positivism assumes objective reality but considers the subjectivity of reality. 54 This implies that the qualitative data was approached inductively, and themes emerged from the data using thematic analysis. 55 In the first step of thematic analysis, 2 researchers familiarized themselves with the data by reading participants’ responses and writing initial ideas.…”

Autism-friendly public bus transport: A personal experience–based perspective

“…Hermeneutics is the science of interpretation that assumes that the meaning of words is never stable or definitive. The meaning and significance of human activities are examined from the participant’s perspective (Howitt, 2010). Thus, HP seeks to better understand phenomena by asking how they are experienced by a person living or going through them (van Manen, 2016).…”

“…In addition, participants’ nonverbal responses were also included in the transcript if they were perceived as contributing. Further familiarization with the data was achieved by reading the transcripts and listening to the tape recordings again (Baarda et al, 2013; Howitt, 2010). Accordingly, participants’ self-interpreted experiences were assessed from multiple perspectives to develop a naïve understanding.…”

Guidance for publishing in Qualitative Psychology.

“…For instance, although researchers should consider whether the participants that they selected (and the variation within them) were adequate for their analysis, researchers should not routinely apologize for having small sample sizes in their limitations section. Authors should be aware that many quantitative concepts tied to rigor have been reformulated by qualitative methodologists for coherence with their methods, such as the generalization of findings (see special issue introduction by Osbeck & Antczak, 2021), intersubjective agreement/consensus, member-checking, the study of causality, and replication (see special section introduction by Levitt, 2021). Also, qualitative investigators will want to reflexively consider how they managed their emotions, expectations, and positionality through the research process (see special section/issue introductions by Finlay, 2017; Granek, 2017).…”