18 Close-to-Practice Qualitative Research Methods

Close-to-Practice Qualitative Research Methods

Sarah Yardley, Karen Mattick, and Tim Dornan
The Oxford Handbook of Expertise
Edited by Paul Ward, Jan Maarten Schraagen, Julie Gore, and Emilie M. Roth
Print Publication Date: Nov 2019 Subject: Psychology, Organizational Psychology

Online Publication Date: Mar 2019 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198795872.013.18
Abstract and Keywords
Expertise is inherently linked to the context in which experts work. Qualitative methods
are used to provide answers to “how” and “why” questions and to disentangle the impact
of different interactions occurring in complex and uncertain situations. Such approaches
are critical in order to understand context and be open to unexpected findings, and to tru
ly understand how expert judgment works in the real world. This chapter considers how
and why qualitative methods make important and distinct contributions to understanding
expertise development in professional work. The application of qualitative methodologies
to the study of expertise provides researchers with tools to explore and explain contextu
alized and social practices. Close-to-practice qualitative methodologies are described,
highlighting the different research questions these approaches can answer and explain
ing why the methodologies are well suited to exploring the messiness and complexity of
expertise.
Keywords: qualitative methods, complexity, qualitative research, theory, theoretical perspectives, methodology,
practical methods
Introduction
THIS chapter argues that qualitative methods make an important and distinct contribu
tion to the study of professional expertise. It describes various methodologies, encourag
ing readers already familiar with qualitative research to extend their repertoires. Schön’s
theory that expert practice “emerges” in unpredictable situations is central to our argu
ment (Schön, 1987). While the strength of quantitative methodologies is that they allow
researchers to measure changes and conduct experiments, the need to predetermine
variables limits the power of these methodologies to explore indeterminate aspects of ex
pert practice. Qualitative methodologies, which make fewer a priori assumptions, can ex
plore the emergent expertise of professionals as they carry out complex tasks in authen
tic settings. This chapter highlights close-to-practice qualitative methods. It describes
several such methodologies, illustrating the different research questions these can an
swer and explaining how they can explore the messiness and complexity of real-world
Page 1 of 22
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: University of Edinburgh; date: 17 August 2020

expertise. It then presents qualitative studies which have changed our own understand
ing of expertise. In making the case for qualitative research, it uses a range of examples
from medicine and medical education because these research disciplines have enthusias
tically adopted close-to-practice qualitative methodologies. Specific examples are includ
ed to help readers visualize how qualitative methodologies might play out in their own
disciplines. Finally, the chapter discusses key considerations in undertaking qualitative
research and future directions for the interested reader.
(p. 409) Why is Qualitative Research Needed?

This section outlines three arguments for qualitative research into expertise: a complexity
argument, a social and professional argument, and a special and different argument.
The Complexity Argument
Expertise is complex because practitioners must make difficult judgments based on im
perfect information under time pressure. Medicine has championed qualitative expertise
research because doctors routinely base significant decisions on short interactions with
patients who are diverse (e.g., rich or poor, native or immigrant, articulate or inarticu
late), and whose illnesses have emotional and psychological as well as physical dimen
sions. They treat presumed rather than proven beyond doubt diagnoses, balancing the
likelihoods of competing diagnoses and of different interventions leading to more or less
favorable outcomes. They are not alone in this. Experts in all fields make, communicate,
and justify tough decisions, while managing the expectations of their clients about the
likelihood of unpredictable outcomes.
Cognitive psychology has made important contributions to the study of expertise. Re
searchers have described two types of knowledge: analytical knowledge (Norman et al.,
2007) and experiential knowledge. Novices draw heavily on analytical knowledge, gather
ing information systematically and relying on their limited practical experience to tell
them how to proceed. Experts, in contrast, draw heavily on experience and use internal
narratives to recognize patterns, draw inferences, and make predictions (Charlin et al.,
2007; Schmidt et al., 1990). Expert doctors, for example, draw on their repertoires of ill
ness scripts to rule diagnoses in or out, hone their questioning, and choose investigations
that can confirm, refine, or refute working diagnoses (Groves et al., 2003). Expert knowl
edge is qualitatively different from novices’ knowledge. Not only do experts understand
concepts better but they have a wealth of experience of applying those concepts in prac
tice. Experts can identify the difference between uncertainty about their own knowledge,
uncertainty about the limits of knowledge, and uncertainty about which of the former is
the true source of uncertainty in any specific circumstance (Fox, 1957).
Quantitative psychological studies of expertise, however, tend to focus on tightly bounded

decision making and diagnostic reasoning (Norman 2005). They test expertise under con
trolled conditions, often with only one right answer. These can reliably measure the
knowledge obtained by different people under different training conditions but have a
Page 2 of 22

limited capacity to predict how experts will perform in the messy real world. Other quan
titative approaches, while making important contributions to practice development, have
similar limitations. The evidence-based practice movement valorizes quantitative over
narrative knowledge (Dornan, Peile, & Spencer, 2008). (p. 410) Competency-based educa
tion (ten Cate, 2016) shifts the emphasis from educating students to think and act inde
pendently to training students to achieve predetermined and measurable learning out
comes. Researchers and professional leaders thereby decontextualize and simplify exper
tise in order to conduct experiments on it and regulate professional performance. Expert
practitioners, however, are more at home in messy situations than experimentalists. This
allows them to work in more intuitive and individual ways than these pedagogies recog
nize.
Schön (1983, 1987) used the term messy to describe the complex, indeterminate situa
tions that expert practitioners routinely encounter. He uses the term technical rationality
to describe the science, evidence, and competences, which emanate from the high hard
ground of universities. Expert practitioners, according to Schön, practice in swampy low
lands where technical rationality alone is insufficient. They make messy problems
amenable to technically rational solutions by virtue of their ability to frame problems. The
writings of other theorists (Billett, 2014; Billett & Bruner, 1986; Eraut, 2004) reinforce
Schön’s view that professional expertise is often tacit, personal to practitioners, and con
text-specific.
Quantitative experimentalists might contest our use of the term complexity to describe
this argument. That is because in vitro research filters out misleading and emotionally
salient features of practice, which experts must resolve before they even start to make di
agnostic or therapeutic choices. Researchers have a responsibility to represent complexi
ty well (Regehr, 2010). This calls for methodologies that can provide valid knowledge
without first filtering out contextual features that create uncertainty and indeterminacy.
Qualitative methodologies are better suited than quantitative ones in situations that de
pend on human choices and where values and feelings defy measurement.
The Social and Professional Argument
Experts often work within large and complex organizations, which employ members of
different professions, each with their own hierarchy. Here, acknowledging, interpreting,
and navigating social contexts is critical to expert judgment. As Bull, Mattick, and
Postlethwaite (2013) put it: “This context is far more than the stage on which decision-
making happens: it shapes what kinds of decisions are possible and what counts as good
decision-making” (p. 402).
Notions of expertise, evidence, and competence that focus attention on knowledge and
skills tend to conceptualize practitioners individualistically, rather than as members of so
cial groups or teams. Further, they focus on cognitive attributes rather than on the inte
grated performance of mind and body in social settings. Medicine has recently re-learned
the lesson (known since Hippocrates) that, while doctors must be technically skilled, ex
Page 3 of 22

pert doctors are not solely technicians. Medicine is, essentially, a social practice. Context
is a determining feature of expertise. Surgery used to be cited as (p. 411) a counter-exam
ple but we now know that technically competent surgeons who lack the social skills to
create a collaborative climate in operating theatres have poor patient outcomes (Lingard
et al., 2008; McCulloch et al., 2009; Mishra et al., 2008). Research has to address both
the social and technical dimensions of expertise, and how the two interact (Papoutsi et
al., 2017).
The social argument acknowledges, also, the exercise of power in practice settings. Con
sider a general practitioner treating a patient who believes their cough is due to pneumo
nia rather than asthma and will not resolve without antibiotics. Conceding to this
patient’s wish will contribute to the global epidemic of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Nego
tiating a safer outcome requires the doctor to manage the expectations and concerns of
patient and carers, who may disagree between themselves. The doctor has to gatekeep
society’s collective health from what the patient may view as the lowly status of a gener
alist. Precisely the same action by a specialist may be accepted with demur. Expertise re
search tends to be conducted from a professional standpoint, which bypasses some of this
social complexity.
Democratization of knowledge by the Internet is adding to this complexity and changing

the nature of specialist as well as generalist expertise in all fields of practice. Experts no
longer have privileged access to knowledge. They critically appraise, synthesize, and
communicate information to help clients make informed choices. This further perturbs
professional–public relationships, already troubled by social mistrust of expertise (see
Chapter 4, “Studies of Expertise and Experience,” by Collins & Evans, this volume). Peo
ple empowered by the wider availability of information expect responses to be tailored to
their unique needs. Additionally, increasing numbers of stakeholder groups are scrutiniz
ing expert practice, each from a different perspective. A rich understanding of the social
environment of practice is needed. This poses research questions like “What do clients
expect from safety-critical services funded by general taxation?” and “How do service
users access and interpret information before consulting experts?” These are not ques
tions that lend themselves well to quantitative enquiry.
The Special and Different Argument
A third contribution of qualitative research is to explore how an understanding of exper

tise gained in one setting can be transferred to other settings. This requires in-depth un
derstanding of the nature of work in those settings, differences between their social con
texts, and how these interact. A prime example is the unfavorable comparison often made
between medicine and civil aviation. Without denying that medicine could be safer, the
comparison ignores difference in the indeterminacy of practice in those two settings. A
pilot can decide it is too unsafe to fly or eject unsuitable passengers from their plane. The
consultant in charge of an emergency department with ambulances lined up outside does
not have that luxury. The net result is that the (p. 412) very notions of safety and risk are
much more open to interpretation in medicine. A more suitable comparator than aviation
Page 4 of 22

might be military personnel who are trained to focus on a common goal but achieve this
through semiautonomous functioning and on-the-spot decision making. Such comparisons
are reliant on a rich understanding of the realities of practice in a given setting and de
tailed consideration of the degree to which certain approaches are context-specific or
might provide useful insights to another setting, with appropriate tailoring.
Our three arguments share the assumption that expertise involves a far wider range of
human capabilities than just cognitive ones. For example, a large multisite ethnographic
study of accountability in healthcare (Aveling, Parker, & Dixon-Woods, 2016) concluded
that, while moral responsibility is inherent in professional practice, individuals and sys
tems are not mutually exclusive but interacting. Experts need a fine-tuned moral compass
and the ability to navigate complex social situations where power is at play as well as in
tellectual and psychomotor skills. They have to be tolerant of ambiguity and have a capac
ity to withhold action or act in the face of uncertainty, based on a fine balance of risks and
benefits. Qualitative research can help us to understand this complexity.
What is (Different about) Qualitative Re

search?
Research Topics and Questions
Qualitative research can build a rich picture of phenomena exploring subtle social dynam
ics and interactions between individuals and employing organizations, as is often the case
in expertise development. In such situations, researchers are trying to understand what is
happening, when, and why. This chapter focuses particularly on close-to-practice qualita
tive research because this captures the complexity of expertise as it plays out dynamical
ly in authentic contexts. Researchers may choose to examine one or more of several lev
els of practice, from the activities of individual professionals, to local settings, or to the
entire organization or system in which they work. Researchers typically seek out different
stakeholders whose different perspectives and explanations contribute to an in-depth
analysis of the practice. The exploratory and explanatory nature of qualitative research
makes it better suited to some topics than others and that is reflected in the phraseology
of research questions. Closed research questions (inviting yes/no answers), questions
about the quantity of something, and comparative questions are generally unsuited to
qualitative research, yet inexperienced researchers often ask them. As a rule of thumb,
how and why questions are more appropriate than whether, which, and how often
questions. Imagine you are an expertise researcher wishing to understand the expertise
of professional musicians. A suitable (p. 413) research question might be: “How do musi
cians reconcile their wish to build successful careers with the need to protect themselves
from locomotor problems caused by overuse?” Or considering front-line lawyers working
with under-served populations, who must make sparing use of specialist lawyers charging
high fees: “How do generalists experience their responsibilities to serve individual clients
well whilst making judicious use of specialist services?” Or an emergency physician who
Page 5 of 22

must prioritize care for sick patients who exceed the capacity of their hospital to admit
them: “How do front-line practitioners prioritize acutely ill patients for hospital admission
when the demand for beds outstrips capacity?” Qualitative research is well placed to an
swer these types of question because of the scope it allows experts to raise issues that
would have been challenging for researchers to anticipate (Brooks & King, 2017; Bryman,
2015; Cohen, Mannion, & Morrison, 2001; Corbin & Strauss, 2008).
Qualitative research can also illuminate and explain quantitative findings. Depending on
the topic and research questions, it may be appropriate to use multiple qualitative meth
ods or combinations of qualitative and quantitative methods. The term mixed methods
usually means combining quantitative and qualitative methods in a single-study design.
The term multiple methods describes combinations of either quantitative or qualitative
methods (see Yardley, Brosnan, & Richardson, 2013 for an example of multiple methods).
Terms such as an embedded qualitative study are used to describe the collection of quali
tative data from participants in a, usually larger, quantitative study. The embedded quali
tative study may be designed to clarify quantitative findings, or explain participants’ ex
perience and why something did or did not work (e.g., McLachlan et al., 2015; McLellan
et al., 2016). Another way qualitative and quantitative research can synergize is when a
qualitative interview study identifies constructs to include in a measurement scale. In this
case, qualitative and quantitative methodologies are combined sequentially rather than
concurrently. Schifferdecker and Reed (2009) provide a helpful typology of categories of
mixed methods research designs.
Ontology and Epistemology
Differences between qualitative and quantitative research are far deeper than a choice of
whether to use numbers or words to represent more or less the same thing. Numbers are
only as good as the a priori choices researchers have made about what to measure.
Words give research participants far greater agency and can illuminate realms that nei
ther researcher nor participant could have contemplated a priori. Quantitative and quali
tative research represent different research paradigms, with different assumptions about
reality and the nature of knowledge. Qualitative researchers’ starting assumption is that
there is no single external reality or, if there is, then it can never be fully and completely
defined—as human nature is to view it through a complex set of pre-existing beliefs and
experience. Phenomena, therefore, exist as conceptualized by different people. Different
researchers, or even the same researcher on different (p. 414) occasions, can apprehend
them in different but equally valid ways. Subjectivity is inherent to qualitative research
and, if deliberatively applied to qualitative analysis, an asset rather than a problem.
Rather than proving the existence of phenomena and measuring how those phenomena
vary, qualitative research provides rich representations of phenomena (Crotty, 1998).
Critiques of interview-based research have questioned whether participants tell the truth,
whether they give partial accounts of events (intentionally or otherwise), and whether
what they say reflects what they do (Hammersley, 2005). These concerns arise because
people who are thinking within one paradigmatic set of assumptions apply those assump
Page 6 of 22

tions to a different paradigm. If one believes in a single reality that can be measured and
known, then the assumptions underpinning qualitative research are problematic. On the
other hand, if one believes reality or truth for human beings can only be partially known
through their personal perspectives, then qualitative research gives access to multiple
understandings of reality—and quantitative research lacks richness. Qualitative re
searchers are careful not to use leading questions or value-laden language that would
make it hard for interview participants to speak freely. They may increase the validity of
their work by grounding interview conversations in the realities of practice (such as in
close-to-practice qualitative research) to avoid social desirability biases that may occur in
less contextualized conversations (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Saks & Allsop, 2007).
Theory and Methodology
Qualitative research is not a single methodology but a family of methodologies that share
an ability to find meaning in ill-structured situations. Qualitative research is made rigor
ous by purposefully choosing a theory of knowledge that is suited to the research ques
tion. That is what the term methodology means. There are many theories of knowledge
and qualitative methods, allowing researchers to answer a wide range of research ques
tions, or consider things from a wide range of perspectives. For example, there are meth
ods that allow researchers to interpret interview or focus group transcripts subjectively
and develop a theory of the phenomenon of interest by alternately interpreting data col
lected before and gathering fresh data (e.g., constructivist grounded theory; Watling &
Lingard, 2012). Other methods allow researchers to interpret and report peoples’ lived
experiences by listening deeply to how subjects speak of their experiences and interpret
ing the phenomenon from participants’ perspectives (e.g., interpretive phenomenology;
King & Horrocks, 2010). Yet others examine how one person’s choice of words, use of
metaphors, and grammatical constructions exercise power over another person (e.g., dis
course analysis; Hodges, Kuper, & Reeves, 2008). Focus groups, interviews, constant
comparative analysis, and so on contribute to qualitative research but they are not, of
themselves, qualitative research. Using those methods within a declared (p. 415) method
ology to answer an appropriate research question, however, is qualitative research (Sil
verman, 2005).
It is critical that qualitative research shows coherence between the overarching aim, re
search question(s), theoretical perspective, and methodology. A defining feature of any
piece of high-quality qualitative research is that it has an explicit conceptual orientation.
In other words, theory helps researchers conduct their work in rigorous ways and arrive
at valid conclusions. There are two ways in which theory does this. Subject matter theo
ries provide ways of thinking about a topic. And methodological theories help researchers
arrive at valid conclusions by defining what constitutes knowledge. Our argument that
human activities are inseparable from the contexts in which they take place, for example,
reflects our orientation toward social theory. As a result, some of our work draws on so
ciocultural theories, including activity theory (Johnston & Dornan, 2015). Analyzing textu
al data about complex medical expertise from the perspective of social theory would help
a researcher build on a corpus of widely accepted knowledge and relate their findings to
Page 7 of 22

the findings of other researchers. Regarding methodological theories, quantitative re

search is more straightforward than qualitative research because it regards phenomena
as existing or not existing. If they do exist and are worthy of investigation, they are mea
sured. Core tenets like representativeness, objectivity, reliability, and probability define
quantitative rigor and validate conclusions drawn from measurement.
The relativist nature of qualitative inquiry opens new possibilities for researching exper
tise. A realist approach (more aligned with quantitative research) would require a clear
definition of expertise, which would help researchers operationalize a priori constructs to
measure how those constructs differ under different conditions. A relativist approach
(more aligned with qualitative research) makes it possible to take the stance: “I can’t de
fine expertise but I know it when I experience it; let me find instances of it, explore them,
and see how that allows me to think about expertise in new ways.” It is possible, more
over, to choose a qualitative methodology that serves a specific purpose. Grounded theory
could explain how experts match available solutions to the expectations of different
clients. Phenomenology could richly describe how clients experience expert practitioners.
And discourse analysis could analyze how experts encourage clients either to exercise au
tonomy or to do just what the expert wants.
The exploratory and inherently uncertain nature of qualitative research, moreover, allows
researchers to find out how phenomena are enacted in social settings. In a series of our
own studies, for example, we came to a startling conclusion. Whereas curricula teach
young doctors how to choose medications for patients in hospital, there are many occa
sions when prescriptions are more the product of an idiosyncratic set of circumstances
than the choice of any one individual (McLellan et al., 2015; Mattick, Kelly, & Rees, 2014
—see later in this chapter, Papoutsi et al., 2017). The requisite expertise for young doc
tors, then, is to manage the social context of practice as much as it is to make rational
therapeutic choices. This has significant implications for curricula and clinical services.
(p. 416) Exemplar Close-to-Practice Qualitative Research Methods
This section presents approaches to qualitative research that ensure qualitative data are
collected close-to-practice and are, therefore, relatively true to the contextualized prac
tice under scrutiny.
One approach is ethnography (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007). Different academic disci
plines and practice traditions use the term in different ways, sometimes far removed from
its original meaning. Ethnography involves immersive study of people, their cultures,
their customs, and their habits, and how these differ between populations or ethnic
groups. Ethnographers observe, sometimes as flies on the wall, sometimes as partici
pants, how social groups live their lives. Ethnography typically involves participant obser
vation whereby researchers observe extensively in a given setting (e.g., a professional
workplace), shadowing participants within that setting (receptionists, managers, accoun
tants, and practitioners, for example) and interviewing people whose experiences might
illuminate the researcher’s interpretation. Ethnography can provide a rich understanding
Page 8 of 22

of the context in which expertise develops and the individuals and activities contributing
to that development.
A narrative approach is underpinned by the assumption that people make sense of their
experiences through narrative (stories). Retelling those stories can yield data that are
close-to-practice (Riessman 2008). Participants in expertise research would be asked to
recount significant events in their experience of practice, and provide real examples and
events, typically as a story with a beginning, middle, and end. How participants select
events to describe and sequence their stories gives researchers deep insight into the
practice.
Another way of ensuring research data are contextualized to practice is to incorporate vi
sual stimuli from workplaces into interviews. Video reflexivity is one such approach,
whereby video recordings of clinical practice (either real or simulated) are used as a stim
ulus for evaluating practice and promoting behavior change of individual practitioners or
healthcare teams. For example, Gough, Yohannes, and Murray (2016) videoed final-year
physiotherapy students working through simulated practice scenarios and then inter
viewed them individually to explore their perspectives on that action. Stimulated recall is
another approach. Bull et al. (2013) used field notes they had made while observing ju
nior doctors’ ward-based practice to stimulate recall of events for discussion in subse
quent research interviews. Walking interviews, when the research participant and inter
viewer walk through the relevant environment while undertaking the interview, are an
other approach. In a walking interview the researcher can experience something of the
participants’ daily routines and use artifacts and environments as prompts for discussion.
Dube, Schinke, Strasser, and Lightfoot (2014) used a participant led guided walk to ex
plore the lived experiences of medical students undertaking placements by moving
through their environment with them while discussing their experiences, thereby gener
ating data from context-rich interactions. A hypothetical example in expertise develop
ment would be to video-record a (p. 417) healthcare team making a complex decision and
then ask participants to review, prompted by the video tape, and discuss their various
contributions to that process.
Researchers may also give research participants tasks. In photo- or object-elicitation in
terviews, for example, participants bring an image or object which they see as relevant to
the topic under discussion (Kronk, Weideman, Cunningham, & Resick, 2015). Graphic
elicitation interviews incorporate a drawing task within an interview; for example, to
draw out a timeline, or relationships between groups within an organization (Bagnoli,
2009). Many of these approaches can be applied within group interviews or focus groups,
as well as individual interviews (Kvale & Brinkman, 2009).
Data analysis procedures are equally varied. Again, these must be congruent with the
researcher’s explicitly stated theoretical perspective and approach to data collection. For
example, a researcher might thematically analyze qualitative data, seeking patterns
across and within data sets. Narrative analysis examines research participants’ stories in
order to understand how characters and events contribute to the richness of the rich sto
Page 9 of 22

ry (see Riessman, 2008). A question well suited to thematic analysis might be “What do
early career professionals regard as important for expertise and why?”; a question well
suited to narrative analysis might be “How do early career professionals describe their
experiences of leadership development?” If thematic analysis is chosen, then the research
may stop at the point of having identified and described component themes, with exem
plar quotes to illustrate each theme. They may, alternatively, undertake an interpretative
analysis and/or develop a new theory or a three-dimensional model or framework.
As the body of published qualitative studies grows, researchers are increasingly synthe
sizing meta-interpretations from multiple primary investigations addressing a single top
ic. Readers are referred to a recent journal article (Gough & Thomas, 2016) which de
scribes diverse approaches to systematic reviews of research. In addition, there is a pro
liferation of qualitative metasynthesis methodologies, which are increasingly refined and
sophisticated. Secondary analysis of existing qualitative datasets is another emerging ap
proach. This is attractive because it is resource-efficient, although researchers may face
methodological problems and must consider any ethical issues raised by potentially
reusing data without participants’ explicit consent (Hinds, Vogel, & Clarke-Steffen, 1997;
Yardley, Watts, Pearson, & Richardson, 2014).
Qualitative Studies That Have Changed Our

Understanding of Expertise
Here, we describe qualitative studies that have changed our own understanding of exper
tise. Although our selection is from medicine, their theoretical implications are wider.
(p. 418) Establishing the Value of Qualitative Research
Long before medical education was an identifiable research field, turning novice medical
students into expert doctors drew the attention of sociologists. Two large sociological
studies are credited with introducing qualitative research (including, but not limited to,
classical ethnography) to the study of medical expertise. First published was The Student-
Physician (Merton, Reader, & Kendall, 1957), soon followed by Boys in White (Becker,
Geer, & Strauss, 1961). The importance of these studies is that they recognized the im
portance of social and professional factors in being (and becoming) a doctor, and made in
novative use of qualitative research to explore them.
American society’s increasing interest in professionalization led Merton and colleagues to

investigate the making of the medical man. They reconceptualized the medical school as a
“social environment in which the professional culture of medicine is variously transmitted
to novices” (Preface, p. vii). They sought to understand how novices developed the atti
tudes, self-image, and values of expert doctors. They investigated students’ career choic
es, development of attitudes, preferences for different types of patients, and hence types
of practice. A series of qualitative studies took a broadly social constructionist angle, po
sitioning students as subjects within social environments. Ethnographic data were gener
Page 10 of 22

ated by observing students and making field notes, and interviewing them. This research
identified tensions arising from the pressure to accommodate expanding scientific knowl
edge into an already overfilled curriculum. It showed how medical students socialized in
to the powerful position of doctors by modeling on faculty and senior doctors. Students
were not just seeking to know what doctors know but to be what doctors are.
Boys in White sought to explain student culture, focusing on social interactions in medical
school and students’ changing perspectives as they progressed through their first year.
This study showed how students transitioned from novices towards expert by being sub
versive. For example, they rapidly changed from trying to learn everything to recognizing
this was impossible and developing strategies to meet faculty demands, while accommo
dating the knowledge that real-life practice could not be fully anticipated through acade
mic study. Becker et al. were more explicit than Merton et al. about how they conducted
their research. Their starting point was “to discover what medical school did to medical
students other than giving them a technical education” (p. 17). The theoretical orienta
tion of their studies was toward collective social action; in particular, the concept of sym
bolic interaction and the study of phenomena that caused tension among their medical
student subjects. This led the research team to rely heavily on participant observation as
a method for data generation, complemented by other qualitative methods such as inter
viewing. Boys in White further exposed the importance of social interaction and the im
portance of recognizing expertise as an identity as well as a knowledge base and set of
practical and technological skills. These findings are not unique to medicine, or even to
the so-called professions, vocations, or scientific disciplines. The expertise, often called
know-how or work-arounds, gained in workplaces may not always be formally recognized
but is crucially important for understanding how (p. 419) workers function and handle un
certainty (for more recent further examples see the work of Stephen Billett, 2014, and for
examples outside of medicine see Scott, 1998). Together these studies changed our un
derstanding of expertise development by drawing attention to social and cultural influ
ences that shape expertise in a person, challenging the view that expertise could solely
be conceptualized as scientific and technical knowledge, and identifying the importance
of considering organizational and interpersonal interactions in studies of expertise devel
opment rather than simply measuring individual attainment.
Qualitative Research Addressing Contemporary Concerns
The concept of safety is dominating thinking in health and other professions. Pursuing an
appropriate course of action is equated with practicing safely. Avoidable harm caused by
poor performance of technical procedures or omissions of simple protective actions has
rightly caused outrage. But while medicine and other professions need to reduce pre
ventable error, the idea that all risk is predictable and preventable is contentious. It is
true that risk may be predictable and preventable in determinate situations, but it can
not, by definition, be wholly preventable in indeterminate ones. Applying the blanket as
sumption of simplicity to complex situations will, according to the law of unintended con
sequences, do harm as well as good—and maybe even more of the former than the latter.
Years of experience help experts choose the least unsafe course of action in indetermi
Page 11 of 22

nate, safety-critical situations but they may not understand how they do so, let alone ex
plain this to novices. Organizations typically put in place mass mandatory training to pre
vent harms such as this. This may do no more than drive uncertainty underground. What
may be more effective is the precise opposite—to legitimize uncertainty.
As part of this safety debate, researchers have sought to understand how issues of safety
relate to the development of expertise, for example in how the process of decision making
is conducted. The use of qualitative research methods has facilitated investigation of real-
life practice, achieving a level of dynamic understanding of situated expertise to direct fu
ture education interventions for the development of expertise, increasing the likelihood of
real-world impact. For example, in healthcare, prescribing errors related to antibiotics
are common. Doctors have to weigh up significant potential consequences arising from ei
ther under- or over-prescription for individual patients and populations. Judgements
about when and what to prescribe are often required without full clinical information
such as laboratory test results. Patient pressure to prescribe can contribute to the chal
lenges. Mattick et al. (2014) undertook a narrative interview study of junior doctors at
two UK hospitals. The doctors were asked to tell stories about their experiences of pre
scribing antibiotics, in order to understand what types of experiences they have and how
they make sense of these experiences. The researchers drew on social constructionist
epistemology and used multiple analytical approaches to answer the research questions,
including framework analysis (a type of (p. 420) thematic analysis; Ritchie, Spencer, Bry
man, & Burgess, 1994) and in-depth narrative analysis. They found that the decision to
prescribe, and if so what to prescribe, is much more complicated and socially mediated
than has been recognized. Junior doctors reported significant variability in local prac
tices, received seemingly conflicting advice from senior staff, and felt they rarely received
feedback on the consequences of their decisions. The authors’ use of constructionist
methodologies showed that social hierarchies and expectations were coming into conflict
with evidence-based practice when doctors prescribed antibiotics. The problem was not
so much that doctors lacked expertise as that they found it hard to decide which exper
tise should have most weight when making decisions. This finding suggested that infor
mal practice-based opportunities to discuss decision making and receive feedback were
more likely to reduce errors than provide information.
Other studies have used alternative frameworks such as activity theory, a sociocultural
theory that provides a framework for studying the influence of informal learning in work
places on medical practice. McLellan et al. (2015) studied how medical students learn to
prescribe in a study informed by cognitive psychology, sociocultural theory, and systems
thinking. Participants kept audio diaries over a two-week period and participated in mini
mally structured qualitative interviews. The researchers also observed practice and con
ducted short in-situ interviews with participants who had particular contributions to
make. Grounded theory analysis demonstrated a complex interplay between individual
students and social dimensions of learning: learners needed to be situated in the right en
vironment and exposed to meaningful learning opportunities (including active engage
ment in the process) if they were to develop their own internal cognitive-based expertise
for future prescribing tasks. That is, the ability to develop expertise was dependent on un
Page 12 of 22

quantifiable but essential social factors. Newly qualified doctors in the UK are required to
demonstrate their prescribing abilities in decontextualized, simulated assessments. Quali
tative research by Mattick et al. (2014) and McLellan et al. (2015) explains this does not
prevent prescribing mishaps and suggests potential solutions.
Studies of workplace-based and vocational learning have shown how pedagogical

processes can support the development of expertise (Yardley, Teunissen, & Dornan, 2012)
but there are tensions between what is best for learners and what is best for patients. Re
turning to the aviation metaphor, people would like to be treated by expert doctors, just
as they would like to be flown by expert pilots, and know that an expert engineer de
signed their plane. The snag is that health facilities may have come into existence be
cause of historical accident rather than purposeful design. Simulation can, as in aviation,
improve doctors’ expertise in more clearly defined and predictable situations (see Chap
ter 13, “Representative Test and Task Development and Simulated Task Environments,”
by Harris, Foreman, & Eccles, this volume). But practicing medicine can be more like the
Battle of Britain than piloting a long-haul scheduled flight so simulation has limitations, at
least for some important aspects of clinical practice. Unless patients submit to the train
ing of novices, including whatever risk is entailed in that, we cannot educate excellent
doctors. Despite all the advances in (p. 421) medical education over the past half century,
newly qualified doctors are novices in the practice of medicine to an even greater extent
than they were in earlier times.
De Feijter, de Grave, Dornan, Koopmans, and Scherpbier (2011) sought to understand

medical student perceptions of patient safety during the transition from undergraduate to
postgraduate training. This transition represents a significant shift in clinical responsibili
ty. The researchers conducted a thematic analysis of data from focus groups with final
year medical students and used activity theory as their analytical framework. This identi
fied contradictions between their need to learn and the need for patients to receive safe
care. This study identified interconnections between identity and expertise and showed
the importance of considering environmental factors that might cause someone to act be
yond their expertise. In some cases, students would delay or defer seeking help in situa
tions beyond their expertise because they did not perceive the risk of harm to patients to
outweigh the risks to themselves of not managing the situation. This is all the more con
cerning when one considers it alongside the findings of Bull et al. (2013), whose qualita
tive study of junior doctors’ decision making found that this group were often enacting in
herited decisions, without participating or understanding how their seniors (the experts)
had reached their conclusions. Furthermore, other studies (including those highlighted
earlier) have shown that junior doctors are influenced by cultural rules and the personal
preferences of seniors, where etiquette can dictate that one should not question their ex
pertise. This illustrates that, despite our arguments earlier that medical expertise is not
entirely cognitively based or technical, the embodiment of expertise can itself be used as
a form of power (Charani et al., 2013). The senior doctors who see any attempt to influ
ence their prescribing as an affront to their autonomy may in fact be choosing to work
Page 13 of 22

outside a system designed to support their expertise (Aveling, Parker, & Dixon-Woods,
2016).
Qualitative Research Enriching the Conceptualization of What Makes

an Expert
Throughout this chapter, we have argued that experts make socially situated complex
clinical judgements and that qualitative research can uncover processes of expert judge
ment as well as mechanisms of developing this expertise. In a further example, Cristan
cho, Lingard, Forbes, Ott, & Novick (2016) draw on their study of surgeons’ experiences
in complex situations to question the idea that experts are simply better at problem solv
ing. These authors used systems engineering theory to explore problem definition (rather
than problem solving) in authentic clinical judgements. They started from the premises
that person and context were inseparable, and that what emerges as a judgement is an
act of choice. Using the concept of a rich picture (whereby surgeons were asked to pro
duce and describe a picture or diagram of complex operations) alongside observations
and interviews the researchers were able to investigate how problem definition occurred
and was refined by different people interacting during surgical operations (p. 422) and to
explore different participant perspectives on these interactions. Part of the analysis
process involved a gallery walk whereby two researchers walked around a room with the
pictures on display and discussed, compared, and contrasted the different pictures
through conversation and written memos. What they found was that problem definition
was a live evolving process of making sense of what is going on that experts responded to
flexibly, adapting their choices and behaviors. Hence, expertise was not knowing what so
lution to deliver but knowing how to respond to a changing complex situation (see Chap
ter 51, “Reflections on the Study of Expertise and Implications for the Future of the
Field,” by Ward et al., this volume).
Key Considerations in Qualitative Research

We hope we have persuaded readers of the potential for qualitative methods, particularly
those that involve observation within authentic workplace settings, to contribute to re
search into expertise development. This section aims to highlight some key considera
tions when researching expertise using qualitative methods: quality, research ethics, and
researcher training and development.
Quality in Qualitative Studies
It is clearly important to ensure that qualitative research is high quality, in order to maxi
mize its contribution to knowledge and theory and to underpin the development and eval
uation of various initiatives. Key features of quality are likely to include a compelling de
scription of the problem needing research, a clear aim and/or research question(s), de
tails of the research team and their theoretical framework, a clear and detailed justifica
tion and account of the methodological approach, detailed results that are clearly derived
Page 14 of 22

from the methodological approach and address the original research question, and con
clusions that do not overstate the findings. However, appropriate criteria with which to
judge the quality of qualitative research is an ongoing debate, partly due to the signifi
cant diversity of qualitative methodologies which do not lend themselves to a one size fits
all approach. It is challenging to envisage a common list of features of high-quality quali
tative research that are applicable across the diverse range of methodologies that sit un
der this umbrella term. There are also understandable challenges when concepts from
quantitative research, such as validity and reliability, are transferred to qualitative re
search, given the different underpinning assumptions and worldview. A useful summary
of the debate can be found in Hammersley & Atkinson (2007). Despite the ongoing discus
sion, sets of criteria for qualitative research are increasingly available and, in some cases,
being made a requirement for publication (p. 423) in peer-reviewed journals. One example
is the COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative research (COREQ), a 32-item
checklist for interviews and focus groups with three domains (research team and reflexiv
ity, study design, analysis and findings). The main aim of COREQ is to improve the quality
of reporting of qualitative research, which enables the reader to make a better-informed
judgment of quality, but implicit within it are some assumptions about quality in qualita
tive research. For example, COREQ items prompt the appraiser to consider whether the
following aspects are reported: “What experience or training did the researcher have?”,
“What are the important characteristics of the sample?”, “Were themes identified in ad
vance or derived from the data?”, and “Was there consistency between the data present
ed and the findings?” Other checklists, such as the Critical Appraisal Skills Program
(CASP) checklist for qualitative research, are more explicit in the link between the check
list and judgment of quality of qualitative research, asking the appraiser to make judg
ments such as “Was the research design appropriate to address the aims of the re
search?” and “Have ethical issues been taken into consideration?”
Ethical Aspects of Qualitative Research
The protection of participants and other stakeholders is a key concern, even when the fo
cus of the research is on professionals rather than those arguably more in need of protec
tion (such as patients within the healthcare context). Research which involves access to
the workplace setting for the purpose of data collection poses specific considerations.
Gatekeepers who can introduce the researcher to key staff and advocate for their project
will help enormously with buy in for and recruitment to the research project. These rela
tionships may require substantial investment, however, and the research will need to en
sure that gatekeepers are familiar with research ethics principles, for example to ensure
that research participants are free from any coercion or undue influence. Where field
notes or video are being made in workplace, appropriate informed consent will be re
quired and confidential treatment of information including good data storage to provide
assurance about security will be important. The researcher may need to undergo checks,
such as the Disclosure and Barring Service checks in the UK for previous criminal convic
tions, and have an institutional sponsor, for example from their university. They may also
need to undergo specific training, for example relating to safety in that environment, or
Page 15 of 22

to ensure an understanding of the relevant legislative or ethical frameworks that apply.

There may also be multiple research ethics approval processes, for example to ensure
scrutiny from the university perspective (where the researcher may be employed) and the
workplace perspective (where the participants may be employed), often making this stage
more involved than for some other kinds of research. A useful discussion of the principles
of ethical research can be found in the Economic and Social Research Council guidelines
(ESRC, 2015).
(p. 424) Researcher Development and Support
Conducting high-quality qualitative research also requires expertise. Many researchers

and practitioners from scientific disciplines are more familiar with quantitative than qual
itative research. Before developing their qualitative research expertise, researchers may
have studied a wide range of disciplines. Therefore, qualitative research teams are often
multidisciplinary, each contributing their own expertise and insights to the research at
hand. This has substantial potential benefits but may also highlight a range of develop
ment needs. A researcher will need development opportunities to keep abreast of devel
opments in their own discipline, in order to remain a content expert. However, they will
also need a broader understanding of research methodologies and a good understanding
of the context in order to see the niche for their research. Furthermore, communicating
the nuances of their methodological approach to the wider research team, and key stake
holders who may have a different paradigmatic stance, may require the researcher to in
vest in their communication capabilities.
Conclusions, Future Directions, and Recom

mendations
Expertise is inherently linked to the context in which experts work, as we have explained.
Therefore, it is critical to understand the context and be open to unexpected findings
about that context in order to truly understand how expert judgment works in the real
world. This is not a static picture either: the context is changing as we have shown.
Changing times call for new types of expertise, and experts who are flexible and adapt
able and who understand the need to learn at all stages of a professional career. Exper
tise may be less about deep knowledge and technical skill, but more about making judge
ments in complex situations. There are probably no short-cuts to this kind of expertise but
the importance of exposure to complex problems in situ in the workplace will be critically
important to build experience. Employers will need to value and support those on the
journey toward expertise and understand the challenges that this journey will involve.
Failure to do this will lead to provision of suboptimal professional practice and the loss of
talented young people from the professions. The application of qualitative methodologies
to the study of expertise provides researchers with tools to explore and explain contextu
alized and social practices. Qualitative methods are used to provide answers to how and
why questions and to disentangle the impact of different interactions occurring in com
Page 16 of 22

plex and uncertain situations. When people are involved, the use of qualitative methods
can illuminate how the human drive to create meaning from experience shapes attitudes
and behaviors. Although close-to-practice qualitative research is not without its chal
lenges, the rewards of undertaking this kind of research usually make up for the effort in
vested.
In this chapter, we have outlined the possibilities and benefits to be gained,

(p. 425)
demonstrating applications within medicine and medical application. We have demon

strated that the complexity of expertise arises because it is socially situated and mediated
through human interactions in workplaces and elsewhere. Those in other fields also deal
ing with complexity, uncertainty, and the need for expert judgment under pressure will
recognize the potential for transfer to their own fields, although tailoring may be re
quired.
To summarize, qualitative research allows us to develop understanding of when, how, and

why the social environment impacts on the translation of cognitive and technical aspects
of knowledge and skills into embedded practice, providing a means to identify targeted
solutions to the challenges of transitioning from novice to expert as well as the develop
ment of new expertise following scientific advancements. For disciplines and professions
to engage with the challenges outlined in this chapter (which makes a strong case for the
need for qualitative research), a critical first step will be the development of awareness
and appreciation of the potential of qualitative research amongst a larger proportion of
researchers and practitioners. We advise those previously unfamiliar with qualitative
methods to start by expanding their reading further with reference to texts focusing on
practical guidance for the use of these methods in the design and conduct of future work
and methodologies that have proved fruitful in researching professional practice and
workplaces (Hager, Lee, & Reich, 2012; Layder, 1997; Malloch, 2013; Mason & Dale,
2010; see full reference list also). Subsequent to this, formal education and training in
methodologies, and qualitative methods with application through cross-disciplinary net
works and collaborations holds substantial potential for realizing the added value qualita
tive methods can offer to our understanding of expertise.
References
Aveling, E., Parker, M., & Dixon-Woods, M. (2016). What is the role of individual account
ability in patient safety? A multi-site ethnographic study. Sociology of Health and Illness
38, 216–232.
Bagnoli, A. (2009) Beyond the standard interview: The use of graphic elicitation and arts-
based methods. Qualitative Research 9, 547–570.
Becker, H., Geer, B., & Strauss, A. (1961). Boys in white. New York: Transaction.
Billett, S. (2014). Mimetic learning at work: Learning in the circumstances of practice.

New York: Springer.
Page 17 of 22

Billett, S., & Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Brooks, J., & King, N. (2017). Applied qualitative research in psychology. London: Pal
grave.
Bryman, A. (2015). Social research methods, 5th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bull, S., Mattick, K., & Postlethwaite, K. (2013). “Junior doctor decision making: isn’t that
an oxymoron?” A qualitative analysis of junior doctors’ ward-based decision-making. Jour
nal of Vocational Educational Training 65, 402–421.
Charani, E., Castro-Sanchez, E. C., Sevdalis, N., Kyratsis, Y., Drimright, L., Shah,
(p. 426)
N., & Holmes, A. (2013). Understanding the determinants of antimicrobial prescribing

within hospitals: the role of “prescribing etiquette.” Clinical Infectious Diseases 57, 188–
196.
Charlin, B., Boshuizen, H. P. A., Custers, E. J., & Feltovich, P. J. (2007). Scripts and clinical
reasoning. Medical Education 41, 1148–1184.
Cohen, L., Mannion, L., & Morrison, K. (2001). Research methods in education, 5th edn.
London: Routledge.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research, 3rd edn. London: Sage.
Cristancho, S., Lingard, L., Forbes, T., Ott, M., & Novick, R. (2016). Putting the puzzle to
gether: The role of “problem definition” in complex clinical judgement. Medical Education
51, 207–214.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the re
search process. London: Sage.
De Feijter, J., de Grave, W., Dornan, T., Koopmans, R., & Scherpbier, A. (2011). Students’
perceptions of patient safety during the transition from undergraduate to postgraduate
training: an activity theory analysis. Advances in Health Science Education 16, 347–358.
Dornan, T., Peile, E., & Spencer, E. (2008). On “evidence.” Medical Education 42, 232–
234.
Dube, T., Schinke, R., Strasser, R., & Lightfoot, N. (2014). Interviewing in situ: employing
the guided walk as a dynamic form of qualitative inquiry. Medical Education 48, 1092–
1100.
Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) (2015). ESRC framework for research
ethics. London: ESRC.
Eraut, M. (2004). Informal learning in the workplace. Studies in Continuing Education 26,
247–273.
Page 18 of 22

Fox, R. (1957). Training for certainty. In R. Merton, G. Reader, & P. Kendall (Eds), The stu
dent-physician (pp. 207–230). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gough, D., & Thomas, J. (2016). Systematic reviews of research in education: Aims, myths
and multiple methods. Review of Educational Research 4, 84–102.
Gough, S., Yohannes, A., & Murray, J. (2016). Using video-reflexive ethnography and simu
lation-based education to explore patient management and error recognition by pre-regis
tration physiotherapists. Advances in Simulation 1, 9.
Groves, M., O’Rourke, P., & Alexander, H. (2003). The clinical reasoning characteristics of
diagnostic experts. Medical Teacher 25, 308–313.
Hager, P., Lee, A., & Reich, A. (2012). Practice, learning and change: Practice-theory per
spectives on professional learning. London: Springer.
Hammersley, M. (2005). Ethnography: Potential, practice, and problems: Criticism of In

terview-based Qualitative Research. Qualitative Research Methodology Seminar Series.
Available from http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/24/. Accessed 8 May 2017.
Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (2007). Ethnography: Principles in practice. London:

Routledge.
Hinds, P., Vogel, R., & Clarke-Steffen, L. (1997). The possibilities and pitfalls of doing a
secondary analysis of a qualitative data set. Qualitative Health Research 7, 408–424.
Hodges, B., Kuper, A., & Reeves, S. (2008). Discourse analysis. British Medical Journal
337, 570–572.
Johnston, J., & Dornan, T. (2015). Activity theory: Mediating change in medical education.
In J. Cleland, & S. Durning (Eds), Researching medical education. Edinburgh: ASME.
King, N., & Horrocks, C. (2010). Interviews in qualitative research. London: Sage.
Kronk, R., Weideman, Y., Cunningham, L., & Resick, L. (2015). Capturing student
(p. 427)
transformation from a global service-learning experience: The efficacy of photo-elicitation

as a qualitative research method. Journal of Nursing Education 54, s99–s102.
Kvale, S., & Brinkman, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research in
terviewing. London: Sage.
Layder, D. (1997). Modern social theory: Key Debates and new directions. London: Rout
ledge.
Lingard, L., Regehr, G., Orser, B., Reznick, R., Baker, G., Doran, D.,…Whyte, S. (2008).
Evaluation of a preoperative checklist and team briefing among surgeons, nurses and
anesthesiologists to reduce failures in communication. Archives of Surgery 143, 12–17.
Page 19 of 22

McCulloch, P., Mishra, A., Handa, A., Dale, T., Hirst, G., & Catchpole, K. (2009). The ef
fects of aviation-style non-technical skills training on technical performance and outcome
in the operating theatre. British Medical Journal: Quality & Safety 18, 109–115.
McLachlan, S., Mansell, G., Saunders, T., Yardley, S., van der Windt, D., Brindle, L.,…Lit
tle, P. (2015). Symptom perceptions and help-seeking behavior prior to lung and colorec
tal cancer diagnoses: A qualitative study. Family Practitioner 32, 568–577.
McLellan, L., Dornan, T., Newton, P., Williams, S., Lewis, P., Steinke, D., & Tully, M.
(2016). Pharmacist-led feedback workshops increase appropriate prescribing of antimi
crobials. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 71, 1415–1425.
McLellan, L., Yardley, S., Norris, B., de Bruin, A., Tully, M. & Dornan, T. (2015). Preparing
to prescribe: how do clerkship students learning in the midst of complexity? Advances in
Health Science Education 20, 1339–1354.
Malloch, M. (2013). The Sage handbook of workplace learning. London: Sage.
Mason, J., & Dale, A. (2010). Understanding social research: Thinking creatively about
method. London: Sage.
Mattick, K., Kelly, N., & Rees, C. (2014). A window into the lives of junior doctors: narra
tive interviews exploring antimicrobial prescribing experiences. Journal of Antimicrobial
Chemotherapy 69, 2274–2283.
Merton, R. K., Reader, G., & Kendall, P. L. (1957). The student-physician: Introductory
studies in the sociology of medical education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis,
2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mishra, A., Catchpole, K., Dale, T., & McCulloch, P. (2008). The influence of non-technical
performance on technical outcome in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surgical Endoscopy
22, 68–73.
Norman, G. (2005). Research on clinical reasoning: past history and current trends. Med
ical Education 39, 418–427.
Norman, G., Young, M. & Brooks, L. (2007). Non-analytical models of clinical reasoning;
the role of experience. Medical Education 41, 1140–1145.
Papoutsi, C., Mattick, K., Pearson, M., Brennan, N., Briscoe, S., & Wong, G. (2017). Social
and professional influences on antimicrobial prescribing for doctors in training: a realist
review. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 72, 2418–2430.
Regehr, G. (2010). It’s NOT rocket science: rethinking our metaphors for research in
health professions education. Medical Education 44, 31–39.
Riessman C. (2008) Narrative methods for the human sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Page 20 of 22

Ritchie, J., Spencer, L., Bryman, A. & Burgess, R. G. (1994). Qualitative data analysis for
applied policy research. In A. Bryman & R. G. Burgess (Eds), Analyzing qualitative data
(pp. 173–194). London: Routledge.
Saks, M., & Allsop, J. (2007). Researching health: Qualitative, quantitative and
(p. 428)
mixed methods. London: Sage.
Schifferdecker, K., & Reed, V. (2009). Using mixed methods research in medical educa
tion: basic guidelines for researchers. Medical Education 43, 637–644.
Schmidt, H. G., Norman, G. R., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (1990). A cognitive perspective on

medical expertise: theory and implications. Academic Medicine 10, 611–621.
Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Scott, J. (1998). Seeing like a state: how certain schemes to improve the human condition
have failed. London: Yale University Press.
Silverman, D. (2005). Doing qualitative research, 2nd edn. London: Sage.
Ten Cate, O. (2016). Competency-based medical education and its competency frame
works. In M. Mulder (2016) Competence-based vocational and professional education (pp.
903–929). Basel: Springer.
Watling, C., & Lingard, L. (2012). Grounded theory in medical education research: AMEE
Guide No. 70. Medical Teacher 34, 850–861.
Yardley, S., Brosnan, C., & Richardson, J. (2013). Sharing methodology: a worked example
of theoretical integration with qualitative data to clarify practical understanding of learn
ing and generate new theoretical development. Medical Teacher 35, e1011–e1019.
Yardley, S., Teunissen, P., & Dornan, T. (2012). Experiential learning: AMEE Guide No. 63.
Medical Teacher 34, e102–e115.
Yardley, S., Watts, K., Pearson, J. & Richardson, J. (2014). Ethical issues in the reuse of
qualitative data: perspectives from literature, practice and participants. Qualitative
Health Research 24, 102–113.
Sarah Yardley
Sarah Yardley, Marie Curie Palliative Care Research Department, University College
London & Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
Karen Mattick
Karen Mattick, Centre for Research in Professional Learning, University of Exeter,

UK
Page 21 of 22

Tim Dornan
Tim Dornan, School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queens Univer
sity Belfast, UK
Page 22 of 22

18 Close-to-Practice Qualitative Research Methods

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

18 Close-to-Practice Qualitative Research Methods

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

18 Close-to-Practice Qualitative Research Methods

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Close-to-Practice Qualitative Research Methods

Close-to-Practice Qualitative Research Methods

Print Publication Date: Nov 2019 Subject: Psychology, Organizational Psychology

Abstract and Keywords

Subscriber: University of Edinburgh; date: 17 August 2020

(p. 409) Why is Qualitative Research Needed?

The Complexity Argument

Quantitative psychological studies of expertise, however, tend to focus on tightly bounded

Subscriber: University of Edinburgh; date: 17 August 2020

The Social and Professional Argument

Subscriber: University of Edinburgh; date: 17 August 2020

Democratization of knowledge by the Internet is adding to this complexity and changing

The Special and Different Argument

A third contribution of qualitative research is to explore how an understanding of exper­

Subscriber: University of Edinburgh; date: 17 August 2020

What is (Different about) Qualitative Re­

Subscriber: University of Edinburgh; date: 17 August 2020

Ontology and Epistemology

Subscriber: University of Edinburgh; date: 17 August 2020

Theory and Methodology

Subscriber: University of Edinburgh; date: 17 August 2020

the findings of other researchers. Regarding methodological theories, quantitative re­

(p. 416) Exemplar Close-to-Practice Qualitative Research Methods

Subscriber: University of Edinburgh; date: 17 August 2020

Subscriber: University of Edinburgh; date: 17 August 2020

Qualitative Studies That Have Changed Our

(p. 418) Establishing the Value of Qualitative Research

American society’s increasing interest in professionalization led Merton and colleagues to

Subscriber: University of Edinburgh; date: 17 August 2020

Qualitative Research Addressing Contemporary Concerns

Subscriber: University of Edinburgh; date: 17 August 2020

Subscriber: University of Edinburgh; date: 17 August 2020

Studies of workplace-based and vocational learning have shown how pedagogical

De Feijter, de Grave, Dornan, Koopmans, and Scherpbier (2011) sought to understand

Subscriber: University of Edinburgh; date: 17 August 2020

Qualitative Research Enriching the Conceptualization of What Makes

Key Considerations in Qualitative Research

Quality in Qualitative Studies

Subscriber: University of Edinburgh; date: 17 August 2020

Ethical Aspects of Qualitative Research

Subscriber: University of Edinburgh; date: 17 August 2020

to ensure an understanding of the relevant legislative or ethical frameworks that apply.

(p. 424) Researcher Development and Support

Conducting high-quality qualitative research also requires expertise. Many researchers

Conclusions, Future Directions, and Recom­

Subscriber: University of Edinburgh; date: 17 August 2020

In this chapter, we have outlined the possibilities and benefits to be gained,

demonstrating applications within medicine and medical application. We have demon­

To summarize, qualitative research allows us to develop understanding of when, how, and

Billett, S. (2014). Mimetic learning at work: Learning in the circumstances of practice.

Subscriber: University of Edinburgh; date: 17 August 2020

N., & Holmes, A. (2013). Understanding the determinants of antimicrobial prescribing

Subscriber: University of Edinburgh; date: 17 August 2020

Hammersley, M. (2005). Ethnography: Potential, practice, and problems: Criticism of In­

Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (2007). Ethnography: Principles in practice. London:

transformation from a global service-learning experience: The efficacy of photo-elicitation

Subscriber: University of Edinburgh; date: 17 August 2020

Malloch, M. (2013). The Sage handbook of workplace learning. London: Sage.

Subscriber: University of Edinburgh; date: 17 August 2020

A third contribution of qualitative research is to explore how an understanding of exper

What is (Different about) Qualitative Re

the findings of other researchers. Regarding methodological theories, quantitative re

Conclusions, Future Directions, and Recom

demonstrating applications within medicine and medical application. We have demon

Hammersley, M. (2005). Ethnography: Potential, practice, and problems: Criticism of In