See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/362606723

Philosophical and theoretical underpinnings of qualitative research

Chapter · August 2022

DOI: 10.1016/b978-0-12-818630-5.11001-2

CITATION READS
1 5,991

2 authors:

Eileen Boswell Wayne Babchuk

14 PUBLICATIONS 7 CITATIONS
University of Nebraska at Lincoln
27 PUBLICATIONS 606 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Eileen Boswell on 10 August 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Philosophical and theoretical underpinnings of qualitative research
Eileen Boswella , and Wayne A. Babchukb , a Department of Teaching, Learning, and Teacher Education, University of
Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, United States and b Department of Educational Psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln,
Lincoln, NE, United States
© 2023.

F
Glossary 1

OO
Chapter introduction 2
Chapter overview 3
Part I. Philosophical assumptions of qualitative research 3
Introduction to Part I 3
Distinguishing ontology from epistemology 3
Logics employed in qualitative research 4
Generalizability and transferability 4

PR
Power, positionality, and reflexivity in qualitative research 4
Summary of Part I 5
Part II. Theory and theories in qualitative research 5
Introduction to Part II 5
Historical roots of grand theories 5
Major taxonomies of qualitative research 6

D
Qualitative research after positivism 6
Summary of Part II 7
Part III. Applying theory and philosophy in qualitative research 7
Values as manifest in theoretical frameworks 8
TE
Axiological foundations of specific qualitative methodologies 8
Ethnography 8
Phenomenology 8
Grounded theory 8
Additional qualitative sub-approaches as values-driven 9
EC

Operational values in specific methods and procedures 9

Sampling 9
Interviews 10
Participant observation 10
Member checking 10
RR

Memo-writing and bracketing 10

Importing qualitative sensibilities into mixed research 10
Summary of Part III 11
Coda: future directions in qualitative research 11
Uncited references 11
References 11
CO

Further reading 13
UN

Glossary

Abduction inferring an apt conclusion based on the iterative evaluation of data against possible, plausible explanations
Audit trail a set of documents and resources showing the timing and rationale for key decisions in the research process
Axiology the nature of, and study of, values or of the origin of the values conferred on something
Bracketing the practice of documenting—and setting aside—personal views and experiences related to the subject of inquiry, partic-
ularly popular in some forms of phenomenological research

1
2 Philosophical and theoretical underpinnings of qualitative research

Deduction reasoning from the general to the specific, often in the form of strict hypothesis testing that aims to predict something
about a population based on a sample
Emic denotes the ‘insider’ perspective of the participants at the core of the study
Epistemology the study of knowledge and ways of knowing, and of the nature of evidence or proof
Ethnography the study of a culture-sharing group or some aspect thereof; a term representing both a process and a product of re-
search (an ethnography)
Etic denotes the ‘outsider’ perspective of the researcher

F
Induction reasoning from the specific to the general, often in the form of exploratory research questions that seek to build more
knowledge about an understudied phenomenon or community

OO
Member checking any of multiple respondent validation procedures that the researcher uses to verify their findings and interpreta-
tions
Memo reflexive documentation of a researcher's insights, methods, decisions, and possible biases throughout a project
Methods specific procedures of data sampling, collection, and analysis chosen in alignment with the guiding philosophical assump-
tions and central questions of the researcher
Methodology a comprehensive approach to research that encompasses the abstract and concrete components of research design and
implementation including ontology, epistemology, axiology, and methods

PR
Ontology the study of perceptions of reality and the nature of being
Paradigm an overarching worldview that guides research processes and encompasses a researcher's ontology, epistemology, axiol-
ogy, and methodology
Positionality a researcher's practice of considering the implications of power dynamics in the research process, and how these dy-
namics produce advantages, disadvantages, biases, or limitations
Positivism the paradigmatic view that a singular, objective reality exists and that it can be accurately observed and measured via sci-

D
entific inquiry
Post-positivism the paradigmatic view that a singular objective reality exists but can only be approximated through scientific inquiry
Qualitative research an umbrella term used to designate related approaches that emphasize inductive reasoning, collecting data in
natural settings, and understanding participants' points of view
TE
Reflexivity the process whereby a researcher reflects on their own social location, possible biases, and unique insights
Teleology the study of time, completion, temporality; perspectives on the contemplation of the end-points of an event or state of being
Theory a way of explaining observed reality and proposing relationships between concepts, people, groups, or sets of conditions
EC

Chapter introduction

Qualitative inquiry is a naturalistic approach to empirical research, one that privileges a participant's perspective over that of the researcher.
Qualitative practitioners affirm that the expertise that inheres in individuals and communities holds a wealth of potential for social research.
RR

By plumbing the depths of people's lived realities, qualitative research constitutes an equal and worthy counterpart to quantitative sciences
and other research methodologies. Qualitative research is “an umbrella term used to designate a family of approaches that emphasize
inductive reasoning, collecting data in natural settings, and understanding participants' points of view” (Babchuk, 2019, p. 1). Although
there are arguably minor distinctions between the terms qualitative inquiry and qualitative research, these terms are used synonymously
throughout this chapter.
Sometimes the task of understanding an abstract set of concepts is made easier by contrasting these concepts with related, but divergent
CO

ideas. Although most qualitative scholars view qualitative inquiry as equally valuable to quantitative research, it can be useful to describe
them in terms of how they differ, in order to more fully emphasize the unique features of a qualitative orientation that set it apart and add to
its value. Therefore, passages that set qualitative approaches against a backdrop of quantitative science do so only in the hope that readers
more familiar with quantitative designs can draw on this knowledge to learn the dialectical ways to understand what qualitative research
offers. Given that the history of qualitative research developed partly as a response to the dominance of quantitative approaches, the two
are juxtaposed at times throughout this chapter in order to give readers opportunities to compare and contrast them before the introduction
UN

of mixed methods at the conclusion of the chapter.

What distinguishes a qualitative approach from others is an emphasis on the perspective and agency of participants in a particular popu-
lation or culture-sharing group, and sometimes a commitment to participants' direct participation in planning, designing, and implementing
research. Additionally, qualitative science is distinct from quantitative science in that it does not rely on hypotheses to guide the research
process, nor does it typically attempt to establish causal connections among variables. Erickson (2018) has written that, “The qualitative
researcher first asks, ‘What are the kinds of things (material and symbolic) to which people in this setting orient as they conduct everyday
life?’”(p. 36). This style of inquiry prioritizes language and discourse, both in data collection methods such as extensive interviews as well
as in creating research reports and other deliverables that are produced as outcomes of a study.
Participant observation methods (see Naturalistic Observation, this volume) and unstructured or semi-structured interviews are popu-
lar methods of data collection that produce the rich, detailed verbiage and “thick description” that are trademarks of qualitative research
 Philosophical and theoretical underpinnings of qualitative research 3

(Geertz, 1973). Prolonged engagement in the field and immersive, comprehensive data analysis are part and parcel of a qualitative ap-
proach, as are researchers' candid reflections on their role in shaping research findings and interpretations thereof. In the qualitative realm,
researchers acknowledge that people are experts on their own lives (Delpit, 1988, p. 297)—the participant functions as the expert in the
study. This contrasts with quantitative paradigms wherein the researcher commonly adopts a top-down, paternalistic stance. This stance
has been imagined as the distant or impersonal researcher donning the mantle of power to administer a ‘treatment’ to a ‘subject’ or treating
people as anonymous, extracted data sets.
A qualitative researcher strives to adopt a deeply humanist ethos and a profound respect for the participants as complex and holistic

F
beings worthy of dignity throughout the research process. This is sometimes referred to as practicing a duty of care, or an “ethic of care”
(Matteson and Lincoln, 2009). Honor, respect, and a collaborative spirit join the qualitative researcher with participants in a dialogic
exchange that does not shy away from the fact that the research experience itself is intersubjective. An interview, for example, is a co-con-

OO
struction of knowledge between individuals socialized through intersecting lenses of class, race, gender, culture, and many other aspects of
biography that fashion both interviewer and respondent perspectives.

Chapter overview
Part I of this chapter explains philosophical concepts that are foundational to the assumptions guiding qualitative designs. In Part II, these

PR
assumptions are shown to have guided the historical development of overarching grand theories, and paradigmatic taxonomies. The appli-
cation of theory and philosophy to contemporary qualitative methodology is taken up in Part III, including how such values and practices
are incorporated into mixed methods research. The chapter concludes with some ideas about future directions within qualitative inquiry.

Part I. Philosophical assumptions of qualitative research

D
Introduction to Part I
Imbricated with some of the broad theories in qualitative inquiry are the guiding philosophical assumptions that underly most qualitative
projects, even if they remain unacknowledged or minimally articulated. These include a preference for inductive over deductive reasoning,
TE
a commitment to reflecting on the researcher's unique skills and possible limitations, candor and transparency about the research process,
and humanist ethics that course throughout all qualitative inquiry. The term qualitative research entered the social sciences in the 1960s
(Bogdan and Biklen, 2007, p. 2). Early qualitative innovators emphasized “human flexibility, the importance of the genesis of the self,
the definition of the situation, and the role of the community in the social process” (Deegan, 2007, p. 14). Rather than isolating variables
in a laboratory for precise quantitative measurement, qualitative approaches embrace the complexity of the human condition and endeavor
EC

to understand the fundamental processes and conditions that knit people together into communities and culture-sharing groups. These fea-
tures position qualitative researchers to offer detailed and context-specific information about known and novel situations across diverse
communities and in variegated circumstances of life and work. A qualitative orientation is moreover a natural outgrowth of many academic
disciplines, provided that the specific philosophical assumptions of a discipline are interrogated before designing research.
RR

Distinguishing ontology from epistemology

Questions about the nature of knowledge behoove us to make ourselves aware of the limits of our knowledge (Schnegg, 2014, p. 46).
Epistemology is the study of ways of knowing, and of what counts as evidence in various research paradigms. Epistemologies are not the
only philosophical basis for qualitative research approaches, however. Axiology, teleology, and especially ontology—the nature of being
and the study of that which is ‘real’—all matter as philosophical pillars supporting the epistemological foundations of a research study.
Epistemology presupposes ontology, but many students of qualitative research learn these in reverse order. First, one must conceive of an
CO

entity and its indicators in whatever reality one adopts. Only then can one consider the epistemological axes of that reality—how we come
to know of, and prove, its existence. These axes include the nature of facts, knowledge, evidence, and observation: what counts as knowing
and how we go about gathering and verifying knowledge.
Humans are socialized to accept some forms of knowledge uncritically, and thus epistemology is often obscured by strong social norms
reinforcing what is taken for granted by one's surrounding community. For example, the concept of a ‘day’ has ontological roots in the
regular cycle of the sun; however, dividing this concept into ‘hours’ reveals how society has organized and expressed our experience of
UN

the solar cycle—one which we could easily conceptualize in other ways. Whereas solar and lunar cycles are ontological, the concept of a
seven-day week is purely epistemological; there is nothing inherent in nature that distinguishes a weekday from a weekend. Only habit,
indoctrination, and social organization accomplish this cultural feat.
A ‘weekday’ is an episteme: a tool of thought that humans use to think about and talk about reality. Some tools of thought are innocu-
ous but no less revealing of the biases afflicting those who coin them. An innocent example that illustrates the creation and application of
an episteme is the term ‘ornamental shrub’—it defines whole categories of plant species based on human uses (or lack thereof) for those
species, rather than in line with botanical characteristics. By circulating these terms, the creators of such nomenclature trade ontology for
epistemology: they conflate the nature of the thing itself with how they label that thing within their chosen, culturally conditioned, and
narrow-sighted knowledge systems.
4 Philosophical and theoretical underpinnings of qualitative research

The difference between ontology and epistemology might at first strike readers as a heady philosophical conundrum or perhaps a trifle,
but qualitative researchers would be well-advized to devote some energy to clarifying which concepts and definitions are embedded in a
project's design premise and whether the participants, funders, reviewers, and other stakeholders share those ideas. It is also crucial to antic-
ipate the offense taken, or even backlash, when controversial assumptions belie an ethnocentric or otherwise limited bias that undermines
the inclusion and emancipation at the heart of qualitative research.

Logics employed in qualitative research

F
Accompanying the static assumptions that qualitative researchers bring into their work with them are philosophical processes, or logics,
that structure their reasoning and decision-making throughout a project. A logic is merely a system of inputs and outputs, and more than one

OO
type of logic might be needed to move the project—especially the data analysis—from beginning to end. Two basic logical processes are
induction and deduction, with the latter being the default approach to quantitative science. The former, inductive reasoning, is a signature
element of qualitative research, and there is room for other forms of reasoning to support induction, and even to validate it. These include
abduction, retroduction, and transduction (see especially Belfrage and Hauf, 2017; Lipscomb, 2012; and Visokolskis, 2021).
Although the terms are applied slightly differently in syllogistic and rhetorical applications than in this chapter, the basic meanings of
induction and deduction hold in qualitative research: induction moves from the specific to the general while deduction moves from the

PR
general to the specific. Whereas deductive reasoning is well-suited to a quantitative project that aims to predict the behavior of a population
based on the results of a sample, inductive reasoning provides a path for gathering specific data, analyzing it, and then making generaliza-
tions that may or may not be predictive of people outside the study sample. Induction may be used to generate hypotheses, and deduction
is apt for testing those hypotheses. Induction restrains itself from presupposing too much about the sample or the data and is better applied
to research questions and problems requiring intellectual exploration. Deduction, conversely, would presuppose a great deal in order to
invent a treatment, experiment, or intervention that hopes to confirm (or deny) a pre-established prediction throughout specific hypotheses
identified prior to data collection.

D
In qualitative research generally—and grounded theory studies in particular—an additional form of logic, abduction, is also practiced
(Bryant, 2017; Hadley, 2017). Abductive reasoning channels one's ability to infer a well-fit, plausible conclusion based on available
data and to eliminate ill-fit conclusions along the way. While it cannot produce a neat or tidy logical proof, abduction can offer solid rea-
TE
soning for how one arrived at one's conclusions. Abductive reasoning—such as depicted in Babchuk and Boswell's theory-tracker tool (see
Grounded Theory, this volume)—demands that a researcher iteratively induce and deduce as data are collected and analyzed. Data that
ground a theory are examined through a filter of possible/plausible theoretical explanations; from there, the explanations that lack adequate
support are abandoned until a well-supported or ‘saturated’ theory can be achieved—one that never loses sight of the need to be ‘fit’ to the
data collected.
EC

Generalizability and transferability

Unlike a quantitative approach—which aims to generalize results from a sample to a population—a qualitative approach seeks nuanced
conclusions about a relatively small sample and is not explicitly designed to extend findings to the general population. Nevertheless, a
qualitative researcher may assert some generalizations about the sample, or about the application of a particular theoretical framework to a
RR

research problem. Thus, it would be an oversimplification to say that qualitative projects do not generalize—they do, but not in the same
way that quantitative projects do, and not nearly as much. In Lincoln and Guba's (1985) iconic work on trustworthiness, they used the
term transferability, which in qualitative research loosely parallels that of generalizability in quantitative research and suggest strategies
to achieve it (see for example, Merriam and Tisdell, 2016). It is therefore incumbent on qualitative researchers to explain how their
findings do and do not apply to other samples or sub-populations, as well as to reflexively critique their own methods and assumptions.
Moreover, qualitative researchers must document these decisions and assumptions through an audit trail, as described next.
CO

Philosophically, qualitative research departs from quantitative and other positivist-influenced approaches in that the researcher is con-
sidered the “instrument” of research (Creswell, 2014, p. 185) and can be critiqued in this capacity. One way these assessments are un-
dertaken is to evaluate the audit trail chronicling the research process. In the event of an audit for any reason, the researcher needs to be
able to produce evidence and documentation of each step of the data collection and analysis. This could be in the form of voice memos,
correspondence with an advisor as major decisions are taken, read-only data sets that have not been emended, audio/video recordings of in-
terviews, correspondence with key informants, or other items that show the steps and rationale for the project. Establishing which methods
UN

will be used should be done early in the process and with transparency as the guiding principle, as opposed to reproducibility or replication,
which may the goal of an audit trail or research protocol in the quantitative sciences.

Power, positionality, and reflexivity in qualitative research

Among the philosophical assumptions underlying any qualitative enterprise is that the participant is the expert and the researcher must
subordinate themselves. Astute qualitative researchers take note of power dynamics through a reflexive process of positioning themselves
in the research. The concepts of positionality and reflexivity thus form a “qualitative imperative” (Boswell, 2021b, p. 13) in social re-
search. In addition to the ‘usual suspects’ of race, class, and gender, one's research is also subject to both additive and subtractive proper
 Philosophical and theoretical underpinnings of qualitative research 5

ties of one's religious upbringing and activities; military or veteran status; housing, mobility, or incarceration circumstances; caste or tribal
affiliation; and numerous manifestations of privilege and birthright. Charmaz (2014) moreover argues that, “Data are never entirely raw.
Recording data alone confers interpretations on them because we frame these data through our use of language and understandings about
the world” (p. 54). Being reflective about uses of language is an excellent starting point for the practice of reflexive qualitative research.
Reflexivity is a necessary component of the qualitative research process, one that provides “heightened awareness of the self in the
process of knowledge creation, and a clarification of how one's beliefs have been socially constructed” (Grbich, 2013, p. 113). Defined as
“researching the self, researching the self in relation to others, engaged reflection and representation, and shifting from the self to system”

F
(Milner, 2007, p. 388), reflexivity in the design and conduct of qualitative research additionally entails scrutinizing one's positionality
as a researcher. Positionality is “thinking about the ways in which our social positions shape not only our interactions in the field but
also what we see and hear” (Reyes, 2018, p. 212). Disclosures of the researcher's position relative to participants, data, and the research

OO
process are a needed ingredient in strong qualitative studies. These are crucial inclusions because qualitative research “locates the observer
in the world” (Strauss and Corbin, 1994, p. 3). Without positionality and reflexivity, inquiry is structured around “inquirer-oriented
power” (Cannella and Lincoln, 2011, p. 82). Reflexivity and positionality are therefore paramount in qualitative research, and omitting
a disclosure of investigators' personal contexts is contrary to many best practices within social research.

Summary of Part I

PR
Part I of this chapter has outlined some general philosophical concepts that undergird qualitative approaches to research, irrespective of
which theoretical framework(s) one might choose for a research project. In the following sections, the basics of ontology and epistemology
will be shown to configure various grand theories that have been instrumental in proliferating the qualitative applications that will be de-
scribed in the third part of the chapter.

D
Part II. Theory and theories in qualitative research
Introduction to Part II
TE
There exist broad theoretical and philosophical foundations to qualitative research generally, as well as narrower theoretical frameworks
that led to the formation of specific research traditions. This chapter focuses on the broad, macro-level theories, with selected examples
of lower-level theories integrated to describe contemporary qualitative applications. For instance, many qualitative projects could employ
feminism as an overarching theoretical foundation and the project might also use theories within a discipline, such as assessment theories
within the field of education or patient-compliance theories within the health sciences.
EC

A ‘theory’ is any articulated way of explaining observed reality—one that usually proposes a relationship between two or more con-
cepts, entities, or sets of conditions. Theories that gain a lot of publicity—whether because they are universally accepted or highly con-
troversial—might be known to a great segment of the general public (e.g., the theory of natural selection) whereas other theories may
only be known to specialists in particular fields within a discipline (e.g., theories of how best to teach world languages to adult learners).
Throughout this chapter, the emphasis is on ‘grand theories’ or formal, macro-level theories that propose large-scale and wide-sweeping
social implications of the status quo.
RR

Historical roots of grand theories

The history of qualitative research is one lens through which to peruse the trajectory of disciplinary communities and divisions, and of
conceptions of research from the Enlightenment through the new millennium. Some of the major changes that have contributed to the cur-
rent state of qualitative research include macro-theoretical assumptions guiding a study; the race, gender, and ethnic background of the
CO

researchers as well as of the participants; an increased focus on the potential reciprocal benefits for researchers and participants; and the
socio-historic and geopolitical contexts in which research is conceived, funded, and undertaken. These forces continue to sculpt research
methodologists and the students to whom they impart their methodologies in a brave new world in which data objects can be tweets, inter-
views can be conducted remotely, and all manner of artifacts can be crowdsourced in an instant. The zeitgeist or ‘spirit of the times’ hews
all academic trends to some extent, insofar as it renders certain topics fundable or unfundable, alluringly polemic, or exceedingly popular
when a given topic or methodology garners ample airtime at conferences and in themed publications.
UN

Among the major players whose scholarship influenced the early formulations of qualitative social research are Franz Boas, Bronislaw
Malinowski, Ernest Burgess, Robert Park, Clifford Geertz, and Margaret Mead. The academic climate in the 1850–1900s in particular was
a lightning rod for the burgeoning research approaches that characterize qualitative inquiry today, as influenced by the writings of Weber,
Dilthey, Simmel, Husserl, Marx and other timeless icons of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Just as the zeitgeist had an influence
on qualitative inquiry over the last century and a half, the ortgeist or ‘spirit of the place’ was also of import. In the United States, new
directions in methodology took researchers from ethnographic field studies in far-flung locales to research at home in urban and rural
settings, where they discovered more and more about the American way of life and the people living it. Crime and criminal justice as a
focus of study saw its heyday as qualitative research blossomed in Chicago and other urban centers, while studies of race and poverty knew
no limits—rural or urban. Migration trends in the early twentieth century aided social scientists in crafting innovative research questions
6 Philosophical and theoretical underpinnings of qualitative research

about integration, segregation, and assimilation in US neighborhoods, in addition to casting new light on the intricacies of public spaces as
more and different cultures intermixed therein. Education research moved these questions into the schoolhouse, with more studies focusing
on newcomer students and their immigrant families.
Throughout this era, thick description and detailed documentation of human behavior were the order of the day in qualitative research.
Ethnographers in both sociology and anthropology took pains to analyze multiple sources of data including interviews, maps, audio sam-
ples, photography, and meticulous biographical and kinship data—thereby establishing lineage, and linking habits with heritage. Com-
pleteness of data and compelling detail became standard as more and more populations under examination were seen to be unique, novel,

F
neglected, or otherwise warranting intensive study. During this period, women were beneficiaries of the propagation of new and exciting
pathways in qualitative research—both as practitioners of the research process and as groups/individuals newly represented in qualitative
studies. Feminist research, among other major paradigms, is taken up in the following sections.

OO
Major taxonomies of qualitative research
Some theoretical perspectives have been sufficiently developed to have birthed their own methodologies, research communities, journals,
conferences, and social movements. These high-level frameworks can be referred to as paradigms. A paradigm is a “unitary package of
beliefs about science and scientific knowledge” (Crotty, 1998, pp. 34–35). Students new to qualitative research could also think of a par-

PR
adigm as an overarching worldview that guides research processes and incorporates a researcher's ontology, epistemology, axiology, and
methodology. The postmodern paradigm, for example, entails particular believes about the nature of reality, what counts as evidence or
knowledge, what principles are valued in research and in society, as well as ways to go about studying social phenomena.
Authors of popular works on qualitative inquiry delineate their taxonomies of research paradigms in many different ways. Merriam
and Tisdell (2016) note that, “there is almost no consistency across writers in how this aspect of qualitative research is discussed” (p.
8). For example, Neuman (2011) lists three approaches to social science (positivist, interpretive, and critical social science), each with
its own set of philosophical assumptions and principles as well as its own stance on how to do research. He includes feminist and post-

D
modern research as separate categories. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) organize this material into four philosophical traditions (positivist,
interpretive, critical, and poststructural/postmodern), while Hatch (2002) compares five research paradigms (positivist, post-positivist,
constructivist, critical/feminist, and poststructuralist). Lincoln et al. (2018)—in what can be viewed as the seminal work on this topic—re-
TE
view five (positivism, post-positivism, critical theory, constructivism, and participatory).
Bogdan and Biklen (2007) discuss five sets of theoretical underpinnings of qualitative research (e.g., positivism, phenomenology,
symbolic interaction, ethnomethodology, contemporary trends), while Creswell and Poth (2018) divide their text into philosophical
assumptions (ontology, epistemology, axiology, methodology) and interpretive frameworks (post-positivism, social constructivism, trans-
formative frameworks, postmodern perspectives, pragmatism, feminist theories, critical theory and critical race theory, queer theory, and
EC

disability theory) in order to facilitate the reader's understanding of qualitative research. Crotty (1998) presents positivism, post-posi-
tivism, constructionism, interpretivism, critical inquiry, feminism, and postmodernism as the major paradigms in qualitative inquiry. De-
spite considerable variation, all of these scholars argue for the importance of understanding paradigmatic tenets of the research enterprise.
Positivism—the paradigmatic view that a singular, objective reality exists and can be accurately measured and observed—is the oldest
of these philosophical traditions with its origins in the work of Hume, Mill, Comte, and Durkheim in the 18th and 19th centuries, and that
of sociologists such as Robert Merton and Talcott Parsons in the twentieth (see especially Erickson, 2018; Neuman, 2011). Comte
RR

(1858) is credited for coining the term “sociology” to advocate for the scientific study of social behavior borrowed from the hard sciences
that came home to roost in Durkheim's iconic The Rules of Sociological Method (1895), which stands as the first truly empirical and objec-
tive study of social phenomena.

Qualitative research after positivism

CO

In contrast to the well-worn objectivist grooves in turn-of-the-century social sciences, many qualitative researchers beginning in the early
twentieth century began to question positivism, to the point of using qualitative research as a response to what was absent from labora-
tory settings—the emic, or insider's expert knowledge and perspective (Merriam and Tisdell, 2016, p. 16). An excellent example of
this is Edmund Husserl, a mathematician, who desired a deeper understanding of shared meaning through qualitative methods than that
afforded by quantitative designs. This swing away from objectivist thinking toward abstraction created openings within qualitative research
for original, post-positivist epistemological frameworks from subjectivism and interpretivism to constructivism, postmodernism, and criti-
UN

cal paradigms that scrutinize the power dynamics underlying all social inquiry (Crotty, 1998; Neuman, 2011).
Many contemporary scholars lean more toward a post-positivist worldview that, unlike positivism, assumes there exists a knowable,
objective, patterned, and stable reality, and which avers that social scientists can only approximate an objective reality through structured
and systematic approaches that mirror those historically considered successful in the natural sciences. Importantly, the so-called ‘quali-
tative revolution’ in the social sciences, beginning in the 1960s, ran parallel to a ‘quantitative revolution’ in anthropology wherein many
cultural anthropologists adopted quantitative empiricism in fields such as Human Behavioral Ecology to lend what they perceived as more
scientific credibility to the study of human behavior (Chagnon and Irons, 1979). Post-positivist worldviews have also been adopted
by many qualitative scholars who advocate rigorous and systematic methods in their research and often favor the use of computer assisted
qualitative data analysis software (CAQDAS) and the counting of codes in their analyses.
 Philosophical and theoretical underpinnings of qualitative research 7

In post-positivist qualitative research, many projects are subtly or not so subtly influenced by macro-level theories or ‘grand theories’
that arose in response to positivism and were enhanced by the variation in both where and when they developed, and by whom. Critical
theory, postmodern theory, and feminist theories all bear the imprint of the particular political, class, race, and gender dynamics of the
eras in which they came into full use in social research. Critical theory or critical social science is a term for approaches that advocate for
disrupting the status quo by striving to empower historically oppressed and marginalized groups through research, and to achieve a more
democratic and equitable society where all individuals can realize their full human potential. Origins of critical theory are credited to Marx,
Freud, Fromm, Adorno, and Marcuse, and more contemporary proponents such as Habermas, Freire, Bourdieu, and Tuhiwai Smith (Neu-

F
man, 2011).
Feminism can be located within the main framework of critical theory and, similar to some of the other philosophical orientations dis-
cussed above, it critically questions masculinist research that directed early scholarship in the study of social behavior. Feminist scholars see

OO
positivism and its notions of objectivity, logic, rationality, control, claims of value-neutrality, and individual competition as representative
of a male point of view that obstructs and underplays the importance of accommodation, interconnectedness, trust, and mutual obligation
in the social activities that bevel human interaction (Creswell and Poth, 2018; Neuman, 2011). Feminist scholars pose research ques-
tions that expose power relationships, social positioning, gender, and institutional sexism to help transform society and achieve equitable
conditions for all. Feminist researchers often employ action-oriented research methods that build solidarity with participants and that are
design to facilitate personal and societal change. Qualitative scholars in the feminist tradition include Margaret Mead, Kimberlé Crenshaw,

PR
Patricia Hill Collins, Mary Field Belenky, Carol Gilligan, and Sarah Ahmed, among many others.
Postmodernism in qualitative research is closely tied to the larger postmodern movement across philosophy, the arts, music, and litera-
ture, and it shares some overlapping principles with critical theory and feminism. These include, for example, the use of language as a tool
of repression of historically marginalized groups, and the rejection of more traditional approaches to the study of social behavior that is
viewed as male-dominated, Eurocentric and biased in helping institutionalize and sustain extant power imbalances. In this vein, postmod-
ernists have viewed traditional explanations as forms of critical fiction or myth in that they were so heavily biased by the authors of ethno-
graphic reports that one needs to deconstruct these texts for layered meanings and reject the notion of a single, objective truth (Creswell

D
and Poth, 2018; Neuman, 2011). To them, multiple truths exist. Postmodernists question the grand narratives put forth in those reports
and the objective portrayal of the ‘other’ as historically seen through a White, masculinist, Western lens.
Interrogating the limited perspectives of European research methodologies in the twentieth century qualitative research boom has led
TE
to further critique of the preponderance of social science findings that are based solely on human samples assumed to be Western, edu-
cated, industrialized, rich, and democratic—or “W.E.I.R.D.” as a shorthand (Henrich et al., 2010). Breaking the positivist mindset open
enables other sets of values to manifest themselves in qualitative inquiry. The third part of this chapter will take up how values guide the
research process.
EC

Summary of Part II
The above sections have outlined how paradigms and specific theories originated and how they continue to usher qualitative inquiry in
emancipatory directions, to a greater or lesser extent, depending on one's theoretical inclinations and choices. Major qualitative research
paradigms such as feminism weave together particular ontologies and epistemologies, often in reaction to previous paradigms' shortcom-
ings. In the following section on research applications, the role of values—axiology—will be in the spotlight, illuminating how values
RR

guide each step of the research process.

Part III. Applying theory and philosophy in qualitative research

Methodological sub-approaches are not born into a vacuum; rather, they are forged in the historical and political contexts of a particular
CO

time and place, in response to what has come before and challenges thereto. Historical forces drive which research gets funded, approved,
and ultimately completed and published. Imbued throughout all of these decisions are values—personal, institutional, communal, cultural,
and political. The study of values in a philosophy or research context is called axiology and—together with ontology and epistemology,
as outlined above—axiological drivers of research are crucial to one's understanding of contemporary qualitative applications. Consider,
for instance, the value of having one's research make a positive impact in the world; this is not a foregone conclusion for all qualitative
researchers. In fact, some would caution against research as advocacy while others whole-heartedly embrace justice-oriented outcomes as
UN

a primary aim of their projects.

While opinions differ on whether qualitative researchers should act as advocates for the communities they conduct research alongside,
many believe that qualitative research should aim for dignity, respect, and a generous empathy for all individuals participating in the re-
search process. These values underly qualitative inquiry and are evident in the specific theories, methodologies, and methods chosen by
researchers. Whereas a quantitative experiment may be “reductive” of human experience (Richards and Morse, 2012), qualitative ap-
proaches view human lives as each being situated in diverse particularities. For this reason, qualitative applications require a thorough and
comprehensive commitment on the part of the researcher to truly understand and honor participants, to authentically contemplate the impli-
cations of the research, and to mitigate the possible harms—literal or representational—of any study being conducted. Axiology, therefore,
can be detected at the levels of theory, methodology, and methods, as explained in the following sub-sections.
8 Philosophical and theoretical underpinnings of qualitative research

Values as manifest in theoretical frameworks

As far back as the sociological writings of Du Bois (1898, 1935, 1897), qualitative inquiry has played a crucial role in conveying the
lived realities of African Americans and other systematically oppressed or subjugated communities. Bodies of work leveraging such critical
epistemologies include general feminist approaches and their subdomains such as Black feminist thought (Berry, 2010; Dillard, 2000),
Chicana feminist epistemologies (Anzaldúa, 1987, 2009; Delgado Bernal, 2002), and other criticalities that question and dismantle
colonialist and normative perspectives in education and the social sciences writ large (Delgado and Stefancic, 2017; Patel, 2015;
Tuck and Yang, 2012). While space does not permit a thorough analysis of the values of every theory used in qualitative applications,

F
students and novice researchers should keep in mind that being able to articulate one's values as a researcher and how these inform the
choice of a theoretical framework is prerequisite to selecting a methodological sub-approach and research design.

OO
Axiological foundations of specific qualitative methodologies
Increasingly, qualitative research is seen as a venue for amplifying and uplifting individuals, communities, and perspectives that have his-
torically been devalued, dismissed, distorted, or silenced in a given population or culture. Owing to the emic imperative in qualitative
research, and embracing the “centrality of experiential knowledge” that derives from many critical race theoretical applications (Pérez
Huber, 2009; Solórzano and Yosso, 2016), qualitative inquiry is uniquely poized to elevate scholarship that counters epistemological

PR
racism and shortcomings of literature that focus only on the Global North and its limited viewpoints (Kubota, 2020; Scheurich and
Young, 1997). From literature reviews and citation practices, to data collection methods, to suggestions for future studies, qualitative
research increasingly embodies values of pluralism and antiracism. Arguably, credit for the development of these values in the history of
social research goes to the methodology known as Ethnography, explored next.

Ethnography

D
Ethnography is the study of a culture-sharing group or some aspect of a culture-sharing group and, like some of the other qualitative ap-
proaches outlined below, it represents both a process and a product of the research (an ethnography). There are currently many forms of
Ethnography practiced by qualitative researchers including critical, feminist, autoethnography, life history, ethnographic case study, and
ethnographic grounded theory (see Grounded Theory, this volume; see also Creswell and Guetterman, 2019). Educational anthropol-
TE
ogy focusing on the use of ethnographic methods to study education topics emerged in the 1950s, led by George and Louize Spindler, Jules
Henry and others, and has grown in popularity over time, having been applied in many and varied educational settings (Creswell and
Guetterman, 2019; Erickson, 2018) and foregrounding participant viewpoints.
Field researchers often distinguish between emic perspectives, representing those of the participants, and etic views espoused by the
researchers themselves. Most ethnographic research allows for a blend of these vantage points. Looking at the history of ethnographic field-
EC

work, one witnesses a sea change from more ethically-driven approaches to emically-based accounts as fieldworkers have underscored the
importance of more equitable partnerships and realization of potential benefits for participants. Accordingly, many contemporary ethnogra-
phers value transferring the authority from the researcher to the participants—and to the communities they represent—in order to distance
themselves from the colonial stigma that has haunted previous ethnographers.
RR

Phenomenology
German philosopher Wilhelm Dilthey had lain the foundation for interpretivist paradigms by introducing the notion of Verstehen (‘under-
standing’) to recast reality as being composed, at minimum, of “natural reality and social reality” (Crotty, 1998, p. 67; see also Neuman,
2011). The German philosophical tradition incubated this idea throughout the early 1900s, bringing forth what would later become phe-
nomenological methodology. In the 1960s and 70s, Phenomenology gained popularity, shepherded by Martin Heidegger—who advanced
an interpretive or hermeneutic approach—and Edmund Husserl who favored a descriptive or transcendental approach. For both of them,
CO

the essence of a person's experience was valued as the object of study, shifting research foçi from the external and seen toward the unseen
and ineffable elements of human existence. While interpretivist thinking was inspiring new phenomenological methods and methodolo-
gists, a divergent sub-approach that privileges data over interpretation was arriving on the qualitative scene.

Grounded theory
As new targets of focus flourished in qualitative research, so did ways of using the research process to grow or refine current theories across
UN

the disciplines. The development of Grounded Theory methodology is one such advance. Grounded Theory values systematic and iterative
methods that guide researchers to better understand a social or social-psychological process via a theoretical sample that then undergoes
constant comparative analysis (Glaser, 1965) until thematic saturation is achieved (Hood, 2007, p. 154). Evident in this methodological
sub-approach, and at times contested, is the value of collecting a substantial amount of data—whether that be in the number of interviews
conducted (Guest et al., 2006), the sampling strategy (Draucker et al., 2007), or the richness or “information power” of the data
set (Malterud et al., 2016). Readers can imagine without difficulty that some qualitatively-inclined researchers may take issue with
Grounded Theory's emphasis on quantity as a valuable dimension of data composition.
Data selection procedures within a Grounded Theory approach signified a departure from the way sites or data sets were chosen for the
core ethnographies. Data for the former are chosen based on their potential for grounding heretofore unknown or underdeveloped theory,
 Philosophical and theoretical underpinnings of qualitative research 9

whereas the latter (ethnographic) data were prized for giving holistic insight into particular groups of people and communities. Hood
(2007) notes that, “This focus on emerging theory and theory driven data collection is very different from data collection in conventional
ethnography which strives toward thick description of all that can be observed in a given setting regardless of theoretical relevance” (p.
155). Whereas ethnographic fieldwork is characterized by prolonged engagement with a community, some grounded theorists hold as their
primary methodological value a prolonged engagement with the data.
We see here that the thick description once honed so carefully by the Chicago School of Sociology, in an effort to position qualitative
research as equally ‘rigorous’ to the quantitative studies dominating other scientific fields at the time, came to be of lesser importance dur-

F
ing the late 1960s and early 1970s when Grounded Theory was enjoying its halcyon days. That the hallmarks of early qualitative research
could fall by the wayside in favor of Grounded Theory's systematic approach arguably demonstrates that qualitative research was undergo-
ing a renaissance of sorts—the thick description of the 1920s and 30s′ Chicago ethnographers was no longer necessary to evince the rigor

OO
of the qualitative approach.

Additional qualitative sub-approaches as values-driven

All sub-approaches within qualitative research showcase values to some extent in their applications. Narrative Inquiry focuses on the par-
ticipant's personal knowledge as the source of rich data; however, the outcome of the study is seen as a co-creation of both researcher
and participant. Some of the philosophical assumptions that define the contours of Narrative Inquiry as a qualitative methodology include

PR
temporal experience as fluid, and personal reflection as pivotal, in people's own evolving comprehension of their circumstances. Narrative
Inquiry therefore values an alternative, non-realist teleology, or the nature of the concept of time.
Along these teleologic lines, a lesser-known qualitative methodology, Currere, “foregrounds the relationship between narrative (life
history) and practice, and provides opportunities to theorize particular moments in one's educational history, to dialog with these moments,
and examine possibilities for change” (Kanu, 2006, p. 104). From the Latin for ‘to run the course’, this method underscores biography,
autobiography, and temporality as lenses through which to view personal experience, and it embodies “the self-conscious conceptualiza-
tion of the temporal” in a four-step method of reflexive methodology that progresses from regressive, to progressive, to analytical, and

D
finally to synthetical inquiry (Pinar, 1994, p. 19). Telicity in Currere and Narrative Inquiry is more relativist in nature, whereas Action
Research—described next—takes a more realist approach to the concept of time.
Action Research (see Action and Community-Based Participatory Approaches in Qualitative Research, this volume) encompasses a
TE
wide range of approaches spanning diverse fields such as education, social work, organizational psychology, and other social and health
sciences. Broadly defined, it is a systematic, self-reflective, and cyclical process that strives to collaboratively engage researchers and
participants toward the goal of generating practical solutions to problems of mutual concern, and spurring positive, long-term change
(Babchuk et al., 2021; Brydon-Miller et al., 2011; Creswell and Guetterman, 2019; Grimwood, 2015; Ivankova, 2014).
Sub-approaches of Action Research include Participatory Action Research, which values full democratic participation of stakeholders, of-
EC

ten involving an explicit focus on political engagement, collaboration, and social justice; and Community-Based Participatory Research,
often used in health sciences and aspiring for full community participation in all parts of the research. These forms of Action Research
promote equitable partnerships among stakeholders (i.e., researchers, organizational representatives, and members of the community) in all
phases of the research process including selecting a research question and the design, implementation, evaluation, and dissemination of the
research itself (Israel et al. 2013; Wallerstein and Duran, 2017).
Just as specific methodologies are the product of the special combinations of ontology, epistemology, and axiology that a research com-
RR

munity supports, so too are the quotidian practices and procedures that make up a research project start to finish. In the following sections
the values manifest in choosing methods such as member checking, memoing, and more are discussed as they pertain to the philosophical
assumptions about research, researchers, and participants.

Operational values in specific methods and procedures

CO

The specific methods employed in qualitative research ought to be deliberately chosen for their appropriateness to the overall design, and
for their ability to answer the research question(s) within the timeline and other constraints established. Whatever combination of sampling,
data collection, analysis, and write-up methods qualitative researchers choose, project leaders should be able to rationalize why and how
each design decision was made. Values are operating beneath the surface of each qualitative application, whether acknowledged or not. The
following sub-sections attend to specific procedures in the research process—noting what each one says about values in qualitative inquiry.
UN

Sampling
Although qualitative findings are not intended to be generalized from a sample to a population, thoughtful and rationalized sampling in a
qualitative study (see Qualitative Sampling and Qualitative Data, this volume) is an opportunity to add rigor and quality, and to enhance
the possible application of a study's conclusions. In some sub-approaches, such as Grounded Theory, sampling is an integral part of the
data collection and analysis strategy throughout the process. In focus group methodology (see Focus Groups, this volume), the make-up
of the sample can make all the difference in whether rich data are collected or not. Many qualitative studies rely on purposeful sampling
of individuals or communities who possess intimate knowledge of the subject matter. As such, sampling in qualitative research is philo-
sophically aligned with the believe that people's expertize with ordinary facets of their lives is the reason for their selection as participants.
10 Philosophical and theoretical underpinnings of qualitative research

The ways of defining the characteristics of a purposeful sample—as well as the number of people in that sample—are contested matters
that vary across and within particular research designs.

Interviews
Whereas many qualitative researchers will instinctively lean toward interviews as the primary means of data collection, this choice should
not be made unthinkingly, and it is not without alternatives. Interviewing is a common, popular, and powerful means of gathering data from
human participants. Infused with the emic lens resident in all qualitative approaches, interviews showcase individuals’ perspectives in their

F
own words. However, Kvale (1994) and others have questioned interviewing as a go-to method, arguing that a theoretical or scientific
basis for conducting interviews is generally lacking in most research paradigms. Interviews as the principal form of data collection have
also been rightly accused of an ableist bias (Kerschbaum and Price, 2017), depending as they do on eye contact, physical or remote

OO
proximity and, in most case, synchronous, spoken language intelligible to both interviewer and interviewee.

Participant observation
Many qualitative studies, especially those using ethnographic methodology, rely in part on participant observation as one data collection
method. This means that researchers immerse themselves in the activity, locale, or experience being studied and that they take part as au-
thentically as possible in order to better understand the community they are profiling. Proximity, immersion, detail, reflection, and personal

PR
humility while embedding oneself in the study area are highly valued in this method. Although researchers must be judicious in drawing
conclusions based on their direct experience of the phenomenon or community under study, the real-time simulation of a cultural phenom-
enon allows the researcher to gain insights that may not be otherwise available. To balance their personally drawn observations with the
views of participants, and to show transparency in the research process, many qualitative researchers include a member checking procedure,
as described below.

Member checking

D
One of the ways qualitative researchers enact values of rigor and transparency is to commit to member checking or similar forms of re-
spondent validation, especially when findings from participant interviews are the sole means of data collection. There are numerous and
divergent viewpoints on member checking, with some methodologists describing the issue as a “chaos of considerations” (Boswell and
TE
Perez, 2021). These include methodological, epistemological, and population- or topic-specific concerns. Member checking also reveals
ethical issues such as determining whose interests are served by conducting member checking, and how might one proceed when the inter-
ests of the participant, the researcher, and the academic institution sponsoring the research appear to conflict. Some have also questioned
whether member checking can cause harm to participants (see especially Hallett, 2013). Thus, one's philosophical assumptions about the
nature of truth and the implications of the research situation itself greatly shape research dynamics throughout the process.
EC

Memo-writing and bracketing

There are additional ways that a researcher can apply the values of transparency and humility by acknowledging the limits of their own per-
spective, although the researcher's private reflections are also highly valued in many methods and methodologies. Bracketing or epoché,
from the Greek for ‘suspension of judgment’ is a process requiring the researcher to become aware of—and hold in abeyance—their per-
sonal views and experiences related to the subject of inquiry. Many qualitative researchers similarly rely on margin notes and memos to
RR

document their thoughts as they go, and to brainstorm possible limitations in their approach to the research. Although writing research
memos is at times a perfunctory task, this method is grounded in a number of axiological dimensions of naturalistic inquiry. Among them
are the need for the researcher to document insights, musings, and possible biases. This reflective and reflexive process manifests the qual-
itative belief in the researcher as the main instrument of inquiry, as well as the qualitative imperative for one to consider how one's own
social location influences the project. Memos also serve to add methodological rigor to the research process and they form part of the audit
trail used to assess the researcher and the findings.
CO

Importing qualitative sensibilities into mixed research

The philosophical underpinnings of qualitative research have bearing on how qualitative strands are designed within mixed methods and
multimethod designs. Mixed methods practitioners must value numbers, stories, and teamwork in order to transcend the limitations of a
single methodology. As argued by Johnson and Walsh (2019), Mixed Methods Research (MMR) rests on the “collection and integra-
UN

tion of qualitative data, logics, and philosophies” (p. 521). Because MMR is a “team sport” (Curry et al., 2012) philosophical tension, if
not outright conflict, is to be expected. However, the tensions that inhere in mixing qualitative and quantitative traditions can be productive
venues for researchers to create a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. This aligns with the basic methodological rationale of
MMR, wherein both the design elements and their execution are undertaken in such a way as to capitalize on the assets of both methodolo-
gies while “neutralizing the weaknesses” of each approach (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2018, p. 546).
As a developing field, MMR serves as a role model for articulating whether and why signature qualitative elements should be ad-
dressed, including memo-writing, member checking, positionality, and reflexivity, but these qualitative components are not included in
MMR manuscripts as regularly as they are in qualitative studies (Boswell, 2021a). Because MMR is often practiced in multidisciplinary
teams, “methodological camps” (Curry et al., 2012, p. 10) can inhibit and ultimately disrupt inquiry. Conflicting philosophical assump-
tions could surface even under the best of circumstances. Due to the variety of disciplines and philosophies practicing mixed research,
 Philosophical and theoretical underpinnings of qualitative research 11

these designs invite questions about researchers' biases and other backgrounding assumptions, in much the same way that qualitative de-
signs invite reflexivity and disclosures about researchers’ own backgrounds and limitations. Historically, some have argued that mixed de-
signs owe their legacy to experimental approaches and “take qualitative methods out of their natural home” (Denzin and Lincoln, 2011, p.
277). For the sake of robust collaboration however, and to ensure the care and feeding of the dialectical pluralism at the heart of mixed par-
adigms (Greene, 2015; Johnson, 2017), mixed methodologists should encourage their diverse research traditions to embrace, and aug-
ment, their combined strengths. A qualitative ethos built into a mixed design not only supports a particular project, but can help non-quali-
tative researchers on an MMR team understand the humanist values at the heart of naturalistic inquiry.

F
Summary of Part III

OO
A researcher's philosophical assumptions, theories, and values are on display in any qualitative application. The choice of a particular the-
oretical framework, qualitative design, and the step-by-step methods and procedures selected all share and enact the ontological, epistemo-
logical, and axiological stances of the person or people responsible for conducting a qualitative or mixed methods project.

Coda: future directions in qualitative research

PR
Where is qualitative research headed in the pandemic-era, politically polarized 21st century? Current trends presage innovative qualitative
and multi-method, collaborative studies suffused with decolonial, postmodern, womanist and post-qualitative works that upend outdated
methodologies and supplant them with more participatory methods, social justice themes, and emancipatory outcomes. Approaches such as
Black feminist thought and Chicana/o epistemologies overturn longstanding and unexamined Euro-centric theories. In the next generation
of qualitative inquiry, methodologists must navigate the antiracist turn in social research, as well as learning to wed multiple ontological
and epistemological stances harnessed in service of currently unimagined prosocial aims.

D
At the same time, there is pushback from segments of academia and public policy that consider whole fields—such as queer studies (see
Queer Theory and Qualitative Research, this volume), discourse analysis, or critical race theory—to be leftist ‘fringe’ pursuits plagued by
shoddy methods and intellectual navel-gazing. The Sokal Squared Hoax of 2018 (Emba, 2018; Kafka, 2018; Melchior, 2018) shone
TE
a light on insular academic communities, which some feel have a penchant for so-called grievance studies that shallowly (in the view of
some ‘anti-woke’ critics such as the founders of the new University of Austin in the state of Texas, USA) make all scholarship about dis-
mantling patriarchies. Geertz (2012) referred to these as the ‘johnny-come-lately’ disciplines—areas such as gender studies and ethnic
studies that comprise the most important subjects on college campuses, as well as the most divisive. Unfortunately, this has inserted an
imaginary wedge between the pursuits of rigorous research and justice-oriented social movements.
EC

Currently, in the United States, entrenched and vehement political divisions are accelerating the closure, discrediting, or censoring
(Svrluga and Rozsa, 2022) of many collegiate programs and departments dedicated to ethnic studies, gender studies and other newly
controversial topics. Dreger (2015) telegraphed that this would result in some academicians seeking “regression to the safe” in terms of de-
claring research priorities (p. 258), but she urges the academy to remember that, “Science and social justice require each other to be healthy,
and both are critically important to human freedom” (p. 11). Rather than putting justice and science at odds with one another, qualitative
research from this point forward is well positioned to embody their confluence.
RR

Uncited references

Corbin and Strauss, 2015; Denzin and Lincoln, 2018; Durkheim, 1895; Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Guetterman et al.,
2022; Israel et al., 2008.
CO

References

Anzaldúa, G. (2009) The Gloria Anzaldúa Reader. Duke University Press.

Anzaldúa, G. (1987) Borderlands: la frontera. Aunt Lute, San Francisco.
UN

Babchuk, W.A. (2019) Fundamentals of qualitative analysis in family medicine. J. Fam. Med. Community Health 7 (2).
Babchuk, W.A., Brand, L., and Guetterman, T.C. (2021) Improving research-based practice through qualitative inquiry: a community-based study of minority
health care. J. Ethnogr. Qual. Res. 15 (2): 99–116.
Belfrage, C. and Hauf, F. (2017) The gentle art of retroduction: critical realism, cultural political economy and critical grounded theory. Organ. Stud. 38:
251–271.
Berry, T. (2010) Critical race feminism. Encycl. Curric. Stud. 1: 151–152.
Bogdan & Biklen (2007) Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theories and Methods. fifth ed. Pearson A & B, Boston.
Boswell, E. (2021a) The Qualitative Imperative: Searching for Positionality and Reflexivity in Mixed Methods-Grounded Theory Studies [Virtual Conference
Presentation]. American Educational Research Association.
Boswell, E. (2021b) Again Awake: A White Researcher’s Iterative Positioning for Entering Black Spaces. The Nebraska Educator 6. doi:10.32873/
unl.dc.ne020.
Boswell, E. and Perez, A. (2021) Member Check Interviews in Qualitative Research: Ethics, Procedures, and Practices [Virtual Conference Presentation].
International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry.
12 Philosophical and theoretical underpinnings of qualitative research

Bryant, A. (2017) Grounded Theory and Grounded Theorizing. Pragmatism in Research Practice. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Brydon-Miller, M., Kral, M., Maguire, P., Noffke, S., Sabhlok, A., Denzin, N., and Lincoln, Y. (2011) Jazz and the Banyan Tree. Handbook of Qualitative
Research. pp. 387–400, SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Cannella, G.S. and Lincoln, Y.S. (2011) Ethics, research regulations, and critical social science. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, fourth ed pp.
81–90, SAGE.
Chagnon, N.A. and Irons, W. (1979) Evolutionary Biology and Human Social Behavior: An Anthropological Perspective. Duxbury Press, North Scituate,
MA.
Charmaz, K. (2014) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. second ed. SAGE, London.
Comte, A. (1858) The Positive Philosophy of Auguste Comte. Blanchard.

F
Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (2015) The Basics of Qualitative Research. fourth ed. SAGE.
Creswell, J.W. (2014) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. fourth ed. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Creswell, J. and Guetterman, T. (2019) Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. sixth ed. Pearson

OO
Education, New York.
Creswell, J.W. and Plano Clark, V. (2018) Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. third ed. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Creswell, J.W. and Poth, C. (2018) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. fourth ed. SAGE.
Crotty, M. (1998) The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process. SAGE.
Curry, L.A., O’Cathain, A., Plano Clark, V.L., Aroni, R., Fetters, M., and Berg, D. (2012) The role of group dynamics in mixed methods health sciences
research teams. J. Mix. Methods Res. 6: 5–20.
Deegan, M.J. (2007) The Chicago school of ethnography. In: Atkinson, P.A., Coffee, A.J., Delamont, S., Lofland, J., Lofland, L. (eds.), Handbook of
Ethnography. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA.

PR
Delgado Bernal, D. (2002) Critical race theory, Latino critical theory, and critical raced-gendered epistemologies: recognizing students of color as holders
and creators of knowledge. Qual. Inq. 8: 105–126.
Delgado, R. and Stefancic, J. (2017) Critical Race Theory: An Introduction. NYU Press, New York, NY.
Delpit, L. (1988) The silenced dialogue: power and pedagogy in educating other people’s children. Harv. Educ. Rev. 58: 280–299.
Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (2018) Chapter 1: the discipline and practice of qualitative research. In: The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. pp.
1–26, SAGE.
Dillard, C.B. (2000) The substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen: examining an endarkened feminist epistemology in educational
research and leadership. Int. J. Qual. Stud. Educ. 13 (6): 661–681.

D
Draucker, C.B., Martsolf, D.S., Ross, R., and Rusk, T.B. (2007) Theoretical sampling and category development in grounded theory. Qual. Health Res. 17:
1137–1148.
Du Bois, W.B. (1898) The study of the Negro problems. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 11: 1–23.
Du Bois, W.E.B. (1935) Does the Negro need separate schools? J. Negro Educ. 4 (3). doi:10.2307/2291871.
TE
Du Bois, W.E.B. (1897) Strivings of the Negro people. Atlantic 80.
Durkheim, É. (1895) Rules of Sociological Method [first published as Les Règles de la méthode sociologique]. Simon and Schuster.
Emba, C. (2018) The ‘Sokal Squared’ Hoax Sums Up American Politics. Washington Post.
Erickson, F. (2018) A history of qualitative inquiry in social and educational research. In: Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S. (eds.), The Sage Handbook of
Qualitative Research. pp. 36–65, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Geertz, C. (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures. 5019. Basic Books.
EC

Geertz, C. (2012) Available Light. Princeton University Press.

Glaser, B.G. (1965) The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Soc. Probl. 12: 436.
Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Aldine, Chicago.
Greene, J.C. (2015) Preserving distinctions within the multimethod and mixed methods research merger. In: Hesse-Biber, S.N., Johnson, R.B. (eds.), The
Oxford Handbook of Multimethod and Mixed Methods Research Inquiry. pp. 606–615, Oxford University Press.
Grimwood, B.S. (2015) Participatory action research: democratizing knowledge for social justice. In: Fostering Social Justice through Qualitative Inquiry.
pp. 196–217, Routledge.
RR

Grbich, C. (2013) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Introduction. second. SAGE, London.

Guest, G., Bunce, A., and Johnson, L. (2006) How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 18: 59–82.
Guetterman, T.C., Babchuk, W.A., and Howell Smith, M.C. (2022) Intersecting Mixed Methods Research with Qualitative Designs: Principles and Practices.
Sage ([manuscript in preparation]).
Hadley, G. (2017) Grounded Theory in Applied Linguistics Research: A Practical Guide. Routledge, New York, NY.
Hallett, R.E. (2013) Dangers of member checking. In: The Role of Participants in Education Research. pp. 40–50, Routledge.
Hatch, J.A. (2002) Doing Qualitative Research in Education Settings. SUNY Press.
CO

Henrich, J., Heine, S.J., and Norenzayan, A. (2010) The weirdest people in the world? Behav. Brain Sci. 33 (2–3): 61–83.
Hood, J.C. (2007) Orthodoxy vs. power: the defining traits of grounded theory. In: Bryant, A., Charmaz, K. (eds.), The Sage Handbook of Grounded Theory.
pp. 151–164, SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Israel, B.A., Schulz, A.J., Parker, E.A., Becker, A.B., Allen, A.J., III, and Guzmán, J.R. (2008) Critical issues in developing and following CBPR principles.
Community Based Participatory Research for Health: From Outcomes to Process. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Ivankova, N.V. (2014) Mixed Methods Applications in Action Research. SAGE.
Johnson, R.B. (2017) Dialectical pluralism: a metaparadigm whose time has come. J. Mix. Methods Res. 11: 156–173.
Johnson, R.B. and Walsh, I. (2019) Mixed grounded theory: merging grounded theory with mixed methods and multimethod research. In: Bryant, A.,
UN

Charmaz, K. (eds.), The Sage Handbook of Current Developments in Grounded Theory. pp. 517–531, SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Kafka, A.C. (2018) ‘Sokal Squared’: Is Huge Publishing Hoax ‘Hilarious and Delightful’ or an Ugly Example of Dishonesty and Bad Faith? The Chronicle
of Higher Education.
Kanu, Y. (2006) ‘Currere’ to the rescue? Teachers as ‘amateur intellectuals’ in a knowledge society. J. Can. Assoc. Curric. Stud. 4 (2).
Kerschbaum, S.L. and Price, M. (2017) Centering disability in qualitative interviewing. Res. Teach. Engl. 52 (1): 98–107.
Kubota, R. (2020) Confronting epistemological racism, decolonizing scholarly knowledge: race and gender in applied linguistics. Appl. Linguist. 41: 712–732.
Kvale, S. (1994) Ten standard objections to qualitative research interviews. J. Phenomenol. Psychol. 25: 147–173.
Lincoln, Y.S., Lynham, S.A., and Guba, E.G. (2011) Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. In: The Sage Handbook
of Qualitative Research, fourth ed. pp. 97–128, SAGE.
Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. SAGE.
Lipscomb, M. (2012) Abductive reasoning and qualitative research. Nurs. Philos. 13: 244–256.
 Philosophical and theoretical underpinnings of qualitative research 13

Malterud, K., Siersma, V.D., and Guassora, A.D. (2016) Sample size in qualitative interview studies: guided by information power. Qual. Health Res. 26:
1753–1760.
Matteson, S.M. and Lincoln, Y.S. (2009) Using multiple interviewers in qualitative research studies: the influence of ethic of care behaviors in research
interview settings. Qual. Inq. 15: 659–674.
Melchior, J.K. (2018) Fake news comes to academia. Wall Street Journal A15.
Merriam, S. and Tisdell, E.J. (2016) Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. fourth ed. John Wiley and Sons, San Francisco.
Milner, H.R. (2007) Race, culture, and researcher positionality: working through dangers seen, unseen, and unforeseen. Educ. Res. 36: 388–400. doi:10.3102/
0013189X07309471.
Neuman, W.L. (2011) Chapter 4: the meanings of methodology in social research methods. In: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. pp. 90–122, Allyn

F
& Bacon, Boston.
Patel, L. (2015) Decolonizing Educational Research: From Ownership to Answerability. Routledge.
Pérez Huber, L. (2009) Challenging racist nativist framing: acknowledging the community cultural wealth of undocumented Chicana college students to

OO
reframe the immigration debate. Harv. Educ. Rev. 79: 704–730.
Pinar, W.F. (1994) The method of “Currere”. Counterpoints 2: 19–27.
Reyes, V. (2018) Three models of transparency in ethnographic research: naming places, naming people, and sharing data. Ethnography 19: 204–226.
doi:10.1177/1466138117733754.
Richards, L. and Morse, J.M. (2012) Readme First for a User’s Guide to Qualitative Methods. SAGE.
Scheurich, J.J. and Young, M.D. (1997) Coloring epistemologies: are our research epistemologies racially biased? Educ. Res. 26: 4–16.
Schnegg, M. (2014) The nature and validation of knowledge. In: Handbook of Methods in Cultural Anthropology, second ed. pp. 21–53, Rowman and
Littlefield, Lanham, MD.

PR
Solórzano, D.G. and Yosso, T.J. (2016) Critical race methodology: counter-storytelling as an analytical framework for education research. Qual. Inq. 8 (1).
doi:10.1177/107780040200800103.
Strauss, A.L. and Corbin, J. (1994) Grounded theory methodology: an overview. In: Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S. (eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative
Research. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Svrluga, S. and Rozsa, L. (2022) In Florida, DeSantis’s plans for colleges rattle some academics. Higher Education | The Washington Post Retrieved July 16,
2022 from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/07/01/desantis-florida-universities-laws/.
Tuck, E. and Yang, K.W. (2012) Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolo Indigen. Edu. Soc. 1: 1–40.
Visokolskis, S. (2021) Insightful yet inferential creativity: transduction as a derivation of abduction. In: Proceedings of the Thirteenth Latin American

D
Workshop on Logic/Languages, Algorithms and New Methods of Reasoning. In: CEUR Workshop Proceedings. pp. 23–38.
Wallerstein, N. and Duran, B. (2017) The Theoretical, Historical and Practice Roots of CBPR. Community-Based Participatory Research for Health:
Advancing Social and Health Equity. pp. 17–29, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
TE
Further reading

Bogdan and Biklen (2007) Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theories and Methods. fifth ed. Pearson, Boston.
Charmaz, K. (2014) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. second ed. Sage, London.
EC

Corbin, J. and Strauss, A.L. (2015) Basics of Qualitative Research. fourth ed. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Creswell, J.W. and Poth, C.N. (2018) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. fourth ed. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Crotty, M.J. (1998) The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Aldine, Chicago.
Guetterman, T.C., Babchuk, W.A., Howell Smith, M.C., (in preparation). Intersecting Mixed Methods Research with Qualitative Designs: Principles and
Practices, Mixed Methods Research Series. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Lincoln, Y.S., Lynham, S.A., and Guba, E.G. (2018) Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences revisited. In: Denzin, N.K.,
RR

Lincoln, Y.S. (eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. pp. 108–150, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Merriam, S.B. and Tisdell, E.J. (2016) Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. fourth ed. John Wiley & Sons, San Francisco.
CO
UN

View publication stats