An analysis by comparison of two qualitative research methods

James Boldiston
QIM511
Abstract
Two papers claiming to use two different methods of qualitative research

have been identified. For each paper, their chosen research method will be analysed

as to their respective weaknesses and strengths: what compliance do the papers

demonstrate with the research method they deploy? This will be done through the

lens of establishing first an agreed definition of the research methods in question.

The selected papers and research texts

The two papers selected are -

Using the qualitative narrative method

“Digital media, the body and agency in a South African education institution from the

perspective of narrative research” (Kelleher, W 2020), the journal of transdisciplinary

research in Southern Africa (2020)

Using the qualitative ethnographic method

“Refuge in Brazil: An Ethnographic Approach”, (Pereira.A 2021),

Antipoda Revista de Antropologia y Arquelogia

The principle texts regarding educational research used in this paper are:

 Gay, Mills and Airasian’s “Educational Research - competencies for analysis and
applications” (2009)

 Creswell and Guettermans “Educational research - planning, conducting and

evaluating quantitative and qualitative research” (2020)

Research Question

Do the papers adopt the characteristics of the qualitative method they claim to follow?
 Characteristics of qualitative narrative and qualitative ethnographic methods

In answering the research question, the unique qualitative research

characteristics of each method needs to be stated. It is acknowledged here that you as

the reader of this paper are expert in research concepts; it is not proposed here to

repeat verbatim text definitions of each method: narrative; and ethnographic. Rather,

the attributes of each method is noted in the table below and it is from this rubric

analysis is made. The table over page defines these two qualitative methods.

table of characteristics of the two research methods

Narrative
 Examines human experience as a storyline- a literal 
narrative over a body of time. The time interval from
the linear telling of the story is not germane; in fact, a
narrative could be the arc of change experienced by the
teller of the story(who is the participant) over decades,
days or hours. However, stories need to “follow a
chronology of events” (Creswell, Guetterman 2019).
 Researchers maybe participant or a non-
 There is “focus on the experiences of the individual”
rather than the literature on the subject that the
individual is related to. (Creswell et al 2019).
Ethnographic
Examines shared traits called ‘culture’ within
identifiable groups. The number of people
within a group is not germane “ a group may
vary in size, but the individuals within a group
must meet on a regular basis and interact over a
of time” (Creswell et al 2019).
participant observer; they may also have
privileged access that further distinguishes them
(Gay et al 2009).

 There is close contact of researcher with participants.  Requires extensive fieldwork to gather artifacts,
and anonymity/sensitivity in the interview process is and/or observe to learn from interaction within
used; the participant “must feel empowered to tell their the group.
story” (Gay, Mills, Airasian 2009). The researcher
guides the participant to re-discover a moment.  Concept of sample redundant - a group maybe
the only population and so the sample is the
 Requires large amounts of time to be allocated by the population. Selection is non-random purposive -
researcher: to build trust; and to allow a full and frank but sample concept not a valuable input.
account to be recorded.
 Behaviour recorded through the ‘lens’ of culture;
 Any written narrative is shared with the subject explores the “nature of particular social
participant before conclusions are drawn to ensure the phenomenon” and does not test hypothesis (Gay
narrative is correct in the eyes of the participant. et al 2009).

 Concept of sample redundant - a group maybe the only  It needs to ‘present an accurate reflection” of a
population and so the sample is the population. If groups shared behaviours.
anything, selection is non-random purposive - but
sample concepts not a valuable input.  Has a typology of multiple forms: life history,
confessional; microethnography for example.
 It’s illuminating that Creswell et al and Gay et al cite each other and while

seemingly in agreement, there is contradiction between the research texts

(Creswell et al and Gay et al). For clarification these are noted below and a position

in this paper noted on what is taken to be Narrative and Ethnographic method markers.

Variation in definition of Narrative research

There are distinctions to consider in the definition of narrative research as

indicated in the texts underlying this paper. There are two differences of significance;

one relating to classification; the other to the methods format.

1/ Differences in typology -classification

Gay et al note Narrative research has two principle sub-types.

 analysis of narrative: The gathering of stories comes from participants with a

central and common theme in their narratives to compare and contrast to “produce a

description that applies to all the stories captured in their narratives”

(Gay, Mills, Airasian 2009).

 narrative analysis: through gathering of descriptions of events from witness

participants, a “process of restorying” (Gay et al) occurs; a single account of a time

or event is created to postulate how and why such a moment occurred.

In effect, a single participants story can act as a resource to describe how and

why a set of circumstances conspired to create a moment in time. Alternatively, these

stories can also act as a part of a single bigger story; a story woven from gathered

snippets of information from multiple individuals to re-story a single narrative.

Creswell et al have no such distinction. They see narrative research as

narrative analysis only; a process collecting individual stories and restorying.

2/ The number of participants and emotional context vary

Creswell et al note there should be not more than 2 participants:

 Narrative research should not engage with more than two participants as multiple

stories “dilute the narrative story of the individual” (Creswelll et al 2019) - and

therefore reduce the impact.

Creswell et al note there are emotional markers in narrative research:

 By collecting “vivid details” of a participants life how they felt at a moment in

time is recorded, which informs the narrative. (Creswell et al 2019).

Gay et al and their differential position

Number of participants

Gay et al note research “must be prepared to use multiple sources to

counteract challenges” to validity (Gay et al). A sample size of n=2 is not “multiple

sources”.

Emotional state

While Gay et al agree that gathering a narrative requires trust and sensitivity,

no mention is made of requiring a deep insight into the emotional states of the

participant at the time of the experience. Obtaining a narrative is a process of

collecting from people “experiences and the meanings they attribute to the

experiences” (Gay et al). Gay et al simply notes that the process is a gathering of “life

stories” (Gay et al 2009).

Conclusions on the definition of Narrative research

In this paper it is acknowledged that the field of research is Education. Also,

that as a method, Narrative research spans many arenas that explore the human

condition but the context varies. For example, conducting narrative research with war
crime survivors from Bosnia is not emotionally as impacting on participants as

addressing concerns of grade 6 teachers in Chicago dealing with a lack of STEM

resources.

Therefore, while Creswell is correct that emotion is contextual important and

impacting on the narrative, in educational research this may or may not be germane;

and is likely not relevant. The individuals emotional state is not germane to the

research.

With regard to Gay et al’s differential sub-methods (narrative analysis/analysis

of method), in narrative research re-storying is always required with participant

approval. Here in this paper, the typology of sub-methods is not considered to add

value to defining narrative research. “All roads lead to Rome” and the outcome of

Narrative research is always re-storied narrative. A narrative is a narrative.

Regarding participant numbers, Creswell et al note if the number of

participants is more than 2 then an individuals story is “diluted”; and it that makes for

weaker research. In educational research, a quorum of voices with thematic (and

maybe contradictory) input works to improve validation of any conclusions drawn.

Further, having more voices echoing stories improves validity and impact.

Here in this paper, narrative research with more than 2 participants is not

considered weak research and samples can be larger than 2 and still be narrative

research.

Summary of variations in the texts regarding ethnographic research

Both texts broadly agree on a definition. Neatly, both cite the same 10 sub-

types (such as autoethnography). There is also agreement that the 10 sub-types

belong to one of three classifications: realist; case study; and critical. Although both

Gay et al and Creswell et al use the term ‘type’ for these classifications, they also use
the term ‘type’ for the three classes to which the 10 sub-types belong: eg a life

history type belongs to the type “case study”.

This is confusing; in this paper ‘types’ are called classes rather than

types belong to types - which is just odd.

With regard to classifications, both texts note there is a method of research

in its own right called Case Study. And also that within the ethnographic research

method there is sub-type called Case Study. And they are different. Creswell et al

define the Case Study method as “an in depth exploration of a bounded system”

where bounded means that the case is separated out for research in terms of time,

place or some physical boundary” (Creswell et al 2019). Gay et al also agrees with

bounded as a criteria for this case study method. Further, using such a method

“researchers may focus on a program, event or activity involving individuals”

(Creswell et al 2019 as cited by Stake 1995).

That the term Case Study can belong to two qualitative methods is perverse

and, like the use of the term “type”, confusing. For example, are not cultures

“bounded” and would it not be simpler to have a definition of Case Study that

includes groups and individuals?

In this paper an ethonographic case study differs from a case study as the

subject group has an identifiable social fabric; a shared ‘culture’.

Shared characteristics of all qualitative research

All qualitative research shares common traits. And these shared traits, along

with the identified attributes above, will be used to examine each of the two papers

critiqued. The shared traits of qualitative research are in a table overpage.

 Table of research ‘markers’ in qualitative research

It is about the experiences of Participant experiences are described with data drawn from observation, open
people. ended interview with words as the outcome.
Experiences allow explorations Data allows the discovery of a theme - rather than the evaluation of a hypothesis.
without hypothesis. Analysing data to find the “description and themes using text analysis” and then
once analysed to find the “larger meaning of things” (Creswell et al 2019)
Sample sizes do not need large Sample sizes do not need to be large to infer a relationship attributable to a
samples and qualitative research population that has been well contextualised. Eg teachers in Chicago of year 4
is not experimental proof but students is a fine point of granularity whereas teachers in America is a very large
interpretation. population. It may well that it can be inferred that findings observed of teachers
in Chicago of year 4’s is applicable wider; but it cannot be deducted.

Qualitative research is “making sense of - and finding meaning in the data”

(Gay et al 2009).
Uses exploration Literature review is a useful back story - but it is not justification for a research
problem. “Qualitative research is best suited to address a research problem in
which you do not know the variables and need to explore” (Creswell et al 2019).
The research problem relies on exploration to create ‘protocols’ or themes from
participants input (Creswell et al 2009).

Analysis of the two papers

Each of the two papers is now critiqued; first Kelleher (narrative) then Pereira

(ethnographic study). The critique is derived from the definitions of ethnographic and

narrative methods stated above.

Kelleher - the proposition their research is narrative based research

The following analysis is made through a study of the paper with reference to

the characteristics of narrative qualitative research. Note, this is an analysis of the

method used and not a literature review looking to validate or counter any claims

made.

Research characteristics and data collected

The stated purpose of the research is to perform “a local, ethnographic

investigation into digital media through the narrative analysis of a series of accounts”

told by a single participant over 2 years. (Kelleher 2020). The research was
conducted with a single male black university student in South Africa though

interview and observation over multiple interactions with the researcher. Of note, the

student participant has diagnosed ADHD. This condition is germane to the research

as the narrative research in this paper seeks to witness if the student would develop

coping mechanisms through using digital media during their university course.

The thrust of the narrative research is to discover how perception of digital media

changed over time and as such was a longitudinal study.

Narrative research was the method selected in this paper as “the aim of this

research is to employ narrative as a means of engaging with participant data”

(Kelleher 2020).

The name of the participant is anonymous and, over two years, a series of

transcribed accounts were collected. While not germane to the study, sometimes the

anonymous student was joined by two other students.

The context of meetings were sometimes on campus and sometimes off

campus; as such the context is not very specific and details are not provided.

With regard to the relationship desired between researcher and participant,

Kelleher notes “through a closer mutual trust and respect, the methodology aims to

afford a participant confidence to share counter-narratives”. (Kelleher 2020). Trust

encourages ‘honest’ behaviour in the presence of the researcher.

As to the narrative data, the complete narratives as raw transcriptions are

available for review on request. It is unknown if the narratives were re-storied

once all the narratives were collected. The number of narratives taken is not stated in

the research.

As to findings, the research found that the participant’s “relationship to digital

media from the perspective of resource demonstrated a progressive increase in uptake

of the digital offering”; while not immediately grasping a digital application, the

ADHD student used ‘mimicry’ of peers and found ways to use various applications:

YouTube for learning, ‘speak to type’ programs to avoid handwriting.

This research as relying on the narrative qualitative method

The use of recording of narratives over time, the re-storying

of the narratives and the desire to establish trust to allow the participant to speak

freely are the hallmarks of ethnographic narrative research. The research is

exploration and does seek to find meaning in data; and it is a study of the human

condition: it is qualitative narrative research. Whilst the sample size is 1, that is not

germane to the research being considered narrative.

That said, the depth of data offered as evidence of a theme is not considerable

and pages of tabled extracts with date and time to show growth and adaption of digital

media would be ideal.

A concern in the data is impact of the other two black students who sometimes

attended the narrative sessions. There involvement if anything impacts on the validity

of the data as the participants responses may be influenced by their presence. This is

not germane to the applicability of the research method, rather it speaks to the validity

of the data. In this paper, the question explored is whether there is an identifiable

method and not if the research is strongly stated.

It is unknown how many times the researcher met with the participant, the

context of the meetings or if the re-storied narrative was shared with the participant.

And the data as transcription included in the paper indicates little direction from the

researcher beyond “yeah” or “ok cool”. What was the narrative instrument and how

the researcher explore?

 Consequently, the research has weak attribution; making it less robust and

narrative powerful. But it is narrative research.

Pereira - the proposition their research is an ethnographic study based research

The following analysis is made through a study of the paper with

reference to the characteristics of ethnographic qualitative research. Note, this is an

analysis of the method used and not a literature review looking to validate or counter

any claims made.

Research characteristics and data collected

The research is a 2 year study of outcomes for refugees and

immigrants in Sao Paolo, Brazil by way of their experiences. The researcher acts as a

witness who accompanied refugees and was able to “accompany immigrants and

refugees from the poor suburbs to the richest parts of the city, circulating with them in

their Portuguese (language) courses; NGOs; hospitals; celebrations; and, of course,

their homes.” (Pereira 2020).

The researcher is a privileged participant observer as their access was

facilitated as a volunteer for NGO migrant assistance services; which also allowed

trust to be established with participants in the research.

There is a definite and clear culture at the heart of the research; a unifying

attribute as “The majority of this research was conducted with black immigrants

and black refugees” (Pereira 2020). And while the people came from various South

American and African countries, what tied them together was a common experience:

poor treatment by authorities in Brazil on issues of support where their

treatment was “permeated by the fact that they were not brancos (white), or that they

were pretos (black)”. The research also places the this group contextually clearly as
living in 5 of the eastern suburbs of Sao Paolo.

The research provides examples of interactions with strong narrative

experiences which speak to considerable field work. There is also extensive re-

storying of narrative. For example, a refugee from Congo called Jean notes that

“Here in Brazil, we have refúgio branco (white refuge) and refúgio negro (black

refuge). Everybody prefers Syrian refugees. Syria has been at war for six years;

Congo has been at war for twenty!” (Pereira 2020).

The narrative collected focuses on the “Troca” which is a weekly mental

health meeting for immigrants and refugees.

The research concludes that in Brazil, support services see immigrants and

refugees as mostly a single group where the term refugee has been appropriated

by black immigrants and black refugees. And that refugees who are not racially

profiled as black are “prone to succeed when in Brazil due to the country’s racists

machineries and structures.” (Pereira 2020).

This research as relying on the ethnographic qualitative method

The research is concerned with the human experience and through fieldwork

with intimate access, narrative data is collected that tells in a re-storied fashion

observations of life experiences from the perspective of black immigrants and

refugees to Brazil. It is qualitative research. And it is concerned with an identifiable

culture.

Yet there is little by way of a cultural snapshot - what common concerns does

this group have? It is not “interpreting a culture sharing group’s shared patterns of

behaviour” (Creswell et al 2020) where the group at the heart of an ethnographic

study will have “shared values. beliefs and language” (Creswell et al 2020). Pereira

notes that the black immigrant and refugee groups in the study comes from
diverse groups and “these groups obviously have internal differentiations (sic) which

they insisted on highlighting.” (Pereira 2020).

With no cultural exploration and identification of group bias, the research is

not ethnographic. The use of personal re-storied narratives of individuals and regular

access indicates the research is rooted in the narrative method instead.

Summary of analysis of the two papers - compliance with research methods

While Kelleher adheres to the principals of narrative research (despite weak

re-storying), Pereira has stronger narrative data. Qualitative research does not need a

large sample size; but it does require detailed and intimate collection of data.

Kelleher demonstrates the attributes of narrative research while making a

weak case for answering the research question. Pereira, despite aligning with

ethnographic research, is a work of narrative research. As a result, the research

question, which is framed around an ethnographic group, is not addressed.

The summary take away is that honing the research question to reflect the

research method is critical. Further, qualitative research needs extensive and well

noted participant interactions to demonstrate how the data speaks to the theme that

has been discovered through research.

Citations

Creswell.C, Gutterman.T, “Educational research - planning conducting and evaluating

quantitative and qualitative research”, Pearson (2020).

Gay.L, Mills.G, Airasian.P, “Educational Research - competencies for analysis and

applications”, Pearson (2009).

Kelleher, W, “Digital media, the body and agency in a South African education
institution from the perspective of narrative research”, the journal of transdisciplinary
research in Southern Africa (2020).

Pereira.A, “Refuge in Brazil: An Ethnographic Approach”, Antipoda Revista de

Antropologia y Arquelogia (2020).