Supervisory conversations on rigour and interpretive research

Abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to provide a comprehensive narrative account of supervisory conversations with doctoral students. They include providing knowledge and experience about the nature of qualitative and quantitative approaches and their respective histories and rigour requirements. Design/methodological/approach -An introduction reveals the complexity, debates and dialectics that are engaged with during the doctoral supervisory process. Two design issues are discussed. One is research design; the other is supervisor method. Findings -Rigour in interpretive research is distinctive, linked to its characteristics and the unique role of the researcher as an instrument of data collection, conscious of the need to give voice to respondents and preserve their authentic responses. The audit trail is a centrepiece for both rigour and the reflection, reflexivity necessary to address ongoing biases, decisions and dilemmas. Research limitations/implications -Supervisory conversations are dynamic but there is a core, a set of initial conditions and these relate to the ethics and integrity of the doctoral student and the supervisor. Originality/value -The paper penetrates the social space where supervisors and doctoral students interact. Within the text, "advice" and seminal ideas are presented from literature and the supervisor's experience that will inform researchers and demonstrate a supervisor method.

Conflict between nursing student’s personal beliefs and professional nursing values

“…This was an iterative process involving discussion and critique among the co-authors to establish the meaning behind the responses to strengthen the credibility and dependability of the process. 42,43 The end result of these analysis and grouping processes were the explicit and implicit themes found in the data. Seven sub-themes were identified, which then constructed the three major themes arising from the analysis (see Table 2).…”

Theoretical Development: Specialism, Achievement, Coordination, (SAC) Model – Kantian Perspective

“…Utilising Guba and Lincolns' (1994) structure to encompass research paradigms, and informed by (Whiteley, 2012) structured evaluative process, the overarching framework used within this study could be considered post-positivist (Zaidi, Couture-Carron, Maticka-Tyndale, & Arif, 2014). Determinates of comparable research paradigms (Auh, Spyropoulou, Menguc, & Uslu, 2014;Goebel, Deeter-Schmelz, & Kennedy, 2013;Mallin, O'Donnell, & Hu, 2010); can be drawn from multifarious sales structures and theories, however, by overarching the broad based theoretical paradigm, this study focuses the frame of reference to a specific expectation of the survey participants.…”

Strategies to Grow and Expand a Nonprofit Business

“…The trust established with the participants helped generate the needed facilitation. Interview protocols help researchers to generate facilitation of interactions to encourage participants to share rich information based on their experiences(Whiteley, 2012;Xu & Storr, 2012). I performed the role of the research instrument and used open-ended questions during the interviews to generate open discussions with the participants.…”