Completing Your Qualitative Dissertation - A Road Map From Beginning To End, Fifth Edition

Praise for Completing Your Qualitative Dissertation
Excellent, easy-to-use resource on developing, or supporting the development of a qualitative

dissertation. The appendix with the rubric for chapter development is great. I circulate it often
to students and other key stakeholders.
—Tera Jordan, Iowa State University
This book not only provides excellent guidance on writing a qualitative dissertation, it also
includes information and discussion of how to plan, design, and conduct a qualitative research
study (i.e., it is helpful for qualitative methodology and methods, not just writing).
—Amy Roth McDuffie, Washington State University
Sound, clear examples are useful for a range of students from different departments and back-
grounds. This book is a must-have for all PhD students from their acceptance into a program
until they upload their finished dissertation to their institutional library. Forget Agatha Christie;
they should keep this on their bedside table until it is dog-eared and they have graduated.
—Shelley K. Taylor, Western University, Canada
I will continue to use Completing Your Qualitative Dissertation until I find a better text, and that
just does not seem likely. The writing is straightforward; they write as an academic, from an
academic bent, yet write practically for doctoral candidates who need guidance, a “road map” of
how to complete their dissertation.
—JoAnn Danelo Barbour, Gonzaga University
An excellent resource for doctoral students! The author takes the fear of writing a dissertation
and deliver a breakdown of each component into manageable tasks that once completed will
help students deliver a scholarly research project. A project that they will be proud to defend.
—Joe R. Putulowski, California Baptist University
Very readable, very authentic, usable content; a very practical and relevant text. Clearly the
author has worked extensively in qualitative research and has done the work; not just writing
about research, but doing ‘boots on the ground,’ ‘sleeves rolled up’ research.
—Thomas Sather, University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire
I applaud the author for taking on the challenge of describing the conceptual/theoretical model.
This piece of information alone will meaningfully improve doctoral students’ abilities to prog-
ress forward with writing their dissertations. The conception/theoretical model is one of the most
misunderstood aspects of the dissertation, and yet the most important aspect of Completing Your
Qualitative Dissertation is that the author makes sense of writing a qualitative dissertation in a way
that will likely enhance active and inactive students’ abilities to complete their dissertations.
—Antonio C. Cuyler, Florida State University
Students interested and/or committed in engaging in qualitative research would find Completing
Your Qualitative Dissertation to be extremely informative and easy to read. Students need resources
and tools to help with the thinking, collecting, and analysis of rich qualitative data—which can be
found in almost every chapter of this text. This book does not lecture students but provides helpful
tools to assist in the collection of rich qualitative data. In addition, in many instances the students
are actually able to see the tools and suggestions provided in the text in ‘action.’ When reading this
text, the students are not left figuring out next steps; this book provides a very clear road map.
—Amira Proweller, DePaul University
Completing Your Qualitative Dissertation is well written and clear. There is an enjoyable mix of
scholarly and informal tone that should engage students. Figures and tables are useful, appro-
priate, and well placed or referenced within the manuscript. I especially like the use of related
examples and included resources. I also like that the authors enumerate common student errors
or mistakes in each chapter.
—Nathan R. Templeton, Texas A&M University
It is with tremendous gratitude I write this note to extend my appreciation for your publica-
tion Completing Your Qualitative Dissertation. I successfully defended my dissertation at Penn
State—a work for which I continue to receive high praise. Had it not been for your book, I
would not have been successful in my doctoral program. There is nothing on the market as
comprehensive and user friendly as your book. In fact, I have picked it up again to garner your
guidance on publishing my dissertation.
—Marie Carasco Saul, Penn State University
For
Israel Lippert (1902–1974)
Julia Esther Lippert (1906–1997)
Rosalind Ann Diamond (1941–1978)
All a constant source of energy, inspiration, and strength
Their spirit lives on.
And for my three children,

Carla, Brent, and Adam Bloomberg,
In the hope that they will strive to realize their individual strengths
And always follow their dreams in the pursuit of fulfillment, peace, and happiness.
And for little Bella, for staying at my side, always.
My love for all of you is forever, and never ending.

And even when we are not governed by the answers, we remain affected by the questions that are raised,
and by the tales which become part of our own.
Elie Wiesel, Somewhere a Master (1982)

Completing Your Qualitative
Dissertation
Fifth Edition
Sara Miller McCune founded SAGE Publishing in 1965 to support
the dissemination of usable knowledge and educate a global com-
munity. SAGE publishes more than 1000 journals and over 600 new
books each year, spanning a wide range of subject areas. Our grow-
ing selection of library products includes archives, data, case studies
and video. SAGE remains majority owned by our founder and after
her lifetime will become owned by a charitable trust that secures the
company’s continued independence.
Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Melbourne

Completing Your Qualitative
Dissertation
A Road Map From Beginning to End
Fifth Edition
Linda Dale Bloomberg

FOR INFORMATION: Copyright © 2023 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
SAGE Publications, Inc. All rights reserved. Except as permitted by U.S. copyright law, no
2455 Teller Road part of this work may be reproduced or distributed in any form or
Thousand Oaks, California 91320 by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without
E-mail: order@sagepub.com permission in writing from the publisher.
SAGE Publications Ltd. All third-party trademarks referenced or depicted herein are
1 Oliver’s Yard included solely for the purpose of illustration and are the property
55 City Road of their respective owners. Reference to these trademarks in
London, EC1Y 1SP no way indicates any relationship with, or endorsement by, the
United Kingdom trademark owner.
SAGE Publications India Pvt. Ltd. Printed in the United States of America
B 1/I 1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area
Mathura Road, New Delhi 110 044 Library of Congress Control Number: 2022913662
India
ISBN: 978-1-0718-6981-9
SAGE Publications Asia-Pacific Pte. Ltd.
18 Cross Street #10-10/11/12 This book is printed on acid-free paper.
China Square Central
Singapore 048423
Acquisitions Editor: Helen Salmon
Product Associate: Yumna Samie
Production Editor: Vijayakumar
Copy Editor: Christobel Colleen Hopman
Typesetter: diacriTech
Cover Designer: Gail Buschman
Marketing Manager: Victoria Velasquez 22 23 24 25 26 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

BRIEF CONTENTS
List of Tables xxiii
List of Figures xxv
List of Appendixes xxvii
Preface xxix
Acknowledgments li
About the Author liii
PART I TAKING CHARGE OF YOURSELF AND

YOUR WORK 1
Chapter 1 A Complete Dissertation: Viewing the Big Picture 5
Chapter 2 Gearing Up: There Is Method in the Madness 31
Chapter 3 Choosing a Qualitative Research Design 69
Chapter 4 Ensuring Rigor and Ethics in Qualitative Research 115
Chapter 5 Achieving Alignment Throughout Your Dissertation 147
PART II CONTENT AND PROCESS: A CHAPTER-BY-

CHAPTER ROAD MAP 179
Chapter 6 Introduction to Your Study 183
Chapter 7 Developing and Presenting Your Literature Review 203
Chapter 8 Presenting Research Methodology, Design, and Methods 255
Chapter 9 Analyzing Data and Reporting Findings 325
Chapter 10 Qualitative Meta-Synthesis: Analyzing and Interpreting Findings 381
Chapter 11 Drawing Trustworthy Conclusions and Presenting Actionable
Recommendations 409
x Brief Contents
PART III NEARING COMPLETION 419

Chapter 12 Some Final Technical Considerations 421
Chapter 13 Defense Preparation and Beyond 443
Afterword 461
References 463
Author Index 479
Subject Index 485

DETAILED CONTENTS
List of Tables xxiii
List of Figures xxv
List of Appendixes xxvii
Preface xxix
Acknowledgments li
About the Author liii
PART I TAKING CHARGE OF YOURSELF AND YOUR WORK 1

Chapter 1 A Complete Dissertation: Viewing the Big Picture 5
Objectives 5
Overview 5
Front Matter 6
Title Page 6
Reason 6
Quality Markers 6
Frequent Errors 7
Copyright Page 7
Abstract 7
Reason 8
Quality Markers 8
Frequent Errors 8
Dedication and Acknowledgments 8
Table of Contents 8
Reason 9
Quality Markers 9
Frequent Errors 9
Dissertation Chapters 9
Chapter 1: Introduction 10
Reason 11
Quality Markers 11
Frequent Errors 11
Chapter 2: Literature Review 11
Reason 12
Quality Markers 12
Frequent Errors 13
xii Detailed Contents
Chapter 3: Qualitative Methodology, Research Design, and Methods 13

Reason 15
Quality Markers 15
Frequent Errors 15
Chapter 4: Findings 16
Reason 16
Quality Markers 17
Frequent Errors 17
Chapter 5: Analysis, Interpretation, and Synthesis of Findings 17
Reason 18
Quality Markers 18
Frequent Errors 18
Chapter 6: Conclusions and Recommendations 19
Reason 19
Quality Markers 19
Frequent Errors 20
Epilogue, Final Thoughts, or Reflection 20
Back Matter 20
Appendixes 20
References 20
The Dissertation Proposal: A Precursor to the Dissertation Manuscript 20
Proposal Components 21
Introduction to the Study 22
Literature Review 22
Methodology 24
Additional Elements to Consider in Developing a Proposal 24
Evaluating the Quality of a Qualitative Dissertation 27
Resources for Further Reading and Exploration 29
Chapter 2 Gearing Up: There Is Method in the Madness 31

Objectives 31
Overview 31
Identifying and Developing a Researchable Topic 32
Selecting and Forming Your Dissertation Committee 35
Advisement Skills and Experience 36
Support and Direction 37
Availability and Accessibility 37
Structured and Constructive Feedback 37
Interest in Student’s Career 37
Stakeholder Responsibility and Standards of Good Practice 38
The Feedback Factor 39
Student Responsibilities 40
Faculty Responsibilities 41
Detailed Contents xiii
Organizing and Managing Your Project 42

Creating a Dedicated-to-Dissertation Workspace 43
Managing the Data 44
Data Security 45
Tracking Your Thinking 46
Developing a Collegial Support System 46
Planning Your Time 47
Establishing a Realistic Timeline 49
Guidelines for Academic Writing 55
Clarity, Coherence, and Cohesiveness 55
Inclusivity 58
Format and Style Requirements 59
Proofreading and Editing 61
Integrity Matters 62
Strategies for Avoiding Plagiarism 63
Note Taking 63
Citing Sources 63
Institutional Review Board Approval 64
Chapter 3 Choosing a Qualitative Research Design 69

Objectives 69
Overview 69
Defining Features of Qualitative Research 74
Research Paradigms or Worldviews 77
Postpositivism 77
Pragmatism 77
Social Constructivism/Interpretivism 78
Critical Theory 78
The Evolving Landscape of Qualitative Inquiry 79
Qualitative Research Designs (Genres or Traditions) 82
Case Study 83
Overview 83
Philosophical Underpinnings and Application 84
Methods 84
Critique: Strengths and Limitations 85
Ethnography 86
Overview 86
Methods 87
Phenomenology 88
Overview 88
xiv Detailed Contents
Methods 90
Grounded Theory 93
Overview 93
Methods 95
Narrative Inquiry 98
Overview 98
Methods 99
Action Research 101
Overview 101
Methods 103
The Critical Genres 105
Overview 105
Methods 106
Moving Forward With Your Chosen Qualitative Design 109
Chapter 4 Ensuring Rigor and Ethics in Qualitative Research 115

Objectives 115
Overview 115
Establishing Trustworthiness 116
Truth Value 118
Applicability 118
Consistency 118
Neutrality 119
Strategies to Enhance Trustworthiness in Qualitative Research 119
Three Broad Approaches to Address Qualitative Trustworthiness 120
Actionable Trustworthiness Strategies for Dissertation Research 121
Embracing Ethical Best Practices 124
The Belmont Report and the Common Rule 126
Vulnerable Populations 129
Pandemic-Related Challenges to Research Ethics 132
Access and Digital Literacy 134
Sampling, Recruitment, and Data Collection 134
Informed Consent 135
Privacy and Confidentiality 136
Detailed Contents xv
The Role of the Qualitative Researcher 137

Acknowledging and Embracing Power and Positionality 138
Engaging in Reflexivity 140
Chapter 5 Achieving Alignment Throughout Your Dissertation 147

Objectives 147
Overview 147
Research Problem and Research Methodology 150
Research Problem and Research Purpose 151
Research Problem, Research Purpose, and Research Questions 152
Research Problem, Research Purpose, and Research Design (Qualitative
Genre or Tradition) 153
A. Research Design: Case Study 154
B. Research Design: Ethnography 155
C. Research Design: Phenomenology 155
D. Research Design: Grounded Theory 156
E. Research Design: Narrative Inquiry 157
F. Research Design: Action Research 157
G. Research Design: The Critical Genres 158
Research Design and Research Methods 159
A. Research Methods: Case Study 160
B. Research Methods: Ethnography 160
C. Research Methods: Phenomenology 161
D. Research Methods: Grounded Theory 161
E. Research Methods: Narrative Inquiry 162
F. Research Methods: Action Research 163
G. Research Methods: The Critical Genres 163
Research Problem and Literature Review 164
Literature Review and Theoretical/Conceptual Framework 164
Theoretical/Conceptual Framework, Research Questions, and Research Findings 165
Qualitative Methodology, Research Design, and Data Analysis 165
A. Data Analysis: Case Study 166
B. Data Analysis: Ethnography 166
C. Data Analysis: Phenomenology 167
D. Data Analysis: Grounded Theory 167
E. Data Analysis: Narrative Inquiry 168
F. Data Analysis: Action Research 169
G. Data Analysis: The Critical Genres 169
Qualitative Methodology, Research Design, and Presentation of Findings 170
A. Presentation of Findings: Case Study 171
B. Presentation of Findings: Ethnography 171
xvi Detailed Contents
C. Presentation of Findings: Phenomenology 171

D. Presentation of Findings: Grounded Theory 172
E. Presentation of Findings: Narrative Inquiry 172
F. Presentation of Findings: Action Research 172
G. Presentation of Findings: The Critical Genres 172
Research Findings, Interpretations, and Conclusions 173
Conclusions and Recommendations 174
Chapter Summary 174
PART II CONTENT AND PROCESS: A CHAPTER-BY-

CHAPTER ROAD MAP 179
Chapter 6 Introduction to Your Study 183
Objectives 183
Overview 183
Research Problem 184
Identifying the Research Problem 184
Evaluating a Researchable Problem 186
Feasibility 186
Refining and Honing Your Problem Statement 188
Purpose Statement 190
Research Questions 192
Additional Elements 194
Reflexive Questions: Introduction to the Study 197
Chapter Summary Discussion 198
Quality Assessment Chapter Checklist 199
Chapter 7 Developing and Presenting Your Literature Review 203

Objectives 203
Overview 203
Function and Purpose of the Literature Review 204
Role and Scope of the Literature Review in the Dissertation 206
Preparing for the Literature Review 209
Peer-Reviewed Literature 210
Grey Literature 211
Retrieval and Review 213
Step 1: Identify and Retrieve Literature 214
Primary and Secondary Sources 215
Detailed Contents xvii
Seminal Works 215

A Comprehensive Search Process 215
Organizing Strategies 216
Exploring and Evaluating Web Resources 217
Step 2: Review and Critically Analyze the Literature 219
Organizing Strategies 221
Using Annotated Bibliographies 221
Digesting Scholarly Sources 223
Exhausting the Literature 226
Step 3: Synthesis 228
What Is Synthesis? 228
Synthesis Versus Summary 228
How to Synthesize 229
Step 4: Presenting the Synthesized Review 232
Documentation Strategies 233
Headings and Sub-Headings 233
Be Selective 234
Provide Integration and Critique 234
Ensure Legitimacy 234
Limit Use of Quotations 234
Employ Scholarly Academic Style 234
Revise, Revise, and Revise 235
Step 5: Develop the Theoretical or Conceptual Framework 235
Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks: Making a Distinction 236
Role, Function, and Application of the Framework 239
The Value of the Framework 240
Potential Limitations of the Framework 242
Creating Your Theoretical or Conceptual Framework 242
Presenting Your Theoretical or Conceptual Framework 246
Reflexive Questions: Literature Review 247
Chapter 8 Presenting Research Methodology, Design, and Methods 255

Objectives 255
Overview 255
Introduction 259
Establishing Cultural Integrity 260
Research Sample 261
Recruitment Procedures 262
Online Site Permissions 264
xviii Detailed Contents
Purposeful Sampling 265

Sample Size 268
Overview of Information Needed 270
Contextual Information 270
Demographic Information 270
Perceptual Information 271
Research Methodology and Design 273
Methods of Data Collection 275
Triangulation Strategies 277
Data Saturation 278
Qualitative Data Collection Methods 279
Interviews 280
Focus Groups 284
Observation 288
Critical Incident Questionnaire 289
Document Review 290
Surveys 291
Collecting Data Online 293
Qualitative Secondary Research 295
Data Analysis and Synthesis 297
Addressing Trustworthiness 300
Credibility 302
Confirmability 303
Dependability 303
Transferability 304
Ethical Considerations 305
Privacy 307
Anonymity 308
Confidentiality 308
Addressing Researcher Positionality 309
Limitations and Delimitations of the Study 311
Limitations 311
Delimitations 313
Methodology Chapter Summary 314
Reflexive Questions: Research Methodology 315
Chapter 9 Analyzing Data and Reporting Findings 325

Objectives 325
Overview 325
Detailed Contents xix
Organizing and Preparing Data for Analysis 329

Data Management Strategies 329
Deductive, Inductive, and Abductive Analysis 329
Deciding on an Analytic Approach 331
Thematic Analysis 333
A Systematic Procedure for Data Analysis 335
Review and Explore the Data 337
Create Your Analytic Framework 338
Reread and Code the Data 341
What Is Coding? 342
Coding Versus Content Analysis 344
Beginning the Coding Process 346
Engage in Peer Review 347
Prepare to Record Findings 347
Data Saturation 350
Sort and Categorize Quotations 351
Searching for Negative or Discrepant Cases 352
Text, Discourse, and Visual Analysis 353
Analyzing Text and Discourse 353
Analyzing Visual Data 356
Using Qualitative Data Analysis Software 358
Presenting Research Findings 360
Overview 360
Incorporating Tables and Figures 361
Integrating Participant Voice 362
Presentation of Findings as Quotation Categories 363
Thematic Presentation of Findings 367
Elevating Your Themes 371
Layering and Interconnecting Themes 372
Reflexive Questions: Analyzing Data and Reporting Findings 373
Chapter 10 Qualitative Meta-Synthesis: Analyzing and

Interpreting Findings 381
Objectives 381
Overview 381
Revisiting the Significance of Rigor and Ethics 382
Thinking About Your Analysis 384
Planning for the Analysis of Your Findings 386
xx Detailed Contents
Examining Themes and Patterns 388

Description and Interpretation 390
Moving Beyond Description to Interpretation 391
Synthesis 393
Presenting Your Meta-Synthesis 394
Overview 394
A Set of Guidelines 395
Transparency in Reporting Findings 399
Criticality in Reporting Findings 400
Reflexive Questions: Analyzing and Interpreting Findings 402
Chapter 11 Drawing Trustworthy Conclusions and Presenting

Actionable Recommendations 409
Objectives 409
Overview 409
Presenting Trustworthy Conclusions 410
Thinking About Your Conclusions 410
Writing Your Conclusions 412
Presenting Actionable Recommendations 412
Thinking About Your Recommendations 412
Writing Your Recommendations 413
The Qualitative Researcher’s Final Reflections 414
Reflexive Questions: Conclusions and Recommendations 415
PART III NEARING COMPLETION 419

Chapter 12 Some Final Technical Considerations 421
Objectives 421
Overview 421
Revisiting the Importance of Alignment 422
Crafting a Title 424
Writing the Abstract 425
Detailed Contents xxi
Assembling the Manuscript 427

Proofreading and Editing 430
Quality Assessment Checklist for Your Complete Dissertation: All Together Now! 431
Chapter 13 Defense Preparation and Beyond 443

Objectives 443
Overview 443
Pre-Defense Preparation 444
Submitting Necessary Documentation 444
Addressing and Finalizing Your Committee Structure 444
Re-Familiarizing Yourself With Expectations and Requirements 445
Considering Possible Defense Questions 448
Post-Defense Preparation 451
Making any Necessary Revisions to Your Manuscript 451
Publishing and Presenting Your Research 453
Research Publication 454
Online Publishing 457
Presenting or Showcasing Your Research 458
Afterword 461
References 463
Author Index 479
Subject Index 485

LIST OF TABLES
1.1 Dissertation Proposal Alignment Worksheet 26

2.1 Guidelines for Organizing and Managing Your Project: An Overview 51
3.1 Overview of Social Science Research Methodologies 71
4.1 Types of Abuse in Human Research 129
5.1 Aligning Key Dissertation Components 149
5.2 Actualizing Alignment Flowchart 175
II.1 Overview of Dissertation Content 182
6.1 Problem Statement Development Template 189
7.1 Road Map for Conducting the Literature Review 213
7.2 Template for Research Literature Overview 223
7.3 Template for Analysis and Critique of Research-Based Literature 224
7.4 Template for Analysis and Critique of Theoretical Literature 225
7.5 Comparison: Synthesis and Summary 229
7.6 Synthesis Matrix A (Research Components) 231
7.7 Synthesis Matrix B (Topics or Main Ideas) 232
7.8 Theoretical Framework Brainstorming Template 245
8.1 Road Map for Developing a Methodology Chapter: Necessary Elements 257
8.2 Overview of Purposeful Sampling Strategies 266
8.3 Template for Participant Demographic Matrix 271
8.4 Template for Overview of Information Needed 272
8.5 Qualitative Data Collection Methods: A Summary Overview 279
8.6 Template for Research Questions/Interview Questions Matrix 284
8.7 Overview of Trustworthiness Criteria 301
8.8 Trustworthiness Criteria: Defined and Applied 306
9.1 Template for Data Summary Table 349
9.2 Mapping Interview and/or Focus Group Questions with Research Questions 363
9.3 Coding and Theme Development (Option A) 368
9.4 Coding and Theme Development (Option B) 369
9.5 Coded Transcript Summary Chart 370
9.6 Template for Thematic Chart 370
9.7 Overview of Research Questions and Emergent Themes 371
11.1 If/Then/Therefore/Thus Matrix 410
11.2 Consistency of Findings, Interpretations, and Conclusions 411
12.1 Alignment Flowchart 423
LIST OF FIGURES
I.1 Visualizing the Dissertation Process 3

2.1 Schedule Planning Tool 48
6.1 Interlocking Components of the Research Problem 189
6.2 Road Map for Developing the Dissertation’s Foundational Elements 191
6.3 Mapping Your Research Design 195
8.1 Data Collection Overview: Making Informed Decisions 272
8.2 Template for Research Methodology Flowchart 274
9.1 Road Map for the Process of Qualitative Data Analysis: An Outline 336
9.2 Steps in the Coding Process 340
10.1 Interpretation Outline Tool 387
10.2 Analytic Category Development Tool 398
11.1 Moving from Findings to Action 414
LIST OF APPENDIXES
The appendixes for this book are included in the companion website at https://edge.sagepub.
com/bloomberg-qualitative-5e.
Appendix A: Rubric for Evaluating a Completed Qualitative Dissertation

Appendix B: Rubric for Evaluating a Literature Review
Appendix C: Sample Trustworthiness Statements
Appendix D: Sample Ethical Assurance Statements
Appendix E: Sample Positionality Statements
Appendix F: Change Matrix Template
Appendix G: Sample Alignment Plan: Problem, Purpose, Research Questions
Appendix H: Sample Literature Review Theme Development
Appendix I: Sample Literature Review Outlines
Appendix J: Theoretical Framework Brainstorming Samples
Appendix K: Template for Document Summary Form
Appendix L: Template for Participant Summary Form
Appendix M: Sample Research Methodology Flowchart
Appendix N: Sample Matrix Research Questions/Interview Questions
Appendix O: Sample Matrix Research Questions/Interview Themes/Focus Group Questions
Appendix P: Sample Coding Schemes
Appendix Q: Sample Coding Scheme Development Charts
Appendix R: Sample Segments of Coded Interview Transcripts
Appendix S: Qualitative Data Analysis Software Resources (QDAS)
Appendix T: Sample Data Summary Tables
Appendix U: Coded Transcript Summary Charts
Appendix V: Sample Thematic Charts
Appendix W: Sample Interpretation Outline Tool
Appendix X: Sample Analytic Category Development Tool
Appendix Y: Sample Consistency Chart of Findings, Interpretations, and Conclusions
Appendix Z: Dissertation Manuscript Cheat Sheet
PREFACE
WHO SHOULD READ THIS BOOK?
T his book is essentially a dissertation in action; an explanation and illustration of content

and process. It is geared primarily for doctoral students in the social sciences (education,
psychology, sociology, social work, nursing, community development, management, etc.) who
are about to embark on or who are already conducting a qualitative research study. This book
is for you if
• You are contemplating entering a doctoral program and want to know more about
what lies ahead in terms of conducting research and writing a qualitative dissertation.
• You are already enrolled in a doctoral program, having difficulty identifying a sound,
researchable topic, and hence unable to develop your dissertation proposal.
• You have completed all the course requirements and are about to begin the research but
are unsure of how and where to get started.
• You are stuck in some part of the research process and are unable to make progress
toward completion of your dissertation.
• You have just about abandoned the idea of ever completing your dissertation, for
whatever reason.
During most doctoral programs, there is a heavy emphasis on the theoretical concepts
that form the basis of research. Having completed all the required research courses, as well as
having passed a certification examination, there is an expectation that doctoral students have
mastered the various aspects of research design and methodology. However, once students are
“out on their own” to complete their dissertations, they are often unclear about appropriate
style, content, and/or procedures and are uncertain as to how to proceed. As a result, most
universities and colleges have a significant number of students who are commonly referred to
as “all-but-dissertation” (ABD); those who do not manage to complete their dissertation, which
is the culminating product needed to fulfill the requirements to graduate with a doctorate.
ABD students consistently comprise a large population within graduate education, with stud-
ies indicating more than 50% of doctoral students do not complete their dissertation (Council
of Graduate Schools 2021, Lani, 2020). The implication is that a significant number of people
have invested heavily in education yet still did not get the return on investment by complet-
ing their degree and achieving doctoral status. ABD status has negative implications and often
xxx Preface
represents Federal financial tax dollars being invested without full return. If you suspect that
you might fall into this category, then read on.
The author has witnessed and experienced many of the frustrations voiced by students con-
fronted with the academic challenge of writing a dissertation. How do I select a suitable topic?
How do I narrow and focus an idea? What exactly is a research problem? How do I go about
formulating a research purpose? How and in what ways do the research questions relate to the
study’s overall purpose? How do I conduct a literature review? How do I manage and analyze
my data? In response to these and other challenges, I have developed what I call “road maps” for
understanding the content of the dissertation and navigating through the iterative, recursive,
and often messy dissertation process, from its inception to its ultimate successful completion.
Completing a dissertation is an arduous journey, typically fraught with many challenges,
both personal and professional. These challenges often lead to a sense of confusion and feelings
of inadequacy, incompetence, and frustration. Overwhelming feelings such as these can often
spiral to despondency and apathy, and it is at this level that many students find themselves.
Faced with life’s demands, and compounded with the stresses of academic rigor, students often
bow out, putting aside their dissertations, sometimes forever. This book represents an effort to
facilitate an understanding of the dissertation process so that doctoral candidates feel confi-
dent and competent in successfully pursuing its completion. The author’s experience has been
shaped by work with her own students through the dissertation advisement process, and she has
been fortunate to draw on and benefit from the feedback and insight of colleagues and students
who saw the value of a book such as this.
One challenge in compiling a book of this nature is to acknowledge that institutional
requirements vary. There is no universally agreed-on format, and each school has its unique
structural regulations regarding the dissertation. Moreover, each academic program differs, and
in fact, even each advisor or sponsor usually has her or his own requirements as well. Keep in
mind, too, that some of the qualitative traditions or genres may require or be open to somewhat
different presentational strategies in order to align with the underlying philosophy, practice,
and/or theory. There are also implications regarding EdD (Doctor of Education) and the PhD
(Doctor of Philosophy), both of which are terminal degrees in higher education. While the
two degrees are similar in terms of rigor, the PhD has as its focus a contribution to theory,
whereas the EdD focuses on addressing a researchable problem that has practical applications
(ie., real-world implications). The two degrees are similar in that they both apply the scientific
method to collect and analyze data and present findings. However, for the PhD the findings
are given greater emphasis in terms of theory as a way of furthering knowledge in the field or
discipline, and for the EdD the findings are focused on addressing and resolving a contextual
problem that is rooted in applied professional practice. As such, the degrees serve different pur-
poses based on one’s career goals and trajectories.
In 2016, the Council of Graduate Schools (CGS) convened scholars and leaders in gradu-
ate education, scholarly publishing, academic libraries, and disciplinary associations for a
high-level discussion on the future of the doctoral dissertation. Proceedings of this meeting
may be accessed at http://cgsnet.org/cgs-future-dissertation-workshop and the parallel conver-
sation that emerged on Twitter may be found at #DissFwd. This event was the capstone of a
Preface xxxi
ProQuest-supported CGS Best Practice project on the Future of the Doctoral Dissertation. A
majority of participants was in agreement that dissertations should be more flexible in format,
more adaptable to student needs, and have repetitive hurdles removed. Above all, the process
needs to move at a quicker pace, because knowledge is changing at an exponential rate and
students are languishing too long in candidacy. Although several disciplinary associations have
indeed sought to address transformation in doctoral education, change is slow, and it appears
that breaking the expectation of the traditional long-form dissertation will require signifi-
cant time. While many faculty members do see the need, they fear that modifications at the
most vulnerable part of the academic journey – the finishing doctoral student’s project – could
endanger the “academic ecosystem” and their students’ subsequent careers, a point of view reaf-
firmed in a Chronicle of Higher Education article on the topic.
With a range of institutional missions and doctoral program areas of focus—research versus
applied research emphasis, research-scholar versus scholar-practitioner dispositions—culminat-
ing activities in doctoral programs vary and may take various forms ranging from a book-length
research dissertation to applied research dissertations to a series of research and/or collaborative
practice projects. While doctoral program requirements differ and innovative approaches to
dissertation research projects have emerged, doctoral program faculty have largely retained dis-
sertation research as a distinguishing characteristic of terminal graduate education.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS BOOK
Completing Your Qualitative Dissertation: A Road Map From Beginning to End fills an important
gap in the qualitative research literature by specifically addressing the fast-growing practice of
qualitative postgraduate dissertations in colleges and universities throughout the world. Many
students struggle to complete qualitative research projects because the research itself is inher-
ently messy. To address this challenge, the author has distilled decades of experience into a
first-of-its-kind, highly practical reference for graduate students. Logical and systematic think-
ing is necessary to successfully complete a qualitative dissertation. Completing the dissertation
will depend on your ability to successfully master both the content and the process. Aside from
offering clear guidelines as to the necessary content, the intent of this book is to shed light on
structure and style, thereby making the dissertation process organized and manageable. The
purpose is to assist you at whatever stage you find yourself. You might be right at the beginning
of the process, unable to select a topic that is interesting and/or researchable. You might already
have a topic but are unsure of how to focus it narrowly and articulate a researchable problem.
You might have covered a lot of ground already, even having collected and analyzed some of
your data, but are feeling stuck, lost, languishing, or adrift.
Writing a dissertation is a process, but not one that is neat, linear, or always completely
transparent. Students often think that the dissertation writing process is simple. There is no
simple answer to the question: How to portray the process as doable without neglecting the
complexity? This is what this book hopes to achieve! As a cautionary note, the structure of this
book may suggest that you will proceed from one point to the next in a seamless and logical
manner. Please remember that there will be much looping back and forth, with many iterations
xxxii Preface
and curves along the way. Such is the way of qualitative research and the way of dissertation
development. The intent is to help you better understand the various elements involved in the
qualitative dissertation and be able to address these elements appropriately and effectively,
thereby making the process more manageable and doable. Moreover, the hope is that the pro-
cess is a meaningful one for you.
We often hear the mantra “The best dissertation is a done dissertation.” However, the jour-
ney is just as important as the destination! As much as the end goal, certainly, is a successfully
completed dissertation, you should at the same time derive benefit from the journey itself. In
addition to the dissertation process being a journey toward becoming a scholar, on this journey
you are conducting research on a topic which is important to you, and at the same time you are
learning new skills that are required to conduct research and write a high-level academic docu-
ment. Along with the journey metaphor is the idea of “road maps” on which this book is based.
A dissertation is intended to be an academically rigorous process, the completion of which
demonstrates that you are qualified to join a research community whose members carry the title
“Dr.” This is a unique opportunity to choose a topic of your own interest, to learn more about it,
and to contribute to an existing body of knowledge within your field. The frustrations and diffi-
culties involved in taking on a project of this magnitude, and the level of commitment required
and the sacrifices that you have made to get to this point, are all understandable. It is also under-
standable how important it is for you to complete your dissertation so that you do not remain
ABD forever. Therefore, the goal of this book is that you are able to produce a dissertation, and
so this book offers this step-by-step guide from inception to completion. It is the sincere hope of
the author that this book helps you understand the process, embrace it, and succeed!
The cover illustration of this book abstractly depicts the typical doctoral graduation gown
sleeve with three velvet stripes, and doctoral cap—the black velvet tam with the golden tassel.
The blue hue represents the color of the graduation gown of Columbia University where the
author obtained her doctorate. (And the yellow represents the sun at the end of the long disserta-
tion journey; something to dream of and strive for!) Academic regalia, colloquially known as
the “cap and gown” or “graduation robes,” are the formal attire worn by degree candidates and
holders during various ceremonial occasions. The history of the cap and gown dates back over
800 years to scholars in medieval Europe. Around this time, students and professors began
organizing themselves into guilds, and three distinct groups emerged: the apprentices (bach-
elor of arts), the teachers (master of arts), and the teachers who had completed postgraduate
work (doctorate). The style of robes and dress became standardized as a gown with a hood.
Today’s cap and gown are based on 14th- and 15th-century styles that were adopted by Oxford
and Cambridge universities in England. American commencement rituals and graduation dress
code have been in place since colonial times and were standardized by the intercollegiate code
in 1895. Traditionally, doctoral graduates wear robes with a velvet stripe that extends down the
front panel, as well as three velvet stripes across the sleeves in colors indicating the area of study,
and instead of the mortarboard that is characteristic of bachelor’s and master’s degree status,
those receiving the doctoral degree will wear a black velvet tam with a small golden tassel. With
these images in mind, you have something concrete to aspire to in striving to reach the pinnacle
of academic achievement: your doctorate!
Preface xxxiii
THE BOOK’S STRUCTURE: A ROAD MAP FROM BEGINNING TO END
This book offers a series of road maps that are designed to help you steer your way through the
various activities that constitute the process of writing a qualitative dissertation. At each junc-
ture of the process, the road maps allow you to clarify your objectives, understand and tackle the
task at hand, and check on what you have accomplished before you proceed to the next step. The
heart of this text is “book-ended” by two sections: Part One addresses the planning and organi-
zation that is needed to set up a viable and ethical research study. Part Three addresses the final
stages of the dissertation process that will typically take place once the research and write-up
are complete. At the heart of the book, Part Two, is a series of chapters that models the typical
progression of a dissertation.
As you prepare to navigate the dissertation process, please be aware of three caveats:
First, the approach throughout this book is to emphasize conceptual understanding as it
relates to the practical aspects involved in navigating the dissertation process. As such, this
approach bears some caution as it may be seen as an attempt to reduce the complexity and
“messiness” of qualitative research by way of a series of simplified “how-to” offerings. The many
tables, checklists, and step-by-step guidelines that are provided in this book might imply that
the process is linear. However, this is certainly not the case! It is difficult for many students
to understand that even a road map is a guide only, and sometimes routes must be retraced
or detours must be developed in order to avoid or navigate unexpected roadblocks and unan-
ticipated events. Completing a dissertation is a rigorous and demanding process. It is iterative,
unpredictable, sometimes confusing, and in many respects, recursive; meaning that as you are
developing your manuscript’s chapters you will go back and forth, sometimes multiple times.
However, with a clearer understanding, sharpened competencies, committee support, and a set
of relevant and appropriate resources to guide you, the dissertation is, in fact, doable. Although
the intent is to demystify the dissertation process, we cannot sacrifice intellectual rigor for the
sake of simplification. As such, this book is not intended to be viewed as a quick fix, nor does the
book offer a simplified recipe for success.
As a second caveat, the reader is reminded throughout the chapters that there are various
institutional differences and requirements regarding the structure of a dissertation. While the
chapter titles are worded to reflect their content, these might be organized differently or pre-
sented in a different order or format based on course or program requirements. Of note is that
some universities or programs traditionally adopt a six-chapter dissertation, as outlined in this
book. Others may require a five-chapter dissertation by combining analysis of data, report-
ing findings, and analyzing and interpreting those findings into a single chapter. Moreover,
while this book was initially designed to address the requirements of a traditional dissertation,
both for PhD and EdD programs, some institutions now offer applied doctoral degrees (also
referred to as a “dissertation-in-practice”), with the traditional dissertation being condensed
into three chapters or “sections.” Additionally, the traditional oral defense is sometimes being
replaced with a “professional presentation” based on school-specific requirements, which typi-
cally includes the study’s findings and the contributions these findings make to the field of
practice. While formats and emphasis for EdD dissertations vary across institutions, a defining
xxxiv Preface
feature that distinguishes EdD from PhD dissertations is that these target a problem of practice,
the addressing of which has the potential to result in improved understanding, experience, and
outcomes. Variations in dissertation focus, structure, and terminology will still draw on the
required elements as discussed in this book, but the manuscript will need to conform to the
specified outline and templates provided by your institution. It is therefore critical to make sure
that you review the correct protocols and templates for the school and program in which you
are enrolled and consult with your dissertation advisor to fully understand the requirements
and the available options. This book is meant essentially as a guide, rather than a prescriptive
one-fits-all approach.
A third caveat is that although the book provides a general structure regarding the writ-
ing of a dissertation, this structure should not stifle students’ creativity. Creativity comes into
play through your own initiative with regard to how you design your instruments, develop
your theoretical or conceptual framework and related coding schemes, present your findings,
and analyze, interpret, and synthesize your data. That said, however, qualitative research must
not be viewed as an exercise in creative writing when it is, in fact, an exercise in conducting a
research project that is integrative and intellectually rigorous. Ultimately, rigor, structure, and
full transparency are all necessary—and indeed essential—in order to account for subjectivity
and bias, thereby keeping creative speculation in check.
The primary goal of this book is to support you in developing the understanding and skills
to conduct qualitative research, including planning for developing a proposal, and ultimately
completing a dissertation. The author realizes that readers of this book are at different stages of
the dissertation process. The suggestion is that you start off by finding your own entry point
depending on where you are in the process. If you are just starting out on your research study,
with no clearly defined topic, you should start reading this book from the beginning. If you are
further along in the research process, choose to focus on those chapters that are most relevant to
your unfolding experience.
ORGANIZATION OF THIS BOOK
This book is organized in three parts:

Part I, “Taking Charge of Yourself and Your Work,” is the point of entry and constitutes
a broad introduction to the complex task of writing a dissertation. Part I offers an overview of
the steps involved in thinking about and preparing for the dissertation process. The objective
is fourfold: (a) demystify and clarify the dissertation process while maintaining intellectual
rigor and the highest ethical standards; (b) expand students’ understanding and appreciation of
both the content and the process pertaining to conducting qualitative research and producing
a sound defensible dissertation; (c) demonstrate the skills needed to conduct and write up the
study; and (d) recognize, appreciate, and adopt the attitudes and mindset that will contribute to
the success of the research project. This first part of the book covers the foundational elements
needed to set up a research study, and addresses the core elements of qualitative research, includ-
ing the criteria for rigor and trustworthiness, ethics and reflexivity, the criticality of alignment
and methodological integrity, and employing academic writing skills with a strong focus on
Preface xxxv
clarity and inclusivity. With this knowledge you will be in a position to consolidate these ideas
in terms of developing a feasible dissertation proposal in preparation for the dissertation manu-
script. Part I consists of five chapters:
Chapter 1, “A Complete Dissertation: Viewing the Big Picture,” provides a cursory
glance at the constitution of an entire dissertation by way of a comprehensive outline of all key
elements for each section of the dissertation. This chapter is a precursor of what is to come, with
each element being more fully developed and explained further along in the book. Additionally,
information is provided regarding developing your dissertation proposal in preparation for
embarking on the actual dissertation research, which is an essential and necessary step in the
process. This chapter also addresses the ways in which to evaluate the quality of a qualitative
dissertation according to multiple dimensions, and two extensive rubrics are included for this
purpose.
Chapter 2, “Gearing Up: There Is Method in the Madness,” introduces the mind-set that
is required to create the physical and mental “space” necessary to begin the dissertation process
in as methodical a manner as possible. The chapter includes a discussion about the strengths
and limitations regarding identification and choice of topic, as well as clarification regarding
appropriate advisor–student collegial relationships and mutual responsibility. The chapter also
begins the process of thinking about organizing, managing, and securing data, as well as devel-
oping the skills that are needed for establishing and maintaining a realistic and doable timeline.
Included too is a comprehensive set of guidelines regarding academic writing skills and clar-
ity around the expectations regarding inclusivity and academic integrity, as well as guidelines
regarding institutional review board (IRB) application and approval requirements.
Chapter 3, “Choosing a Qualitative Research Design,” discusses the implications of
choosing a qualitative research approach based on the study’s problem, purpose, and research
questions. The chapter includes an overview of the historical development and current status of
the field of qualitative inquiry, illustrates the primary characteristics of qualitative research, and
includes an overview of how these characteristics compare and contrast with the characteristics
of quantitative and mixed methods approaches. This book is an attempt to provide concep-
tual understanding of the logic behind choice of qualitative research methodology including
research paradigms and underlying philosophical principles by clarifying and explaining the
most commonly used, current, and cutting-edge qualitative designs (genres or traditions), with
an emphasis on researcher reflexivity and insights into the strengths, limitations, and critique of
each research design. Specific terminology commonly associated with, and used within, each of
the designs is identified and explained.
Chapter 4 “Ensuring Rigor and Ethics in Qualitative Research,” addresses the inter-
twined concepts of rigor and ethical standards; both of which are essential requirements both
in the conduct of the research and the write-up of the study. The need to focus more keenly on
trustworthiness criteria and ethical practices has grown out of the recent emergence of needs
and awareness brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath, and the added
challenges facing qualitative researchers as they navigate new and unchartered waters. These
challenges have placed a spotlight on the role of the qualitative researcher in relation to the
xxxvi Preface
dissertation research process, with an increased emphasis on power and positionality, intersec-
tionality, criticality, and reflexivity.
Chapter 5, “Achieving Alignment Throughout Your Dissertation,” seeks to provide a
clear understanding of the concept of alignment in qualitative research, by highlighting and
clarifying the key elements that must be aligned throughout the dissertation. The dissertation
should provide clear evidence that you have addressed alignment at every step of the process so
that the study is tight in terms of methodological integrity. The chapter begins with a detailed
table that serves as an at-a-glance road map and checklist, indicating all the components and
elements that should be taken into account vis-à-vis alignment, and for ease of use, includes
reference to relevant chapters in this book. All the elements of the dissertation that are required
to be aligned, and the combinations thereof—as well as ways to ensure and check for alignment
throughout the research process—are explained in detail, with clear guidance and direction.
Part II, “Content and Process: A Chapter-by-Chapter Road Map,” includes a series of
chapters that serve to narrow and focus the scope of the discussion, and direct the reader’s atten-
tion to the discrete aspects involved in conceptualizing and addressing the research and writing
process. Each of the chapters of Part II provides comprehensive instructions with respect to
the content of a specific dissertation chapter, and how to develop that content. Instructions
also pertain to understanding the processes involved in setting up each dissertation chapter.
Throughout the chapters that constitute Part II, the author is careful to point out that while
most qualitative dissertations will include similar core elements or components, at the same
time there are differences in terms of the organization and presentation, and there can also be
distinct differences in terms of what and how qualitative language and terminology are used.
This book presents information as guidelines that are meant to be flexible per institutional
expectations and requirements and are subject to modification depending on your institution,
department, and program. The chapters that make up Part II are organized in such a way as to
reflect and describe the actual chapters of a dissertation. Part II consists of six chapters:
Chapter 6, “Introduction to Your Study,” explores the foundational elements that are
necessary in the first chapter of a dissertation, which is the introduction to the study. This
includes how to identify and develop a clearly focused and researchable problem from a broader
topic area, formulate a clear and concise problem statement, and align this with the study’s pur-
pose and research questions. Also covered are the additional components of the first chapter of
a dissertation, including overview of qualitative research methodology and the specific chosen
research design, rationale and significance of the study, researcher assumptions and perspec-
tives, and clarification of terminology used.
Chapter 7, “Developing and Presenting Your Literature Review,” provides an under-
standing of the function, purpose, and structure of a literature review, describes the role of a
research-based critical literature review in a dissertation, and outlines the skills related to the
various steps involved in conducting and presenting a thorough and systematic review of the
literature, including identifying and retrieving relevant and credible material and sources, and
analyzing, evaluating, and synthesizing ideas found in the literature. This chapter also addresses
the theoretical or conceptual framework as an integral element of the research process, making
clear the distinction between these two types of frameworks. Detailed guidance is provided
Preface xxxvii
regarding how to think about developing this framework and how it functions with regard
to analysis of research findings, thereby becoming a working tool in the form of an “analytic
framework.”
Chapter 8, “Presenting Research Methodology, Design, and Methods,” offers a guide
for tackling the dissertation’s methodology chapter. Key components of the methodology chap-
ter are identified, and explanation is provided regarding how each component of the research
methodology must be conceptualized, developed, and presented. These components include
research sample and population, sampling method, information sources, research design,
methods and strategies of data collection, methods of data analysis, trustworthiness issues and
ways to address these, ethical considerations and ways to address these, researcher positional-
ity and accompanying statement, and limitations and delimitations of the study. This chapter
illustrates how all the combined components together form a logical, interconnected sequence,
thereby contributing to the overall methodological integrity of the research study.
Chapter 9, “Analyzing Data and Reporting Findings,” demonstrates how to write and
present the findings of a research study, illustrating clearly how the findings address the research
problem and provide a response to each of the study’s research questions. The challenge of quali-
tative analysis lies in making sense of large amounts of data—reducing raw data, identifying
what is significant, and constructing a framework for communicating the essence of what the
data reveal. This chapter begins with a conceptualization of qualitative data analysis regarding
the various research designs, and proceeds to identify the specific strategies involved in analyz-
ing qualitative data. Detailed explanations are provided regarding how to organize, reduce,
and prepare raw data through coding, categorization, and higher-order thematic development;
how to formulate clear and precise findings statements based on analysis of the data; and how
to report and present findings in a clear, comprehensive, systematic, and trustworthy manner.
Chapter 10, “Qualitative Meta-Synthesis: Analyzing and Interpreting Findings,”
demonstrates how to integrate and synthesize the findings with the literature and ways to go
about interpreting and presenting the very meaning behind those findings, which is the essence
of the research. The chapter offers detailed explanation and description of qualitative analysis
and how to go about presenting a final integrated and holistic meta-synthesis. In presenting the
research findings the key goal is to avoid (mis)representation and (in)authenticity. This chap-
ter highlights the concepts of ethicality, transparency, and criticality with regard writing and
reporting qualitative findings, with a key focus on researcher reflexivity. This brings into play
how the researcher understands, explains, and represents, their research participants’ experi-
ences and how they describe—and do justice to—these experiences in ways that reflect both
process and insight. It should be mentioned that some universities and programs adopt an
approach that combines this chapter and the previous one, resulting in a five-chapter disserta-
tion format. As such, analysis of data, reporting findings, and analyzing and interpreting those
findings are sometimes presented in the same chapter, which is congruent with the organic,
systemic, and holistic nature of qualitative research.
Chapter 11, “Drawing Trustworthy Conclusions and Presenting Actionable
Recommendations,” presents the ways in which to address the last chapter of a dissertation:
your study’s conclusions and the recommendations that you provide for practice, policy, and
xxxviii Preface
future research. Included is an explanation of what conclusions are as distinct from findings and
interpretations, as well as suggestions for thinking about and developing sound conclusions and
practical, actionable, and research-based recommendations. Emphasis is placed on ensuring
trustworthiness, and the significance of alignment among the study’s findings, interpretations,
conclusions, and recommendations. The chapter also offers the researcher an opportunity for a
final reflection statement.
Part III, “Nearing Completion,” addresses the final stages of the dissertation process by
explaining all the activities that need to take place when nearing completion of the dissertation
and by providing guidelines regarding how to most effectively engage in these final activities,
including preparing for a successful defense. Part III is designed to bring a sense of closure to
the dissertation process and to offer some suggestions for moving beyond the dissertation, and
consists of two chapters:
Chapter 12, “Some Final Technical Considerations,” focuses on the technical activities
and tasks involved in the final stages of the dissertation process, including revisiting the concept
of alignment with regard to an entire dissertation and how to check for this. This chapter also
provides clear instruction and guidelines with regard to crafting an appropriate dissertation
title, devising a dissertation abstract that conforms to academic standards, proofreading, edit-
ing, and comprehensive assembly of the manuscript. A comprehensive final checklist for all
activities (both conceptual and practical) is designed to assist in addressing the entire research
and writing process.
Chapter 13, “Defense Preparation and Beyond,” offers guidelines regarding pre-defense
preparation, including choosing a dissertation committee. A comprehensive list of possible
defense questions is provided, and these are sorted in categories for ease of use. These questions
are designed to help students begin to think about and prepare for the event, and they address
different aspects of the work—the research process itself, the outcomes of the study, the study’s
conceptual or theoretical framework, and the role and positionality of the researcher. This list
of questions is also useful for faculty to incorporate in their dissertation resource toolkit. The
chapter also includes suggestions regarding post-defense preparation, including possible ave-
nues for the presentation and publication of the dissertation research. Recommended resources
are provided to assist with various avenues for disseminating and sharing your study’s findings
with a focus on strategies to appropriately “de-dissertationsize” (the author’s own word) the dis-
sertation so as to meet academic publication requirements.
DEFINING FEATURES OF THIS BOOK
Since the first publication in 2008, this book has been a firm favorite among doctoral candi-
dates around the world as they navigate the complexities and intricacies of qualitative research
to undertake and successfully complete a rigorous and trustworthy qualitative dissertation.
Some books on writing a dissertation explain the process in overcomplicated language—the
classic textbook scholarly writing style that tends to mystify and overwhelm the reader. Other
books on the subject make assumptions that by following a set of instructions the reader will
somehow know how to conduct the process and do not take into account the inherent messiness
Preface xxxix
of qualitative research. Still others offer way too many unrelated examples and fail to provide
sufficient detail and strong examples of the various elements involved. All these versions are
difficult to learn from. Included in Completing Your Qualitative Dissertation: A Road Map From
Beginning to End are a number of useful and distinctive features that set this book apart:
• The focus throughout is on conceptual understanding as it relates to the practical

aspects involved in navigating the dissertation process.
• The concepts of rigor and ethics; both of which are integral to qualitative research are
interwoven throughout, to ensure a focus on issues pertaining to power, positionality,
criticality, and reflexivity. The need to focus more keenly on trustworthiness criteria
and ethical practices has grown out of the recent emergence of needs, insights, and
awareness brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath, highlighting
the critical role of the qualitative researcher in relation to the entire research process.
• Throughout all chapters, the importance of maintaining alignment among all elements
of the dissertation is reinforced in order to ensure methodological congruence and,
therefore, maintain high academic standards. While this is emphasized at various
points throughout, Chapter 5 is dedicated to this matter, highlighting all necessary key
components and providing an expanded and detailed discussion. Chapter checklists
in each of the chapters of Part II include a separate section to address alignment of
research components, making the concept of alignment very prominent throughout.
• Because reflection and reflexivity are cornerstones of qualitative research, each
chapter of Part II includes a set of reflexive questions to stimulate critical thinking and
reflection regarding the potential impact of your methodological choices, and what
might be potential inherent biases and assumptions based on researcher positionality.
These questions are designed to serve as thoughtful prompts for journaling, allowing
you to think more critically about what reflexivity looks like at different stages of
the research process. This includes the complex ways in which a researcher’s social
and cultural background and identity might intersect and interact with their
experience as a researcher during each stage of the research process, including
decisions related to sample selection, data collection, data analysis, interpretation of
findings, representation of research participants, writing the dissertation report, and
disseminating the study’s findings; all of which carry ethical implications.
• The author acknowledges and reinforces throughout the book that there are often
institutional and/or program-related differences in requirements vis-à-vis the
dissertation content, structure, and process. Where appropriate, possible instances of
differences in the content and structure of the dissertation are flagged so that students
are aware of these.
• Where appropriate, instances are pointed out where qualitative designs (traditions or
genres) might differ in application and explain how these differences or distinctions
can be addressed.
xl Preface
• The dissertation process can be conceptualized as a journey, and the metaphor of

“road maps” is carried throughout the book. Road maps, in the form of tables, figures,
matrixes, all of which are designed as practical tools that can be used and applied
as you move through the process. These road maps are presented as working tools
to clarify thinking and organize the data, and hence are a useful addition to the
qualitative researcher’s methods toolkit. Templates are provided for how to go about
creating these tools, and in the appendixes, various exemplars offer the reader ideas of
what the finished products might look like.
• Additional road maps in the form of quality assessment checklists are provided for each
chapter of Part II. These checklists afford at-a-glance overviews at each stage of the
research-writing process. Here the reader can check their progress by reviewing what
needs to be accomplished before moving to the subsequent chapter, making any needed
corrections or revisions, and then proceeding on the journey. A final comprehensive
checklist for the complete dissertation is provided in Part III.
• A set of annotated resources for further reading and exploration are presented at the
end of each chapter for referral to additional cutting-edge and relevant literature and
research. In preparing this book the author has done extensive research and literature
reviews, and shares sources that have been found to be most useful, including seminal
works in the field.
• The companion website is an ancillary package designed by the author to accompany
this text, and houses a comprehensive selection of resources and materials that are
relevant to the book. Free access to this site is included with this book, and offers
multiple materials: All appendixes; downloadable tools and templates; 101 questions
pertaining to qualitative research (designed to stimulate critical thinking and prompt
discussion between doctoral students and their advisors; annotated SAGE journal
articles as these apply to each chapter of the book (including critical questions for
discussion); as well as a wealth of cutting edge resources organized by topic within the
broad field of qualitative research that are focused on addressing new advancements
and developments within the field.
At the time of preparing this book’s fifth edition the COVID-19 pandemic was continuing
to change the patterns of daily social life in new and unpredictable ways. Depending on how
science and public health trajectories evolve, methods of qualitative research, and the associ-
ated ethical issues continued to evolve and transform too. As we move forward, in-person data
collection methods such as on-site interviews, focus groups, and participant observation will
possibly decrease, while phone and online data collection methods (both synchronous and
asynchronous platforms) as well as the use of social media research will, as a matter of neces-
sity, tend to increase. Students working on dissertation research will be increasingly required
to adapt fieldwork research to conditions in which conducting research on the ground is no
longer possible or viable. Universities have started to provide protocols on how to resume field
activities, including instructions on how to conduct qualitative research as well as revised ethics
Preface xli
procedures. This presents feasibility implications for dissertation research that will need to be
taken into consideration when planning and executing data collection in the future. As such,
guidance is needed regarding how to conduct research both ethically and credibly in the virtual
world and adopt new and innovative methods and approaches.
The pandemic and resulting changing modalities in the ways in which education is designed
and delivered, have also redefined the discussion around accessibility and inclusion. These
changes and shifts have exposed—and indeed highlighted—the challenges in meeting the
specific needs of underrepresented communities, including people from low-income families,
racial/ethnic minorities, students of color, indigenous peoples. In addition to concerns related
to the “digital divide,” that is, the uneven distribution in the access to materials, and/or tech-
nology and connectivity issues there is a need to address access with regard to proper accom-
modations for elderly people who may not be familiar with technology, as well as those with
learning disabilities, including mobility impairments, and other health and medical-related
impairments. It is indeed imperative that graduate students implement research strategies and
methods that will ensure and promote access and inclusivity.
This fifth edition addresses some significant changes in the field of dissertation research
that have come about as a result of the pandemic. Little has been written thus far about the
revised “socially-distant” research methods, risks, challenges and emergent research opportu-
nities that the current situation calls for. Moreover, with these significant changes in the ways
that research is conducted, there is an urgent need to focus on how to minimize exclusion and
conduct ethical research. This includes ensuring access and inclusivity, addressing digital lit-
eracy, redesigning sampling and selection strategies, and also including the use of secondary
data in an ethical manner. Undertaking dissertation research has always been a challenging
endeavor, and students are currently (and for the foreseeable future) in greater need of guidance,
support, and resources. Since the onset of the pandemic, dissertation students have encountered
the additional hurdle of having to modify or change an existing research design. This should
not present a problem—and indeed offers emerging research opportunities—as long as students
are aware of the limitations, ramifications, and implications of using “socially-distant” methods
and tools. An updated edition is thus an opportunity to guide students both with regard to the
challenges of conducting research in unusual circumstances (which may indeed extend indefi-
nitely), as well as ways of adequately and appropriately addressing the associated feasibility and
ethical considerations.
NEW TO THE FIFTH EDITION: CHAPTER-BY-CHAPTER OVERVIEW
This fifth edition of Completing Your Qualitative Dissertation: A Road Map From Beginning to
End follows a similar structure to the successful first edition published in 2008, the second edi-
tion (2012), the third edition (2016), and the fourth edition (2019), and continues to offer doc-
toral candidates comprehensive guidance and accessible and practical tools for navigating each
step in the recursive and iterative qualitative dissertation process. While key features that dis-
tinguish the book’s unique approach are retained, this fifth edition responds to developments
xlii Preface
in the field as well as reviewer feedback. Three key elements that were introduced in the fourth
edition are retained and expanded:
• Throughout the book, there is a greater focus on application to a broader range of

qualitative designs (traditions or genres). The author’s view of qualitative research is to
go beyond prevailing assumptions and norms, make a strong case for nonhegemonic,
inclusive ways of thinking and informed action, and thereby intentionally facilitate
transformative and equity-oriented possibilities. A critical stance vis-à-vis research
is vital at the current historical moment, with dominant powerful and pervasive
ideologies and policies working to marginalize and silence individuals and groups
who challenge the status quo. This fifth edition includes a greater focus on how all
qualitative traditions or genres can encompass activist research and social justice
inquiry, taking a critical stance toward highlighting and potentially changing social
structures and processes that shape individual and collective life. This broader coverage
of the critical aspect of inquiry, including both designs and methods, is reflected
throughout the book, as well as in the additional reading resources and the companion
website. With the increasing tendency for qualitative researchers to ask themselves
what the outcome of their research will be in terms of making some impact on a
larger social purpose, the inclusion of a strong activist agenda and how qualitative
researchers can approach their research critically is now more apparent among all of the
different traditions or genres. This broader coverage addresses the current landscape of
qualitative research and allows the book to have wider application for dissertation work
within the constantly emerging and evolving field of qualitative inquiry.
• This edition includes not just a more prominently placed and expanded discussion
of trustworthiness and research ethics as crucial elements of the research process,
and more information regarding reflexivity in data collection; these concepts are
intentionally interwoven throughout all of the book’s chapters. Additionally, thorough
resource sections that are included in all the chapters as well as connections to the
extensive appendixes offer students additional materials to further their qualitative
research journey.
• Considering the researcher as the primary instrument of research, the importance
of systematically and methodically addressing social location and positionality and
paying close attention to context and complexity become critical in achieving rigorous
and trustworthy research. Assessing issues of trustworthiness, and in particular
credibility, has increasingly become a clear focus in the evaluation of qualitative
research studies. One of the most fundamental quality criteria for qualitative research
is reflexivity; the practice of situating oneself within the context of the research,
showing an awareness of, sensitivity to, and engagement with the cultural and social
embeddedness of methods, theories, and research questions, as well as reflecting on
and critiquing one’s own assumptions and biases based on researcher positionality.
Preface xliii
As such, in the current edition, there is a greater focus throughout on reflexivity,

underscoring the importance that as a researcher you are thinking more deeply
about the potential impact of all the choices you make regarding your study’s design,
including identification, justification, and limitations for all methodological choices,
and what might be your biases and assumptions, and why. Declaring your positionality
and exposing how you show up makes for fully transparent and trustworthy research.
This also conveys the message of researcher humility and vulnerability in the space we
share with our research participants, as we write about their stories and experiences.
Critically confronting and engaging with our interpretations, and the biases that
shape them, is a key consideration in qualitative research. Addressing this ethical
responsibility requires a reflexive approach to research that also includes developing
and maintaining a commitment to openness to critical feedback and change. This
focus is reflected throughout. In addition, each of the chapters of Part II includes a set
of reflexive questions that are designed to tap into any inherent biases and assumptions.
This current edition includes additional and updated resources in each of the chapters of
Part I, and new and updated instructive appendixes and supporting materials that are included
in the companion website. In addition, this edition presents a valuable and timely new Chapter 4
“Ensuring Rigor and Ethics in Qualitative Research.”
• Chapter 1, “A Complete Dissertation: Viewing the Big Picture,” outlines each content
element involved in the dissertation process and includes “reasons,” “quality markers,”
and “frequent errors” for each element. This broad guideline overview is a precursor of
what is to come, with each element being more fully explored and developed further
along in the book. Newly added is a section on preparing and developing a proposal for
the dissertation, and the components that will be included. The Chapter also includes
an updated section regarding the processes for evaluating the quality of a qualitative
dissertation along multiple dimensions, and two updated evaluation rubrics are
provided.
• Chapter 2, “Gearing Up: There Is Method in the Madness,” provides additional
information and practical tips regarding the role of the dissertation advisor, topic
development, and organizing and managing the research project. Also included is an
updated section pertaining to data security, emphasizing its importance in light of the
advent and pervasiveness of social media and new emergent technologies, including
various forms of publicly accessible visual, audio, and virtual materials and data.
The chapter includes new sections that address academic writing skills with a greater
focus on inclusive writing including ways to avoid unintended racism or sexism, by
being aware of any terminology or writing styles that are in any way non-inclusive,
discriminatory, or exclusionary. Material has been added regarding plagiarism issues,
and Institutional Review Board (IRB) and Collaborative Institutional Training
xliv Preface
Initiative (CITI) requirements, expectations, and procedures. Additionally, more

information is provided regarding (1) use of first-person I, and why writing in the active
voice is recommended.
• Chapter 3, “Choosing a Qualitative Research Design,” is substantially rewritten
and reorganized to reflect the history and evolving landscape of qualitative research,
highlighting key characteristics, as well as trends and ongoing developments in the
field. Additional details pertaining to the defining features of qualitative research
as a field of inquiry, as well as the features of each of the major research designs (also
referred to as “traditions” or “genres”) have been incorporated to enhance greater
understanding of the nuances involved. The chapter describes and explains in more
detail than previous editions the most commonly used current and cutting-edge
qualitative designs, and for comparative purposes, extensive description is provided
for each of the major research design’s philosophical underpinnings, application,
methods, and critiques. With the increasing tendency for qualitative researchers to
ask themselves what the outcome of their research will be in terms of making some
impact on a larger social purpose, the inclusion of a strong activist agenda and how
qualitative researchers can approach their research critically is now more apparent
among all of the different traditions or genres. Discussion around indigenous
methodologies and critical arts-based inquiry as critical genres, both of which were
introduced in the previous edition, is further expanded. Throughout this chapter is an
increased emphasis on reflexivity, the politics of research, social justice and inclusion,
representation and voice, positioning and positionality; all as integral features of a
critical, collaborative, and activist stance.
• All new Chapter 4, “Ensuring Rigor and Ethics in Qualitative Research,” is
extensive in its coverage in addressing emergent contemporary societal issues, and is
organized in two sections. The first section describes the four criteria for determining
trustworthiness, a critical concept in qualitative research, including ways to address
each trustworthiness criterion. The second section takes a deep dive into and clarifies
all aspects that characterize ethical research practices according to the principles
of the Belmont Report and illustrates what is implied by conducting research with
vulnerable populations or groups. Also presented is an overview of the key research
challenges that have emerged since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, and ways
to mitigate these. The discussion throughout this chapter is strongly grounded in
the role of the qualitative researcher-as-instrument in relation to the entire research
process, with an emphasis on power and positionality, intersectionality, criticality,
transparency, and reflexivity. Declaring your positionality as a researcher, and
exposing how you show up and how you set up and conduct your study, makes for fully
transparent and trustworthy research. You will notice, aside from this chapter, issues of
trustworthiness, ethics, and researcher positionality are woven as a prominent thread
throughout the book.
Preface xlv
• Chapter 5, “Achieving Alignment Throughout Your Dissertation,” was developed

for the previous edition of this book and provides the necessary clarity regarding the
importance of methodological integrity and congruence throughout the research
and writing process. This chapter grew out of work the author has done in developing
workshops and seminars on this topic. In her own work with doctoral students, as well
as in discussing this with colleagues at various universities around the world, students’
understanding and achieving alignment throughout the qualitative dissertation is very
often a stumbling block, and lack of expertise in this area often complicates an already
stressful process. Alignment (or lack thereof) is often a key question or issue at the time
of the dissertation defense as well, where a dissertation’s methodological integrity is
scrutinized. This chapter provides a clear understanding of the concept of alignment
in qualitative research, highlights and clarifies the key elements and concepts to
be aligned throughout the dissertation, and explains how to ensure and check for
methodological integrity throughout. In the 5th edition, numerous new tools and
rubrics were added to this chapter. To ensure that alignment is addressed throughout
the research and writing process, this concept is revisited throughout all of the book’s
chapters, and chapter checklists have been updated to make the concept of alignment
more prominent throughout.
The chapters of Part II, “Content and Process: A Chapter-by-Chapter Road Map,” continue
to mirror the chapters of an actual dissertation. Chapters 6 through 8 set up the study and
constitute the study’s framework, with a key focus on methodology and design. As pointed out
in Part I, these three chapters form the research proposal. Chapters 9 through 11 discuss how
to analyze and present the data that are collected, synthesize the findings, and develop conclu-
sions and recommendations. While a brief application section was designed for earlier editions
of the book’s Part II, which provided an actual example of each completed dissertation chapter,
qualitative research has evolved significantly, and there is an increasing acknowledgment of
multiple presentation methods. The instruction section of each chapter in Part II remains suf-
ficiently detailed and explicit, and multiple new templates, examples, and samples are included
in the book’s appendixes and companion website. Additionally, and importantly, students are
encouraged to refer to their own institutions’ samples and exemplars as well as access ProQuest
and other dissertation databases for ideas regarding chapter presentations. As in Part 1, the cur-
rent edition includes additional and updated resources throughout all of the chapters of Part II
as well as updated and new instructive appendixes and supporting materials in the companion
website.
• Chapter 6, “Introduction to Your Study,” includes new material related to the issue of
feasibility, and ways to map a potential research design to ensure alignment and fit with
the specific research problem. As mentioned at the outset, and again in subsequent
chapters, the reader is continually reminded that while most qualitative dissertations
will include the same core elements or components, there are some differences in terms
xlvi Preface
of the organization and presentation of the proposal and dissertation, and reference is
made to the three-, five-, and six-chapter dissertation structure. Additionally, clarity is
provided regarding EdD and PhD dissertation requirements which determine choice
of appropriate research problem to be studied; either applied practice or theoretical.
• In appreciating how doctoral students often struggle with developing a well
synthesized literature review and comprehending the nature and function of a
theoretical or conceptual framework, additional discussion in Chapter 7, “Developing
and Presenting Your Literature Review,” serves to enhance and clarify these integral
aspects that have significant implications for the design and analysis of qualitative
research. Additional explanation is provided around the nature and function of the
conceptual or theoretical framework in a dissertation as well as the subtle differences
between these two terms, even though they are often used interchangeably. This
edition also includes expanded discussion in a number of other areas: the significance
of utilizing credible peer-reviewed literature and strategies to recognize this
requirement, characteristics of effective annotated bibliographies, and additional
pointers regarding ways to present the literature review. Also new is a section on
“exhausting the literature” as well as additional instructive materials and working tools
for creating a review outline and for theme building and development.
• Chapter 8, “Presenting Research Methodology, Design, and Methods,” includes some
substantial revisions, and numerous new additions. Sections that have been reworked
include sample selection procedures, ways to address trustworthiness criteria, and an
expanded section that reviews current data collection methods. The chapter includes
a deeper dive into the concept of researcher reflexivity, and the ethical responsibilities
involved in the research process especially with regard to research with vulnerable
populations, illustrating how researchers can prepare to respond appropriately to
ethical issues that must be addressed as they conduct their research both in-person
and virtually. Building on the new chapter 4, there is a special focus on emergent (and
urgent) requirements that have come about as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic,
and the ever-increasing need to adopt a critical stance and explore researcher
positionality. New resources pertaining to trustworthiness statements, ethics
statements, and positionality statements are included as appendixes, providing readers
with rich exemplars. New to the chapter too are additional details regarding sampling
strategies, sample size, and ways of achieving data saturation in qualitative research;
a new focus on qualitative secondary research (QSR) and how to address associated
ethical considerations; an extensive section explaining recruitment of research
participants via social media and necessary site permissions; details pertaining to
sample size and saturation; discussion around new synchronous technologies that can
be harnessed as viable data collection tools (including their strengths and limitations);
structural considerations for developing interview protocols; ways to develop focus
group materials based on interview data; and ways to ensure culturally responsive
Preface xlvii
focus groups. Additional reflective questions have been included, mostly addressing
ethics and positionality. Multiple new methodological roadmaps in the form of tables
and figures as well as new instructive appendixes and supportive companion website
materials have also been added.
• Chapter 9, “Analyzing Data and Reporting Findings,” continues to acknowledge
analytic distinctions among traditions and genres, emphasizing how each tradition is
sensitive to particular analytic methods and strategies. The chapter’s introduction has
been expanded to make clearer the distinction between qualitative and quantitative
data analysis, and the emphasis on transparency and repeatability of data analysis
procedures has been strengthened. This edition places a stronger emphasis on
addressing alignment and achieving methodological congruence. There is additional
discussion regarding issues involved in researcher reflexivity and additional description
of key features and practical relevance of data analysis vis-à-vis the various qualitative
genres. Additional information is provided with reference to dealing with negative or
disconfirming findings. The explanation of the coding process has been augmented
by new visuals. New to this chapter are sections that address peer review, recording
of findings, and data saturation. The discussion around thematic development is
expanded and includes new techniques to explore the complexities of thematic analysis
in order to achieve even deeper levels of meaning and abstraction with regard to the
study’s findings. Additionally, the process of thematic analysis as it applies in distinct
and different ways to the various qualitative research designs is also expanded and
clarified.
• Chapter 10, “Qualitative Meta-Synthesis: Analyzing and Interpreting Findings,”
provides some additional material and references regarding data analysis and
representation within the different qualitative genres or traditions, and greater
focus on addressing trustworthiness considerations by way of ongoing researcher
reflexivity. New to this edition are three new sections: moving beyond description
to interpretation; addressing transparency in reporting findings; and addressing
criticality in reporting findings.
• Chapter 11, “Drawing Trustworthy Conclusions and Presenting Actionable
Recommendations,” remains largely unchanged except for additional emphasis
placed on the significance of alignment among the study’s findings, interpretations,
conclusions, and recommendations, and the addition of a new visual to illustrate the
move from research findings to being able to take action based on those findings.
Some new material has been added to Part III, “Nearing Completion,” which focuses on the
final stages of the dissertation process, includes two chapters:
• Chapter 12, “Some Final Technical Considerations,” remains largely unchanged.

However, all details pertaining to APA 7 requirements are updated, including
xlviii Preface
structure of abstract. The section on assembling the manuscript has also been updated
to reflect APA 7 requirements. The Quality assessment chapter checklist was revised to
address APA 7 requirements as well as include emergent ethical research standards and
expectations. A new appendix was devised to accompany this chapter and provide a
final supportive road map, “The Dissertation Manuscript Cheat Sheet.” As pointed out
in Chapter 1, this road map can also be a useful resource at the dissertation proposal
stage.
• Chapter 13, “Defense Preparation and Beyond,” deals with the challenges encountered
in pre- and post-defense preparation. This chapter features the addition of new
dissertation defense questions, which have been categorized for ease of use and
applicability and are organized to address the research process itself (with a heavy focus
on researcher positionality and reflexivity), application and implications of the study’s
conceptual or theoretical framework, and the outcomes of the study and the use and
dissemination of research findings. Regarding post-defense preparation, an expanded
section is devoted to a critical overview of online publication and presentational
opportunities. Additional information is provided regarding the journal publication
process, including peer review, impact factor, open access, and predatory journals, as
well as new sections on submission guidelines and the use of podcasts.
New organization and structure throughout this fifth edition includes the following:
• Sections where the narrative was too dense have been reorganized and reconfigured,
and additional headings and subheadings have been included so that the reader can
more easily follow the text.
• Updated references, citations, and websites throughout that include new and
cutting-edge research and practice, as well as attention to new editions of previously
cited works.
• Additional revisions have been made to existing charts for organizing data and
managing the dissertation process. The fifth edition retains all tables that serves
as an at-a-glance road maps and checklists, indicating all the key components and
elements that should be taken into account vis-à-vis alignment and methodological
integrity, thereby serving to reinforce and make these concepts even more focused and
prominent.
• To remain relevant and accessible, inclusion of new and updated annotated resources
throughout provides broad coverage of the most commonly used qualitative traditions
or genres included in the book. This edition replaces the lengthy annotations at the
end of each chapter with a more concise set of appropriate supplementary resources:
Resources for Further Reading and Exploration. These supplementary materials are
included within the book as well as in the companion website which is accessible
through the URL provided.
Preface xlix
• Multiple new appendixes have been added to this edition, and many of the existing
appendixes were reformulated and restructured. In particular, the two extensive rubrics
for evaluating the quality of a completed dissertation and literature review were added in
the third edition, and which are referenced in Chapter 1, have been updated and further
refined and will hopefully continue to be highly useful to both professors and doctoral
candidates and also used as a source of critique and scholarly discussion. For ease of
reference, access, and integration, at the conclusion of each chapter an indication is
provided regarding the relevant appendixes that are associated with the specific chapter.
• The companion website, which is freely accessible, is comprised of a substantial
collection of curated resources, including samples, templates, guidelines, and access
to relevant research and information related to qualitative research and dissertation
preparation. This treasure trove of supplementary materials, located in the “cloud,” is
an extension of the book and is not to be missed!
Companion Website:
The companion website at https://edge.sagepub.com/bloomberg-qualitative-5e is an ancil-
lary package designed by the author to accompany this text, and houses a comprehensive selec-
tion of resources and materials that are relevant to the book. Please be sure to access this site as it
contains a wealth of information! The site includes free access to the following materials:
• A complete list of the book’s accompanying appendixes. Many of the appendixes are
illustrations of completed exemplars that are referenced throughout the book, and
serve as instructive models.
• Multiple tools and templates used throughout the book are downloadable for ease of
use.
• Selected resources and cutting-edge instructive materials feature relevant content for
use in independent as well as classroom-based exploration of key topics, concepts,
and ideas. These resources are organized by topic for ease of use. Be sure to access this
carefully curated wealth of materials as you work through the chapters of this book!
• The resource, “101 Questions,” addresses multiple issues inherent in the dissertation
process, chapter by chapter. The intent is that these questions will stimulate critical
thinking, reflection, and dialogue, thereby motivating doctoral students or prospective
doctoral students to seek and consult additional relevant texts and resources in order to
delve deeper into the many issues raised. These questions might also be used to prompt
discussion between doctoral students and their advisors.
• Annotations of full-text articles from SAGE’s leading research journals. Each selected
article includes a set of relevant reflective questions that apply to the material contained
therein, thereby supporting and expanding the concepts presented in each of the
dissertation’s chapters.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
C ompleting Your Qualitative Dissertation: A Road Map From Beginning to End is meant as
a tribute to the resolve of the countless doctoral students with whom I have worked and
continue to work, and from whom I have learned so much. This book could not have been
conceptualized without being a part of their experiences.
Many thanks to those who have contributed in various ways to the enhancement of this
fifth edition, especially Helen Salmon, my publisher, for her constructive feedback, and ongo-
ing support at all stages of this project, as well as the entire SAGE editing team.
Great appreciation goes to SAGE Publications for recognizing the value of this book and,
as with the previous editions, for working tirelessly and collaboratively to prepare this fifth edi-
tion for publication. The success of the previous editions of this book is indeed gratifying, as is
the ongoing positive feedback that I continue to receive from students and faculty alike around
the world. My hope is that this expanded and updated fifth edition will continue to offer the
support, structural framework, and guidelines that doctoral students seek in their journey along
the long road of developing and defending a rigorous qualitative dissertation.
SAGE Publications and the author gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the follow-
ing reviewers: Janet A. Boberg, Arizona State University; Pascale Koayess, Defense Language
Institute; Meral Muyesser, Rowan College; Janet Salmons, SAGE Methodspace, Tera Jordan,
Iowa State University; Amy Roth McDuffie, Washington State University; JoAnn Danelo
Barbour, Gonzaga University; Thomas W. Sather, University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire; Joe R.
Putulowski, California Baptist University; Shelley K. Taylor, Western University; Antonio C.
Cuyler, Florida State University; Nathan R. Templeton, Texas A&M University; Marie Carasco
Saul, Penn State University; and Amira Proweller, DePaul University. In addition, I thank the
many faculty members and doctoral students at various institutions who, since the first edition
in 2008, have taken the time to critically evaluate this text and provide their generous endorse-
ment of its value.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Linda Dale Bloomberg, EdD, is a former adjunct faculty and dissertation chairperson in the
department of Adult Learning and Leadership at Teachers College, Columbia University. She
currently develops curriculum for qualitative research in graduate online programs, serving
as faculty coach, dissertation chairperson, and doctoral subject matter expert. She also serves
as consultant to various research, higher education, and nonprofit advisory boards including
The Future Talent Council, and is founder of Bloomberg Associates and ILIAD (Institute for
Learning Innovations and Adult Development) and cofounder of Columbia University’s Global
Learning and Leadership Institute. As senior researcher for the South African Human Sciences
Research Council and National Institute for Personnel Research, Dr. Bloomberg’s work focused
on change management; diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives; and enhanced workplace
learning. She has authored and edited numerous publications in the fields of organizational
evaluation, qualitative research, leadership development, ensuring equitable student suc-
cess, adult learning, and distance education, and is a contributor to The SAGE Encyclopedia of
Educational Research, Measurement, and Evaluation (2018). She presents regularly at national
and international professional conferences on topics related to qualitative research, dissertation
instruction, diversity initiatives in higher education, and adult learning. Dr. Bloomberg holds
master’s degrees in counseling psychology, organizational psychology, and education, and is
credentialed with the International Coaching Federation (ICF). In 2006, she received her doc-
torate in adult education and organizational learning from Columbia University.
I
PART
TAKING CHARGE
OF YOURSELF AND
YOUR WORK
Chapter 1 A Complete Dissertation: Viewing the Big Picture
Chapter 2 Gearing Up: There is Method in the Madness
Chapter 3 Choosing a Qualitative Research Design
Chapter 4 Ensuring Rigor and Ethics in Qualitative Research
Chapter 5 Achieving Alignment Throughout Your Dissertation
T he intent of this book is to demystify and clarify the dissertation process while maintain-
ing intellectual rigor and the highest ethical standards of research. Part I presents the
initial steps involved in thinking about and preparing for the complex dissertation process
by expanding appreciation and understanding of both the content and the process pertaining
to conducting qualitative research and producing a sound defensible dissertation. This work
is intellectually rigorous, requiring intensive thinking, preparation, and planning and is very
much a matter of having tenacity, perseverance, and patience. Completing a dissertation is,
in fact, a process of continuous learning because for most people, conducting research and
writing a document such as this is a first-time endeavor, an undertaking for which there is
little experience. By the end of the process, you will indeed have learned as much about your-
self and how to conduct research as you will have learned about the subject of your inquiry.
Having read Part 1, with a researchable problem in mind and a clear idea of the core elements
of qualitative research, including criteria for rigor and trustworthiness, ethics and reflexivity,
as well as the criticality of alignment and methodological integrity, you will be in a position to
consolidate these ideas in terms of developing a feasible dissertation proposal.
• Chapter 1 provides an overview of all key elements for each section of the dissertation;
that is, a precursor of what is to come further along in this book. Understanding the
elements that constitute each section of your dissertation is a necessary first step, which
means becoming familiar with the relationships between and among the multiple
components that constitute a dissertation, including process and content. The chapter
addresses one of the critical points in the dissertation process; that is, developing a
sound and comprehensive research proposal, the approval of which enables you to
1
P art I • Taking Charge of Yourself and Your Work
2
move toward IRB approval and the implementation of your research. The chapter
also includes an emphasis on ensuring inclusive academic writing skills, and a section
regarding evaluating the overall quality of a qualitative dissertation by highlighting all
the key components that are required.
• Chapter 2 addresses the knowledge, skills, and attitudes required to successfully
complete the required work and covers areas that should be addressed in the
preliminary stages of the dissertation process. This includes strategies for organizing
and managing the project, identifying and developing a researchable topic, working
with your advisement committee to address all necessary expectations, responsibilities,
and procedures, and establishing a realistic timeline. The time commitment involved
in doing your dissertation is substantial given the volume of work, so you are provided
some strategies to plan your time thoughtfully and productively. Considering that
your audience is primarily the academic community, the chapter offers guidelines for
academic writing and strategies to ensure inclusivity and academic integrity, and also
covers issues and requirements regarding institutional review board (IRB) approval.
• Chapter 3 provides an overview of the landscape of qualitative inquiry and discusses
the implications of choosing an appropriate qualitative design (tradition or genre)
in an attempt to develop conceptual understanding of the logic behind the choices
made. Selecting an appropriate research design is based on the nature of your research
problem and the study’s purpose and research questions. You will then be able to
proceed to plan and develop a study within the framework of the research design,
with the components of the design process aligning with and reflecting characteristic
principles and features.
• Chapter 4 addresses the intertwined concepts of rigor and ethics. The need to focus
more keenly on trustworthiness criteria and ethical practices has grown out of the
recent emergence of needs and awareness brought about by the pandemic and its
aftermath, and the added challenges facing qualitative researchers as they navigate
new and unchartered waters. The chapter also discussed the role of the qualitative
researcher in relation to the dissertation research process, with emphasis on power and
positionality, intersectionality, criticality, and reflexivity.
• The focus of Chapter 5 is on clarifying all key elements and concepts that must be
strongly and clearly aligned throughout the dissertation to ensure methodological
congruence and, therefore, high academic standards. Demonstrating alignment is
extremely important for the dissertation defense when the overall congruence of your
research is finely scrutinized by your committee members to ensure that you have
taken all necessary steps to ensure methodological integrity. As such, be well prepared
for questions in this regard!
Part I • Taking Charge of Yourself and Your Work 3
Figure I.1, Visualizing the Dissertation Process, depicts the cyclical and complex qualitative
dissertation process in its entirety. This figure demonstrates the iterative nature of qualitative
research by illustrating the relationships between and among multiple components. The figure
also sheds light on the continuum of movement between technical (micro), practical (macro),
and conceptual (meta) levels of thinking and explains the inherent hierarchy of activities that
constitute the complex dissertation process.
FIGURE I.1 ■ Visualizing the Dissertation Process
Gap in Knowledge Contribution to Knowledge
REFLEXIVE • INDUCTIVE • DIALOGIC • RECURSIVE • SYSTEMATIC
Read Plan Write
Disseminate Conduct
Findings and Research Topic Literature
Implications Problem Review
Purpose
Research Questions
Develop Conclusions Develop and Refine
Research Design
and Recommendations Study Design
Methodology
Theoretical/Conceptual
Framework Submit Dissertation
Interpret and Fieldwork Proposal and
Synthesize Findings
Obtain IRB Approval
Create Research
Analyze Data and Collect and Manage Sample and Obtain
Report Findings Data Participant and Site
Permissions
Technical Practical Conceptual

(MICRO) (MACRO) (META)
Source: This figure is based on the work of Bloomberg (2009), and first appeared in Bloomberg, L. D. (2010).
Understanding qualitative inquiry: Content and process (Part II). Unpublished manuscript.
1 A COMPLETE DISSERTATION
Viewing the Big Picture
CHAPTER 1 OBJECTIVES
• Provide a cursory glance at the constitution of an entire dissertation.

• Offer a comprehensive outline of all key elements for each section of the
dissertation—that is, a precursor of what is to come, with each element being more
fully developed and explained further along in the book.
• For each key element, explain reason for inclusion, quality markers, and frequent or
common errors.
• Explain the logic and reasoning behind developing a sound and feasible research
proposal.
• Provide an overview of each of the sections that constitute a three-part proposal and
explain how these parts will ultimately be incorporated in the dissertation.
• Outline key criteria or indicators to evaluate the quality of a qualitative dissertation.
OVERVIEW
Following is a road map that briefly outlines the contents of an entire dissertation. This is a
comprehensive overview and as such is helpful in making sure that at a glance you understand
up front the necessary elements that will constitute each section of your dissertation. Reasons
for inclusion, quality markers, and frequent errors are included for each element of the dis-
sertation. This broad overview is a prelude to the steps involved in each of the chapters that are
described in Part II. While certain elements are common to most dissertations, please note that
dissertation requirements vary by institution. Toward that end, students should always consult
with their advisors and committee members to ascertain any details of any of the elements that
might be specific or particular to institutional or departmental requirements. Finally, a rubric
for evaluating a complete qualitative dissertation and a rubric for specifically evaluating the
quality of a literature review are included.
5
6
FRONT MATTER
Order and format of front matter may vary by institution and department.
• Title page
• Copyright page
• Abstract
• Dedication
• Acknowledgments
• Table of contents
• List of tables and figures (only those in chapters, not those in appendices)
Title Page
The title gives a clear and concise description of the topic and/or problem and the scope of the
study. The title page will show the title; the author’s full name; the degree to be conferred; the
university, department, and college in which the degree is earned; and the month and year of
approval. As per APA 7 guidelines, margins for the title page and the entire document are one
inch. Also, the title should be in all capitals.
Students often labor over coming up with a dissertation title at the early stages of dissertation
work. It is a good idea to create what is, in effect, a “working title” as you think about your topic
and hone your problem and to refine this title as your study proceeds. A title generally captures the
major thrust of your research. A working title becomes a guiding focus as you move through your
study. Keeping notes or journaling about how and why your title changes over time is a useful
exercise because it tracks developments in your thinking as your study progresses. A more exten-
sive discussion regarding selecting a final dissertation title is included in Part III of this book.
Reason
A compelling title should clearly and concisely convey the contents of your research manu-
script. The title both guides and reflects the purpose and content of the study, making its
relevance apparent to prospective readers. The title is also important for retrieval purposes,
enabling other researchers to locate it through a literature search.
Quality Markers
A well-crafted title conveys the essence and purpose of the study, including the central phenom-
enon and research participants. The research site or study location is included without compro-
mising any confidential details. The title should also include the type of study and the research
design used (e.g., “A Qualitative Case Study”). Use of keywords will promote proper categoriza-
tion into databases such as ERIC (the Education Resources Information Center), ProQuest,
and Dissertation Abstracts International.
Chapter 1 • A Complete Dissertation: Viewing the Big Picture 7
Frequent Errors
Frequent title errors include the use of trendy, elaborate, nonspecific, or literary language and
grandiose or unrealistic expectations (e.g., “Finally, a Solution to . . .”). Conversely, errors
can also occur when the title is vague and misses important details. Acronyms should not be
included in the title.
Copyright Page
Copyright is the legal right of an owner of created material to control copying and ownership of
that material. Authors of research documents who wish to protect their writing through copy-
right may do so. A student may file a claim to copyright by corresponding directly with the
U.S. Copyright Office (Library of Congress, 101 Independence Avenue S.E., Washington, DC
20559–6000).
The copyright symbol (©) should appear with author’s name and year centered between the
margins on the lower half of the backside of the title page. Below the copyright line, include the
statement “All Rights Reserved.”
© Linda Dale Bloomberg

All Rights Reserved
Abstract
The abstract is a concise summary description of the study, including statement of the problem,
purpose, scope, research tradition, data sources, methodology, key findings, and implications.
The abstract is written after the dissertation is completed and is written from the perspec-
tive of an outside reader (i.e., not “My dissertation examines” but “An examination of . . .”).
The abstract is the only place where you will be writing in the third person—using terms like
the author and the researcher instead of I. Because the research has already been conducted,
the abstract is generally written in the past tense. An exception—the ethnographic present—is
deliberately chosen to place the reader in the middle of the action that occurred during the
study, because in this context, present tense causes these types of written scenes to be more
realistically experienced and life-like. You are writing for as broad an audience as possible, so
it is important to avoid jargon and colloquialisms. Repeat key constructs and phrases natu-
rally. Write in complete sentences. Do not use citations. All details pertaining to writing the
Abstract, including word limit, are laid out in the American Psychological Association (2021).
Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.), and you should also check
with your institution’s format and style requirements. The page numbers before the text are
in Roman numerals. The abstract page is the first page to be numbered, but as iii. All Roman
numerals should be centered between the left and right margins, and one inch from the bottom
of the page. The title of the page, ABSTRACT, should be in all capitals and centered between
the left and right margins and two inches from the top.
8
Reason
The abstract’s inclusion in Dissertation Abstracts International (which mandates a 250-word
limit) makes it possible for other researchers to determine the relevance of this work to their
own studies. Over 95% of American dissertations are included in Dissertation Abstracts
International.
Quality Markers
Marks of quality include conciseness and accuracy. The abstract should also be written in
the third person (active voice without the personal pronouns I and we), making use of active
verbs where possible, and avoiding jargon, colloquialisms, and citations. Generally, the
first sentence of an abstract describes the entire study; subsequent sentences expand on that
description.
Frequent Errors
Inclusion of irrelevant material (i.e., examples, information extraneous to the dissertation
itself), exclusion of necessary material (i.e., problem, purpose, scope, research tradition, data
sources, methodology, key findings, implications), and incorrect format, incomplete sentences,
or use of citations are other frequent errors.
Dedication and Acknowledgments

These pages are optional, although most dissertations include a brief acknowledgment of the
contributions of committee members, colleagues, friends, and family members who have sup-
ported the students’ research. “ACKNOWLEDGMENTS” should be capitalized and should
appear centered between the left and right margins, two inches from the top. Text should begin
two line spaces after “ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.”
The dedication page is separate from the acknowledgments page. If included, the dedica-
tion text should be centered between the left and right margins and between the top and bottom
margins; it should also reflect a professional nature. Do not include the title “DEDICATION”
on the dedication page.
Table of Contents
An outline of the entire dissertation, listing headings and subheadings with their respective
page numbers, the table of contents lists all chapters and major sections within chapters and all
back matter with page numbers.
The heading “TABLE OF CONTENTS” is centered between the left and right margins,
two inches from the top of the page. The listing begins one double space below and even with
the left margin. Leader dots are placed from the end of each listing to the corresponding page
number. All major titles are typed exactly as they appear in the text. When a title or subtitle
exceeds one line, the second and succeeding lines are single-spaced and indented two spaces.
Double spacing is used between major titles and between each major title and its subtitle.
The table of contents may be followed by any of the following, if needed, and any of these
subsequent lists are formatted in the same manner as the table of contents:
• List of tables
• List of figures
• List of illustrations
Reason
The table of contents assists the researcher in organizing the material while promoting acces-
sibility for the reader.
Quality Markers
The headings and subheadings clearly and concisely reflect the material being presented.
Headings and subheadings are parallel grammatically (i.e., “Introduction,” “Review of
Literature” not Introduction, Reviewing the Literature). The headings and subheadings in the
table of contents are worded exactly the same as those headings and subheadings in the text.
Frequent Errors
Frequent errors include lack of parallelism in headings and subheadings, as well as wording in
the table of contents that does not match wording in text.
DISSERTATION CHAPTERS
Order and format of dissertation chapters may vary by institution and department. As men-
tioned throughout this book, you should follow the guidelines as set forth by your institution.
Dissertations can follow various formats, including the traditional five- or six-chapter disserta-
tion, or a three-section dissertation which is now typical of some applied doctoral programs.
Below is a sample outline for a traditional six-chapter dissertation.
1. Introduction
2. Literature review
3. Methodology and Research Approach
4. Findings
5. Analysis, Interpretation, and Synthesis
6. Conclusions and recommendations
7. Final Thoughts or Reflection
10
Chapter 1: Introduction
This chapter makes a case for the significance of the problem, contextualizes the study, and pro-
vides an introduction to its basic components. It should be informative and able to stand alone
as a document.
• Introduction: The introduction includes an overview of the purpose and focus of

the study, why it is significant, how it was conducted, and how it will contribute to
professional knowledge and practice.
• Problem statement: The problem indicates the need for the study, describes the issue
or problem to be studied, and situates this within a broader social context. The PhD
has as its focus a contribution to theory, whereas the EdD focuses on addressing a
researchable problem that has practical applications (i.e., real-world implications).
• Statement of purpose: Describing the research purpose in a logical, explicit manner,
the statement of purpose is the major objective or intent of the study; it enables the
reader to understand the central thrust of the research. Once the problem is clearly
stated, the purpose will then need to evolve to align with the problem. One way of
assuring that is to have one—and only one—wording for the purpose. Once you
settle on the wording, use that exact wording throughout whenever you present the
purpose.
• Research questions: Research questions are directly tied to the purpose. They should
be specific, unambiguously stated, and open-ended. These questions cue readers to the
direction the study will take and help to delineate the scope of the study. In qualitative
studies, research questions are developed at the start of a project and become modified
as the research process proceeds to address emergent issues. It is therefore important
that the researcher remain responsive to the phenomena and contexts of the study so
that the research questions may (and often do) evolve over time.
• Overview of research design: This section outlines the research approach (qualitative
research), research design (qualitative genre or tradition), research setting, population
and sample, instrumentation (data collection tools, as relevant), and methods of data
collection and analysis.
• Rationale and significance: Rationale is the justification for the study presented as a
logical argument. Significance addresses the benefits that may be derived from doing
the study, thereby reaffirming the research purpose.
• Researcher positionality: This section explains the role of the researcher in
planning and conducting the study, with reference to the researcher’s reflexive
stance vis-à-vis their positionality, so that all subjectivities are addressed. Any
relevant prior experience, biases, or assumptions that may potentially impact the
research process or the actual study are explained to ensure full transparency and
research ethics.
• Definition of key terminology: Some terms may be unfamiliar to readers. In addition,

the meanings of certain terms can vary depending on the context, conceptual
framework, or field of study. Making terms explicit adds precision and ensures clarity
of understanding. These terms should be operationally defined or explained; that is, be
sure to make clear how these terms are used in your study.
• Summary: Finally, you will provide a brief summary of the key points made in the
chapter as well as a concluding explanation to delineate the contents of the remaining
chapters in the dissertation so that the reader has an idea of what to expect. Discussion
is concise, precise, and easily understandable.
Reason
The introduction sets the stage for the study and directs readers to the purpose and context of
the dissertation, which must be aligned with the degree program, EdD or PhD.
Quality Markers
The research problem and purpose are clearly aligned with the focus of the degree. As such, for
the PhD, the findings will ultimately be centered on theory as a way of furthering knowledge
in the field or discipline, and for the EdD, the findings will ultimately be focused on address-
ing and resolving a contextual problem that is rooted in applied professional practice. A quality
introduction situates the context and scope of the study and informs the reader of all compo-
nents of the study, including the role and positionality of the researcher. Discussion is con-
cise and precise, and all choices and claims are logically explained. All key elements are clearly
aligned, including the problem, purpose, research questions, and the rationale with regard to
research design, methodology, and methods.
Frequent Errors
Errors occur when the introduction does not clearly reflect the study’s components and/or the
relationship of methodological choices to the proposed research problem and purpose, or where
the discussion is unclear or confusing. A significant limitation also occurs when researcher
reflexivity is insufficient, shallow, or not clearly explained.
Chapter 2: Literature Review

This chapter situates the study in the context of previous research and scholarly material per-
taining to the topic, presents a critical synthesis of empirical literature according to relevant
themes or variables, justifies how the study addresses a gap or problem in the literature, and out-
lines the theoretical or conceptual framework of the study. A dissertation does not merely restate
the available knowledge base of a particular topic but adds to or augments it.
• Introduction: The introduction describes the content, scope, and organization of the
review as well as all the strategies used in the literature search.
12
• Review of literature: This section accomplishes the following:

• It is clearly related to the problem statement, purpose, and research questions;
• It states upfront the bodies of literature that will be covered, and why;
• It reviews primary sources that are mostly recent empirical studies from scholarly
journals and publications, as well as secondary sources;
• It is logically organized by theme or subtopic, from broad to narrow;
• It synthesizes findings across studies and compares and contrasts different research
outcomes, perspectives, or methods;
• It notes gaps, debates, or shortcomings in the literature and provides a rationale for
the study; and
• It provides section summaries.
• Theoretical or conceptual framework: This framework draws on theory, research,
and experience, and examines the relationship among constructs and ideas. As such,
it is the structure or heuristic that guides your research. In essence, the framework
provides the theoretical or conceptual basis for development of the study and analysis
of findings. When appropriate, a graphic depiction of the model is included, visually
illustrating the relationships between concepts, ideas, or variables to be studied.
• Summary: A comprehensive synthesis of the literature review should complete this section.
This synthesis serves to integrate key themes and issues emanating from the review.
Reason
This chapter provides a strong theoretical or conceptual basis for the dissertation by analyz-
ing and synthesizing a comprehensive selection of appropriate related bodies of literature. The
review of literature should build a logical framework for the research, justify the study by con-
ceptualizing gaps in the literature, and demonstrate how the study will contribute to existing
knowledge. The review serves to situate the dissertation within the context of current ongoing
conversations in the field. The theoretical or conceptual framework guides the research and
plays a major role in analysis of findings.
Quality Markers
A comprehensive and thoughtful selection of resources (scholarly peer-reviewed literature)
directly related to the study’s purpose and background, not the full scope of the field, is con-
sidered a mark of a quality literature review. Importantly, the literature is synthesized rather
than just summarized. All relevant primary sources and empirical research studies are cited
(these are preferable to secondary sources, which are interpretations of the work of others). The
writer adopts a critical perspective in discussing the work of others and provides a clear analysis
of all available related research. Relevant literature is critiqued, not duplicated, and there is a
clear connection between the purpose of this study and the resources included. The role and
function of the theoretical or conceptual framework are clear: The framework clearly draws on
theory, research, and/or experience, providing theoretical or conceptual coherence to the
research. Alignment among the framework and the study’s problem, purpose, and research
questions is clear. Discussion throughout is concise, precise, and easily understandable. In addi-
tion, there is evidence of the correct use of American Psychological Association (APA) format,
citations, and references throughout.
Frequent Errors
Frequent errors include insubstantial breadth of review (i.e., insufficient number or range of
resources; failure to include relevant primary sources); and insubstantial depth of review (i.e.,
use of nonscholarly or non-peer-reviewed material; inability to demonstrate clear understand-
ing of resources). Another error is that the review reads more like a catalog of sources than a syn-
thesis and integration of relevant literature. There is also a tendency to eliminate literature that
contradicts or questions the findings of the dissertation’s study. Other errors include incorrect
or insufficient citation of sources, resulting in accidental plagiarism, and presentation of a dia-
grammatic theoretical or conceptual framework with no accompanying narrative explanation.
Chapter 3: Qualitative Methodology, Research Design, and Methods

This chapter situates the study within the qualitative research approach and also within a partic-
ular methodology (qualitative tradition or genre) and provides a rationale for that approach and
methodology. The chapter provides a detailed description of all aspects of the design and proce-
dures of the study, including the research setting, population, and sample, and describes all rel-
evant data collection and analysis methods that have been used. Essentially, this chapter should
include sufficient information so that the study could be replicated. Traditionally this chapter is
presented as an overview of each area including appropriate citations from academic literature:
• Introduction: The introduction restates the research purpose and describes the
organization of the chapter.
• Rationale for research design: This section describes the research approach
(qualitative research) and the research methodology (qualitative genre or tradition)
with a rationale for their suitability regarding addressing the research questions and
citing appropriate methodological literature.
• Research setting and/or context: This section describes and justifies selection of the
research setting, thereby providing the history, background, and issues germane to the
problem.
• Research population, sample, and data sources: This section addresses the
following:
• It explains and justifies the sample used and how participants were selected
(including target population and sampling procedures);
• It describes the characteristics and size of the sample and provides other pertinent
demographic information; and
• It outlines ethical considerations pertaining to participants, shedding light on how
rights of participants were protected, with reference to conventions of research
ethics and the IRB process.
14
• Data collection methods: This section describes and justifies all data collection
methods, tools, instruments, and procedures, including how, when, where, and by
whom data were collected. In this section, there will be a subheading for each way data
will be collected.
• Data analysis methods: This section describes and justifies all methods and tools
used for analysis of data (manual and/or computational). In this section, you will need
to clearly and accurately explain (a) how the data will be organized and managed and
(b) the type of analysis conducted, including all the steps that occurred within the
analysis, including any data analysis software if used.
• Issues of trustworthiness: This section includes two subareas: (1) the major literature
you are drawing on to enhance trustworthiness; and (2) the trustworthiness
procedures you will conduct in this area. For the first area, qualitative researchers
make use of the four criteria put forth by Lincoln and Guba (1985), which include
credibility, dependability, confirmability, and transferability. The second area includes
the specific procedures used to address each of the four trustworthiness criteria, such as
triangulation, member checks, reflexivity, and peer review.
• Ethical considerations: As researchers, we are morally bound to conduct our research
in a manner that minimizes potential harm to those involved in the study. This section
of the chapter includes a statement that either you have received permission to conduct
the study from the university research ethics board or IRB, or you are in the process of
applying for permission. Accompanying documents will be included in the appendixes.
Be sure to consider and address any as all areas may present potential ethical issues.
• Researcher positionality: Since description, understanding, interpretation, and
communication are the primary goals of qualitative research; the researcher is the
primary instrument for data collection and data analysis. Qualitative research is
based on exploration and discovery with the goal of giving “voice” to the research
participants. The strongest influence on the research process, including participant
reactivity as well as the study’s outcomes, starts and ends with the researcher. It is
therefore imperative to consider the ways in which your positionality impacts the
research process, and this could occur on multiple levels.
• Limitations and delimitations: This section identifies potential weaknesses of
the study and the scope of the study; that is, the external conditions that restrict or
constrain the study’s scope or potential outcome. Limitations are external conditions
that restrict or constrain the study’s scope or may affect its outcome. Limitations
represent the inherent weaknesses or flaws given the research design, and which can
threaten the trustworthiness of the study in one or more ways. Delimitations are those
conditions or parameters that the researcher intentionally imposes in order to limit the
scope of a study (e.g., using participants of certain ages, genders, or groups; conducting
the research in a single setting). These are the boundaries set by the researcher, often
serving to increase the feasibility of the study.
• Summary: A comprehensive summary overview covers all the sections of this chapter,
recapping and highlighting all the important aspects of the study’s methodology.
Discussion is concise, precise, and easily understandable. Remember, you do not want
to lose the reader!
Reason
The study is the basis for the conclusions and recommendations. In many ways, it is what makes
the difference between a dissertation and other forms of extended writing. A clear description
of the research sample, setting, methodology, methods of data collection and data analysis,
limitations and delimitations, and acknowledgment of ethical and trustworthiness issues pro-
vide readers with a basis for accepting (or not accepting) the conclusions and recommendations
that follow.
Quality Markers
A quality study achieves the purposes outlined in the introduction’s research problem and
research questions. It is clearly evident that there is strong alignment between the research meth-
odology (qualitative research), research design (qualitative tradition or genre), and methods of
data collection and analysis used in this study. Qualitative thematic analysis is a structured,
step-by-step process that is designed for flexibility and ease of adoption, yet there are issues
that can prevent a successful thematic analysis. The first is absence of conducting any actual
analysis and engaging in a presentation of the themes without digging into the data by way of
coding to produce an analytic narrative. Without thorough engagement in data analysis, the
findings cannot present an argument to support the research questions. Weakly documented
analysis can also occur if the data does not clearly support the identified themes or if there is
too much overlap between the themes so that a clear story cannot be adequately developed. To
ensure that analysis has indeed been thoroughly conducted, it is essential that each step in the
analytic process—including both coding and theme development—be clearly and accurately
documented and explained. The four trustworthiness criteria and the way each of these was
addressed, as well as all relevant information regarding research ethics and the ways in which
ethical considerations were addressed, is clearly articulated and presented. Researcher position-
ality is thoughtfully and comprehensively addressed. As appropriate, the narrative is accom-
panied by clear and descriptive visuals (charts, figures, tables). The chapter includes sufficient
relevant detail so the study could be adequately replicated. Discussion throughout is concise,
precise, and easily understandable.
Frequent Errors
Errors occur when data are not clearly presented, the study is not applicable to purposes out-
lined in the introduction, and methods of gathering and analyzing data and trustworthiness,
ethical, and researcher positionality issues are insufficient or not clearly explained, where align-
ment between the study’s key components is not clear or apparent, or where the discussion is
unclear or confusing.
16
Chapter 4: Findings
This chapter is the fruit of the dissertation, where all your hard work and that of the participants
comes to bear. This also means that Chapter 4 is often much too long. The point of this chapter
is not to write such a lengthy piece that no one will finish reading it. Instead, after conducting
careful analysis, first highlight the data directly addressing the research questions first. Then,
if warranted, a portrayal of data relevant yet unanticipated by the research questions may be
discussed. Qualitative research is, to its core, about sharing and respecting other voices. This
chapter organizes and reports the study’s main findings, including the presentation and repre-
sentation of relevant data. Findings are written up in different ways depending on the qualita-
tive research tradition or genre adopted.
Introduction: The introduction provides a brief summary of and rationale for how data
were analyzed. It describes the organization of the chapter according to research questions,
conceptual framework, or thematic categories.
Findings: These build logically from the problem, research questions, and research design
and qualitative methodology (tradition or genre).
• Findings are presented to show clearly how these address the study’s research
problem and research questions.
• Findings are presented in clear narrative form using relevant verbatim quotes
and “thick description.” Narrative data are connected and synthesized through
substantive explanatory text and visual displays, if applicable. Some tables and
figures may be deferred to the appendices.
• Headings and subheadings are used to guide the reader through the findings
according to research questions, themes, or other appropriate organizational
schemes.
• Rather than being ignored or overlooked, inconsistent, discrepant, or unexpected
findings are noted with discussion of possible alternative explanations.
Summary: This section explains in summary form what the chapter has identified and pre-
pares the reader for the chapters to follow by offering some foreshadowing as to the intent
and content of the upcoming chapters.
Reason
The challenge of qualitative analysis of data lies in making sense of large amounts of material,
reducing raw data, identifying what is significant, and constructing a framework for com-
municating the essence of what the data reveal. The researcher, as storyteller, is able to tell
a story that is vivid and interesting, and at the same time accurate and credible by authenti-
cally portraying the voices of the research participants. This chapter is the foundation for the
analysis and interpretation of findings, conclusions, and recommendations that will appear
in the next and forthcoming chapters.
Quality Markers
Markers of a quality findings chapter include clear, complete, and credible representation of
the data that have emerged as a result of the study and effective use of graphs, charts, and other
visual representations to illustrate the data. The study’s findings are clearly aligned with the
research problem and purpose, and provide a direct response to each of the research questions.
Findings are presented objectively, without speculation—that is, free from researcher bias. If
relevant, any prior assumptions are addressed as necessary. Presentation and structure of this
chapter are neat and precise, and to ensure methodological integrity are directly aligned with
the study’s qualitative design (tradition or genre). Discussion throughout is concise, precise, and
easily understandable.
Frequent Errors
Errors occur when study findings are manipulated to fit expectations from research questions,
when researcher bias and/or subjectivity is apparent, and/or when the presentation of findings
is not aligned with the study’s chosen design (tradition or genre). Other frequent errors include
unclear or confusing discussion, poor use of visual representation, and findings that are ignored,
overlooked, or are overly or inaccurately generalized.
Chapter 5: Analysis, Interpretation, and Synthesis of Findings

This chapter synthesizes and discusses the findings in light of the study’s research questions, lit-
erature review, and conceptual framework. Finding patterns and themes is one result of analy-
sis. Finding ambiguities and inconsistencies is another. Think of this chapter as the story your
data is telling, with the discussion making connections to the literature. Overall, this chapter
offers the researcher an opportunity to reflect thoroughly on the study’s findings and the practi-
cal and theoretical implications thereof. Some institutions or programs may require that this
chapter is combined and incorporated with the previous chapter so that presentation of findings
and analysis of findings are presented together in one chapter. This requirement should there-
fore be addressed as necessary.
Introduction: The introduction provides an overview of the chapter’s organization and

content.
Discussion: This section provides an in-depth interpretation, analysis, and synthesis of the
results and/or findings.
• Analysis is a multilayered approach. Seeking emergent patterns among findings
can be considered a first round of analysis. Examining whether the literature
corresponds with, contradicts, and/or deepens interpretations constitutes a second
layer of interpretation.
• Issues of trustworthiness (credibility, dependability, confirmability, and
transferability) are incorporated as these relate to and are addressed throughout the
analysis process.
18
• Discussion may include interpretation of any findings that were not anticipated
when the study was first described in previous chapters. Establishing credibility
means that you have engaged in the systematic search for rival or competing
explanations and interpretations.
• This section restates the study’s limitations and discusses transferability of the
study’s findings to broader populations or other settings and contexts.
Reason
Transparency of the analysis means that the reader is able to follow the researcher’s reasoning,
and is provided the necessary information for accepting their interpretations—or challenging
them. Repeatability of an analysis means that the process of analysis and interpretation have
been presented so clearly that another researcher applying them would reach similar conclu-
sions. One may identify ways of improving the transparency and repeatability of qualitative
analysis and the report (a) by dividing the process of interpretation into steps; and (b) making
explicit all decisions and choices made in the process. The process of data analysis and interpre-
tation of findings can never be fully formalized, and this is not the goal of qualitative research.
It is above all a question of working step by step so that the process in its entirety can be made as
visible as possible to both the researcher and the reader.
Quality Markers
Analysis is essentially about searching for patterns and themes that emerge from the findings.
Interpretation that is thoughtful and compelling provides the opportunity to make a worth-
while contribution to your academic discipline. This constitutes the necessary synthesis that this
chapter calls for. The goal is to discover what meaning you as the researcher can make of them by
comparing your findings both within and across groups, and with those of other studies. There
is, however, no clear and accepted single set of conventions for the analysis and interpretation
of qualitative data, but there are guidelines with respect to each of the qualitative designs (tradi-
tions or genres). This chapter must of necessity reflect a deep understanding of what lies beneath
the findings—that is, essentially what those findings mean. Interpretation is presented system-
atically and is related to the literature, theoretical or conceptual framework, and interpretive
themes or patterns that have emerged. A key characteristic of qualitative research is willingness
to tolerate ambiguity. As such, examining issues from all angles in order to demonstrate the most
plausible explanations is an indication of high-level analysis. Integrity as a researcher is given cre-
dence by inclusion of all information, even that which challenges assumptions and expectations.
Frequent Errors
Frequent errors include analysis that is simple or shallow. Other errors include lack of synthesis, no
clear connection to other research literature or theory, questionable credibility and/or plausibility of
explanations is questionable, and when the chapter is poorly structured, presented, and articulated.
Chapter 6: Conclusions and Recommendations

This chapter presents a set of concluding statements and recommendations. Conclusions are
assertions based on findings and must therefore be warranted by the findings. With respect
to each finding, you are asking yourself, “Knowing what I now know, what conclusion can I
draw?” Recommendations are the application of those conclusions. In other words, you are now
saying to yourself, “Knowing what I now know to be true, I recommend that . . .”
• Conclusions are based on an integration of the study findings, analysis, interpretation,

and synthesis.
• Concluding statements end the dissertation with strong, clear, concise “takeaway
messages” for the reader.
• Conclusions are not the same as findings; neither are conclusions the same as
interpretations. Rather, conclusions are essentially conclusive statements of what you
now know, having done this research, that you did not know before.
• Conclusions must be logically tied to one another. There should be consistency among
your conclusions; none of them should be at odds with any of the others.
• Recommendations are actionable; that is, they suggest implications for policy and
practice based on the findings, providing specific action planning and next steps.
• Recommendations support the belief that scholarly work initiates as many questions as
it answers, thus opening the way for further practice and research.
• Recommendations for research describe topics that require closer examination and that
may generate new questions for further study.
Reason
This chapter reflects the contribution the researcher has made to the knowledge, practice, and/
or policy in the field of study. In many ways, this chapter provides endorsement for the research-
er’s entrance into the ranks of the body of scholars in the field.
Quality Markers
Clearly stated and focused concluding statements reflect an integration of the study find-
ings, analysis, interpretation, and synthesis. Recommendations must have implications for
policy and practice, as well as for further research, and must be doable. The reasonableness
of a recommendation depends on its being logically aligned with and clearly derived from
the findings, both content and context specific, and most important, practical and capable of
implementation.
20
Frequent Errors
Overgeneralization of importance or relevance sometimes leads to grandiose statements. Other fre-
quent errors include the lack of a clear relationship to the review of literature or recommendations
that have no apparent usefulness for practice and future research; that is, they are not “doable.”
Epilogue, Final Thoughts, or Reflection

This final section, which may or may not be required, offers the researcher an opportunity to
reflect on the overall process, review the findings that have emerged, and share any new learn-
ing and insights that they have developed over the course of the research and writing process.
Questions to ask oneself include: How do you personally value the research experience? What
are the lessons you have learned from conducting the study? What might you do differently
were you to conduct a study of this nature again? How and in what ways may your positional-
ity have impacted the research process of the study’s findings? What insights, knowledge, and
inspiration have you derived from conducting this study? What steps will you take to actualize
your study’s findings and recommendations?
BACK MATTER
Appendixes
Appendixes contain all research instruments used, as well as any relevant additional materials
that have been referred to in the dissertation manuscript, including all data collection tools,
sample interview transcripts, sample coding schemes, and charts. Each item that is included
as an appendix is assigned a letter or number and listed in the table of contents, as per APA
requirements.
References
The list of references includes all works cited in the dissertation in alphabetical order by author
and in proper APA format, which is currently the 7th edition. All sources that are quoted, sum-
marized, or paraphrased, as well as all other sources of information (text, visual, electronic,
personal correspondence, etc.), must be correctly cited using APA parenthetical citation format
within the dissertation. All sources must also be correctly listed on the references page. Proper
citation serves several purposes: This attributes work fairly to the appropriate authors, situates
the dissertation within the context of the body of literature in the field, and provides readers
with a quick resource for locating and accurately accessing all sources that were used.
THE DISSERTATION PROPOSAL: A PRECURSOR

TO THE DISSERTATION MANUSCRIPT
You may be thinking, “How do I get to there?” A necessary first step in the dissertation process is
developing a research proposal. A completed proposal is the point at which you present and justify
your research ideas to gain approval from a faculty committee to proceed with your study. Once
your proposal has been approved, you can apply for IRB approval, and once received you will
be ready to embark on the research, and so this represents a vital step in the dissertation process.
Approval of the proposal follows a specific format and approval process, which can differ among
institutions, and doctoral students should be aware of the process early on in their dissertation
journey. While confirmed approval of the proposal to proceed with the study is always required,
some universities may require a formal defense of the proposal, but many typically do not.
As Marshall et al. (2022) point out, when writing a proposal for a qualitative research study,
three interrelated concerns need to be addressed: “do-ability” (that is, considerations of feasibil-
ity, including access to the research site, access to potential data collection tools, obtaining con-
sent from site and institutional IRBs, obtaining consent from potential research participants);
“should-do-ability” (that is, consideration of potential significance and value of the proposed
study, and ability to uphold all required ethical standards); and want-to do-ability (that is, con-
siderations of sustained and sustaining interest). The concept of feasibility is addressed in greater
detail in Chapter 6 of this book. In essence, a well-planned and logical proposal should indicate
(a) whether the research design is clearly explained, credible, and achievable; (b) why others should
be interested in or find value in the proposed research; and (c) whether you as the researcher are
capable and willing to conduct the proposed research in a responsible and ethical manner.
The proposal is a well-thought-out written action plan that identifies (a) a narrowly defined
and clearly written problem statement; (b) a purpose statement that describes how the problem
will be addressed; (c) research questions that are tied to the purpose, and when answered will shed
light on the problem; (d) a review of the literature and relevant research and theory to determine
what is already known about the topic; and (e) data collection and data analysis methods. Rather
than merely describe specifications of what you will do, a qualitative proposal should present a
clear argument that explains and justifies the logic of your study. In effect, a dissertation proposal
is a “working document” on the way to the production of a dissertation. Although a proposal is
mandatory, it also is the means to obtain feedback from advisors before implementing your study,
and this feedback will be useful in improving the proposed study. Typically, you will write multiple
drafts of your proposal. Based on the feedback you receive, you will continue to work toward an
increasingly more integrated presentation of the different components guiding the proposed study.
The approved proposal describes a study that, if conducted competently and completely,
should provide the basis for an extensive research report (the dissertation) that will meet all the
standards of acceptability. However, remember that design flexibility is one of the hallmarks
of qualitative research. Although you are expected to make a convincing and persuasive case
for the research in the proposal, and while the proposal is a contractual document, it is also a
working document—a preliminary and evolving outline of the research plan. Therefore, as the
research progresses, you should remain open to the possibility that some changes or modifica-
tions will, in all likelihood, have to be made along the way.
PROPOSAL COMPONENTS
At the outset, please note that while most institutions will approach the proposal and disser-
tation in common ways, at the same time there are differences in terms of the organization
and presentation, and distinct differences in terms of what and how qualitative language and
22
terminology are used. This book presents information as guidelines that are meant to be flexible
per institutional expectations and requirements and are subject to modification depending on
your institution, department, and program.
Some universities make specific demands regarding the format of proposals, whereas others
provide more general guidelines for form and content. You will no doubt have to attend care-
fully to the variations that reflect the expectations and requirements of your particular institu-
tion. The chapters in Part II of this book provide more elaboration on each of these sections. At
the proposal stage, you will be proposing your methodology as clearly as possible. The goal is to
provide as much clarity for the dissertation committee as possible. Once you have conducted the
study, you will go back and update anything that occurred in the process that was different from
what you anticipated, providing examples when possible. Therefore, a proposal is written in the
future tense because you are proposing research that has not yet taken place. Once you have car-
ried out your study and proceeded to write up your dissertation, be sure to change your writing
to the past tense. Refer to Appendix Z, Dissertation Manuscript Cheat Sheet.
The first three chapters as outlined here will apply to the dissertation proposal:
Introduction to the Study

The introductory chapter includes the context or background for your study, the problem
statement, the purpose of the study, your research questions, the research design, researcher
assumptions and expertise, significance of and rationale for the study, and explanation of key
terminology. All of these components are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 6 of this book.
As you are developing your proposal, ask yourself two key questions:
• Will this proposed study fit best with a quantitative or a qualitative methodology, and
why?
• Then, within those two broad methodologies, what type of research design (qualitative
tradition or genre) will be most suitable?
The introductory chapter of the proposal serves three major purposes. First, it orients your
readers by providing them with the context leading to the problem that you are addressing, the
researcher’s “positionality” with regard the research context and research participants, and the
overall purpose of your inquiry. Second, it identifies your research questions and the research
approach you are adopting. Third, it begins to frame the study by explaining what has led you
to focus on your topic, conveying a personal orientation as well as a more general sense of the
rationale and significance of the study. In summary, the introduction sets the stage for explain-
ing and justifying the research. It should draw readers into your inquiry while orienting them to
its nature, purpose, and potential value.
Literature Review
Developing a scholarly literature review utilizing academic writing is a vital component of your
research process and of your dissertation. The literature review chapter identifies what is already
known about your topic and research problem. Literature is thoroughly and comprehensively
reviewed to identify other relevant research so that you can situate your work within the current
body of literature, as well as draw from existing literature to inform your study. The literature
review helps develop the argument for your study by showing how your study is part of a broader
conversation. In order for a literature review to support your research, you will need to examine
and articulate the various aspects of relevant peer-reviewed literature in an integrated and criti-
cal way, making central connections and asking the kinds of questions that will shed new light
on key issues related to your study.
Following the review, you will present a well-thought-out theoretical or conceptual frame-
work, which is designed to guide your study and situate it within its appropriate theoretical,
conceptual, and practical contexts. Development of this framework is an evolving, iterative, and
reflexive process that integrates all aspects of the study in an explicit and transparent way. The
categories of this framework are tied directly to the research questions. These are the same cat-
egories under which your data are sorted. The conceptual framework is not an abstract model,
but rather, a working analytic tool. These categories continue to evolve and become further
refined as data emerge.
To establish a solid framework for doctoral study, you are required to discuss the theory (or
theories) or concept that support each of the presented constructs in your aligned problem and
purpose statements and research questions. As a doctoral-level candidate, you are expected to
include a cohesive, meaningful, and comprehensive conceptual framework in your dissertation
proposal. The proposal should include an overview of the broad conceptual and/or theoreti-
cal area under which the research falls and discuss how the proposed research fits within the
larger body of research in the field. Discussion specifically includes important issues, perspec-
tives, and, if appropriate, controversies and any theoretical tensions in the field. Your discussion
should reflect knowledge and familiarity with both historical and current literature. In develop-
ing your framework, ask yourself several important questions:
1. Is the theoretical or conceptual material directly relevant to my topic?

2. Are the seminal and contemporary theoretical or conceptual sources appropriately
described, supported, and cited?
3. Does the section clearly reflect consideration of my proposed study’s theoretical or
conceptual assumptions and principles? Have I considered these assumptions and
principles from several angles?
4. Is there any theoretical controversy or problematic issue that I may have missed or not
adequately discussed?
5. Is the theoretical or conceptual framework presented in a cohesive, integrated, and
understandable way?
When the answer to each of these questions is yes, it is likely that the framework for the pro-
posed study is appropriate and comprehensive. If the answer is no to any of the questions, you
24
will need to rework this section of your proposal to address any limitations. The theoretical or
conceptual framework is, in our experience, one of the most misunderstood pieces in the disser-
tation puzzle and is a source of anxiety and frustration for many. The expectations and require-
ments pertaining to your literature review, and the development of an appropriate theoretical or
conceptual framework, are discussed in detail in Chapter 7 of this book. Appendix B, Rubric for
Evaluating a Literature Review, is a useful tool to check your work.
Methodology
The methodology chapter of the proposal helps further develop the argument for your study by
showing how and in what ways you will go about conducting your study. This chapter includes
an overview of the research design, information needed and sources of data, a proposed research
sample, plans and methods for data collection and data analysis, and a rationale for the meth-
ods to be used. The strategies you intend to employ for both collecting and analyzing data
are determined by the particular qualitative design (tradition or genre) that you have adopted
for the study; thus, in your discussion, you need to demonstrate these connections in order to
establish methodological congruence. In addition, you will need to explain how you intend to
deal with issues of trustworthiness. This includes discussion around credibility (which paral-
lels validity in quantitative research), dependability (which parallels reliability in quantitative
research), confirmability (which parallels objectivity in quantitative research), and transferabil-
ity (which parallels generalizability in quantitative research). You will also need to include ethi-
cal considerations and your plans for dealing with these, as well as an explanation regarding any
anticipated limitations and delimitations related to the proposed study, and realistic ways of
addressing these issues.
While research proposals do not necessitate the collection of data, it is recommended
that you include in your proposal intentions to conduct any pilot studies, which will consti-
tute preliminary findings in advance of your actual research. A pilot study or pilot project is
a small-scale preliminary study conducted in order to evaluate feasibility (time, cost, or any
potential adverse events) in an attempt to improve upon the study design prior to the actual
study being conducted. The pilot study is a useful basis for making some initial decisions in
designing research. Remember, pilot studies that involve human participants will require the
same scrutiny as full-scale research projects and must be submitted for IRB review and approval.
It is important to remember, therefore, that pilot studies, if included in the proposal, will only
be conducted after the proposal has been approved and IRB permission secured. Details regard-
ing IRB protocol and requirements are discussed further on in this chapter. Please note that,
in contrast to pilot studies, field tests involve asking peers or colleagues for feedback and input
regarding a proposed research instrument or tool while you are still developing the study and do
not require IRB approval, as they do not actually involve collecting data.
Additional Elements to Consider in Developing a Proposal

In addition to the three parts of the proposal outlined previously, you will need to develop a clear
title, a tentative chapter outline for the dissertation, and a projected timeline for your research.
Both of the latter elements illustrate that you are able to plan and think ahead. The proposed
chapter outline indicates logic, structure, and clarity. The timeline will convince the reader that
you have carefully considered all of the tasks involved and the time needed to complete each
task. The timeline will help the reader (and you) judge the feasibility of the proposed study and
may suggest implications for logistics and practicality that might not be immediately apparent
in the body of the proposal. In addition, you will need to attach as appendixes all necessary and
relevant information, such as a copy of site permission documents (if any), consent form with
a clear template that outlines the steps you will take to protect research participants, projected
instruments and forms to be used in pilot studies, and any other appropriate documents that
may pertain to the proposed study.
Of course, proper use of references and citations is necessary, too. It is important to note
that citations from the literature constitute the beginning of a more comprehensive list of refer-
ences that is continuously being developed as you proceed through each chapter and will cul-
minate in a final set of references at the end of the dissertation. Attention to updating your list
of references throughout your study is indeed a critical discipline in carrying out research. This
task can be accomplished manually, but should you prefer, there are also software programs
that can assist in creating a list of bibliographic references including EndNote (www.endnote.
com), ProCite (www.procite.com), and Ref Works (www.refworks.com). These programs can
be thought of as an online filing cabinet and can be used to store citation information and for-
mat bibliographies in APA style.
Importantly, a proposal requires a logical structure. The conceptual and methodological
elements of the proposal need to make sense in relation to one another, and the writing must
be clear and concise. Think carefully about the relationship between the various parts of your
proposal and how they are aligned. This keen sense of interrelatedness not only provides your
readers with a cohesive picture of the proposed project but also helps you, as the researcher and
writer, to conceptualize the entire process involved.
It should be pointed out that this understanding of structural interrelationship, while imply-
ing clear definition and cohesiveness, does not necessitate a rigid framework. It is vital that your
proposal preserves the design flexibility that is characteristic of qualitative research. Qualitative
researchers need to remain flexible and attuned to emergent data. In this regard, you should
expect that, before it evolves toward its final form, your proposal will most likely undergo many
drafts as you refine your thinking. The thinking, writing, and rewriting involved in develop-
ing a sound proposal will help you to develop a logic and a plan that will continue to guide and
direct your research. As such, the time and energy spent in writing a clear and persuasive pro-
posal that is carefully explained, theoretically sound, methodologically thoughtful, and practi-
cally grounded will reap rewards throughout the dissertation endeavor.
You may have heard the term elevator speech. This refers to your ability to clearly and con-
cisely answer the question “What is your study about?” If somebody asks you this, for example
in an elevator, you would not have very long to explain the essence or gist of your study. This is
where you have to be crystal clear about your research problem and purpose statement, as these
convey the study’s context, rationale, goals, and objectives. Preparing this speech at the proposal
stage also provides you with clarity about what it is you are seeking to achieve with your study
26
and reinforces the study’s rationale and significance, and ultimate value. Table 1.1, Dissertation
Proposal Alignment Worksheet, can be used to develop a 1- or 2-page overview which can become
your elevator speech. You will see as you proceed that alignment is critical at every step of the
dissertation process. This table walks you through an initial exercise, helping you to begin to
understand the importance of alignment and to practice achieving it. It is recommended that
you work with your dissertation chair to refine the components of this worksheet based on
their feedback and develop a well-aligned and feasible dissertation proposal. Be prepared to
read much about the concepts of both alignment and feasibility throughout this book! Begin by
completing as much of the worksheet as you can. If you are in the early stages of your program
focus on just the first few rows, and as you read and review more and more literature you will
be better positioned to fully complete the worksheet. If you are stuck and cannot decide on
a research problem, try developing a few different alignment worksheets to help clarify your
thinking so you can settle on a research problem that is relevant and timely, and one that reso-
nates most with you both personally and professionally.
TABLE 1.1 ■ Dissertation Proposal Alignment Worksheet
Elevator Speech Components Questions to stimulate critical thinking
Topic (1-2 sentences): Ask yourself: Is this the broad overall area that you are interested in.
Working title: Ask yourself: Does this title convey the central idea of the proposed
study? Are major key words included?
The problem is (____), which Check yourself: The problem is not that there is a lack of literature
results in (____). or research. The problem is that we want to develop a better
understanding of an issue, experience, or phenomenon out there in
*Further instruction is provided below
the world.
The purpose of this study is to Check yourself: The purpose must address the problem. Does this
(____): sentence flow logically from the problem statement above? Are you
consistently using the same words or terminology you used in the
sentence above?
Research Questions Check yourself: These are questions intended to guide the study.
These are not hypotheses or interview questions.
1. (____)
2. (____)
3. (____)
**Further instruction is provided

below
This study is significant because Ask yourself: What may happen if this problem is not addressed or
(____): resolved? This speaks to the rationale of the proposed study; that is,
the overall value and worth of the study.
The target population my study’s Ask yourself: What is the broader group of people from which I will
findings will apply to (____): create a sample?
TABLE 1.1 ■ Dissertation Proposal Alignment Worksheet (Continued)
Elevator Speech Components Questions to stimulate critical thinking
My research sample will include Ask yourself: Who am I seeking to include in this proposed qualitative
(____): study? Remember, you will create a purposeful sample based on
specific inclusion criteria.
Data collected will be (____): Ask yourself: What kinds of data do I need (demographic, perceptual,
theoretical)? Will I be collecting data directly from participants? Will
you need any archival data?
Data collection methods Ask yourself: Are these considered qualitative data collection tools?
Will these tools be able to provide me with the information I need?
1. (____)
2. (____)
Definition of Terminology Define any terms that are aligned to the title or research problem.
These terms are essential to be able to search for your study.
1. (____)
Definitions are needed only for terminology that is not commonly
2. (____) used and/or understood.
3. (____)
*Prompts for the Problem Statement:

• What is the actual real-world problem as documented in the literature?
• What happens if this problem is not addressed or resolved?
• Can you substantiate the problem with literature and/or previous studies?
**Prompts for Research Questions:

• Develop relevant questions to address the research problem. Including too many or extraneous
questions leads to lack of alignment and unnecessary complication regarding analysis of findings.
• Alignment will be achieved if you can highlight the link between the key words in the problem,
purpose, and research questions. Use a highlighter and try this out!
• Be open to changing or revising your research questions as you delve deeper into the literature.
EVALUATING THE QUALITY OF A QUALITATIVE DISSERTATION
Right upfront it is critical to acknowledge that there are differences between the evaluation of
qualitative and quantitative research. The replicability of a qualitative study cannot be formu-
lated as a problem of reliability, and the accuracy of a qualitative interpretation cannot be com-
pared to the explanatory power of a statistical model. A high-quality qualitative dissertation is
one that is (a) well-articulated and demonstrates high academic writing skills; (b) demonstrates
methodological integrity/alignment and ethical practices; and (c) makes a significant contribu-
tion to the knowledge base of a field or area of specialization. Tracy (2010) proposed a series of
criteria or “key markers” for evaluating the quality of qualitative research, including worthy
topic, rich rigor, sincerity, credibility, resonance, significant contribution, ethics, and meaning-
ful coherence—maintaining that “this eight-point conceptualization [of qualitative inquiry]
28
offers a useful pedagogical model and provides a common language of qualitative best practices
that can be recognized as integral by a variety of audiences” (p. 837). Tracy goes on to state that
Perhaps the most controversial part of this conceptualization is the notion of universal
criteria for qualitative quality. However I believe that we need not be so tied to episte-
mology or ontology (or the philosophy of the world) that we cannot agree on several
common end goals of good qualitative research (p. 850).
Similarly, O’Reilly and Kiyimba (2015) propose adhering to a set of core guiding quality
principles for both designing and evaluating the quality of qualitative work:
• Transparency (auditability, rigor, and credibility)

• Reflexivity (being aware of the constructed nature of the findings and the impact of the
researcher)
• Transferability (the extent to which the study could relate to other contexts)
• Ethicality (significance of contribution, risk and benefit assessment, and worthiness of
topic)
• Integrity (epistemological congruence, authenticity, sampling adequacy)
While suggesting that these are useful guiding principles, these authors propose that it is essen-
tial that researchers from each methodological framework explicate how these general principles
might be applied to their specific context and consider whether particular additional markers
are necessary to evaluate work in their area.
Levitt et al. (2021) articulate principles and practices that support methodological integrity
in relation to critical qualitative research, and offer criteria for evaluating the rigor and qual-
ity of critical research. Critical qualitative research is characterized by a view of subjectivity
as embedded in society and as intrinsically influenced by cultural, contextual, and historical
forces related to social power and oppression. As these authors suggest central to methodologi-
cal integrity are the two core concepts of fidelity and utility, which guide the selection and
evaluation of methods and procedures (Levitt et al., 2021).
• Fidelity is explained as “the ability to represent the phenomenon under study in a
manner that reflects an intimate understanding of the complexities and variety of
experiences and practices in the phenomenon under study” (Levitt et al., 2021 p. 360).
Fidelity in critical analysis is enhanced when researchers develop awareness of how
their own perspectives and assumptions not only serve to increase sensitivity, but how
and in what ways these might also unduly influence analysis.
• Utility is explained as “the effectiveness of the research design and methods, and their
synergistic relationship in achieving the study goals as understood in relation to its
epistemological values” (Levitt et al., 2021 p. 360). Critical research is conducted with
the goal of raising social consciousness, demonstrating the need for social change,
furthering liberation goals, and/or advocating for specific policy changes. Utility
is advanced when researchers produce findings that can meaningfully advance the
critical agenda, and when difference is critically explored and diversity within the data
is coherently represented (Levitt et al., 2021).
Now that you have some idea of the core elements that are required for the various sections
of your research proposal and the final dissertation, two rubrics are included for your conve-
nience. These will hopefully provide you with useful information pertaining to the different
levels of quality of a qualitative dissertation. These rubrics are by no means exhaustive since, as
stressed previously, different institutions have different requirements and criteria, and there is
no “one size fits all” approach. The intention is that these are tools that will provide you with
some idea of what may be involved in the evaluation of the content of a completed dissertation.
Appendix A is a rubric for evaluating a completed qualitative dissertation. Appendix B is a rubric
for evaluating a completed literature review. The suggestion is that you use these rubrics as guides
in assessing or evaluating the quality of your own work and in determining where limitations
may lie and where improvements and enhancements can be made. Remember, in undertaking
a research study, the intent is to produce findings that will make a contribution to knowledge
and ultimately make a difference in a discipline, practice, or policy. Quality must be evident not
only in terms of content of the final product—that is, your dissertation—but also in the mul-
tiple processes inherent in how well you conducted the research, indicating criticality, transpar-
ency, reflexivity, and rigor.
Following are some recommended resources that you might consider reviewing regarding the
criteria to consider in the development of a trustworthy qualitative study.
RESOURCES FOR FURTHER READING AND EXPLORATION
Levitt, H.M., Morrill, Z., Collins, K.M., & Rizo, J.L. (2021). The methodological integrity of criti-
cal qualitative research: Principles to support design and research review. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 68(3), 357–370. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cou0000523.
This article articulates principles and practices that support methodological integrity in rela-
tion to critical qualitative research, providing clear criteria for evaluating the rigor and quality
of critical research. As these authors suggest, central to methodological integrity for critical
qualitative inquiry are the two core concepts of fidelity and utility, both of which serve to guide
the selection and evaluation of methods and procedures.
Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research.
Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851.
The author presents and explores eight key markers of quality in qualitative research including
(a) worthy topic, (b) rich rigor, (c) sincerity, (d) credibility, (e) resonance, (f) significant contribu-
tion, (g) ethics, and (h) meaningful coherence. This eight-point conceptualization offers a use-
ful model that provides meaningful criteria to explore and evaluate qualitative best practices.
While making a case for these markers of quality, the article invites ongoing dialogue around
these criteria for further expansion and debate.
30
Additional resources and downloadable materials, including the book’s appendixes, that relate
to this chapter can be accessed through the book’s companion website https://edge.sagepub.
Appendixes that are associated with this chapter include:
• Appendix A: Rubric for Evaluating a Completed Qualitative Dissertation

• Appendix B: Rubric for Evaluating a Literature Review
• Appendix Z: Dissertation Manuscript Cheat Sheet
2 GEARING UP
There Is Method in the Madness
• Discuss the significance regarding identification and choice of topic so that students
can begin to think about areas of interest in relation to potential researchable topics.
• Clarify expectations and issues regarding appropriate advisor–student collegial
relationship and mutual responsibility.
• Introduce the mindset that is required to create the physical and mental “space”
that is necessary to begin the dissertation process in as methodical and organized a
manner as possible.
• Offer practical and actionable strategies for embarking on the research and writing
process including organizational, managerial, and data security tips.
• Begin to develop the skills involved in establishing and managing a realistic and
doable timeline.
• Offer a comprehensive set of guidelines regarding academic writing skills with a
strong focus on clarity and inclusivity.
• Clarify expectations and issues regarding academic integrity.
• Provide an overview of guidelines regarding institutional review board (IRB)
certification and approval.
OVERVIEW
Undoubtedly, if you are reading this book, you are a continuous learner; it is the reason you
decided to pursue a doctoral degree in the first place. It takes a certain amount of courage
to take on this work because in many ways it is fraught with uncertainty. For those of you
who are just starting out and for those who need to restart and continue, it can seem an
overwhelming process. Truth be told, everyone who has ever embarked on this journey most
31
32 Part I • Taking Charge of Yourself and Your Work
likely has experienced a certain amount of anxiety, if not downright fear. Will I know how to
do this work? Will I be up to the task? What if I fail? Ah, what if I succeed? Will it meet my
expectations? These are some of the cobwebs that cloud our vision and stand in our way. It is
okay to feel anxiety and fear. These feelings are natural as long as they do not debilitate you.
This chapter is titled “There is Method in the Madness.” As the author, I am apt to rethink
this and instead refer to the idea of “More Methods, Less Madness.” These methods and
strategies are what constitute this chapter; the intention is to provide you with workable ways
that will enable you to become organized, stay focused, plan ahead, and position yourself for
success!
At the completion of her dissertation, one of my students recently wrote: “This was about
completing one of the most rewarding, time-consuming things, and challenging years that I
ever endured thus far.” A dissertation is certainly a monumental piece of work! However, right
at the very start, one way to avoid becoming overwhelmed by the magnitude of the project is to
look at the entire process of completing a dissertation as an incremental one. It is like the novice
skier, who recognizes that a good way not to be overwhelmed by the sheer size of the mountain
is to traverse it—going from side to side, conquering it bit by bit. Completing your dissertation
is a matter of taking one step at a time and finding out what is needed at each step along the way.
That is what this book is all about—providing you with the information you need and helping
you to develop the skills required along the way to complete this work.
So let us take up our journey and begin by getting yourself energized and organized men-
tally and physically. Begin by adopting a reflective stance. Think about those things, personal
and professional, that have caused you to procrastinate, get stuck, or even abandon the work.
Attempt to come to terms with those obstacles. Persistence and determination are what it takes
to finish. Develop a sense of urgency about completing your dissertation. No matter how tal-
ented you are, if you don’t have a sense of urgency, develop it now! Make plans to deal with the
real challenges that you face, and determine to move beyond your own self-imposed obstacles
by taking action. Commit to acting despite your apprehensions, and commit to developing an
“I can do this” attitude; become your best friend and not your own worst enemy. This is of para-
mount importance. Once you have taken on an achievement-oriented mindset and attitude,
you can begin to get yourself organized.
IDENTIFYING AND DEVELOPING A RESEARCHABLE TOPIC
The starting point for any research project, and indeed the first major challenge in conducting
research, is coming to some decision about a sound researchable topic. The topic is the subject of
inquiry around a particular research problem that your study will address. For some, choosing
a topic can be an exciting process; finally, you have the opportunity to pursue an area in which
you have long been interested. For others, generating and selecting a topic can be a frustrating
and somewhat overwhelming experience. Commonly, students consider a few potential topics
before finally settling on one. Being able to identify a general topic area early in your program
provides you time to become well-versed on the topic, making it easier to identify potential areas
Chapter 2 • Gearing Up: There Is Method in the Madness 33
of research as you move toward establishing a viable research problem. Finding a research topic
that is interesting, relevant, and worthy of your time may take substantial effort, so you should
be prepared to invest your time accordingly.
The notion of feasibility was discussed in Chapter 1 where we addressed the components
of a dissertation proposal and how to go about developing the proposal. We will circle back
again to the concept of feasibility in Chapter 6 where you will learn more about developing
the introductory chapter of your dissertation manuscript. What you do need to know is that
the criterion of feasibility is especially important when choosing a dissertation topic. You
don’t want to settle on a topic and then find out that the study you were imagining cannot be
done, or the survey or assessment instrument you need, for some reason, cannot be accessed
or used. If you select a topic that you have worked closely on for many years, make sure you
are still open to new information, even if that information runs counter to what you believe
to be true about the topic. It is very important to think about these considerations beforehand
so that you don’t get stuck during the dissertation process. As such, carefully considering
your options, doing some background work on each potential option, and ultimately settling
on a topic that is both feasible and manageable will spare you many of the frustrations that
come from attempting research on a topic that, for whatever reason, may not be appropriate
or doable.
As Tracy (2010) describes it, “Good qualitative research is relevant, timely, significant,
interesting, or evocative. Worthy topics often emerge from disciplinary priorities and, there-
fore, are theoretically or conceptually compelling. However, worthy topics just as easily grow
from timely societal or personal events” (p. 840). When judging the significance of a study’s
contribution, researchers gauge the current climate of knowledge, practice, and politics and
ask questions such as “Does the study expand knowledge and insight?” “Deepen understand-
ing?” “Improve practice?” “Generate ongoing research?” “Liberate or empower?” Tracy (2010)
explains that the significance of qualitative research can be conceptualized in various ways:
Theoretically significant research builds theory or extends or problematizes current theoreti-
cal assumptions. Such contributions offer new and unique understandings that emerge from
the data analysis—conceptualizations—that help explain social life in unique ways and may
be transferred to other contexts. In doing so, the study builds on past research but provides
new conceptual understandings that can be used by future researchers. Heuristic significance
moves people to further explore, research, or act on the research in the future. Research is heu-
ristically significant when it develops curiosity in the reader, inspiring the need for new discov-
eries. Heuristic significance also implies an influence on audiences, including policy makers,
research participants, or the lay public, to engage in action or change—in this way creating an
overlap with practical significance. Practically significant research asks whether the knowledge
derived by the research is useful in shedding light on or framing a contemporary issue. Does the
knowledge produced by the research empower participants to become more critically reflective,
thereby challenging assumptions and perspectives and viewing society in new ways? Does the
research provide a story that might liberate individuals from injustice or in some way transform
their lives? Another means toward achieving significance is through engaging in research meth-
odology in novel, creative, or insightful ways, thereby yielding methodological significance.
A research project that incorporates methodologically significant approaches may not only lead
to theoretical insights and practical usefulness but also contribute to future researchers’ practice
of methodological skills.
In seeking a topic, you should remember that the key objective of doing a dissertation is
to obtain the credentials by demonstrating that you understand and can therefore conduct
good research. In selecting a topic, most students focus on trying to be original and exhib-
iting the desire to contribute to the existing knowledge base. Most academic institutions
require that a dissertation be an original piece of research and should make a significant
contribution to the field. At the outset, it is important to remember, however, that making
an original contribution does not imply that there need be an enormous “breakthrough.” In
social science research, the discovery of new facts is rarely an important or even challeng-
ing criterion. Rather, research is a process of searching or re-searching for new insights; it
is about advancing knowledge or understanding of a practice or phenomenon. In fact, it is
perfectly acceptable to model your research on a previous study and develop some aspect of
it or even replicate it. Replicating a previous study or aspects of a previous study is appro-
priate because knowledge accumulates through studies that build on each other over time.
When thinking of selecting a researchable topic, there are some search strategies that may be
helpful:
• Begin by completing a cursory review of available scholarly sources. This is a necessary

step that will provide you with an understanding of the availability of literature on
the proposed topic or topics you may have in mind. Looking at previously published
dissertations is another good way to gauge the level of research and involvement that is
generally expected at the dissertation level. Previously published dissertations can also
be good sources of inspiration for your own dissertation study. The literature review
of a dissertation contains a wealth of information. Not only can the literature review
provide topic ideas by showing some of the major research that has been done on a topic
but it can also help you evaluate any topics that you are tentatively considering. From
your examination of literature reviews, you can determine to what extent your research
ideas are relevant to the current state of the discipline.
• Another way to begin developing a researchable topic is to look around you at the
activities in which you are involved and to draw on your own personal and professional
experiences. Most students find that they can best access areas in which they already
have some expertise or familiarity with practice in the field. Once you have identified
an area of interest, you can then begin to examine and become familiar with the
available literature related to your topic. Especially useful are reviews of literature
found in journals specifically committed to publishing extensive review articles, as well
as policy-oriented publications that discuss current and emerging issues. In addition,
all discipline areas have their own encyclopedias, yearbooks, and handbooks, most of
which can be accessed on the internet. You also might take time to look over earlier
dissertations and seek previous studies that in some respects mirror your own interests
and topic.
• In addition to seeking out relevant literature, engage in conversation with colleagues

and peers to hear different perspectives about pertinent issues and to begin to sharpen
your topical focus. Generating and selecting a viable topic is a complex process that
involves various competing factors. As you may notice throughout this book, our
predisposition toward research and writing is that both are highly interactive processes.
Seeking the feedback and critique of academic advisors, faculty committee members,
and colleagues is, in our experience, an integral part of the dissertation process.
Undertaking a dissertation is a rigorous and long-term engagement in terms of both con-

ducting the fieldwork and working with the data. Although the dissertation need not neces-
sarily be one’s “life’s work,” caring about the topic at hand and having a compelling interest
to learn what is not yet known are critical to sustaining motivation and commitment, and
hence momentum. The sooner you can begin to narrow your research interests and identify
and develop a topical focus, the better. Having a fairly good idea of the area in which you will
be situated, you will most productively be able to utilize your time to refine your topic, and so
further the dissertation objectives. Once you have identified a general area of interest, you will
then need to begin narrowing your topic. A topic is typically complex and broad, and includes
many disparate aspects, but your research will need to be focused very narrowly in order to be
manageable. Instead of asking yourself “will that be interesting?”, ask “what does the field not
yet know?” Ultimately, you will need to winnow down your broad topic to a problem that is in
need of resolution. Your study will need a specific and clear focus. This becomes your research
problem. The process of developing a researchable topic is a process of idea generation—the
movement from a general interest toward a more clearly refined idea around a researchable prob-
lem. This is discussed more fully in Chapter 6 of this book. Ultimately, your readers will want to
know why the topic of study and the specific research problem are both relevant and warranted.
Significant research asks whether the knowledge derived from the study is useful in shedding
light on or framing a contemporary issue. When judging the significance of a study’s contribu-
tion, researchers ask questions such as:
• Does the research expand knowledge and insight?

• Does the research deepen understanding?
• Does the research improve practice and/or policy?
SELECTING AND FORMING YOUR DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
One of the most important tasks of a doctoral candidate is finding a suitable advisement team.
Each university has a different system in this regard, and you need to make sure of your institu-
tion’s and/or program’s policies and procedures. At some universities, the doctoral committee
structure is based on an apprenticeship model and is used as a vehicle to guide the student from
course work through the dissertation defense. The dissertation committee in effect becomes the
group of faculty responsible for your progress right from the beginning of the process, with all
members contributing to the development of an acceptable dissertation. The committee is usu-
ally a hierarchical organization, with each member of the committee having a different respon-
sibility vis-à-vis your research.
Most institutions refer to the lead advisor or supervisor as the chair (or sponsor), who is
the dissertation process expert first and foremost. The second reader is usually considered the
subject matter expert, who will have deep content expertise with regard to the topic area. There
is often also at least one member of the committee who is an expert in the selected design and
methodology. It is imperative that doctoral students understand committee members’ roles and
processes based on their institutions, as these roles and processes can vary to some extent. In
some institutions, the chair has the ultimate approval power throughout the dissertation stages
and processes. At other institutions, there are “gatekeepers” that can block a chapter, proposal,
or even dissertation manuscript from moving to the next phase. This needs to be clear, and so
students are advised to inquire as to their institutions’ expectations and exact processes.
Ideally, the doctoral committee is composed of faculty with different areas of expertise and
whose resources you will be able to tap in the process of working on your dissertation. Again,
this is a matter of institutional difference. In some instances (but not always), you can select
your committee from among those in your department and related departments, those whose
courses you have taken and/or those whose work bears some relation to the focus of your disser-
tation. Some faculty may be members of other programs or other schools within your university.
In other instances, choice of committee may be more tightly constrained. In some cases (but not
always), subject matter experts beyond your university are chosen. It is strongly advised that you
be clear about your own institutional requirements so you can follow the necessary protocol and
take into account acceptable policy and procedures. Additional details regarding forming your
dissertation committee are included in Part III of this book.
Remember that your advisor or dissertation chair will hopefully be your mentor, principal
guide, and primary resource throughout the dissertation process. Therefore, to the extent pos-
sible, given your institution’s process and requirements, you need to spend time looking for the
kind of authentic educator you feel confident can help you throughout the process. Take the
time to do some research, ask others about their experiences, and find out as much as you can
about the faculty at your institution and their areas of interest. Considerations in seeking the
right advisor, sponsor, or dissertation chair include the following:
Advisement Skills and Experience

Part of being experienced and interested in advisement, a key quality of an ideal advisor, is hav-
ing a complete understanding of the requirements and process of completing a dissertation. In
addition, students value advisors who consider the diverse needs of particular subgroups of the
student population, including vulnerable or marginalized communities, international students,
those with children or dependents, those with disabilities, and those with cultural differences. It
is indeed critical that advisors are attentive to diversity and inclusivity, and that they recognize
and address the individual needs of each student. These needs vary greatly between students
and between different stages of their studies.
Support and Direction

Supportiveness is the quality that doctoral students value highly. This involves advisors being
encouraging, serving as mentors, and remaining aware that students’ lives extend beyond the
doctoral program. Supportive advisors make an effort to understand how their student prefers
to work and will guide them accordingly. In addition, they will attend to the student as a whole
person, rather than purely as a research student, which implies providing support both academi-
cally and emotionally throughout the dissertation journey to instill motivation and a growth
academic mindset. Support is based on good listening skills, the tendency to maintain open
dialogue about the dissertation study, its progress and problems; the ability to communicate in
an open, honest, and fair manner about issues that arise (and as soon as they arise); and setting
clear expectations with regard to all matters inherent to the process of successfully completing
the dissertation.
Availability and Accessibility

Students greatly value when their advisors are available and accessible. The ideal advisor is
approachable and works to establish a good rapport with their students. This involves meet-
ing with students regularly, setting aside adequate time to work alongside them and provide
support as needed. This means being prompt in responding to any concerns that students may
have, being prompt in returning feedback and grading, and being willing to be flexible with
students school/work schedules. Availability and accessibility is also enhanced by being con-
tactable through several media (e.g., email, phone)—particularly if faculty and students are not
physically present as is typical of online or hybrid programs.
Structured and Constructive Feedback

The ideal advisor is perceived to be one who provides an appropriate amount of direction and
structure to the student’s research project. They are prepared to create deadlines, set writing
goals to help the student stay on track, and constructively challenge or push the student beyond
boundaries when required. Such an advisor is informative and helpful when it comes to areas of
uncertainty or confusion, helping to encourage good work habits in order to achieve the desired
outcomes from their research. Advisors should also provide substantive feedback and construc-
tive critique of student work that is consistent across time; an indication that the advisor and
student are “on the same page” and share the same focus regarding the project.
Interest in Student’s Career

Advisors are interested and enthusiastic about their student’s work by being positive, empower-
ing, motivational, and committed. Moreover, ideal advisors will also show an interest in their
student’s career path and professional trajectory. Toward this end, they may help to provide
support for the establishment of the student’s career in several ways, including developing useful
contacts and support groups, introducing students to their network of colleagues, looking out
for and informing students of conferences and seminars that are relevant to their research and
career, and encouraging and facilitating the publication and/or presentation of the student’s
research.
Right from the very start, build a supportive network so you never feel alone! Once you
have been assigned an advisor, sponsor, or dissertation chair, be proactive in establishing and
maintaining a good working relationship. Keep them apprised of your status along the way by
regularly sending progress reports and updates. This communication serves to maintain contact
throughout and is a strategy for gaining the necessary support and feedback as you proceed to
tackle the chapters of your dissertation.
STAKEHOLDER RESPONSIBILITY AND

STANDARDS OF GOOD PRACTICE
As a graduate research student, and key stakeholder in the process, you have a right to expect the
following:
• Orientation dealing with the dissertation process and requirements and policies that
are entailed.
• Identification of a doctoral committee with a designated doctoral advisor and second
reader.
• A graduate handbook that outlines and explains all departmental policies,
expectations, and deadlines pertaining to supervision of doctoral students. This
handbook might include rights and responsibilities of doctoral candidates as well as
procedures for changing advisors and/or filing grievances.
• Verbally communicated or written documentation from your advisor regarding
expectations, recommendations for best practices, and deadlines for deliverables.
Supervision or advisement has become increasingly recognized as a professional skill that

requires training and monitoring. In addition to committee chairs, most university depart-
ments have faculty members who serve as dissertation advisors and who are responsible for
ongoing guidance and support throughout the research process. This includes informing
students about institutional and departmental regulations, requirements, and policies (and
changes and updates when these occur); keeping students updated about responsibilities, deliv-
erables, and deadlines; and assisting students with completing and timeously submitting all
official documentation. Attaining a doctorate cannot be achieved without the necessary insti-
tutional support, structure, and guidance. Qualitative research itself poses additional potential
dangers posed by inherent lack of structure, and so regular and structured supervision becomes
increasingly critical. As a student, you would not want to spend months or even years in the field
only to realize that you have not collected appropriate and relevant amounts of material and/or
conducted appropriate and relevant analytic procedures to qualify for a grounded and defensi-
ble dissertation. As such, you need to take the initiative to (a) become familiar with the structure
and policies of your department and (b) consult with your advisor on a regular and consistent
basis about your progress as well as the challenges you may encounter. As you advance through
the process, you will certainly come to realize that there is no substitute for self-discipline and
orderly thinking, and that your professional and collegial working relationship with your advi-
sor is a key factor in this process.
In addition, your institution will provide you with access to multiple resources to support
you, and these become part of the road map for your doctoral journey. Become familiar with
your program handbook that outlines the dissertation process, including milestones, deliver-
ables, deadlines, and policies. This will ensure that you are consistently meeting your program’s
requirements and criteria. What is important too is that you familiarize yourself with any tem-
plates that are provided as these will serve as a guide regarding what is required for each chapter
of the dissertation. Rubrics or checklists will also help you stay on track, check yourself, and
maintain a record of your activities throughout the process.
The Feedback Factor

Feedback can be one of the most powerful influences on learning, and in the dissertation
process, it is essential to improving your writing and helping you move forward step-by-step.
Effective feedback allows you to meet expectations and requirements, and make productive
gains on closing the gap to achieve success. Effective faculty feedback means that it is suffi-
ciently detailed, understandable, and actionable. The iterative nature of the dissertation process
places you on a revision-cycle loop, which may feel as though you are constantly taking one
step forward and two steps back. This can certainly become frustrating and overwhelming,
sometimes even bringing to the fore a sense of the imposter syndrome. The expectation is that
you will address all feedback, so be sure to ask for clarification if you do not understand any part
of the feedback provided. Don’t ignore feedback! Remember, substantial and comprehensive
feedback does not imply failure! Feedback is of value in helping you succeed, and the ability and
willingness to embrace feedback is an ideal mindset.
In working on your dissertation chapters you should look forward to receiving directive
feedback which is focused on the future, clearly indicating the steps you can take to improve or
enhance your work. Of course the healthiest and most productive response to constructive cri-
tique is receptivity, whereby you actively engage, make sense of the feedback provided, and use
the suggestions and recommendations to improve your work. Remember, you are more likely
to engage in feedback when it comes from someone you trust and believe is a credible authority;
one who serves as a mentor by genuinely seeking to help you progress your work and successfully
complete all requirements. As such, the student–faculty relationship is key.
Students and faculty are, essentially, partner stakeholders in the dissertation process.
Producing a quality dissertation is expected to require creation, review, feedback, and revision
of numerous successive drafts. Each draft submitted for review to the dissertation advisor and/
or committee members should reflect the student’s best efforts in light of accumulating knowl-
edge, experience, and feedback. In turn, the final product and the quality thereof are a reflec-
tion, too, of the guidance and support of faculty. As such, both student and faculty have a
stake in the process and its final outcome: a successful defense and a quality product that has
contributed new knowledge and insights to the field and that is hopefully worthy of enhancing
practice and/or prompting further research.
Advisors expect doctoral candidates to engage in the following activities:
• Work independently.
• Think critically and conceptually.
• Submit drafts as needed.
• Be available for regular meetings or conversations at mutually convenient times.
• Be honest about their progress.
• Choose to follow advice and guidelines, or offer valid or reasonable reasons for not
choosing to do so.
• Complete all Institutional Review Board (IRB) and Collaborative Institutional
Training Initiative (CITI) requirements.
Student Responsibilities
Receiving supervision and support on the dissertation journey does not preclude students’
taking responsibility for their own learning and progress, and the importance of exercising
self-directed learning skills cannot be emphasized enough. While students receive guidance
from their dissertation chairs and committee members, they are ultimately responsible for the
timely completion and successful defense of a high-quality (i.e., defensible and publishable) dis-
sertation. The following guidelines will assist students in accomplishing this goal:
1. Establish and sustain a collegial working relationship with your advisor.

2. Carefully consider feedback from the advisor. Initiate and engage in conversation to
better understand and evaluate feedback. Explain to the advisor any decision made to
adapt or reject feedback, and remain open to further feedback.
3. Create, revise as needed, and adhere to a dissertation project plan (including timeline).
The project plan should be developed and revised in close consultation with the
advisor.
4. When writing the dissertation, enable the advisor to provide timely and helpful review
and feedback by submitting quality work at each revision.
5. If a conflict with the advisor arises, first address the conflict directly with the advisor.
If the conflict remains unresolved, arrange a meeting with the chair (or committee
member) and the program director or another appropriate third party.
6. Assure and appropriately evidence compliance with all relevant IRB research
regulations (e.g., federal and institutional) regarding human participants, and be sure
to complete all required CITI training modules.
7. Understand that hired assistance is acceptable under certain circumstances. An editor

may be hired to provide aid during the writing process; however, the help received
should be limited to editing assistance for narrative already created and revised.
8. Prepare for and defend the dissertation proposal and demonstrate capacity to
successfully complete and defend the dissertation according to the proposed timeline.
9. Defend the dissertation to the satisfaction of the dissertation committee and in
accordance with established program and institutional procedures.
10. Assuming successful defense, present the final written dissertation with proper paper,
binding, style, and format, according to program and institutional guidelines.
Doctoral candidates expect their advisors to engage in the following activities:
• Supervise, advise, mentor, and coach.

• Provide ongoing feedback and support (written and verbal).
• Read work in advance of meetings.
• Be available when needed at mutually suitable times.
• Be both supportive and constructively critical.
• Have thorough knowledge of the field of qualitative research and the chosen
research design (genre or tradition).
• Be somewhat proficient regarding the research topic.
• Be genuinely interested in the topic and/or the contribution that the research
study may potentially make to the field.
Faculty Responsibilities
While students are ultimately responsible for the timely completion and successful defense of
a high-quality (i.e., defensible and publishable) dissertation, dissertation faculty members are
responsible for providing support and critical feedback throughout this dissertation process.
The following guidelines will assist students’ understanding and expectations regarding fac-
ulty’s responsibility in providing support and guidance:
1. Engage dissertation students in extensive conversations to explore and eventually focus

on a meaningful and significant dissertation topic. Through focused conversations,
students should broaden and deepen their thinking and understanding around
potential contribution to their topic of choice.
2. Assure that the dissertation progresses, with the following characteristics in place:
(a) The dissertation topic holds personal and professional meaning for the student as
well as significance and value to the field; (b) research and/or guiding questions are
developed in relation to both the dissertation topic and the theoretical or conceptual
framework; (c) research design (qualitative genre or tradition) and research methods
(data collection and analysis) are appropriately aligned with the research problem,
purpose, and research questions and support qualitative research principles; (d)
the research is conducted ethically, and that rigor, trustworthiness, and reflexivity
remain central throughout the process; (e) dissertation findings, analyses, and
conclusions are credible, and consistent with collected data; (f) limitations and
delimitations of the study are explicitly recognized and explained, including
transparency regarding researcher positionality; (g) research and writing style are
appropriately scholarly; and (h) the final dissertation product is scholarly and worthy
of peer-reviewed publication.
3. Assure appropriate compliance with all relevant human subjects research regulations
as per IRB requirements (e.g., federal and institutional), and also ensure that all CITI
training requirements have been completed. Note that both faculty and doctoral
candidates are required to be current with this training both at the time of the student
applying for IRB approval as well as throughout the ongoing dissertation process.
4. Provide students with timely written and/or oral review and feedback on submitted
dissertation drafts with a view toward guiding successful and timely completions of a
high-quality (i.e., defensible and publishable) dissertation and defense.
5. Provide guidance to students’ development of the dissertation project plan—slowing
or accelerating the timeline as required to assure timely completion of a high-quality
(i.e., defensible and publishable) dissertation.
6. Ensure adequate preparation for proposal-related hearing or qualifying exam and
dissertation defense by guiding and challenging student thinking and writing
throughout their dissertation work and by asking fundamental and challenging
questions throughout the dissertation process.
7. Conduct the dissertation defense and notify the student and program chair of results
according to established program procedures.
ORGANIZING AND MANAGING YOUR PROJECT
Your dissertation is an iterative (and often messy) project that will extend over a period of time.
Therefore, successful completion requires not just careful organization and planning, but actu-
ally being proactive! To begin the process of getting started, you need to create a “workspace” for
your dissertation—a physical as well as a mental and intellectual space. You will also begin to
create a system for organizing and managing your work on this project by developing a writing
routine and by starting to keep records of information as well as of your thinking. Find quality
time for school in your already busy life so that you can work smarter and navigate your doctoral
program toward successful dissertation completion!
Creating a Dedicated-to-Dissertation Workspace

Find a place where the dissertation is the only thing that you do. Find a space that works for
you. A space where you can minimize distractions is key. You will have many competing inter-
ests (personally and professionally) that will assuredly invade most inconveniently, at the times
you are most trying to study and/or write. Hold these competing interests at bay by finding a
place that is comfortable and quiet to study—perhaps you could consider it your “study sanctu-
ary.” Once you have a safe place, create safe space by creating chunks of time that are quiet and
guarded. Once you enter your study sanctuary, be off limits for a chunk of time. That might be
only 1–2 hours, but be sure to maximize your hour(s) through intentional and complete focus.
Your “dedicated-to-dissertation” space might be a coffee shop, the library, or an empty office
at your workplace. What is important is to find a space that for the time you dedicate to writ-
ing, only your dissertation exists. Having done this, you can then begin to plan time dedicated
to writing and make this a concrete commitment by structuring time for writing. Remember,
making specific plans to block off time for writing is a mental and emotional commitment. And
alerting people to your plans and taking concrete steps to structure your time builds in a social
and physical commitment. You are then certainly more likely to write! And that’s the goal! Even
when advisors are away or unavailable, set a deadline for yourself to complete a certain number
of sections, and keep to this deadline! You can even make a compact with a peer or mentor and
hold yourself accountable to these deadlines. Never leave your desk without a roadmap for the
next writing session. This means that you will be able to hit the ground running rather than
spending your first hour of work rereading and reorienting yourself. A useful tip is to develop
a road map, outlining a skeleton of the next three hours of writing when leaving your work for
the day.
Creating your new workspace also means that you also should begin identifying writing
resources. In addition to purchasing the relevant textbooks, become familiar with online library
databases, as they will become invaluable as well. Your computer, in connection with your uni-
versity library system, is a literature searching and bibliographic management tool. An ongoing
literature review begins right from the beginning stages of topic identification; continues with
reviews of research methodologies, specific methods of data collection, and issues of trustwor-
thiness; and carries through to the final stages of analysis and synthesis. In addition, you have
to produce a bibliography or reference list that is formatted correctly and in perfect synchroni-
zation with the materials referenced in the body of your dissertation. This ongoing literature
review can indeed be one of the most time-consuming of all the dissertation challenges. It is
certainly worth taking the time to become familiar with using your library’s literature search
engines and databases, as well as with the variety of software programs that allow you to effi-
ciently perform the tasks of referencing your materials. This is mentioned just briefly here so
that you can start adding these thoughts to your new mental workspace.
Managing the Data

As you begin your research and as you live with your study, you will begin to gather and accumu-
late a diverse and vast array of material that has potential relevance, all of which becomes your
dissertation research “toolbox,” a very valuable resource that you will add to as you continue to
move forward. As you become immersed in your work, you will undoubtedly be inundated with
large amounts of information, including formal documents, correspondence, photocopies of
articles, pieces of reflective writing, class notes, reading notes, discussion notes, handouts, and
memos, as well as other miscellaneous scraps of paper. All of this information is the raw material
of the inquiry that will be of use later. You certainly do not want to lose any of your material, nor
do you want to drown in it. Organizing and managing dissertation-related “stuff” right from
the beginning is therefore essential to getting on track and staying focused. In this regard, you
will need to make sure that all dissertation-related materials are sorted systematically and stored
safely and securely and will be easily retrievable when you need to access these.
There are various systems for handling information at a practical level, and based on your
learning style preference, different methods will seem more appealing. Those of us who are
more visual and tactile like to print hard copies of everything and have the physical “evidence”
in our hands. Some people “file” material in stacks or neatly labeled files or folders. Still oth-
ers are less inclined to file manually, preferring to set up electronic folders in which to store
information by way of emerging topics or chapters. Regardless of which method you choose,
organizing your material well and in a way that works best for you is a crucial step in the overall
research process. By organizing your material, you will be able to easily retrieve your sources
now and in the future, group similar sources together, and possibly identify potential patterns
or links within your research topic. Note that formal and appropriate naming of documents is
not only professional but it also greatly assists with storage and retrieval, both for you and your
advisory review team.
In addition to storing various forms of information, you also should make sure that you
keep the various drafts of your dissertation. During the process of writing your dissertation,
drafts will need to be edited and refined. As you make revisions and update earlier versions, you
will find yourself continually writing and rewriting. These drafts are important and should not
be discarded. It is possible that you may want to revisit some text of an earlier version to check
on something you have written. In addition, as your research and writing progress, by compar-
ing drafts you can keep a check on your progress, as well as note any developments in your
understanding of certain issues and phenomena. Therefore, before making revisions, original
drafts should be kept intact, and each revised version should be labeled, dated, and stored in a
designated file or folder for easy retrieval.
Whatever methods work best for you and whatever strategy of information management
you choose, your computer will become your best friend throughout the dissertation process.
Using your computer, you can catalog, record, and manage multiple forms of information,
including references. Ref Works is one way to collect, manage, and efficiently organize research
papers and documents. The drag-and-drop capability along with smart document recognition
makes it easy and fast to upload documents and metadata into your account. The resource
allows you to import citations directly and indirectly from library databases, capture research
from websites like Google Scholar, PubMed, and WorldCat, and create American Psychological
Association (APA) reference lists. With this resource, you can annotate, organize, and cite
your research, as well as collaborate with friends and colleagues by sharing collections of cita-
tions. Becoming familiar with your computer and technological resources before you start your
research will save you much time and frustration. Developing computer literacy and mastering
the appropriate software programs does add another layer of learning to an already intensive
experience, but one that is well worth the effort. If you feel overwhelmed in this regard, you
might want to seek technical assistance.
Finally, no matter what kind of computer system or software package you are working
with, a necessary and, in fact, absolutely essential consideration is that you are—right from
the beginning—vigilant in saving information. This goal can be accomplished by regularly
and frequently backing up your files by way of copying them to your hard drive, as well as to
an external disk or flash drive, or by saving them to an online storage system such as Dropbox,
Google Drive, or one of the many other technologies or tools that are currently available. You
can never back up too much! Many people recommend printing out hard copies of completed
sections in addition to saving electronic copies. As useful as they are, computers are not infal-
lible. They can and do crash, and losing material can be a devastating setback in the dissertation
process.
Data Security
A few words regarding data security is called for in light of the emergence of new challenges
to anonymity and confidentiality that have been brought about by the advent and pervasive-
ness of social media and new technologies, including various forms of publicly accessible visual,
audio, and virtual materials and data. While data storage and management have always been
a concern, new cloud technology and transcription services, as well as the mobility of data by
way of e-mail and electronic storage devices, create a new set of ethical concerns for researchers.
Data management and data security are central and ongoing concerns with regard to protecting
anonymity and/or confidentiality. There are significant debates in the field about how to con-
sider and approach technology-mediated data collection methods and how, from an ethically
responsible perspective, to treat and manage the kind of data that a researcher can access online
or virtually. While there are no established guidelines for how to treat these data, and given the
prevalence of online data collection and the associated ethical implications, it is recommended
that you conduct a thorough examination of literature related to the role of social media and
the internet more broadly and also specifically with respect to your particular study design and
context. Indeed, in planning and conducting your study you should carefully consider all pos-
sible ways that data security can be breached or compromised, including who might have access
to your data and why. All necessary safeguards and precautions regarding how you will securely
store your data must be implemented at the outset of the study. Additionally, all strategies used
must also be explicitly addressed in your research proposal, IRB application material, and final
dissertation manuscript.
Tracking Your Thinking

Up to this point, much of the discussion has focused on the practical details of the organiza-
tion and management of dissertation-related material. Aside from keeping track of information,
you need to keep track of your thinking. Just as it is important to have the relevant material
on file, so it is important to keep a record of your changing thoughts about the literature and
its relevance to your emerging research topic, as well as about the research process in general.
One way to ensure that you preserve your reasoning and thinking and are able to spell out the
development of your ideas is to keep a research journal. Recording your thinking means that
you will accumulate material that can be revisited and drawn on and that can form a substantial
part of the methodology and analysis chapters of your dissertation. Keeping careful records also
implies an open-minded and critical approach, and provides ideas for future directions of your
work. In addition, by making your reasoning transparent, you contribute to what Lincoln and
Guba (1985) refer to as an “audit trail,” which provides useful material for making trustworthi-
ness claims for your study.
Journaling allows you to be meticulous about keeping an orderly record of your research
activities and your productivity. Journaling also engenders a reflective stance, which offers
the opportunity to create a record of your experiences—your insights, speculations, hunches,
questions, methodological and analytical concerns, tentative interpretations, and so on. In the
qualitative inquiry process, you, as the researcher and writer, are the main instrument of data
collection and data analysis. It is your task to provide personal insight into the experience under
study. Integral to the notion of self as instrument is a capacity for reflection. The act of reflection,
as John Dewey (1916) suggests, affords the potential for reconstructing the meaning of experi-
ence that actually yields learning. In effect, a journal provides a solid link to and keeps track of
the many levels of experience that are involved in the dissertation process, including your own
positionality as the researcher and how and in what ways you impact the research itself. In the
qualitative dissertation, what you bring to the inquiry is as important as what you discover as
you live with your project. The quality, credibility, and integrity of the dissertation indeed rests
on your capacity for authentic, insightful, and meaningful reflection.
Developing a Collegial Support System

After course completion, much of the study process is independent, solo, and often lonely.
Moreover, many students are currently engaged in online doctoral programs with little or no
contact with classmates or peers. This is especially so in online and hybrid learning environ-
ment, which has significantly expanded since the onset of the pandemic and is likely to remain
prevalent in the post-pandemic world. As such, maintaining a strong and continual connec-
tive link to your dissertation chair and other members of your committee is a vital compo-
nent of successful doctoral completion. Although much of the work involved in the dissertation
process—in both the researching and writing phases—is done independently, you need not
feel you must “go this alone,” and you should not isolate yourself. As a resourceful doctoral
candidate, it would be in your best interests to create a dissertation support system of some kind
that contributes to your success by providing emotional and academic support. Support sys-
tems include various options such as dissertation groups, a dissertation “buddy” (someone with
whom you are compatible and who has a similar work ethic to your own and who you feel might
be more efficient than a larger group), and virtual support groups (operated through online chat
rooms, online editorial critiques, and professional online coaching and/or mentoring services).
There are many people who have the potential to promote your progress. The graduate student
network is a particularly valuable resource, and this might be part of your own institution or
can be accessed through various social media sites such as LinkedIn, Facebook, and others. It
is to your advantage to reach out to graduates and other professionals and colleagues who you
believe might be helpful to you in this regard. This becomes especially important in the bur-
geoning online environment where students are working outside the parameters of a traditional
classroom, a context where isolation and lack of connection might be particularly prevalent.
Building community early and staying engaged often is one of the best ways to start this new
and exciting journey. Never feel you have to go it alone. Reach out to your committee members
and supportive peers early and often!
Planning Your Time

You might finally be ready to write your dissertation, but every time you sit down to work, you’re
seized with “writer’s block.” Most people have a romantic image of a writer as someone who
writes during spontaneous bursts of creativity. Unfortunately, few writers write only when they
feel inspired, and waiting for inspiration is impractical when you are working on a long-term
project such as a dissertation. If you work on your dissertation only when you feel like it, the
project will never be completed. It certainly requires self-discipline to always be ready to write
on certain days whether you feel inspired or not and to stick to self-imposed deadlines. Yet the
right plans and routines can make self-discipline an extremely easy thing to establish. Effective
planning is key to gaining better control over one’s writing. Organizing our time makes writ-
ing far less stressful and helps us actually accomplish goals we might otherwise consider out of
our reach. When thinking about planning time and establishing realistic timelines, you should
be thinking of continuing the same approach to time management as when completing your
course work, which was an essential step in the doctoral process, and which enabled you to reach
the point of embarking on your dissertation. Similarly, after completing the course work, you
will now need to develop a system of planning your writing times and adhering to the schedule.
Figure 2.1, Schedule Planning Tool, is an example of a planning tool that you can develop for
yourself to manage and organize your work.
Setting aside quality time dedicated to your dissertation allows you to work smarter. The
importance of blocking significant amounts of uninterrupted time therefore cannot be empha-
sized enough. By providing this essentially amorphous and iterative process with some struc-
ture, a structured timetable makes writing more predictable, and therefore less intimidating,
and allows you to pace yourself. Schedules help reduce the pressure associated with deadlines
as well as the tendency to procrastinate. Moreover, setting a schedule also helps integrate your
FIGURE 2.1 ■ Schedule Planning Tool
Decide HOW MUCH TIME per week I am willing and able to set aside
to devote to writing. Be realistic!
Write this down: “I commit to setting aside X hours for writing each week.”
Make a list of my regular activities during the week.
Determine which days (and hours) I can realistically set aside each
SCHEDULE
week. List these in chronological order.
Determine WHAT I WILL NEED to set myself up well so that it is

conducive to writing with minimal distractions.
Brainstorm all possibilities.
SET UP
Determine the LENGTH of my writing sessions. Be realistic!

Look back at my “schedule” above.
Write this down: “My goal is X hours minimum per week.”
Determine WHY the days I have set for myself WILL work.
TIME
Identify why the TIMES I have set will enable me to be most productive.
Write this down very explicitly!
SESSIONS
Explain what AMOUNT of writing is going to best sustain my momentum.

Think carefully about and review my “schedule,” “time,” and “sessions”
above.
Write this down and be very explicit.
FREQUENCY
writing into the rest of your life, which is important. There are some basic principles for devel-
oping an effective writing schedule:
• Make a list of your regular activities, and within that context, decide how much time
you hope to devote to your writing. If you’ve never tried a weekly schedule before, be
open to adjustment. Try to create a balance between writing and other activities.
• Identify the times and days when you are most productive and least likely to be
interrupted. For example, if you know you are tired in the afternoon, don’t schedule
your writing times then. Find your ideal time slots that can become sacred for writing.
• Working on a dissertation entails ample opportunities to doubt whether you can
actually complete the task. Intimidated by and frustrated with the great distance from
their goal, many doctoral students may never complete their dissertations. Yet even
the most “impossible” tasks can be managed if broken into several smaller (and less
intimidating) tasks or “batched.” Setting smaller benchmarks or “chunks” along the
road to your ultimate goal helps you proceed one step at a time while alleviating the
tremendous pressure of having to constantly grapple with your entire project. Having
divided your dissertation into smaller segments also allows you to plan how long you
need to spend on each segment and project when you might complete your entire
manuscript.
• It is important to set a comfortable and relaxed pace that allows you to avoid pressure.
The best way to maximize your sense of accomplishment and minimize your
experience of disappointment is to set goals that are within your reach. You also need to
build into your timetable some slack time for when you are sick or overburdened with
unanticipated commitments. Moving along slowly should not prevent you from being
prolific. Even days when you write only one page ultimately add up. The secrets are
perseverance and persistence, which are much more important than speed.
• Be proactive in maintaining your momentum. Be sensitive to the “flow” of your
writing. With a large project such as a dissertation, try to minimize the number of
times when you have to interrupt your writing for more than a day at a time, as this
serves to disrupt the necessary momentum.
• Finally, be sure to have in your mind a realistic deadline for your dissertation. Setting
deadlines is the most effective way of closing open-ended tasks. Indeed, in helping
overcome indefinitely receding horizons, a firm deadline is a writer’s best friend.
Establishing a Realistic Timeline

One of the major challenges of completing the dissertation is developing and honing the habit
of thinking critically. Another challenge is the practical application of ideas, including the need
to systematically plan the study, collect and analyze the data, and write up the dissertation. The
ability to focus, problem-solve, and make informed decisions at every step of the way will bring
your study to completion. Time is part of the equation, and as mentioned earlier, thoughtfully
planning your time and establishing firm deadlines contribute to successful completion.
Clearly, the more time you devote to carefully thinking about, planning, and completing
your study, the more effective your discipline will be. Because the time commitment required of
an individual doing qualitative research is substantial, you need to pace yourself from the begin-
ning. Be sure to keep your goals realistic, or you will set yourself up for failure. As such, be hon-
est about the time that particular tasks might take to complete and what other life demands are
competing with the dissertation demands. Aside from time constraints, you also need to plan
carefully for what can be achieved given your available resources (e.g., personal and financial
support). Finally, you must consider developing realistic deadlines with regard to institutional
constraints. For example, many university departments are typically understaffed during the
summer months and over winter break and holidays. Expecting feedback from advisors, gaining
approval from review boards, or even attempting to set meeting times with research participants
at these particular times of the year would be somewhat unrealistic. In addition, always be sure
to inquire about your institution’s IRB process, and be aware of all deadlines for submissions as
well as time frames regarding the application and review process so that you can plan your time
accordingly and appropriately. Becoming familiar with the expectations and requirements of
your institution’s IRB process is an essential component of effectively planning and executing
your timeline.
A timetable for work may or may not be formally required by your committee, but it is an
effective way to manage your time and keep you on track. In line with the ski metaphor men-
tioned earlier, it is important that you set yourself a time frame within which to complete each
section of the dissertation. Just as the experienced skier traverses the terrain, benchmarking is
fundamental to success in the dissertation process, too. In developing realistic deadlines, it is
highly recommended that students “chunk” the tasks in conjunction with a multiyear calendar.
Create a system whereby you work on parts that contribute to the whole—chapter-by-chapter
or even one part of a chapter at a time. The dissertation journey is essentially about achieving
milestones one step at a time.
A useful guiding principle is to always intentionally be one step ahead by having a sense of
your next step. Identifying the various stages in the process, pacing yourself, and document-
ing your achievement of goals and subgoals along the way are important and will contribute to
keeping you task-oriented and focused. Having a good sense of how your progress is moving
you closer and closer to completion will help to keep you motivated. In this regard, it is rec-
ommended that you mark your progress on a checklist that you create for yourself. Activities
involved in completing a dissertation include iterations of thinking, writing, and action. The
dissertation journey is about achieving milestones one step at a time. Therefore, plan ahead,
pace yourself, and also be sure to reward yourself as you move from one activity to the next. It is
especially critical that you do not lose momentum once formal course work has ended. At this
moment of being out there on their own, many students experience overwhelming feelings and
are unsure of how to proceed. The longer they remain fixed and unmoving, the more their incli-
nation to start on the dissertation wanes; the longer this continues, the more difficult it becomes
to get going again.
You also should bear in mind that, in most institutions, once a student is certified and becomes
a doctoral “candidate,” they usually has a designated number of years in which to complete the
dissertation, or else he or she will have to be recertified (which involves retaking the “certification”
or “candidacy” exam—a most unappealing thought). In any event, although extensions may be
granted for extenuating circumstances, to get an extension, a student usually has to demonstrate
that they have been making significant progress. This is all the more reason to take the time to
develop a timeline, stay on task, and set realistic, appropriate, and reasonable goals. After all, this
doctoral program is a once-in-a-lifetime venture, and you surely want to succeed!
Table 2.1 outlines the steps necessary to embark on the dissertation process in a methodical
and organized manner, thereby positioning yourself for success. Once you have your mental
and physical house in order, and with strong personal commitment and the will to succeed in
completing your dissertation, you are ready to take the first step or resume wherever you may
have left off in the process.
TABLE 2.1 ■ Guidelines for Organizing and Managing Your Project: An Overview
Task Why? Action Steps
Create your own Successful completion requires 1. Set aside a physical workspace that
“dedicated-to- careful organization and planning. is dedicated to your dissertation.
dissertation Structure is important so you can in Find a place where the dissertation
space.” effect work smarter. is the only thing that you do.
To begin, you should create a physical 2. Set aside times to work on your
and mental “space.” dissertation.
3. Create your mental workspace;

develop an “I can do this!” attitude.
Create a system As you become immersed in your work, 1. Start collecting and storing all
for organizing you will continue to be inundated with material that is potentially related
and managing large amounts of information. to your topic. This will become your
your work. dissertation research “toolbox.”
Carefully consider issues of data
security (confidentiality and anonymity 2. Keep records of all relevant
with regard to your study’s design information.
and context). You do not want to
3. Make sure all information is securely
lose any material nor do you want to
stored to maintain confidentiality
drown in it. Organizing and managing
and anonymity of research sites and
dissertation-related “stuff” right from
participants.
the beginning is essential to getting
on track and staying focused. Develop 4. Make sure that all material is sorted
a system that works best for you to systematically and stored so it will
organize and manage the ongoing be easily retrievable.
accumulation of data. A workable and 5. Choose the storage method
reliable system will help you feel more that works best for you. File all
in control and less overwhelmed. information manually and/or
electronically.
(Continued)
TABLE 2.1 ■ Guidelines for Organizing and Managing Your Project:

An Overview (Continued)
Save all drafts. As you make revisions and update 1. Keep clear records of all drafts.
earlier versions, you will be continually
2. Be vigilant in saving all drafts
rewriting. Drafts should not be
systematically and methodically.
discarded. You may want to revisit
Be consistent in your labeling of
earlier versions in order to check on
documents and filing!
previous thinking and strategies.
Keep track of The quality and credibility of the 1. Keep track of your thinking by way
your thinking. dissertation rests upon your capacity of journaling, writing memos, or
for insightful conceptual reflection. keeping a research diary.
Just as it is important to have relevant
2. Keep a running log of all
material on file, so is it important
conversations you have with
to keep a record of your changing
colleagues and advisors. This log
thoughts about the research process.
should include important details
Journaling engenders a critically
and suggestions, as well as your
reflective stance, a key characteristic
reflections, reactions, and ideas.
of qualitative research. Recorded
reflection provides ideas for future
directions of your work and also
contributes to an “audit trail,” providing
useful material for making validity
claims. Keeping careful records
makes your reasoning transparent—
both to yourself and to your readers.
What happens throughout the
research process is a vital source of
data: A research diary contributes
significantly toward a substantial part
of the methodology chapter of your
dissertation.
Track your Goal setting can be hard: Our goals can 1. Record what you do each day or part
productivity as a be too big. Or they can be too small. of the day. In a week, you will have a
way to motivate We set goals that are just right when list of things you’ve done, rather than
you to write. we set them, and then life happens and a list of near and entire misses. So
we might miss our targets. This can be much more motivating!
very frustrating and demotivating.
2. Pay attention to what you’re tracking,
as this might reveal useful patterns
about where and when you were
most productive. You can then try
and do more of that!

Forgive yourself! The research and writing process is 1. Change the way you think and
Understand iterative, recursive, and messy, with you will change the effect on your
and accept the challenges (detours and roadblocks) writing. The slow and messy parts
necessity of slow along the way that can impede—or are all part of building a foundation
movement and even stall—our progress. We tend of thinking and writing.
messiness as to become discouraged if we move
2. Pay attention to the patterns of
groundwork for slowly and are not so productive in
your writing process. This will help
productivity. some parts of our writing. Being
prevent you from feeling demotivated
discouraged leads to frustration, and
when writing slows down.
frustration takes away energy, and lack
of energy depletes motivation. And so 3. Trust that you will gather momentum
productivity suffers. and accelerate if you can shift your
thinking to understand and accept this
iterative and often messy process.
4. Take some time off periodically for

self-care and reflection. Times you
step away from work are valuable
on many levels and provide renewed
energy and inspiration.
Save, save, save! The importance of saving material 1. Be vigilant and methodical with
cannot be underestimated. Loss of regard to file naming.
information and data can be extremely
2. Regularly and frequently back up all
stressful and time consuming, not
your files by way of copying them to
to mention detrimental to your final
an external hard drive, disk, flash
product. Develop the habit of saving!
drive, or backup web location.
3. Make sure that your computer is set

up for consistent autosave and backup.
Identify and Ongoing literature review begins 1. Make sure that you refer to the APA
store all writing from the beginning stages of topic Manual (7th ed) often!
resources. identification and carries through
2. Maintain clear records of relevant
to the final stages of analysis and
resources, including books and
synthesis. In addition, you will have to
journals.
produce a bibliography or reference
list that is formatted correctly and 3. Keep track of all your reading,
that is in perfect synchronization with making critical notes as well as
the materials referenced in the body being very careful to accurately list
of your dissertation. Making notes on all references and citations.
your reading should be an active and 4. Become familiar with online
critical process. library databases. The university
library system is an essential
literature search and bibliographic
management tool.
5. Explore different software

program options that allow efficient
referencing of your materials.
(Continued)

Develop a While much of the work in the 1. Students should always be

collegial support dissertation process will be done encouraged to build support systems
system. independently, you do not need to “go and seek guidance from committee
this alone,” nor do you have to work members and peers.
in isolation. This becomes especially
2. In addition, be sure to reach out to
significant in the online and hybrid
graduates and other professionals
learning environments. Research is
and colleagues who you believe
essentially a collaborative endeavor
might be helpful to you as you
rather than a solo process. As a
navigate the lengthy dissertation
resourceful doctoral candidate try
process.
to create a reliable and accessible
support system that will contribute to
your success. The graduate student
network is a valuable and supportive
resource for dialogue, collaboration,
and sharing of resources.
Familiarize Planning ahead is essential. 1. Become familiar with the graduate

yourself with Forearmed is forewarned! Make school and its policies, procedures,
all relevant sure you understand all necessary and timelines.
IRB and CITI requirements, expectations, policies,
2. Be sure you understand what types
requirements. protocols, and procedures, and be sure
of communications you will need
to ask questions as needed!
to sign up to receive all necessary
information about the doctoral
process at your institution.
3. Always make sure you stay up to

date and informed about where you
currently are in the dissertation
process.
4. Be knowledgeable and aware of what

are all the steps that are vital
to moving forward efficiently.
Overall Always be open to reviewing examples 1. Take the opportunity to review the
proactivity and learning from others! dissertations your advisor and other
students may have recommended.
2. If no dissertations have been

recommended, reach out and ask for
some examples to review.
3. Make time to attend some

dissertation hearings at your
institution. This will provide you
with greater understanding of
the expectations and procedures
involved.
In following up with my students as to their progress, I often hear, “I’m still reading.” Reading
widely indeed allows you to become knowledgeable and proficient in a specific domain. Although
reading is essential, it can sometimes be an avoidance mechanism when it is time to write. It is now
time to start writing your dissertation. Action leads to progress, and progress leads to increasing
levels of confidence, which is vital to maintaining momentum. Therefore, the sooner you begin
writing, the easier it is to continue writing and the more rapidly your dissertation is likely to prog-
ress. Overcome your anxieties and frustrations by viewing and tackling your work in increments.
View the dissertation as a process of achieving milestones, one at a time. In this way you will work
piece by piece, and step by step. Be proactive. Adopt a do-it-now mindset and get started! As you
embrace this mindset, let us address the expectations regarding academic writing skills.
GUIDELINES FOR ACADEMIC WRITING
A dissertation is the combination of performing research and writing about your research to
describe and explain it. As a researcher and writer, knowing how to best express your ideas in
written form to convey them to the reader becomes an essential skill. The impact of any research
is likely to be enhanced if you are able to write well about your work. The dissertation requires a
high level of scholarly writing. Although not everyone enjoys scholarly writing, nor is everyone
good at it, you have to get into the mode of writing for a particular audience—the academic
community. Academic or scholarly writing is, in essence, writing that is clear, concise, precise,
and, very importantly, inclusive. Above all, good writing is a function of good thinking.
Clarity, Coherence, and Cohesiveness

Whatever chapter of your dissertation you are busy with, it is important that you spend time
planning not only what you will write but also how you will write. Creating an outline or “mind
map” that traces the path of your argument is one way to begin thinking about this. Creating out-
lines is an effective way to organize your thinking and sequentially guide your writing. In writing
your dissertation, your intention is not only to demonstrate your knowledge of the topic but also
to capture the interest of and guide the reader throughout so that they understand and can follow
your train of thought. To ensure that your paper is user-friendly, aim for clarity and logic:
• In your introductory section, write a paragraph that describes your chapter outline.
This paragraph lets readers know where you will take them. A strong introduction
as well as a strong conclusion (described further on) will help readers to see the
significance of your work.
• Make use of headings and subheadings to provide structure to your writing. These are
useful in communicating the key ideas to the reader. Crowding makes reading difficult
and unpleasant.
• Resist jargon. Jargon excludes and mystifies the reader. Do not assume that all readers
understand specialized language. If you must use a specialized term, be sure to
explain it.
• Build coherence through connecting sentences. Every sentence should be a logical

sequel to the one that preceded it.
• Use transitions or segues to trace the path of your argument and to guide the reader.
Transitions are “bridge sentences” between paragraphs and help make your discussion
easy to follow.
Following are a few pointers regarding paragraph content and structure:
• Organize your thoughts in coherent, well-constructed paragraphs. A paragraph is a

collection of related sentences dealing with a single topic. Good paragraphing also
greatly assists your readers in following a piece of writing. The basic rule of thumb with
paragraphing is to keep one idea to one paragraph. If you begin to transition to a new
idea, it belongs in a new paragraph. There are some simple ways to tell if you are on the
same topic or a new one. You can have one idea and several bits of supporting evidence
within a paragraph. You can also have several points as long as they relate to the main
idea of the paragraph. If a paragraph cannot be summarized easily in a sentence or two
and there are multiple ideas, then the paragraph drifts to another topic and needs to be
broken into two (or maybe more) paragraphs.
• To be as effective as possible, a paragraph should contain each of the following
interconnected elements: unity, coherence, topic sentence, and adequate development.
Unity: The entire paragraph should concern itself with a single focus. If the
paragraph begins with one focus or major point of discussion it should not end with
another or wander within different ideas.
Coherence: This ensures that the paragraph is easily understandable to the reader.
You can help create coherence in your paragraphs by creating logical bridges and
verbal bridges. This includes carrying the same topic over from sentence to sentence,
using key words in several sentences, synonyms can be repeated in several sentences,
pronouns can refer to nouns in previous sentences, and transition words can be used to
link ideas from different sentences.
Topic sentence: This sentence indicates in a general way what idea the paragraph
is going to cover or address. One way to make sure the reader understands the topic of
a paragraph is to include your topic sentence near the beginning of the paragraph, and
ask yourself, “Will my reader be able to easily summarize what the paragraph is about?”
Adequate development: The topic, which is introduced by the topic sentence,
should be discussed fully and adequately. Begin each paragraph with a topic sentence,
followed by supporting sentences that illustrate, elaborate, explain, and clarify your
main idea.
• Each paragraph should logically and sequentially lead to the next. Remember to
pay particular attention to the last sentence of each paragraph because this is the
springboard to the subsequent paragraph.
• Each paragraph must include at least three sentences. Be aware that if a paragraph
only has two or three sentences then there is a good chance that the paragraph is not
fully developed. If you notice a paragraph that contains fewer than three sentences,
incorporate these sentences into an existing paragraph.
• Paragraphs should not be overly long because this overwhelms the reader and the
content can come across as too dense. If a paragraph is one page or more, break it into
two or more paragraphs.
• Make sure that each section and/or chapter ends by summarizing and integrating the
main points and themes. A strong and organized summary allows the reader to come
away with a clear understanding of what you have written and what will follow.
After writing each paragraph, it is helpful to read it aloud. In this way, you can check for
syntax as well as for coherence and flow. In academic writing, it is essential that you are clear
and precise. In reviewing your work, ask yourself, “Is what I am reading really what I intended
to write? Does it say what I mean it to say?” If a written passage sounds awkward, you might
need to add new words, phrases, or sentences to establish clearer connections. You also should
watch out for sharp breaks where the reader is left “hanging”; in these cases, you should consider
restructuring the sentence or phrase.
In reading aloud, watch for any assumptions and unsupported statements. In these cases,
the reader might ask, “Who says so?” You must provide evidence to support what you say. In
dissertation writing, you have to get in the habit of writing defensively. In other words, you need
to stop after each paragraph and ask yourself, “Have I provoked any questions in the reader’s
mind?” This step is important because the process in the defense of a qualitative dissertation is
one of questioning and challenging any assumptions you may have made. As soon as you pro-
voke questions in the reader’s mind, they begin to lose confidence in your argument and may
even go looking for more questions. That is the last thing you want to happen!
Reading aloud also allows you to check for grammatical errors:
• Make sure that you use complete sentences, not fragmented ones.
• Do not use unwieldy, run-on sentences. Long or complicated sentences force the reader
to decide which of the points you are making should be emphasized. Each sentence
should contain one thought only. Aim for short, clear, and crisp sentences.
• Check for incorrect use of punctuation, which can affect meaning.
• Be consistent in your tenses.
• Place descriptive words and phrases as close as possible to the words they describe, or
they may inadvertently describe the wrong word.
• Be careful not to end a sentence with a preposition (to, from, with, etc.).
• Whenever possible, use the active rather than the passive voice. The active voice reduces
wordiness and is more direct, giving vitality and force to your writing.
• Look for unnecessary adjectives and delete vague qualifications such as very.
• Remember that academic writing is formal writing. As such, slang expressions,
colloquialisms, idioms, and casual language are inappropriate.
A note regarding use of first-person I in your writing: Generally, writing in the active voice
is recommended. APA has reviewed the reasons why first person is preferable. First, the phrase
“the authors” or “the researchers” when used to indicate in third person the authors of the current
work (your dissertation) can be confused with the authors and/or researchers of the literature that
is being referenced. Second, anthropomorphism, while an important part of creative literature,
becomes an unavoidable prop for the third-person and “objective” voice in third-person research
writing, leading to wordings such as “studies demonstrate” and “research finds,” instead of “we
demonstrated” or “I found”. Traditionally, researchers have been taught to write in the third per-
son in order to be objective. This is the primary reason why qualitative researchers should write
in the first person! Qualitative research is based on a rejection of the false sense of objectivity, and
toward this end, qualitative researchers actively attempt to engage with our biases, understand-
ing that people cannot be objective. We seek deep and reflexive engagement with our biases and
assumptions, and so writing in the first person allows our readers to access the research in active
ways that help deepen their understanding of the contexts and phenomena being explored. In
qualitative research, in particular, the researcher is the main research tool or instrument. The
unique style and narration of the researcher is an integral part of the study, and as such, the
first-person I is correct protocol. As stated on page 120, section 4.16 of the APA 7 manual: “To
avoid ambiguity in attribution, use the first person rather than the third person when describing
the work you did as part of your research and when expressing your own views. If you are writing
a paper by yourself, use the pronoun ‘I’. Do not refer to yourself or your coauthors in the third
person as ‘the author(s)’ or ‘the researcher.’” You may want to review the following resource: https
://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/grammar/first-person-pronouns
Inclusivity
For the first time, in 2021, APA is systematically and institutionally examining, acknowledg-
ing, and charting a path forward to address its role in racism and other forms of destructive
social hierarchies including, but not limited to, sexism, ableism, ageism, heterosexism, classism,
and religious bigotry by avoiding language that perpetuates harm or offense toward members of
marginalized communities through our communications. These guidelines are written for those
working to champion and advocate for equity, diversity, and inclusion in the spaces in which they
learn, teach, work, or conduct research. The guidelines aim to raise awareness, guide learning,
and support the use of culturally sensitive terminology that centers the voices and perspectives
of those who are often marginalized or stereotyped, and also explain the origins for problematic
terms and phrases and offer suitable alternatives or more contemporary replacements. This docu-
ment will be flexible and iterative in nature, continuing to evolve as new terminology emerges or
current language becomes obsolete. You may want to review the following resource: https://www
.apa.org/about/apa/equity-diversity-inclusion/language-guidelines.pdf
• To avoid unintended racism, sexism, or any form of stereotypical reference, be acutely

aware of terminology and writing styles that are in any way non-inclusive, exclusionary,
discriminatory, or stereotypical.
• The accepted or correct use of pronouns is also changing and evolving, and this carries
important implications for theory, research, and practice. It is also a factor to consider
when describing your study’s population and sample. Review the APA guidelines
regarding the correct use of gender and the way to describe a sample or population. To
review gender pronouns, refer to the following resource: https://www.mypronouns.
org/she-her
Format and Style Requirements

An academic research report must consistently follow a selected system for format and style.
Format refers to the general pattern of organization and arrangement of the report. Style refers
to appropriate writing conventions and includes rules of grammar, spelling, capitalization,
punctuation, and use of abbreviations and acronyms to be followed in preparing the research
report. Most colleges and universities require the use of a specific style that is published in a style
manual, and you will need to make inquiries regarding your particular department’s recom-
mended style preference. Typically, in the social sciences the APA Manual, which is currently in
its seventh edition, is the most widely used, although there are others too.
There are very specific criteria for formatting the reference entries, including use of capital-
ization or not, use of plain text or italics or not, specific punctuation, sequence of the entries,
spacing, and so on. Regardless of which manual you use, you are expected to adhere to its
rules meticulously. Early on in the dissertation process, you should become familiar with your
required manual and use it consistently throughout. Mastering the manual’s technical nuances
early on (including the use of headings, footnotes, tables, and figures) will save you considerable
time and effort in the long run. Manuscripts with errors are significantly less likely to be accepted
for publication in journals, so attention to detail is very important. The publication manuals pro-
vide extensive guidelines and should be referred to as necessary, as you are writing each chapter.
Be especially careful to follow the manual’s guidelines regarding citation of references as it
is imperative that all citations be completely accurate. The two most commonly used attribu-
tion systems—APA and Modern Language Association (MLA)—consist of two parts: (a) a refer-
ence or works cited list at the end of the document, giving precise information about how to
find a source, and (b) parenthetical citations immediately following the material you are citing.
Both attribution systems use the author–date citation system for citing sources. In this way, the
writer includes the author and date within the body of the paper and includes a corresponding
reference in the reference list. This citation system allows readers to identify sources used in
the paper by reviewing the author and date within the text of the paper, and then easily locate
the corresponding reference in the alphabetical reference list. Note that there are two types of
in-text citations: narrative citations and parenthetical citations. A narrative citation is a type of
citation where the author’s name is used within the text of the sentence, whereas a parenthetical
citation is a type of citation where the author and date are included in parentheses at the end
of the sentence. Multiple resources in this book’s companion website will be very useful as you
prepare to write and are indeed handy resources that you should refer to throughout the process!
Especially important is that, right from the beginning, you remain vigilant in updating
your reference list each time you add a citation. Do not imagine that you will remember to do so
later. Searching for “lost” references is time consuming and very frustrating. Some useful point-
ers regarding references include the following:
• Create your reference list as you develop each section. As each citation is included in
the paper, record the reference in your list.
• The reference list must be accurately alphabetized.
• All references must be complete and accurate and not contain any missing, misspelled,
or incorrect details.
• Use the writing manual to format each reference correctly. There are very specific
criteria for formatting reference entries, including use of capitalization, plain text
or italics, sequence of entries, spacing, and so on. Also note how information must
be included, such as multiple authors, volumes of journal articles, chapters in edited
books, online sources, and so on.
• All references must exist, and all links must be working properly.
• If using a citation software, ensure all information is included and properly formatted.
Although such programs can be helpful, they are not always correct.
• The references within citations should be alphabetized by the last name of the first
author.
• Make sure that for each reference that is listed, there is at least one corresponding
citation within the body of the text and vice versa. In your reference list, include only
sources that are cited in your text. The reference list is not a bibliography. The latter
would include everything you may have read or researched, and not necessarily what
you refer to in your text.
• As a rule of thumb, at least 85% of your references should be less than five years old.
This is to ensure that your study remains current and relevant.
Although different style manuals emphasize different rules of writing, several rules are
common to most. The most commonly accepted rules include the following:
• Do not use contractions.

• Avoid being too colloquial or too informal.
• Avoid overuse of sophisticated vocabulary. Communicate complex ideas in the simplest
way possible.
• Italicize all statistical symbols and abbreviations.

• Spell out all numbers from one to nine and use numerals for those 10 and above.
• Spell all Latin abbreviations correctly.
• Use lists selectively and sparsely. Too many lists appear as an attempt to avoid writing.
• Refer to your writing manual for correct ways to list items. Whatever way you select
must remain consistent throughout your document.
• Double-space your work throughout.
Tables and figures are often included in a dissertation to augment the narrative, thereby
enabling the reader to more clearly understand the issues being discussed. These graphic orga-
nizers are somewhat distinguished from one another:
• Tables are typeset, rather than photographed, from artwork supplied by the author.
Tables consist of text only and are frequently used to present quantitative data. Tables
offer precise details, including percentages and whole numbers and should always
include group size (i.e., N = . . . ).
• Figures are typically used to convey structural or pictorial concepts. Figures can be line
graphs, bar graphs, pie graphs, maps, drawings, and photographs. Choose a figure if
you want to reinforce the point you are making by way of a strong image.
Tables and figures are used to present material in visual summary form and should add
clarity to the overall presentation of information. Readers of dissertations are often drawn to
graphic displays which provides them with a useful “at-a-glance” overview of information.
Tables and figures must follow their related textual discussion and must be referred to by num-
ber. If you choose to use displays of any sort, make sure that they are appropriately included
and do not unnecessarily disrupt the flow of the text. The potential usefulness and importance
of visual displays suggest a need to dedicate time and care in creating them. Tables and figures
should be uncluttered and self-explanatory; it is better to use two tables (or figures) than a single
overcrowded one. The examples presented throughout this book are not meant to illustrate a
set of rules for how tables should be created, but should be viewed rather as a blank canvas to
populate appropriately. The examples provided should serve as guidance regarding the wide
range of ways in which graphic displays can be used creatively throughout the various stages of
the qualitative research process. If you choose to include tables and figures, be sure to consult
your style manual for correct format and usage.
Proofreading and Editing

Always proofread your work. The goal of proofreading is to enable you to find and correct your
own errors in thought and organization. After writing each section, examine your sentences for
clarity and grammar. In an effort to present an organized, logical, and coherent argument, be
prepared to spend time editing and reediting as you “polish” your narrative, correct sentence
structure, and trim excess wordiness and redundancy. You will find yourself writing and rewrit-
ing throughout the process of doing your dissertation. Writing multiple drafts of a manuscript is
part of the writing process and is standard practice for most writers.
If you feel that you need assistance with writing, be sure to contact your instructor for addi-
tional resources and guidance. It should be obvious that the expectations for correctness and
accuracy in academic writing are high. If you feel that you are unable to meet these demands
at your current level of writing proficiency, you may need to seek outside assistance. It is quite
acceptable to hire an editor or a proofreader to help meet academic writing expectations. In
addition, most universities offer writing classes and/or workshops.
A dissertation is indeed a “creation” or “construction” that takes effort and time.
Constructing a dissertation is both an art and a science, and it takes thoughtful and careful
planning. A good dissertation is built on solid outlines and is constructed logically and sequen-
tially, paragraph by paragraph. This process includes paying close attention to style, format, and
precise language. Most importantly, your writing should flow logically and smoothly. You do
not want to lose the reader.
INTEGRITY MATTERS
The strength of your writing rests on your ability to refer to and incorporate the work of others. It
is imperative, however, that you attribute recognition to all and any sources of information that
you use. There are few intellectual offenses more serious than plagiarism in academic and profes-
sional contexts. A charge of plagiarism can have severe consequences, including expulsion from
a university or loss of a job, not to mention a writer’s loss of credibility and professional standing.
Plagiarism is commonly defined as submitting material that in part or whole is not entirely
one’s own work without attributing those same portions to their correct source; that is, plagia-
rism is the uncredited use (both intentional and unintentional) of somebody else’s words or
ideas. Plagiarism is presenting someone else’s words or ideas as your own. The following are all
examples of plagiarism:
• Quoting or paraphrasing material without citing the source of that material. Sources
can include websites, magazines, newspapers, textbooks, journals, TV and radio
programs, movies and videos, photographs and drawings, and charts and graphs—that
is, any information or ideas that are not your own.
• Quoting a source without using quotation marks—even if you do cite it.
Deliberate plagiarism—that is, copying the work of others and turning it in as your own
or falsifying data—is considered cheating. But there is also another kind of plagiarism—
accidental plagiarism. This occurs by carelessly and/or inadequately citing ideas and words bor-
rowed from another source.
In all academic work, and especially in our writing, we are building upon the insights and
words of others. A conscientious writer always distinguishes clearly between what has been
learned from others and what they are personally contributing to the reader’s understanding.
To avoid plagiarism, it is important to understand how to attribute words and ideas you use to
their proper source. In this regard you must be certain to give credit whenever you make use of
any of the following:
• Another person’s idea, opinion, or theory.

• Any facts, statistics, graphs, or drawings—any pieces of information—that are not
common knowledge.
• Quotations of another person’s actual spoken or written words.
• Paraphrase of another person’s spoken or written words.
Strategies for Avoiding Plagiarism

Note Taking
• Read the entire text and summarize it in your own words. Then paraphrase important
points and copy usable quotes. Enclose quotes in quotation marks.
• Make sure to always carefully distinguish between material that is quoted, material
that is paraphrased, material that is summarized, and your own words and ideas.
• As you paraphrase, make sure you are not just rearranging or replacing a few words.
• Check your paraphrasing against the original text to be certain that you have not
accidentally used the same phrases or words and that the information is accurate.
• Include in your notes all the information you will need to cite your sources.
• Copy all source information into your working bibliography.
• Print any web pages you use. Write the URL and the date on the webpage if it is not
included on the printout.
Citing Sources
You must cite the source of every quote, every paraphrased passage, and every summarized idea you
use in a research paper. Commonly known facts, such as dates or definitions, do not need to
be cited unless you take those facts directly from a specific reference source. If you’re not sure
whether a source should be cited, include it just in case. Sources must be cited throughout the
body of the paper:
• Copy quoted material exactly, enclose it in quotations marks, and name the author
immediately before or after the quote.
• Cite the source information (title, publisher, date, etc.) for the quote or paraphrased or
summarized information either in parentheses within the text or in a footnote.
• List on a reference page at the end of your paper the information for all the sources
you have cited. (Remember, the reference list is not the same as a bibliography. A
bibliography is a list of all the sources you used—both those you cited and those
you used for research but did not cite directly. In a dissertation, a bibliography is not
required.)
Generally, knowledge that is common to all of us, or ideas that have been in the public
domain and are found in a number of sources, does not need to be cited. Likewise, facts that are
accepted by most authorities do not require a citation. It is often wrongly assumed that if one
finds material on the web, that material is in the public domain and does not need to be cited.
However, the same guidelines apply to all sources you use in your work: electronic or print,
signed or unsigned.
If you are in doubt, err on the side of overdocumentation. For proper use of quotations, refer
to your style manual. There is no fixed rule regarding when and how much to quote and para-
phrase. If you quote and cite too often, you may seem to offer too little of your own thinking.
If you quote too little, readers may think that your claims lack support, or they may not be able
to see how your work relates to that of others. However, there are some general rules of thumb:
Use direct quotations when you are using the work of others as primary data or when the spe-
cific words of your source are of particular significance. Paraphrase sources when you can say
the same thing more clearly or when you are more interested in conveying the general idea than
in how it is expressed by a particular source. Do not quote because you think it is easier or you
think you lack the authority to speak for your sources. Make your own argument with your own
claims, reasons, and evidence.
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL
The IRB is concerned with studies desiring to implement research development, evaluation,
and testing characterized as a systematic investigation to develop or contribute to generalized
knowledge of research or the public (US Department of Health and Human Services, 2005).
Any research designed to research human subjects, interact with human subjects, provide inter-
ventions for human subjects, obtain identifiable information about living subjects, or observe
and record private behavior of human subjects must come under the jurisdiction of the govern-
ing board of institutional research. Interviews, observations, surveys, and all other forms of data
collection methods that do not use data previously collected or archived will need to undergo
review and approval by the IRB.
The IRB assures compliance with federal laws regarding the protection of human sub-
jects from harm; ensures the right to informed consent to research procedures; and prevents
violations of confidentiality and/or anonymity, violations of rights to privacy, and deception.

The logic and necessity of protecting the dignity and personal and/or professional safety of
research participants is widely accepted among social scientists today (although this was not
always the case historically). During the course of the 1990s, issues arose that brought increased
scrutiny and sensitivity to the process, including concerns regarding privacy and violations of
appropriate informed consent procedures that apprise subjects fully of the risks involved in par-
ticipating in research. Abuse of research subjects in the name of science has led to the establish-
ment of commonly agreed-upon codes of research ethics. While there are some variations across
disciplines and national boundaries, key principles are fundamental. These include (a) volun-
tary participation, (b) identity protection of research participants and locations, (c) disclosure
to participants of potential risks and benefits associated with the research, and (d) obtaining
informed consent. All studies conducted under the auspices of federally funded educational
and research institutions are required to receive IRB approval. As such, IRBs have emerged in
accredited academic institutions of higher education as bureaucratic entities responsible for the
regulation, governance, and enforcement of significant research ethics.
IRB approval is sought after one successfully defends a proposal. IRB approval requires
that the researcher obtain proof of certification for the use of human subjects in research. This
certification is obtained by completing an online course offered by the CITI Program for most
institutions. CITI serves the compliance training needs of colleges and universities, healthcare
institutions, technology and research organizations, and governmental agencies, as they foster
integrity and professional advancement of their learners. The program involves the certifica-
tion of faculty and students in general research and ethics for working with human subjects. As
a doctoral candidate you are strongly advised to review your institution’s policy on IRB certifi-
cation for the use of human subjects in research to determine the required modules of the online
CITI course that must be completed for certification.
Undergoing and successfully completing an IRB certification and approval accomplishes
two key tasks: First, the student benefits from the advice of several academics who are trained to
detect any potential flaws in terms of research design and methodology that could pose a threat
to participants. Second, IRB approval is a stamp of credibility backed by a legitimate academic
institution. This credibility is valuable both for the researcher and for the research participants.
The application for IRB approval requires detailed information regarding the researcher, the
research proposal, the research population, any projected funding, any requests for protocol
review, and a description of the protocol. It is essential to include a detailed description of the
recruitment process, confidentiality procedures, any potential research risks and benefits to
the subjects, informed consent procedures, and the location of the research site, if applicable.
An IRB guidebook, published by the US Department of Health and Human Services (Penslar,
1993), explicitly makes note of the difficulties confronting qualitative researchers where
informed consent is concerned:
Fieldwork or ethnographic research involves observation or interaction with the persons
or group being studied in the group’s own environment, often for long periods of time.
Since fieldwork is a research process that gains shape and substance as the study pro-
gresses, it is difficult, if not impossible, to specify detailed contents and objectives in a
protocol. . . . Therefore, while the idea of consent is not inapplicable in fieldwork, IRBs
and researchers need to adapt prevailing notions of acceptable protocols and consent
procedures to the realities of fieldwork.
Submitting the IRB form to the college’s IRB office for approval requires inclusion of the
following supplementary documents: an informed consent form, interview transcripts, data col-
lection and analysis tools, recruitment materials and permission letters (as appropriate), a cer-
tificate of having completed the required CITI training modules, and a research site approval
letter, if necessary. The following key considerations can help facilitate an efficient application
process:
1. Become familiar with the IRB guidelines of your academic institution by obtaining
relevant documentation from the IRB office or the office of doctoral studies and
also visiting the appropriate website. Where possible, attend relevant workshops or
seminars.
2. Describe your research in simple terms, clarifying all technical terminology where
applicable. You cannot assume that your application will necessarily be reviewed by
somebody wholly familiar with qualitative research.
3. Prior to submitting your application, contact the IRB office for clarification regarding
informed consent procedures. In some instances, as mentioned, research may be
exempt from the requirement of written informed consent.
4. In your application, be very clear and transparent regarding how you intend to address
privacy, as well as any issues concerning potential harm to research participants.
5. Expect some delay with the IRB approval process. The application may take an
extended period of time, particularly in those studies that propose the use of vulnerable
populations (discussed more fully in chapter 4). Being required to revise and resubmit
your initial application several times before your research complies with IRB standards
and procedures is commonplace.
6. It is important to note that data collection involving human subjects generally
cannot begin until final IRB approval of the proposal is issued. In some instances,
data collection begins with pilot studies. Application to gather such data, as well as
incorporation of such data in the research study needs to be clearly explained and
outlined in your IRB application process.
Following are some recommended resources that you might consider perusing regarding devel-
opment of the various structural elements needed for the first three chapters, which comprise
the dissertation’s proposal.
American Psychological Association. (2019). Publication manual of the American Psychological

Association, (7th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1037/0000165-000.
This is the style manual of choice for writers, editors, students, educators, and professionals
in psychology, sociology, business, economics, nursing, social work, justice administration,
and other disciplines in which effective communication with words and data is fundamental.
In addition to providing clear guidance on grammar, the mechanics of writing, and APA style,
the manual offers an authoritative and easy-to-use reference and citation system and compre-
hensive coverage of the treatment of numbers, metrication, statistical and mathematical data,
tables, and figures for use in writing, reports, or presentations.
Goodson, P. (2017). Becoming an academic writer: Fifty exercises for paced, productive, and powerful
writing, (2nd ed.). Sage.
This practical guide covers general academic writing skills to be developed and/or improved
which include establishing a writing mindset, building academic vocabulary, improving gram-
mar, editing, and proofreading. Specific skill building is also addressed, including writing intro-
ductions, writing problem statements, writing a methods section, writing up research findings,
writing a conclusions section, and developing an abstract.
Inoue, Asao B. (2015). Antiracist Writing Assessment Ecologies: Teaching and Assessing Writing for a
Socially Just Future, Parlor Press.
This text is exceptionally relevant, in fact focusing on antiracist cultural responsiveness. It is
highly conscious of race (and other axes of oppression) and committed to social justice writing
pedagogy.
Schwandt, T. A. (2016). The Sage dictionary of qualitative inquiry, (4th ed.). Sage.
This guide includes current and seminal terms and phrases that have shaped and continue
to shape the origins, purposes, rationales, logic, meaning, and methods of the practices that
characterize the broad field of qualitative inquiry. Right up front, you will need to begin famil-
iarizing yourself with the very fabric of qualitative inquiry, and this book provides the threads of
this fabric in a usable and accessible manner.
Strunk, W., & White, E. B. (2014). The elements of style (4th ed.). Pearson.
This timeless book clarifies the rules and principles of grammar and composition, emphasiz-
ing the power of words and the clear expression of thoughts and feelings. In addition to gen-
eral format and style requirements, the book addresses the rules and principles of writing, and
offers useful suggestions regarding sentence construction and word choice. Published for the
first time in 1919, the current edition is only modestly updated. This classic book is a gem and is
small enough and important enough to carry around in your pocket!
to this chapter can be accessed through the book’s companion website at https://edge.sagepub.
com/bloomberg-qualitative-5e. The companion website offers multiple materials related to
some of the issues discussed in Chapter 2, including resources that address APA 7 format and
style guidelines, bias free language, inclusive language guidelines, grammar and punctuation,
citation assistance, avoiding plagiarism, and IRB requirements. Be sure to access these helpful
resources early and often as you prepare to enhance and perfect your academic writing skills!
3 CHOOSING A QUALITATIVE
RESEARCH DESIGN
• Illustrate how the primary characteristics of qualitative research compare and

contrast with the characteristics of quantitative and mixed methods approaches.
• Offer conceptual understanding of the logic behind choice of a qualitative research
approach including history, defining features, and research paradigms.
• Review the evolving landscape of qualitative inquiry, highlighting key trends in the
field.
• Clarify and explain the most commonly used current and cutting-edge qualitative
designs (traditions or genres), with particular reference to philosophical
underpinnings, application, methods, and critique.
• Identify specific terminology commonly associated with each of the research
designs.
• Discuss the implications of choosing a qualitative research design based on the
study’s problem, purpose, and research questions.
OVERVIEW
Qualitative research addresses the question of “what.” Knowing what something is entails a
conceptualization of the matter under investigation as a whole and in its various parts. Knowing
what something is also involves the conceptualization of its “how”—that is, its process and
unfolding. Importantly, qualitative research includes an understanding of context, circum-
stance, environment, and milieu. As Wertz et al. (2011) explain, knowledge of the “what” may
be implicit or explicit, carefully established or uncritically assumed, and informally or formally
acquired. Qualitative research is based on exploration and discovery with the goal of giving
voice to the research participants. Deep understanding of a social or cultural phenomenon, in
69
all its real-world complexity, and an ability to describe, explain, and communicate that under-
standing, lies at the very core of qualitative research.
Qualitative research is suited to promoting a deep understanding of a social setting or activ-
ity as viewed from the perspective of the research participants. This approach implies an empha-
sis on exploration, discovery, and description. Quantitative research, in contrast, is applied to
describe current conditions, investigate relationships, and study cause–effect phenomena. Both
research approaches involve complex processes in which particular data collection and data
analysis methods assume meaning and significance in relation to the assumptions underlying
the larger intellectual traditions within which these methods are applied.
A brief mention regarding mixed methods research is warranted here because students often
construe mixed methods as just that: the use of both qualitative and quantitative methods in
the same study. While this holds true, there is more to mixed methods in that it is a distinct and
complex research approach that intentionally and systematically uses both qualitative and quanti-
tative approaches and methods concurrently in one study, or sequentially in two or more studies.
An important logic behind the application of this design is that together, the methods comple-
ment each other, providing an in-depth and comprehensive understanding of the research prob-
lem (Bazeley, 2018; Creamer, 2018; Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018).
As such, the philosophy underlying mixed methods is something that is often overlooked or
misunderstood.
In the first issue of Journal of Mixed Methods Research, Tashakkori and Creswell (2007)
define mixed methods as “research in which the investigator collects and analyzes data, inte-
grates the findings, and draws inferences using both qualitative and quantitative approaches
or methods in a single study or program of inquiry” (p. 4). Hence, mixed methods can refer to
the use of both quantitative and qualitative methods to answer research questions in a single
study as well as those studies that are part of a larger research program and are designed as com-
plementary to provide information related to several research questions, each answered with
a different methodological approach. Combining and triangulating methods can indeed be
helpful in tackling complex research problems that involve several layers of understanding and
therefore require multiple analytic techniques. A team approach is often called for with a mixed
methods study because of the labor-intensive and collaborative nature of data collection and
analysis, with multiple forms of data collection occurring concurrently or over a lengthy period
of time. One benefit is that the results of one method can help inform the findings of the other.
Another benefit is that the extent of convergence of the study’s findings could raise questions
or contradictions that require additional clarification. This may initiate the need for further
methods to be implemented, in which case the breadth and range of the study are expanded so
that the research purpose is broadened.
While mixed methods has an intuitive “overarching” and holistic appeal, this demands
that the researcher be proficient in both approaches to research or work with a team that has
such expertise. In reality, the use of a true mixed methods study is challenging, since most
researchers develop expertise predominantly in one research approach, and it is thus often
Chapter 3 • Choosing a Qualitative Research Design 71
difficult to bridge the qualitative/quantitative divide, both practically as well as philosophi-

cally. Moreover, as mentioned earlier, a team approach is often necessary and thus might not
always be possible with dissertation research. If considering a mixed methods study, it is
recommended that students seek some published mixed methods journal articles that use
their proposed research design and introduce these to advisors and committee members as a
working model. Published examples of research in a field will create legitimacy and feasibility
for this research approach.
Table 3.1, Overview of Social Science Research Methodologies, provides a broad summary
overview of qualitative research, illustrating its primary characteristics and indicating how these
compare and contrast with the characteristics of quantitative and mixed methods approaches to
social science research.
TABLE 3.1 ■ Overview of Social Science Research Methodologies
Quantitative Research Qualitative Research Mixed Methods
Research Postpositivist Constructivist, critical Pragmatic

paradigm theory/advocacy
Strategy/ Non-experimental Case study, grounded • Sequential design

tradition/genre design (descriptive, theory, ethnography, can be exploratory or
of inquiry correlational, and causal narrative inquiry, explanatory
comparative research) discourse analysis,
and experimental design phenomenology,
• Concurrent design
triangulates methods
(pre-experimental, action research,
quasi-experimental, postmodernism, and
true experimental, and poststructuralism
single-subject research).
Research • Collect and analyze • Understand and • A combination of

purpose numerical data to gain insights into quantitative and
explain, predict, or a phenomenon of qualitative methods
control variables interest. Emphasis is needed to fully
is on holistic understand and
• Seek consensus (the
description of the address a problem
norm)
phenomenon
• Examine topic in
order to quantify
• Delve into the
“essence” of the topic
results
• Investigate
• Seek range and
variation in findings
relationships
and cause–effect
phenomena
(Continued)
TABLE 3.1 ■ Overview of Social Science Research Methodologies (Continued)
Researcher role • Adopts an etic • Adopts an emic • Appreciates how

(outsider) point of (insider) point of view quantitative and
view qualitative data might
• Seeks to discover and
complement each
• Seeks to test or verify understand meaning
other
theory of experience
• Identifies variables, • Adopts a flexible

• Develops a rationale
for integrating aspects
makes predictions, stance and is open to
of qualitative and
and seeks specific change
quantitative research
evidence that will
• Is reflective about
support or disconfirm
own voice and
• Decides whether to
hypothesis prioritize one or the
perspective
other type of approach
• Believes that
• Acknowledges or to consider them
research can be
personal values, equally important
value-free
and brings own
• Attempts to remain experience to bear on
unbiased, objective, the study
and impartial
• Is active and involved
Research • Hypothetic-deductive: • Inductive: Research • Design combines

design Research is about is about “idea quantitative structure
“idea testing” generation” and qualitative
flexibility
• Design is determined • Design is proposed
up front and up front but is open • Borrows distinct
follows systematic and emergent, rather elements from both
procedures than rigid and fixed, quantitative and
to permit exploration qualitative approaches
• Large samples are
selected randomly • Small samples are • Purposeful or random
selected purposefully sample selection
• Study is conducted
under controlled • Research takes • Researcher-designed
conditions place within natural framework allows for
contexts innovation or creativity
• Usually involves
some form of pre- • Real-world situations
and posttest are studied as they
naturally unfold
• Little opportunity
for creativity outside • Researcher-designed
prestructured framework allows
research design for flexibility and
creativity
Methods of data • Uses existing • Researcher as • Research questions

collection instrumentation instrument determine the
methods
• Experimentation • Methods are
follows rigid emergent and flexible • Instruments yield
guidelines multiple forms of
• Instruments include
information that can
• Survey includes observation,
be triangulated
closed-ended surveys, interviews,
questions, scales, documents, focus
and ranking order groups, and critical
checklists incidents
• Instruments yield • Questions are

performance data, generally open ended
observational data,
• Multiple methods are
attitude data, and
combined to achieve
census data
triangulation
Methods of data • Deductive design • Inductive design • Research employs

analysis reduces data to leads to holistic, both quantitative and
precise numerical richly descriptive qualitative practices
indices findings
• Statistical as well as
• Statistical analysis • Analysis is based on textual analysis is
occurs after all data identifying themes used
have been collected and patterns
• Researcher offers • Phenomena are

causal explanations understood as
holistic and complex
• Analytic process
systems and are
is linear and
viewed within
unidirectional
particular social and/
or historical contexts
• Researcher tries
to authentically
depict the voices of
participants while
remaining reflexive
and politically aware
• Context sensitivity
and understanding
allows for
interpretation
• Analysis is iterative,
cyclical, and ongoing
(Continued)
Issues of • Seeks to uphold • Seeks to establish • Decisions are made

trustworthiness scientific standards credibility, according to methods
of validity and dependability, and used
reliability confirmability by way
of triangulation and
• Research is subject
other strategies
to threats to both
internal and external • Seeks to explain
validity, which must ways of achieving
be controlled and transferability of
accounted for in order findings to other
not to jeopardize similar contexts
the accuracy and
legitimacy of results
• Seeks to generalize
results from
research sample to a
larger population
• Presentation • Charts, graphs, and • Thick, rich description • Both quantitative and
of findings diagrams are used to is the primary mode qualitative modes
display results of data presentation of presentation are
used to illustrate
• Discussion explains • Visual displays are
the research design
and augments visual used to augment the
and to portray and
displays narrative discussion
describe findings
Source: This table first appeared in Bloomberg, L. D. (2007a). Revisiting research approaches. Unpublished manuscript.
Note: Although qualitative research is presented here as one broad approach, it must be remembered that each
design (tradition or genre) has its own peculiarities and nuances. Moreover, current thinking over the years has led
to the development of terminology that more appropriately reflects the nature and distinction of qualitative research.
DEFINING FEATURES OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
Qualitative research, a broad and evolving field of inquiry, involves the collection, analysis,
and interpretation of narrative and visual data to gain insight into an authentic phenomenon of
interest. Qualitative researchers study people in their natural settings, attempting to make sense
of or interpret phenomena and experiences in terms of the meaning that people bring to them.
Research is grounded in a philosophical position that is essentially constructivist in the sense
that it is concerned with how the complexities of the social and cultural world are experienced,
interpreted, and understood within a particular context and at a particular point in time. The
intent is to examine social situations or interactions, with the researcher becoming immersed in
the world of others in an attempt to achieve a holistic understanding of a phenomenon or experi-

ence. Certain key elements are characteristic of qualitative research in general:
Research questions are typically open ended, and sample selection is purposeful (some-
times referred to as purposive) rather than random (non-probability sampling). In
this way, the researcher selects participants who meet certain predetermined criteria.
Essentially, the goal of qualitative research is not to produce “truths” that can be gen-
eralized to other people or settings but rather to develop descriptive context-relevant
findings that make it possible for readers to decide whether similar processes can apply
to their own settings and communities. Because the researcher does not acquire infor-
mation and knowledge in a vacuum but rather from and within a context, the data are a
product of various situational factors. For this reason, qualitative researchers do not talk
about the “truth” of their findings but rather the “plausibility” of their interpretations.
The researcher strives to authentically describe the meaning of the findings from the
perspective of the research participants. To achieve this, data are gathered directly from
the participants themselves. Qualitative research is characterized by thick description, a
term coined by ethnographer and anthropologist Clifford Geertz (1973). Thick descrip-
tion is an important aspect in increasing the complexity of the research by thoroughly
describing the study’s setting, research participants, and related experiences so as to
produce findings and interpretations that will allow readers to derive contextualized
meaning and deep understanding.
Design complexity is an inherent characteristic, highlighting the multifaceted struc-

ture of qualitative inquiry; with its multiple intersecting components. As described by
Ravitch and Mittenfelner Carl (2020), “Design complexity refers to the ways that you,
as a researcher, strategically plan, design, and structure research processes so that you
can answer your research question(s) in the most complex, rigorous, and nuanced ways
possible. Design complexity necessitates data triangulation and the strategic sequencing
of methods as well as adopting a reflexive approach to design and data collection, includ-
ing dialogic engagement” (p. 122). Dialogic engagement implies not only the com-
munication between researchers and their research participants, but also the broader
academic community within which qualitative researchers work, and the assumption
that qualitative research is not a solitary endeavor, but a collaborative and connected
one whereby the research process itself—and the credibility thereof—is enhanced.
Triangulation addresses the four of trustworthiness criteria in qualitative

research, including credibility, transferability, confirmability, and transferability.
The qualitative researcher triangulates by making use of multiple different sources
and methods, and these are reported as part of the study’s methodology, including
peer review or peer debriefing (which provides an external audit of the research
process) and member checks (where participants’ views are solicited regarding the
credibility of the study’s findings, analyses, and interpretations). Trustworthiness,

which is a critical concept in qualitative research, is addressed in greater detail in
Chapter 4 of this book.
An underlying assumption of qualitative research is that rich data that are grounded
in a real-world context can be captured only by way of the interactive process between
the researcher and the research participants. Since understanding is the primary goal,
the researcher is the primary instrument for data collection and data analysis. The
subjective lenses that both the researcher and research participants together bring to a
qualitative study form the context for the findings. The closeness of the researcher to
the research participants and subject matter instills an in-depth understanding which
is beneficial to a thorough analysis and interpretation of the findings; however, this
intimacy heightens concerns regarding the researcher’s ability to collect (and interpret)
data in an unbiased manner. As such, the researcher is expected to be fully transparent
about their worldview and positionality, as this will significantly shape the research
process from design and choice of methods right up to data analysis and presentation of
the study’s findings. Research ethics and researcher reflexivity are critical to qualitative
research, and this is addressed more fully in Chapter 4 of this book.
Analysis of qualitative data is not linear but rather is a multilayered process that con-
tinually builds upon itself until a meaningful, contextually derived, and plausible inter-
pretation is achieved. The interconnections, possible inconsistencies, and interwoven
contextual input reaped in qualitative research demand that researchers embrace the
layers of their data from many sources. A large contributor to the complexity of the
analytical process is the inductive method. Qualitative researchers typically analyze
their outcomes from the inside out, deriving their interpretations from the themes they
see emerging in the data gathered. Design flexibility is a hallmark of qualitative meth-
odology. Due to the iterative and complex nature of the qualitative research process,
including data collection and data analysis, methodological choices can be modified
when necessary to explore and analyze new insights, and address emergent issues or
concerns as these arise.
Qualitative research, as a set of interpretive activities, privileges no single methodological
practice over another. The challenge is to appropriately match the research design to a research
problem, purpose, and questions. Thus, as a researcher, you are obliged to understand those
theoretical principles that shape the logic of your inquiry, as this will allow your study to be
appropriately positioned within an inquiry tradition and also lay the foundation for support-
ing your study’s findings. Preliminary steps in formulating your study include (a) exploring the
paradigmatic perspectives that the researcher brings to the study which is based on theoretical
orientation, worldview, and prior experience; (b) developing some familiarity with the current
landscape of qualitative research; and (c) identifying and selecting an appropriate qualitative
design (genre or tradition) that will align with and therefore best inform your research problem
and purpose.
RESEARCH PARADIGMS OR WORLDVIEWS
A knowledge claim implies certain assumptions about what the researcher will learn during
the inquiry and how she or he will learn. These claims might be called research paradigms or
worldviews—that is, a basic set of beliefs and assumptions that guide action; in this case, the
research process. A paradigm becomes the lens through which research is conceived, designed,
and executed. What we believe to be true, and even what we take for granted, impacts how
we think, perceive, and act. As Guba and Lincoln (1998) explain, our beliefs form the philo-
sophical substructure of our research, informing all of our decisions from topic selection all the
way to the final representation and dissemination of one’s research findings. Philosophically,
researchers make claims about what knowledge is (ontology), how we know what we know and
what “counts as knowledge” (epistemology), and what values go into knowing what we know
(axiology). It is important to understand that qualitative inquiry is informed by a researcher’s
worldview which is tied to a specific research paradigm. A paradigm or worldview provides an
orientation to the researcher that is informed and shaped by the field of study, and the research-
er’s own beliefs and assumptions regarding self and others, theoretical viewpoints, data quality
considerations, and previous experience (Eisner, 2017). There are essentially four core para-
digms that inform qualitative research and that identify how worldviews shape the conceptual-
ization, practice, and nature of research. Eisner (2017) also notes the bounds of these paradigms
are fluid and flexible, often merging or overlapping based on shifting viewpoints over time.
Postpositivism
Postpositivism, also known as “the scientific method,” refers to the thinking that developed
from logical positivism, a school of thought that maintains that all knowledge can be derived
from direct observation and logical inferences based on that observation (Phillips & Burbules,
2000). Postpositivism reflects a deterministic philosophy, and the problems studied by post-
positivists typically examine causes that influence or affect outcomes. Thinking within this
paradigm is reductionistic. The belief is that there are laws or theories that govern the world and
that these can be tested and verified. Thus, research typically begins with a theory and a set of
hypotheses, and the intent is to test ideas. Research is concerned with causal relationships, and
the aim is to advance the relationship between variables. The knowledge that develops through
a postpositivist lens is based on careful observation and measurement. Results of a study either
support or refute the theory. Being objective is an integral component of inquiry, and standards
of reliability and validity are important.
Pragmatism
Pragmatism arises from the work of Peirce, James, Mead, and Dewey. Pragmatism is not
committed to any one research philosophy or paradigm. For the many forms of pragmatism,
knowledge claims arise out of situations, actions, and consequences rather than from anteced-
ent conditions (as in postpositivism). There is a concern with practical application and work-
able solutions to research problems (Patton, 2015). Instead of methods being important, the
problem is primary. Researchers posit that research is contextually based and typically employs
both quantitative and qualitative approaches to understand the problem. Pragmatic researchers
propose that, within the same study, methods can be combined in creative ways to more fully
or completely understand a research problem. It is contended that researchers should be free
to choose the methods and procedures that best meet their needs and purposes and that the
research questions should determine the methods used. Pragmatists thus adopt multiple data
collection and data analysis methods.
Social Constructivism/Interpretivism
Social constructivism challenges the scientific-realist assumption of postpositivism that real-
ity can be reduced to its component parts. The basic tenet of constructivism is that reality
is socially, culturally, and historically constructed (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, 2000; Neuman,
2000; Schwandt, 2000). Therefore, research attempts to understand social phenomena from
a context-specific perspective. Social constructivists view inquiry as value bound rather than
value free, meaning that the process of inquiry is influenced by the researcher and the context
under study (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
The central assumption of this paradigm is that reality is socially constructed, that indi-
viduals develop subjective meanings of their own personal experience, and that this gives way
to multiple meanings. Therefore, it is the researcher’s role to understand the multiple realities
from the perspectives of participants. The only way to achieve this understanding is for the
researcher to become involved in the reality of the participants and to interact with them in
meaningful ways. Thus, constructivist researchers often address the “process” of interaction
among individuals. They also focus on the specific contexts in which people live and work
to understand particular cultural and historical settings. The constructivist researcher’s role
is essentially that of a “passionate participant,” as the facilitator of multivoice reconstruction
(Lincoln & Guba, 2000). Constructivist researchers recognize and acknowledge that their own
backgrounds shape their interpretations, and they thus position themselves in the research to
acknowledge their own cultural, social, and historical experiences. Rather than starting with
a theory (as in postpositivism), researchers pose research questions and generate or inductively
develop meaning from the data collected in the field.
Critical Theory
The critical theory paradigm, which also is referred to as an advocacy, liberatory, or par-
ticipatory framework, has a clear focus on social justice and includes feminist perspectives,
racialized discourses, queer theory, trans theory, and disability inquiry. This framework arose
during the late 1980s from the critique that postpositivist assumptions imposed unfair struc-
tural laws and theories that did not fit marginalized or disenfranchised individuals or groups.
In addition, the critique of constructivism is that it did not go far enough in advocating for
an action agenda to address the injustice and inequality inflicted on those who have become
the passive object of inquiry. Capper (2018) explains critically oriented epistemologies to
include critical race theory, LatCrit, Asian, TribalCrit, BlackCrit, disability studies theories,
feminist theories, queer theory, and theories of intersectionality. More recently, Esposito
and Evans-Winters (2021) write that while critical qualitative research may examine issues
of power, it does not always center on race and gender, stating that “intersectional research is
critical in that it always interrogates power while at the same time centering race and gender
in its attempt at an analysis of and accounting for systems of oppression” (p. 37). Collins and
Cannella (2021) seek to demonstrate that the historically embedded and diverse construc-
tions of race within the multiplicities and biases of various locations and time periods along
with the range of types of racisms (whether structural, institutional, or individual racism) are
intertwined with the construction of research broadly, and that traditionally marginalized
perspectives including feminisms, queer theories, indigenous knowledge, and a range of other
ways of thinking have tended to represent only particular knowledge. As these authors put it,
“Colonizing discourses have created one group that is vocal (with voice) and the other that is
silent … The researcher who ‘listens to’ and gives voice to participants, especially when those
participants have been traditionally oppressed, maintains power, a kind of intersectional
power that exhibits and facilitates racisms, sexisms, classism, and other forms of patriarchal
privilege and control” (2021, p. 3) and that the issues are complex and multiple, requiring
both a constant critical disposition but also the continued acknowledgment of the human
potential for kindness, possibility, and increased justice (2021, p. 5).
The term “criticality” provides legitimacy to the work of those qualitative researchers who
seek to raise awareness and address issues of power, dominance, social inequities, and discrimi-
natory practices that play out in the social world. Essentially, critical qualitative research cri-
tiques systemic inequalities in an ethically responsible and just manner (Denzin, 2017). Critical
theorists view research as intertwined with politics and therefore advocate that research contain
an integral action agenda that will bring about reform that will change the lives of the research
participants and the institutions and communities in which they live and work, as well as the life
of the researcher (Brookfield, 2005). Critical perspectives involve research strategies (e.g., action
research, participatory action research, and narrative analysis) that are openly ideological and
have empowering and democratizing goals. It is assumed that the researcher will engage partici-
pants as active collaborators in the inquiry so as not to further marginalize them as a result of
the inquiry. To achieve this, participants are typically involved in designing questions, collect-
ing data, and analyzing and interpreting information. Advocacy means providing a platform for
research participants so that their voice can be heard and their consciousness can be raised. The
goal of critical research is to create political debate and discussion to empower people to take
action, to bring about change in existing social structures and processes, and to reconceptualize
the entire research process (Freire, 1968/1970; hooks, 1990).
THE EVOLVING LANDSCAPE OF QUALITATIVE INQUIRY
As stated by Ravitch and Mittenfelner Carl (2020): “The field of qualitative research has devel-
oped significantly over time. A scan of the editions of The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative
Research, published by Denzin and Lincoln (from the first edition in 1984 to its fifth edi-
tion in 2018) shows the growth/evolution of the field, including the development of multiple
theoretical orientations and conceptual frameworks that guide qualitative research, improved
and more sophisticated methodological frameworks and methods of data collection and analy-
sis, and engagement with the representational aspects of qualitative inquiry and its relationship
to issues of equity, discrimination, marginalization, and social transformation” (p. 7). Changes
in research methods are rapidly evolving and also ultimately resulting in changes in research
focus, and as pointed out by Morse (2020), “… paradoxically, some of these changes are being
driven by an agenda purported to increase our standards of rigor” (p. 2). As an emergent and
fluctuating field of inquiry, qualitative research crosscuts disciplines and subject matters and
includes traditions associated with foundationalism, positivism, postpositivism, poststructur-
alism, postmodernism, posthumanism, and the many qualitative research perspectives and
methods connected to cultural and interpretive studies. Over the years, qualitative inquiry has
passed through several historical moments or phases. These moments overlap and coexist in the
present, and so the field of qualitative research continues to transform itself (Denzin & Lincoln,
2018).
The First Moment represents the traditional moment (1900–1950) and is associated with
the positivist paradigms and notions of objective science. Researchers (i.e., the lone ethnog-
rapher) wrote objective colonizing accounts of their observations in the field.
The Second Moment signifies the modernist or golden age (1950–1970) phase in which
qualitative researchers attempted to position their pursuits and research products as formal-
ized and rigorous, similar to quantitative traditions.
The Third Moment denotes blurred genres (1970–1986) and a time when the humanities
became a resource for the critical interpretation and exemplification of qualitative research
projects and included the “paradigm wars.”
The Fourth Moment characterizes the crisis of representation (1986–1990) and marks a
point in qualitative history in which researchers called for systematic reflection of their own
beliefs and values.
The Fifth Moment characterizes the postmodern period of new ethnographies (1990–
2000) in which researchers and audiences began to challenge grand narratives. There was
an ideological turn toward multiple realities and socially constructed truths, and research
was characterized by specific, local, and historical representations.
The Sixth Moment represents postexperimental inquiry (1995–2000) in which qualita-
tive research was linked with democratic policies and no discourse had a privileged place.
Qualitative researchers began to use performative strategies to communicate their findings.
The Seventh Moment is indicative of the methodologically contested present (2000–
2004) and included more intentional conversations about the limitations and possibilities
of qualitative research. Questions about race, class, gender, sexuality, and location arose in
research pursuits.
The Eighth Moment is representative of paradigm proliferation (2005–2010) and includes

interrogations into the innocence of qualitative research and research in general and also
battles managerialism in the audit-driven academy. Written cogitations about who is the
known and who is the knower, the purposes of research, and pushback against authority
and authorial voices are prevalent.
The fractured posthumanist present moment battles an uncertain, complex, utopian future
where critical inquiry finds its voice in the public arena (2016–). This phase in which we find
ourselves currently is characterized by renewed calls for social justice and is concerned with
moral discourse, asking that the social sciences and the humanities become sites for critical
conversations about race, gender, class, democracy, globalization, freedom, complexity, and
community. As Denzin and Lincoln (2018) outline, the current phase of qualitative research
includes the intellectual agenda (where issues and problems revolve around the implementation
of a social justice framework in an increasingly hostile environment to promote a critical quali-
tative inquiry); the advocacy agenda (advocacy should include showing how qualitative work
addresses issues of social policy and critiques outdated positivist modes of science and research);
and the ethical agenda (the qualitative inquiry community needs an empowerment code of eth-
ics that transcends disciplines, honors indigenous voices, and values compassion, community,
praxis, and social justice).
The critical focus, characterized by skepticism toward master narratives and grand theories,
has been directed toward phronesis—that is, practical contextualized knowledge that is respon-
sive to its environment (Marshall et al., 2022; Rantala, 2019; St. Pierre, 2021). Overall, there is
a greater emphasis across all qualitative traditions or genres regarding facilitating social change
by taking an active critical stance toward social structures and processes that shape individual
and collective life. The motivation is that qualitative inquiry has the potential to highlight ineq-
uities and inequality, barriers and access, poverty and privilege, and the implications of suffer-
ing from injustice. Recent trends indicate that qualitative research includes a strong activist
agenda, increasingly striving to go beyond prevailing assumptions, understandings, and norms;
making a strong case for nonhegemonic inclusive ways of thinking and informed action; and
thereby intentionally facilitating transformative and equity-oriented possibilities. As Denzin
and Giardina (2016) write in Qualitative Inquiry Through a Critical Lens,
As part of being open to the messy politics of our field(s), there needs to be a greater
openness to alternative paradigm critique. We need to work through the beliefs that
organize our interpretive communities, including our theories of being (ontology),
knowing (epistemology), inquiry (methodology), moral conduct (ethics), praxis, poli-
tics, truth, voice, and representation. (p. 9)
A critical stance vis-à-vis research is vital with dominant powerful and pervasive ideologies and
policies working to marginalize and silence individuals and groups who challenge the status
quo. Indeed, the title of both the 13th and 14th International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry
in 2017 and 2018 is Qualitative Inquiry in Troubled Times.
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH DESIGNS (GENRES OR TRADITIONS)
Qualitative research is in itself a field of inquiry that crosscuts disciplines and subject mat-
ters (Denzin & Lincoln, 2018). In addition to assumptions about knowledge, and operating
at a more applied level, are genres or traditions (the word strategy is more suited to quantita-
tive research) that provide specific direction regarding research design and research methods.
These vary depending on ideology and theory, focus of interest, degree of interaction between
researcher and participants, and participants’ role in the research. It is important to acknowledge
that traditions or genres are not always wholly separate, however, and may overlap. Moreover, to
complicate matters, each tradition is not necessarily an agreed-upon “whole,” often encompass-
ing numerous and diverse strands. Although all of qualitative research holds a number of char-
acteristics and assumptions in common, there are variations in how a qualitative study might be
designed and what the intent of the study might be. Each qualitative design (tradition or genre),
and indeed each individual researcher, has ways of defining a research topic; critically engaging
the literature on that topic; identifying significant research problems; designing the study; and
collecting, analyzing, and presenting the data so that it will be most relevant and meaningful.
Just as the researcher’s choice of qualitative research is directly tied to and must be aligned
with the research problem, purpose, and research questions, the same applies to the choice of
qualitative tradition or genre. As the researcher, you actively create the link among the problem,
purpose, and research design through a process of reflecting on the problem and purpose, focus-
ing on researchable questions, and considering how to best address these questions. Thinking
along these lines affords a research study methodological congruence. A research problem should
not be modified to fit a particular qualitative research design, and you cannot assume a particu-
lar qualitative design regardless of your research problem. In other words, research design fol-
lows the research problem; the appropriate research design is the one that is most appropriately
aligned with your research problem. Once you have determined that your study fits best with
qualitative methodology, and why this is so, the next step is to determine what type of research
design will be most suitable. This relates to the overall concept of methodological alignment
which is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 5 of this book.
Following is a descriptive and critical overview of some of the most current qualitative tradi-
tions or genres. Please note at the outset that while these traditions or genres are referred to here
as “research designs”, these are sometimes referred to as “methodologies”, and so please be aware
of some of the terminology that is used interchangeably in the literature. As you read further,
you will notice that the primary differences lie essentially in the particularities of the philo-
sophical and methodological underpinnings, the social context that is examined, the data col-
lection methods, the unit of analysis, data analysis strategies, and modes of presentation. While
not all qualitative researchers aim for social justice explicitly—some being focused on simply
describing a phenomenon or helping to create verstehen (deep understanding) of an unexplored
or underexplored situation—there is an increasing tendency for qualitative researchers to ask
themselves what will be the outcome of their research in terms of making some impact on a
larger social purpose. As such, you will notice a strong activist agenda among the different tradi-
tions or genres. The overviews that follow are not meant to be exhaustive. Rather, the intent is to
provide a succinct description of each tradition or genre in terms of methodology, philosophical

underpinnings and application (including social action or activist potential), methods (data
collection, analysis, and presentation), and critique (strengths and potential limitations). There
are some excellent texts that cover qualitative traditions or genres in great detail, and it is recom-
mended that once you are familiar with the basic tenets of each of these and have a clearer idea of
your study’s research design, you seek and explore more comprehensive literature pertaining to
your tradition or genre of choice.
Case Study
Overview
Case study is an in-depth exploration from multiple perspectives of the richness and complexity
of a bounded social phenomenon (or multiple phenomena), be this a social unit or system such
as a program, event, institution, organization, or community (Stake, 1995, 2005; Yin, 2018).
Case study is employed across disciplines, including education, health care, social work, his-
tory, sociology, management studies, and organizational studies. The purpose is to generate
understanding and deep insights to inform professional practice, policy development, and com-
munity or social action. Case study is both a methodology and an object of study (Creswell &
Poth, 2018). Yin (2018) refers to the “foundational trilogy” in that case study research refers to
the mode of inquiry, or genre; case studies refers to the method of inquiry, or research method;
and case(s) refers to the unit of inquiry in a case study.
Yin (2018) and Stake (1995, 2005), two of the key proponents of case study design, use
different terms to describe case studies. Yin (2018) categorizes case studies as exploratory or
descriptive. The former is used to explore those situations in which the intervention being evalu-
ated has no clear single set of outcomes. The latter is used to describe an intervention or phe-
nomenon and the real-life context in which it occurred. Stake identifies case studies as intrinsic
or instrumental, and he proposes that a primary distinction in designing case studies is between
single and multiple (or collective) case study designs. An intrinsic case study design is used
when the intent is to better understand the unique case; be it a program, project, or individual,
with the intent to gain a deeper understanding of the specific case. The study is not undertaken
primarily because the case represents other cases or because it illustrates a particular trait or
problem, but because the case itself is of interest. The essential purpose is not to come to under-
stand some abstract construct or generic phenomenon nor to build theory (Stake, 1995, 2005).
An instrumental case study design is used to accomplish something other than understanding
a particular situation, including gaining insight into an issue or helping to refine a theory. The
case is of secondary interest; it plays a supportive role, facilitating our understanding of some-
thing else. The case is often looked at in depth, its contexts are scrutinized, its ordinary activi-
ties are detailed, and because it helps the researcher pursue the external interest. Moreover, the
case may or may not be seen as typical of other cases (Stake, 1995). A single case study may be
an instrumental case study (research focuses on an issue or concern in one bounded case) or an
intrinsic case study (the focus is on the case itself because the case presents a unique situation).
A longitudinal case is chosen when the researcher seeks to examine the same single case at two
or more different points in time or to capture trends over time (Derrington, 2019). Collective
case studies are similar in nature and description to multiple case studies (Yin, 2018) and are
used when a researcher seeks to determine the prevalence or frequency of a particular phenom-
enon. This approach is useful when cases are used for purposes of a cross-case analysis in order
to compare, contrast, and synthesize perspectives regarding the same issue. The focus is on the
analysis of diverse cases to determine how these confirm the findings within or between cases,
or call the findings into question. Selecting a case (or cases) requires that the researcher establish
a rationale for a purposeful sampling strategy and clear indications regarding the boundaries of
the case (or cases).
Philosophical Underpinnings and Application

Since case study methodology is a broad definition of a choice of research focus, it can be used
with numerous methods and accompanying philosophical positions (Mills & Birks, 2014;
Yazan, 2015). Recent trends indicate that case study methodology has developed along two
very broad, distinct paths (Schwandt & Gates, 2018). One pathway aligns with interpretive
constructivist philosophy, with the goal of describing and explaining how everyday practices in
specific places are connected to larger structures and processes. The second pathway is a critical
orientation, which follows the lines of critical theory. A key assumption of this latter approach
is the application of explanations that contribute to understanding beyond the case at hand,
thereby looking for underlying mechanisms, conditions, and capacities that might be evidence
of contributory factors. A central consideration in case study methodology is to ensure that the
researcher’s selected methods are aligned with his or her particular ontological and epistemo-
logical beliefs.
Methods
Typically, case study researchers study current, real-life cases that are in progress so that they can
gather accurate information that is not lost by time. Additionally, where the focus is on potential
change and development, one can adopt a longitudinal design to study trends or evolution of
experience over time (Derrington, 2019). As an exploratory form of inquiry, case study affords
significant interaction with research participants, providing an in-depth picture of the unit of
study. Research is extensive, draws on multiple methods of data collection, and involves mul-
tiple data sources. Triangulation is critical in attempting to obtain an in-depth understanding
of the phenomenon under study and adds rigor, breadth, and depth to the study and provides
corroborative evidence of the data obtained. In selecting the set of data collection methods, it is
important that the researcher take into account the alignment between research questions and
the type of data that are needed to address those questions. Each data source is one piece of the
“puzzle,” with each piece contributing to the researcher’s understanding of the whole phenom-
enon. This convergence adds strength to the findings as the various strands of data are woven
together holistically to promote a deeper understanding of the case.
Analysis of data can be holistic or embedded—that is, dealing with the whole or parts of the
case (Yin, 2018). When multiple cases are examined, the typical analytic strategy is to provide
detailed description of themes within each case (within-case analysis), followed by thematic
analysis across cases (cross-case analysis), providing insights regarding how individual cases are
comparable along important dimensions to warrant any presumed common findings between
them. The challenge is to identify and address all plausible rival explanations to support the
overall findings (Yin, 2018). Research culminates in the production of a detailed description
of a setting and its participants, accompanied by an analysis of the data for themes, patterns,
and issues (Stake, 1995, 2005; Yin, 2018). In addition to thick, rich description, the researcher’s
interpretations, conclusions, recommendations, and personal reflection contribute to the read-
er’s overall understanding of the case study. Analysis of findings should show that the researcher
has attended to all the evidence, should address the most significant aspects of the case, should
demonstrate familiarity with the prevailing thinking and discourse about the topic, and should
address all plausible rival explanations as a core aspect of interpreting the study’s findings.
Thematic analysis is not for purposes of generalizing beyond the case but rather for rich
description of the case in order to understand the complexity thereof. A caveat of case study
research is that the goal is not generalizability but rather transferability—that is, how (if at all)
and in what ways understanding and knowledge can be applied in similar contexts and settings.
In case study research, the academic discussion has become redirected toward phronesis (practi-
cal contextualized knowledge that is responsive to its environment)—that is, how and in what
ways understanding and knowledge can be applied in other similar contexts, settings, and con-
ditions (Bloomberg, 2018; Marshall et al., 2022). The researcher attempts to address the issue of
transferability by way of thick, rich description that will provide the basis for a case or cases to
have relevance and potential application with regard a broader context.
Critique: Strengths and Limitations

Yin (2018) outlines the criteria for an exemplary case study, and these illustrate the strengths
of this qualitative genre: These criteria include the study’s significance. A single case study is
chosen because it was a revelatory case—that is, one that discovers and reflects some real-world
situation. A critical case is chosen because of the desire to compare rival propositions that reflect
a debate in the literature or differences in beliefs or perspectives. A longitudinal case seeks to
examine the same single case at two or more different points in time. The desired time intervals
would presumably reflect the anticipated stages at which the changes would most likely reveal
themselves, or alternatively, the researcher may be interested in capturing trends over time; the
study’s completeness. First, the researcher provides clear attention to the boundaries—that is, the
distinction between the phenomenon being studied and its context; and second, a case study
should convincingly demonstrate that the researcher has made an exhaustive effort to collect all
relevant evidence related to the phenomenon, including any rival explanations; the study’s con-
sideration of alternative perspectives. To adequately represent different perspectives, a researcher
should seek alternatives that challenge the assumptions of the case or that portray insightful
perspectives, including different cultural views, theories, and variations among research par-
ticipants. To the extent possible, an exemplary case study will anticipate possible alternative
or rival explanations and will illustrate how these are either accepted or rejected in light of the
study’s findings; and the study’s illustration of sufficient evidence. A case study should present
all relevant evidence, including a data trail depicting how the research was conducted and how
data were collected, analyzed, and interpreted. With regard to a multiple case study design, the
researcher should illustrate that the cross-case conclusions have not been biased in any way by
undue attention to any of the individual cases involved.
As with any other methodology or method, case study is not itself an inherently flawed
approach. Rather, it is when the research design or method used is an inappropriate fit for the
study’s research purpose and research questions. One caveat is that case studies may not have
clear beginning and end points, and deciding on boundaries that adequately surround the case
can be challenging. Another potential vulnerability is that the case may turn out not to be the
case it was thought to be at the outset, and as Yin (2018) recommends, single case designs par-
ticularly require careful investigation in order to minimize the chances of misrepresentation
and to maximize the access needed to collect data.
Ethnography
Overview
Ethnography, as both a method and a product, has multiple intellectual traditions located in
diverse disciplines. The word ethnography literally means “writing about people.” Ethnography
is a form of qualitative research focused on discovering and describing the culture of a group
of people and learning what it is like to be a member of the group from the perspectives of the
members themselves. Individuals become members of a culture through a socialization process.
Culture encompasses the shared attitudes, values, norms, practices, patterns of interaction, per-
spectives, material objects and artifacts, rituals, and language that members of a group use in
understanding their world and relating to others. Ethnography is a research design that com-
bines systematic interview and observation to characterize the way of life or culture of a people
or group. Cognitive ethnography places specific emphasis on understanding and including the
language of a people with whom the work is conducted, including the written rules, procedures,
and other instructions for how individuals within a cultural group behave with and perceive
one another (Schoepfle, 2022). Emerging from the basic principles of ethnography, Internet
ethnography, or virtual ethnography is an emerging method or methodology for conducting
qualitative research (Marshall et al., 2022).

Rooted in cultural anthropology, ethnography involves extended observations of the group,
most often through the researcher as participant observer becoming immersed in the day-to-
day lives of the participants. Ethnographers take a range of approaches to observing the social
reality depending on their specific discipline and philosophy, and classic ethnography has been
enriched by variation of its central principles and practices to include a deeply critical focus.
Ethnographers may be interested in social change (critical ethnography) or be focused on study-
ing populations that have been marginalized or overlooked (feminist theory, queer theory, trans
theory) or on the study of the cultural past of a group of people in order to uncover cultural roots
and whether and how the group has changed over time (ethnohistory). A researcher may also
be interested in her or his own personal experience by engaging in extensive self-reflection to
explore the cultural and contextual description and analysis of her or his life (autoethnography).
What characterizes all of these approaches is the emphasis on interpretation—that is, tapping in
to the very core of the meaning of experience from the perspectives of the research participants.
Methods
The ethnographic researcher studies an entire cultural or social group in its natural setting,
closely examining customs and ways of life, with the aim of describing and interpreting cultural
patterns of behavior, values, and practices holistically (Madden, 2011; Pelto, 2013; van Maanen,
1988, 1995, 2006). Fieldwork is a cornerstone of ethnography, typically involving the research-
er’s participation in a community or setting over an extended period of time. To produce a holis-
tic “cultural portrait,” the researcher gains access to the group through “gatekeepers” and key
informants. Ethnographers study the meaning of the behavior, interaction, and communication
among members of the culture-sharing group. Ethnography relies on extended fieldwork, and
data collection and data analysis are concurrent.
Ethnographic studies, like case studies, are reports of data gathered through multiple meth-
ods, typically in-depth interviews and participant observation. In his well-known work Tales
of the Field, van Maanen (1988) identifies three different types of ethnographic presentation:
the realist tale (displays a realistic account of a culture which is published in a third-person
voice), the confessional tale (a highly personalized account that displays the author’s power of
observation that calls attention to building credible and authentic cultural description), and
the impressionist tale (the researcher relates her or his own experiences as an autoethnographic
account. The tale is told through the chronology of events in the research process, drawing
attention not only to the culture under study but also to the experiences that were integral to
the cultural description and interpretation.) Performance ethnography is another presentational
form, involving the staged reenactment of ethnographically derived notes in which culture is
represented through performance (including staged production, artwork, dance, storytelling,
or film) rather than textually. Much of the work in this vein is aligned with the principles of
critical pedagogy.
Geertz (1973) coined the term “thick description” with an emphasis on the need to under-
stand and elaborate the symbolic import of what is observed and systematically documented
during fieldwork. This approach added an interpretive element to ethnography in an effort to
enhance the quality of ethnographic texts. A reflexive stance therefore becomes imperative so
that researchers remain accountable for their positions of authority and their ethical respon-
sibilities relative to representation and interpretation. The goal of analysis is to seek patterns
and irregularities, examining data for explanations of the studied phenomenon. Approaches
to analysis can include cultural analysis, thematic analysis, narrative analysis, content analysis,
and discourse analysis (Mills & Birks, 2014). The final product of analysis is a holistic cultural
portrait of the group that incorporates participants’ views (emic) as well as the researcher’s views
(etic). As a result, the reader learns about the culture-sharing group from the participants them-
selves as well as from the perspective of the researcher. The final product typically advocates
for the needs of the group or suggests changes in society so as to address the needs of the group.
Products may include performances, poems, and artworks. Both the process and the outcome of
ethnographic research are ways of examining and more deeply understanding a culture-sharing
group as well as the final product of that research which can bring added value. A hallmark of a
high-quality ethnographic study is that the researcher spends extended periods of time “in the
field” with the culture-sharing group, typically six months or more. The idea is that patterns
of behavior, language, and ideas evolve over time, and the ethnographer needs to examine how
these patterns develop and become established within the group. The end product is a detailed
description about the culture sharing, followed by themes that describe the patterns of beliefs,
ideas, behaviors, and language that have emerged over time within the group; in essence, devel-
oping a portrait of the culture-sharing group.

As Creswell and Poth (2018) point out, ethnography poses challenges for the following rea-
sons: The researcher needs grounding in cultural anthropology and familiarity with regard to
the meaning of the social-cultural system. Data collection is extensive and requires much time
involving prolonged immersion in the field. As a result, ethnography may not be suitable for
dissertation research where time frames and deadlines are involved. There is also the possibility
that the researcher will “go native”; that is, the researcher will become so immersed in the group
and identify with the group and as such be unable to complete the study, or alternatively become
compromised by the study. To counteract ethnocentrism, researchers take on emic and etic per-
spectives, but at the same time they do run the risk of “going native.” Because of this fine inter-
play and potential balance of opposing forces, triangulation of observations and data sources
becomes particularly important in ethnographic research. Moreover, critique has been directed
toward the Internet as an emerging and ever-changing tool and research site. An advantage of
using the Internet for conducting research is that it opens up the possibility of conducting stud-
ies in areas or contexts that may otherwise be inaccessible or with individuals who may not be
able to participate because of physical barriers or protection issues. This method, however, chal-
lenges the assumed rapport-building that characterizes traditional ethnographic approaches
in terms of being part of an everyday community and culture. As such, Internet ethnography
or virtual ethnography has yet to produce consensus regarding context-specific ethical issues
including privacy, identity, authenticity, site permissions, and informed consent.
Phenomenology
Overview
Phenomenology may be conceived as a philosophy and a method. The purpose of phenom-
enological research is to investigate the meaning of the lived experience of people to identify
the core essence of human experience or phenomena as described by research participants.
Phenomenologists are committed to understanding what our experiences in the world are like;
experience (verstehen) is to be examined as it actually occurs, and on its own terms (Smith et al.,
2009; Vagle, 2016; van Manen, 1990, 2016). While case studies focus on exploring the case or
event to gain a better understanding of the case itself, phenomenology focuses on studying indi-
viduals to better understand the essence of their experiences. Rather than study just the variant
structures of an experience (the unique part of an individual’s experience that varies from per-
son to person), phenomenologists assume that there is some commonality in human experience
and seek to understand this commonality, or essence. The essence is considered to be universal
and is present in particular instances of a phenomenon (van Manen, 1990, 2016). A phenome-
nologist arrives at this essence through a series of steps, such as locating significant statements in
the interview transcripts, developing meaning units that aggregate these statements, and then
developing a description of what the individuals have experienced and the context of their expe-
riences (Moustakas, 1994).

Rooted in the philosophical perspectives of Edmund Husserl (1859–1938) and subsequent
philosophical discussions by Martin Heidegger (1889–1976) and Maurice Merleau-Ponty
(1908–1961), phenomenological research involves studying a small number of subjects
through extensive and prolonged engagement to develop patterns and relationships of mean-
ing (Moustakas, 1994). The word phenomenology is derived from the Greek words phain-
oemn, meaning appearance, and logos, meaning reason. According to Stewart and Mickunas
(1990), phenomenology is a “reasoned inquiry which discovers the inherent essences of appear-
ances” (p. 3). To understand the world, specifically lived experiences, scientifically requires das
unmittelbare schen (direct seeing), which Husserl (1913/1931) described as “not merely sensory
seeing of experience, but seeing in general as the primordial presentive consciousness of any
kind whatsoever” (p. 84). Essentially, to know is to see, and to see is to look beyond con-
structions, preconceptions, and assumptions to the essences of the experience being explored.
Epoché and reduction are key elements in Husserl’s philosophy of phenomenology. Epoché is
the Greek word for abstention. Husserl used this term to capture the actions required to sus-
pend the natural attitude of taken-for-granted beliefs and the attitude of science. As a mathe-
matician, Husserl borrowed the familiar word bracketing to more concretely provide the image
of putting parentheses around our various presuppositions and assumptions that can hinder
our being open to the meaning of phenomena. Bracketing is the means to achieving reduction,
which comes from the word re-ducere, which means to lead back. Bracketing helps keep a ten-
sion between a researcher’s past and present. It helps prevent researchers from being distracted
by their presuppositions by setting aside their own experiences to understand the participants’
experiences (van Manen, 1990, 2016). Bracketing can be conceptualized essentially as the
researchers’ attempt to hold in abeyance their preunderstandings and assumptions to attain
experiences before making sense of them. Dörfler and Stierand (2021) explore the process
of bracketing, provide an argument for its significance, and offer a way of implementing the
theoretical construct of bracketing as a methodological tool through researcher reflexivity,
which is one of the distinguishing features of rigorous and trustworthy qualitative research.
Bracketing involves writing memos throughout data collection and analysis as a means of
examining and reflecting upon the researcher’s engagement with the data and with the evolv-
ing findings: First, engagement occurs in identifying and setting aside assumptions. Second,
engagement occurs by way of hermeneutic revisiting of data and of the researcher’s evolving
comprehension of it in light of revised understanding and insights. Both of these processes are
ongoing, and include the intentional development of appropriate and relevant language with
which to represent study’s findings.
The notion of bracketing is considered one of the key elements that distinguish Husserlian
phenomenology. Heidegger, a pupil of Husserl, moved phenomenology from a descriptive to an
interpretive endeavor, focusing on the hermeneutic perspective, which recognizes that human
existence is always embedded within a world of meanings. In contrast to Husserl’s epistemo-
logical focus, Heidegger considers the question of being and, in particular, explores the human
experience of being, which he termed “Dasein.” For Heidegger, what makes human beings dif-
ferent from other beings is their ability to be concerned about their very own being. van Manen’s
(1990) hermeneutic phenomenology emerged within the discipline of pedagogy. In a clear point
of departure from other types of phenomenology, van Manen straddles both descriptive and
interpretive phenomenology with the goal of transforming lived experience into a “textual
expression of its essence” (1990, p. 36). In contrast to traditional or classical phenomenology
(founded by Husserl), a newer type of phenomenological research has developed, referred to as
interpretive phenomenological analysis or IPA (Smith et al., 2009). IPA targets how particular
people in particular contexts make meaning and interpret their experiences. The focus is on
research participants’ perspectives on their own experiences rather than attempting to describe
their transcendental experience (i.e., experiences that cut across all people). IPA therefore criti-
cally questions the concept of participants bracketing their demographic, cultural, and personal
characteristics.
Methods
First and foremost, philosophy itself is the foundation of phenomenology. Any student who seeks
to conduct a rigorous phenomenological research dissertation will need to study philosophy
(Peoples, 2021). Students are commonly required to incorporate a theoretical framework of
their choice for dissertation work, but the theoretical framework for phenomenological research
is always phenomenology. There are two main philosophies to study for choosing a fitting phe-
nomenological method: Husserl’s transcendental phenomenology and Heidegger’s hermeneutic
phenomenology. It is certainly fine to use a different theoretical framework but only as a sec-
ondary framework to phenomenology (Peoples, 2021). Second, phenomenological research is
strictly aimed at understanding experiences as “lived.” As explained by Peoples (2021),
Meaning-making is essential to phenomenological inquiry but only within the con-
struct of experience. A phenomenological research study is used to answer the question,
“What is it like to experience a certain phenomenon?” If this same question is posed to
enough people in a certain situation, a researcher can analyze multiple experiences of
the same situation and make certain generalizations of a particular experience. This
sounds simple enough, but it is precisely the simple concept of studying ONLY experi-
ence that brings about confusion. In general definitions of phenomenological research,
one might find some explanations that state that phenomenological research is used to
study or understand people’s perceptions or perspectives of any particular situation.
While this explanation is technically true (after all, perceptions and perspectives are all
parts of experience), it can mislead a beginner researcher when constructing research
questions. Phenomenological questions (both research questions and interview ques-

tions) are limited to experiences and do not ask about opinions, perceptions, perspec-
tives, or any other thoughts about a topic. (p. 4)
While the philosophy of phenomenology that underpins research is critical, attention must
also be paid to methodology. There are two types of phenomenology: descriptive and interpre-
tive phenomenology. In descriptive phenomenology, the essence of an experience is described.
Interpretive phenomenology is also called hermeneutic phenomenology. Hermeneutics is the
science of interpretation, which is viewed as critical to understanding. In hermeneutic phenom-
enology, understanding is achieved through co-constructing the data with research participants
and achieving understanding through a continual movement between the parts and the whole
of the text of the participants’ descriptions, derived through in-depth interviews as outlined by
Bevan (2014) or Seidman (2019). The in-depth interview transcript forms the basis of the data.
As states by Eddles-Hirsch (2015) “It is through the participants’ descriptions of the phenom-
enon being investigated that the researcher is able to uncover the invariant structures or essences
of the phenomenon being investigated” (p. 254).
Phenomenologists focus on describing what the participants have in common, the basic
purpose of research being to reduce individual experiences with a phenomenon to a description
of the universal essence (van Manen, 1990). In phenomenological research, the researcher is a
writer, as the craft of writing is central to this design. Writing is intricately linked to analysis,
as the researcher attempts to capture, by way of in-depth interviews, the essential characteris-
tics of the phenomenon. van Manen (1990) discusses phenomenological research as a dynamic
interplay among various core research activities: First, the researcher focuses on a phenomenon
or lived experience that is an “abiding concern” (p. 31). The researcher, in taking on a reflex-
ive stance, reflects on essential themes that constitute the nature of this lived experience. The
researcher then writes a description of the phenomenon, maintaining a strong relationship to
the topic of inquiry. For van Manen (1990, pp. 30–31), hermeneutic phenomenological research
consists of a dynamic interplay of six phases:
• Turning to a phenomenon that seriously interests us and commits us to the world;

• Investigating experience as we live it rather than as we conceptualize it;
• Reflecting on the essential themes that characterize the phenomenon;
• Describing the phenomenon through the art of writing and rewriting;
• Maintaining a strong and oriented pedagogical relation to the phenomenon; and
• Balancing the research context by considering parts and whole.
Phenomenology is not only description, however; it is also an interpretive process in which

the researcher interprets the meaning of the lived experience of the research participants
derived from the in-depth interviews. As Moustakas (1994) points out, the concept of epoché
involves bracketing one’s own experiences as much as possible to take a fresh perspective vis-à-
vis the phenomenon under consideration; however, this state is seldom perfectly achieved.
Phenomenological reduction is the scientific process in which a researcher suspends or holds

in abeyance their presuppositions, biases, assumptions, theories, or previous experiences to see
and describe the phenomenon (Gearing, 2004). To achieve this, the researcher engages in the
self-reflective process of “bracketing,” with the analytic goal of attending to the participants’
accounts with an open mind (Gearing, 2004; van Manen, 1990). Additional reflexive practices
include consulting with colleagues and mentors and writing memos throughout the analysis
to help analysts examine how their thoughts and ideas evolve as they engage more deeply with
the data. Memos also serve the function of establishing an audit trail, whereby the researcher
documents their thoughts and reactions as a way of keeping track of emerging impressions of
what the data mean, how they relate to each other, and how engaging with the data shapes
their understanding of the participants’ experiences. The researcher analyzes data by identify-
ing descriptions of the phenomenon and clustering these descriptions into discrete categories
or meaning units. The analytic process begins by searching for significant statements related to
the phenomenon under study and then deriving meanings and themes. Following analysis, the
researcher develops a textual description of the experiences of participants, as well as a structural
description of their experiences, to produce a combination of descriptions in order to convey an
overall essence of the phenomenon, which is essentially the core commonality and structure of
the lived experience (Moustakas, 1994; van Manen, 1990).
In the phase of hermeneutic phenomenological reflection, van Manen’s approach helps
researchers to grasp the essential meaning of the experience being studied (Tatano Beck,
2021). This is the phenomenological process of thematic analysis. As explained by van Manen
(1990), phenomenological themes “are more like knots in the webs of our experiences, around
which certain lived experiences are spun and thus lived through as meaningful wholes” (p. 90).
Researchers can use any one of the following three approaches to uncover and derive themes:
wholistic, selective, or detailed. In a wholistic approach, the researcher seeks to capture the
meaning of the entire text. In the selective approach, the researcher highlights certain phases
or statements that appear especially revealing about the experience. In the detailed approach,
every sentence is examined line by line. Once themes have been identified, researchers can go
back to their participants to follow up on collaborative hermeneutic conversations when the
participants reflect on deeper meaning of the themes. van Manen (1990) also suggests having
collaborative hermeneutic conversations with a research seminar or group for the purpose of
developing a more in-depth understanding of the phenomenon. Analysis for themes is thus a
cornerstone in phenomenology, but as van Manen (2016) points out, the real analysis occurs in
writing the phenomenological text itself. Phenomenological research cannot be separated from
phenomenological writing. Through phenomenological writing “the reader must be taken,
touched, overcome by the phenomenological effect of reflective engagement with lived experi-
ence” (van Manen, 2016, p. 390).

While phenomenology provides a structured approach toward deep understanding of a phe-
nomenon as experienced by several individuals, there are some critiques of this form of inquiry:
Phenomenology requires some understanding of broader philosophical assumptions, and these
should be identified and explained by the researcher. Moreover, bracketing personal experi-
ences is difficult, if not impossible, and rather than strive to bracket experiences, the researcher
should decide how and in what ways her or his own personal understanding can be introduced
into the study and usefully incorporated in the analysis. Quality and rigor have also become
key areas of critique of phenomenology, and ongoing scholarly debate ensures that phenom-
enology as a method continues to develop and that strategies for researchers to ensure rigor
and research quality will continue to be refined and enriched. The use of phenomenology as a
method in the educational research literature has risen in popularity, particularly by research-
ers who are interested in understanding and generating knowledge about first-person events or
the lived experiences of students in certain educational contexts. However as pointed out by
Stolz (2020), some conceptual mistakes and associated confusion have also arisen, including
where a student, “picks and chooses ideas, concepts, methods from phenomenology in an ad
hoc way; however, at the same time does not adhere to the same ideas, concepts, methods, and
so on of phenomenology” (p. 1078). Furthermore, another problem centers on the serious lack
of interpretative rigor because the researcher’s presuppositions, misconceptions, and biases have
not been removed from the research because the true practice of bracketing as a method has not
been applied (Stolz, 2020).
Grounded Theory
Overview
Grounded theory is most appropriately employed in studies where little is known about a phe-
nomenon of interest. The purpose of grounded theory is to inductively generate theory that
is grounded in, or emerges from, the data. Theory can be defined as “an explanatory scheme
comprising a set of concepts related to each other through logical patterns of connectivity”
(Schwandt, 2016). The goal is to move beyond description and to have the researcher gener-
ate or discover a theory of a process, an action, or an interaction grounded in the views of the
research participants (Corbin & Strauss, 2015). Study participants would all have experienced
the process, and the development of theory might explain practice or provide a framework for
further research. A core component is that theory development is generated by or “grounded” in
data from the field—especially in actions, interactions, and social processes (Corbin & Strauss,
2015). Theory is not generated a priori (i.e., based only on reasoning) but rather is based on the
concepts that are generated directly from the data that are collected. In other words, theory is
inductively derived or generated.
Sebastian (2019) notes that since its inception in 1967, grounded theory has developed
many different approaches based on different epistemological and ontological assumptions.
At its genesis, Sebastian noted grounded theory was described by Glaser and Strauss (1967)
as a “discovery of theory” from data that are systematically obtained and analyzed in social
research. Over time three primary schools of thought have developed: classical, interpretive,
and constructivist grounded theory. Classical grounded theory is an inductive process that col-
lects data, analyzes the data, develops substantive theories and reviews the literature to explain
the findings. Whereas the researcher is distant and detached in the classical approach, in the
interpretive approach, the researcher is engaged in actively interpreting the data. In the con-
structivist approach, the researcher actively constructs theory from the data instead of “dis-
covering” it. In each approach, the constant comparative method remains true to the original
criteria of grounded theory and the objective is to develop new theories from the data.

Grounded theory is an overall approach to inquiry with the purpose of generating theories
that explain interactions and/or settings of interest. In its original conception, grounded the-
ory sought to build explanations of social phenomena by working backward—from data to
theory. As such, this was somewhat revolutionary, and still remains a highly nuanced qualita-
tive research design occupying a specific niche in the field of qualitative inquiry. Theoretical
insights as articulated by the researcher have explanatory power to make a significant contribu-
tion in terms of knowledge building as well as potential practical application, and this was the
key rationale of the proponents of grounded theory, Glaser and Strauss (1967) and Strauss and
Corbin (1998). In their cutting-edge book, Glaser and Strauss (1967) opposed conventional
notions about research, methods, and theory and offered new justifications for qualitative
inquiry. According to Charmaz (2020),
They challenged the arbitrary division between theory and research, prevailing views of
qualitative research as a precursor to more “rigorous” quantitative methods, beliefs that
qualitative methods were impressionistic and unsystematic, the separation of data col-
lection and analysis phases of research, assumptions that qualitative research could not
generate theory, views that limited theorizing to an intellectual elite. (p. 196)
As discussed by Nathaniel (2012), while Glaser and Strauss gave much credit to the teachers that
influenced them, neither of them fully discussed the philosophical foundations of grounded
theory; and contrary to popular belief, symbolic interactionism is not the sole philosophical
foundation of this research approach. As this author writes,
Over the years, various authors have proposed piecemeal explanations of the method’s
ontological, epistemological, and methodological underpinnings, thus promoting ero-
sion and remodeling of the grounded theory method and creating a variety of notions
about the method’s philosophical foundation. (p. 187)
It appears that the grounded theory method was influenced by Glaser’s study of quantitative
and qualitative math at Columbia University, his study of explication de texte at the University of
Paris, and his study of theory construction under Robert Merton, who emphasized conceptual
integration as essential to theory development. These influences, together with Strauss’ study
of symbolic interactionism under Herbert Blumer at the University of Chicago (Glaser, 1998;
Glaser & Strauss, 1967), form the foundational strands that undergird the rigorous scientific
processes of classic grounded theory (Nathaniel, 2012). The basic notion of symbolic interac-
tionism is that human action and interaction are understandable only through the exchange
of meaningful communication or symbols. In this approach, humans are portrayed as acting,
as opposed to being acted upon (Blumer, 1969). Based on this premise, grounded theory can
become a powerful qualitative method for social justice inquiry and a means of informing pol-
icy and practice (Charmaz, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2020; Charmaz, Thornberg, & Keane, 2018). As
a systematic comparative method of constructing theory, grounded theory brings micro- and
mesoanalyses to the foreground by illustrating connections to institutionalized macro struc-
tures and processes. Such connections, in turn, link individuals and interactions to oppressive
social policies and practices. Grounded theory can illustrate how inequities and discriminatory
social practices are enacted in different ways. The first is by providing interpretive analyses of
how structural inequality is played out in individuals’ meanings and actions and how individual
agency and actions affect larger social structures. Second, theorizing can generate insights and
ideas that challenge or refine current policies and practices, as grounded theory provides tools to
discover the ideological roots of implicit meanings, actions, and broad social processes of which
people may be unaware. Third, grounded theory offers researchers taking a social justice view
an opportunity to gain intimate familiarity to analyze discourses reported on the substantive
topic and the actions concerning it—as such, situating and theorizing implicit shared meanings
that can expose unrecognized or unacknowledged contradictions (Charmaz et al., 2018).
Methods
Grounded theory was the first qualitative design to adopt a systematic approach for codifying
and categorizing data. As a result, researchers were provided with the methodological means to
construct meaning from research findings through a three-phased approach, including open,
axial and selective coding. This phased coding strategy enables a cyclical and evolving data loop
in which the researcher engages, is constantly comparing data and applying data reduction and
consolidation techniques. This method of coding enables a progressive and verifiable means
for establishing codes, their origins, relationships to each other, and integration, all resulting
in essential themes to be identified and interpreted, thereby constructing meaning. As such,
grounded theory can be considered a “constellation of methods” for collecting, managing, and
analyzing qualitative data (Charmaz, 2015). To examine changing experiences over time and to
describe the dimensions of experience, research involves multiple recurrent stages of data collec-
tion and the refinement of abstract categories of information (Birks & Mills, 2015; Charmaz,
2014, 2015, 2016; Corbin & Strauss, 2015; Holton & Walsh, 2017). Data analysis starts at the
moment of initial contact with the phenomenon being studied and continues throughout the
development of a grounded theory. In other words, data collection and data analysis are concur-
rent and continual activities. Open-ended interviews and observations are used to collect data.
Two primary characteristics of grounded theory are the constant comparative method of data
analysis (i.e., the ongoing comparison of data with emerging categories by way of induction,
abduction, and deduction as well as the ongoing creation of memos to promote deeper learning
and reflection) and theoretical sampling of different groups to maximize the similarities and dif-
ferences of information. As Holton (2012) explains,
The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis lays out procedures for tak-
ing explicit coding strategies from quantitative methodology and combining these with
methods for generative theory development while at the same time distinguishing the
constant comparative method from the more conventional approach to qualitative anal-
ysis through analytic induction. (p. 215)
The objective is to generate theory from the data or modify or extend existing theory. The
researcher integrates categories into a theoretical framework that specifies causes, conditions,
and consequences of the studied process. Through theoretical sampling coupled with theoreti-
cal sensitivity, the researcher strives to ensure that the raw data are reflected or grounded in the
final theory produced.
Theoretical sensitivity is important on the part of the researcher in order to be able to deter-
mine what kind of data need to be collected and what aspects of the data are most important
for the grounded theory. Grounded theory data analysis involves three stages that facilitate the
development of a theory that is grounded in the data. Researchers typically begin with open cod-
ing—that is, coding data for major categories of information. This first stage involves examining
the data and naming and categorizing discrete elements in the data in order to develop concepts.
During the second stage, the researcher develops the concepts into categories and looks for pos-
sible relationships among the categories. This involves axial coding—that is, identification of
one open coding category as the “core phenomenon.” Axial coding gives way to the emergence of
causal conditions (factors that cause the “core phenomenon”), strategies (actions taken in response
to the core phenomenon), contextual and intervening conditions (situational factors that influ-
ence the strategies), and consequences (outcomes as a result of the strategies). In the third and
final stage, the researcher looks for the story line of the theory by reflecting on the data and
the findings that were produced during open coding and axial coding, rechecking the theory
with the data, and consulting with the published literature for additional ideas in developing the
grounded theory and understanding its broader significance. This final process involves selective
coding; that is, the researcher develops propositions or hypotheses that interrelate the categories
or assembles a story line that describes the interrelationships among categories.
Analysis is considered to be complete when theoretical saturation occurs—that is, when
no new concepts emerge from the data and when the theory has been thoroughly confirmed by
the collected data. The grounded theory project culminates in the identification of a theory, a
general explanation of a process (or an action or interaction). The researcher may develop this
theory on the basis of a series of analytic steps that include coding the data in several ways,
including open coding, axial coding, and selective coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The theory
may appear as a description of the explanation of the process or as a diagram that highlights the
major steps in the theory and the processes that were involved. Accompanying the description
or diagram may be research questions that the theory raises for future testing.

Glaser and Strauss (1967) list four characteristics of grounded theory: fit, understanding,
generality, and control. First, the theory must fit the data if they are to be useful. Second,
the theory must be clearly stated and understandable to all. Third, the theory should display
generality in that the scope of the theory and its conceptual level should not be so specific
but rather be applicable beyond the original research study. Fourth, if a practitioner uses the
theory, she or he will have some control over the phenomenon that is explained by the theory.
This would ensure that the application of the theory in everyday practical situations would be
relevant and worthwhile.
The theory developed by the researcher is articulated toward the end of the study, and
this theory hopefully has explanatory power to make a significant contribution in terms of
knowledge building and potential practical application. Critiques of grounded theory include
researcher ability to set aside or suspend theoretical ideas so that the analytic substantive the-
ory can emerge. In addition, the researcher faces the difficulty inherent in determining when
categories are saturated or when the theory is sufficiently detailed. As with other qualitative
traditions or genres, examining researcher positionality is also crucial because the researcher
and the researched typically hold differential and unequal positions of power and privilege.
Interpretation is inherently political, and so too are our notions of justice and what constitutes
social justice inquiry. As such, it is imperative that the researcher engaged in a social justice–
oriented grounded theory study be explicit about prior ideas, conceptions and experiences.
Various researchers have attempted to address some of the critiques and limitations of the
practice of grounded theory research. Timonen et al. (2018) explain that because grounded
theory has evolved over time to comprise several different variants (“remodeled,” “constructiv-
ist,” and evolved), researchers new to this methodology often have difficulty in grasping the
different strands within it. As such, processes such as theoretical sampling and saturation are
frequently misunderstood. To make this methodology more comprehensible and accessible,
these authors outline the main tenets of grounded theory, dispel some of the common myths
associated with it, and propose some core principles underpinning existing grounded theory
approaches that can aid further engagement with the different variants.
Furthermore, a critique of grounded theory is that there are ontological and epistemologi-
cal flaws with the original conceptualization, now commonly referred to as “classic” grounded
theory or “Glaserian” grounded theory, asserting that this has positivist, realist, and objectivist
underpinnings making it antithetical to qualitative research (Simmons, 2012). Charmaz (2015)
illustrates how grounded theory has generated innovative ideas since its earliest beginnings.
This researcher, one of the field’s most established scholars, promotes a constructivist grounded
theory approach, explaining that this approach addresses previous criticisms raised about ear-
lier versions of grounded theory as a qualitative methodology being somewhat mechanical and
inflexible. Constructivist grounded theory adopts the inductive, comparative, emergent, and
open-ended approach of Glaser and Strauss’s (1967) original statement (in line with the pragma-
tist tradition) but highlights the flexibility of the method and resists mechanical applications of
it (Charmaz, 2015). In defense of grounded theory and its potential to bring about change in the
real world, Simmons (2012) states that,
The real test of a theory is the extent to which it works for action. Actors in the social
world who want to bring about constructive change have no investment in and usually
no awareness of whether or not theories were developed with an underpinning of con-
structivist or objectivist ontological/epistemological assumptions. They only care if the
theory is relevant to and will be useful in their efforts. They just want it to work. (p. 27)
Narrative Inquiry
Overview
Narrative is regarded as “the primary scheme by which human existence is rendered meaning-
ful” (Polkinhorne, 1988, p. 1). Narrative research is focused on how individuals assign meaning
to their experiences through the stories they tell. Narratives are always interlinked between an
individual and her or his social and cultural context, and as such, narratives cannot be isolated
or looked at independent of context. Narrative research has many forms, incorporates a variety
of practices and applications, and is rooted in different social disciplines (Loseke, 2022; Mills
& Birks, 2014). To begin, it is important to understand that narrative inquiry as a research
genre can be employed successfully in multiple disciplines, and no two narrative studies will
look alike. Paramount in any narrative research is the necessity to “think narratively,” as narra-
tive inquirers structure a self-narrative through living, telling, retelling, and reliving (Connelly
& Clandinin, 1990, 2006). A biographical study is a form of narrative inquiry in which the
researcher records the experiences of another’s life. Autobiography is written and recorded by
those who are the subjects of the study.
In narrative inquiry research, participants tell stories of their lived experiences, and then
in relational ways, the researcher inquires into and about these experiences. This approach is
essentially the study of life experiences as a storied phenomenon. In contrast to phenomenol-
ogy, where the goal is to describe the essence of the experience of a phenomenon, the narrative
researcher works with the participant to discern the individual storied experience through nar-
rative threads, narrative tensions, plotlines, narrative coherences, and/or silences, and then com-
poses a narrative account of the participant’s storied experience. Narrative inquirers also inquire
into the institutional, social, cultural, familial, and linguistic narratives in which each partici-
pant’s experiences are embedded and that shape each individual experience. Narrative inquiry
may explore personal characteristics or identities of individuals and how they view themselves
within a personal or larger context. As such, this design has much to offer to the analysis of both
personal and institutional narratives (O’Toole, 2018). Chronology is central in narrative
inquiry, as it allows participants to recall specific places, situations, or changes within their life
histories. “Restorying” is the process of gathering stories, analyzing themes for key elements
(e.g., time, place, plot, and environment), and then rewriting the stories to place them within a
chronological sequence.

As the seminal authors in the field of narrative inquiry, Connelly and Clandinin (1990), pos-
ited, although narrative inquiry has a long intellectual history both in and out of education, it
is increasingly used in studies of educational experience. Humans are essentially storytelling
beings who, individually and socially, lead “storied lives.” As such, the study of narrative is
tantamount to the study of the ways humans experience the world. As researchers and scholars
have become increasingly reflexive about their work, what has emerged is the distinctiveness
of narrative as human activity and the specific ways that narrative inquiry can promote social
change (Chase, 2018). Narratives are socially constrained forms of action, socially situated
performances, and ways of acting in and making sense of the world (Denzin & Lincoln, 2018).
Wounded storytellers can empower others to tell their stories, giving them “voice.” Testimonios
(Latin American first-person eyewitness accounts narrated by those who are marginalized or
exploited and who lack social and political power) can mobilize individuals and even communi-
ties against perceived social injustice, repression, and violence (Chase, 2018). Telling the stories
of marginalized people can help create a public space requiring others to hear what they might
not want to acknowledge or hear. Collective stories can help form the basis of a social move-
ment. As such, narrative inquiry can serve to facilitate and advance a social change agenda. The
popularity of narrative inquiry in education is increasing as a circular and pedagogical strategy
that lends itself to the practical application of research (Kim, 2016; O’Toole, 2018).
Methods
The narrative researcher is immersed in the complexity of the multiple layers of stories we as
human beings live day to day. As a method, narrative research begins with the experiences as
expressed in lived and told stories of individuals or cultures, including poetry, play, or per-
formance. Life history, an integral research technique as developed by the Chicago School of
Sociology, offers a rich outlet for storytelling and narrative practices. A life history is essentially
telling or recounting of a series of events. The life history method, which works with personal
narratives, focuses on the unfolding history of one person’s experiences. The life history method
of data collection has emphasized the importance of listening to the voices of research partici-
pants, aiming to penetrate on a deep level by allowing participants to reflect on and relate their
stories and present their views. As explained by Lanford et al., (2019),
Unlike many other methodological approaches in the social sciences, life history blurs
the spectral divide between the researcher and the participant. As a life history project
unfolds over time, both parties attempt to produce, in an iterative and collaborative
fashion, a wide-ranging, yet detailed, portrayal of an individual life from the partici-
pant’s early years to contemporaneous experiences. Life histories need not be compre-
hensive, as they may focus on specific moments in a person’s life that are of particular
interest or are vital to contextualizing an explicit concern. (p. 459)
The concept of life history has a foundation in narrative inquiry (Lanford et al., 2019). Due to
its flexibility and emphasis on depth, life history can be an attractive methodological approach
for researchers who enjoy writing and collaboration.
The information gleaned from the story or stories is retold or “restoried” by the researcher
into a “narrative chronology” in order to provide the meaning of experiences. Narrative inter-
views are characterized as unstructured and in-depth (Muylaert et al., 2014). This type of inter-
view seeks to encourage and stimulate the interviewee to tell the interviewer something about
some important event of their life and social context, leading to emergent life stories of the
research participants. As explained, by Muylaert et al. (2014),
The narratives combine life stories and the sociohistorical contexts. While the narratives
reveal individual experiences and may shed light on the identities of individuals and the
images they have of themselves, they are also constitutive of specific socio-historical
phenomena in which biographies are rooted… The objective of narrative interviews is

not only to reconstruct the life history of the individual, but to understand the contexts
in which these biographies were constructed and the factors that produce change and
motivate actions. (p. 187)
As a qualitative research design, narrative inquiry assumes that the perspectives of participants
are best revealed when using their spontaneous language. As such, the researcher listens actively
and only uses the language of participants, without imposing any other meaning or interpreta-
tion. Throughout the interview process there is an integral collaborative element, since the story
emerges from the interaction, exchange, and dialogue between the interviewer and participant.
As explained by Muylaert (2014), “Narratives are considered representations and interpreta-
tions of the world and therefore, are not open to evidence and cannot be judged as true or false,
they express the truth of a point of view in a particular time, space and socio-historic context.
There is no access to the experiences of others; we are dealing with representations of these expe-
riences to interpret them from the interaction established” (p. 186). As Chase (2018) points out,
one approach is to make use of paradigmatic reasons including how individuals are enabled or
constrained by social resources. Ultimately, the narrative combines views from the participants’
lives with those of the researcher’s life, culminating in a collaborative narrative (Andrews et al.,
2013; Clandinin, 2007, 2013; Connelly & Clandinin, 1990, 2006; Daiute, 2014; Kim, 2016).
With narrative, the intent is to report stories about an individual’s life that illuminate a spe-
cific issue. This focus may be in the form of an autoethnography or autobiography that features
the stories of the author, a biography of another person, or stories of individuals within a specific
situation or context. The researcher seeks to develop a chronology that connects different phases
or aspects of a story. Stories may be told chronologically, over time, punctuated by events, but
because individuals typically do not tell their stories in a linear fashion, it is up to the researcher
to “re-story” the story to place it within a chronological story line. From the overall story, the
researcher can then identify and highlight emergent themes. Researchers can also construct
more general stories from particular stories; they can conceptualize blocks of communication
as stories even though they are not presented as such (Loseke, 2022). Researchers creating such
data, of course, must justify to their audiences the ways in which it makes sense to treat particu-
lar segments of communication as a story although they were not authored as such; they must
justify the ways in which it makes sense to assume that a group of stories shares sufficient form
or content to be conceptualized as one type of story (Loseke, 2022). Paramount to all narrative
work is the centrality of relationship in the research process and recognition of the sacredness
of the stories that participants share and trust within the research environment (Mills & Birks,
2014; Muylaert et al., 2014). It is important to note that some aspects of narrative analysis are
the same as those of qualitative analyses in general: Researchers conduct rigorous close readings,
and they categorize data in order to answer the study’s research questions. Because a distinctive
feature of narrative research is that story meaning is contextualized, narrative analysis also must
necessarily attend to the social contexts of story production as well as to how the story elements
that are a focus of research are contextualized within the actual stories being explored and retold
(Loseke, 2022).

It is important to remember that narrative research does not lead to conclusions and certainty.
Uncertainty and tension guide the work, and rather than produce conclusive findings, the pro-
cess offers understanding and meaning. There is an inherent reflexivity in narrative research that
demands the attention of the researcher and the participant collaborators as the story emerges
and evolves through multiple iterations. Each researcher will bring his or her own epistemologi-
cal and ontological views to the study, and so multiple challenging issues can potentially arise
in collecting, analyzing, and telling individual stories, not least of all being how the researcher
is positioned within the narrative. As Pinnagar and Daynes (2007) ask: Who owns the story?
Who has the right to tell it? Who can change it? Whose version is convincing? What happens
when narratives compete? As a community, what do stories do among us? Loseke (2022) sheds
light on the underlying power dynamics inherent in narrative research, and the reflexivity that
is necessary to examine and uncover power structures within stories and the ways in which the
stories of others are told and retold:
Power shapes storytelling because cultural meaning systems influence who can—and
who cannot—tell what kinds of stories in what kinds of circumstances as well as whose
stories likely will be believed and whose likely will be silenced or ignored. Power shapes
story content because stories with potentials to appeal to the largest audiences will
incorporate the systems of meaning shared by those in relatively privileged audience
segments although these meanings often are not those of the powerless. (p. 12)
Action Research
Overview
Action research (AR) is a systematic, collaborative, and democratic orientation toward inquiry
that seeks effective solutions to complex problems that people confront in their communities
and organizations (McNiff, 2018; Mertler, 2019, 2020; Stringer & Aragon, 2021). This qualita-
tive design focuses on resolving problems in social systems, such as schools and other organi-
zations. The emphasis is on addressing the presenting problem by generating knowledge and
taking action within the social system in which the problem is located. The goal is to generate
shared knowledge of how to address the problem by bridging the theory–practice gap (Bourner
& Brook, 2019). This research design is inherently pragmatic in that it seeks to apply the tools
of science in ways that enable research participants to work toward resolving significant issues
and problems within their family, community, work, or institutional lives. The research process
is iterative, cyclical, and participative in nature and is intended to foster deeper understanding
of a given situation informing future action, starting with conceptualizing and particularizing
the problem and moving through several interventions and evaluations. Action research studies
have direct relevance to improving practice and advocating for change. This type of research
is especially valuable to those involved in professional, organizational, educational, and com-
munity research, with a focus on engaging stakeholders in collaborative relationships and work-
ing on developing localized solutions. Many work settings have embraced action research as a
collaborative form of continual organizational learning. There are currently various different
strands of action research:
1. Participatory action research (PAR): PAR seeks to transform power relationships

inherent in the research process itself. PAR is grounded on the idea that participation
in the research process is a spectrum that can range from acquiescent participation to a
research process that can liberate participants from the traditional power relations and
ranking structures that exist within the context of the actual research. PAR assumes
that people in a particular context want to study themselves and their practices with
the goal of change and improvement. Rather than imposing research projects or
solutions onto a community, PAR projects provide targeted community groups with
the tools and skills necessary to study and transform their own contexts. This approach
emphasizes that multiple parties or stakeholders with an interest in the research topic
and project must work together as a research team in framing and conducting the
study, thereby collaboratively producing knowledge about a shared problem. A key
point of PAR is active involvement of participants in the conduct of the research and its
dissemination.
2. Critical action research (CAR): This approach is similar to PAR but places specific
emphasis on the political possibilities and ramifications of the research and emphasizes
the empowerment of those with little power in their communities and society. The
word critical signifies the addition of an ideological element to the research, striving
for immediate social change by emancipating the oppressed and increasing social
justice. CAR studies often include attempts at “consciousness-raising.” In the field of
education, an early proponent of this approach was Paolo Freire, who attempted to
use education to free the disadvantaged from what he saw as oppression through his
landmark text Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1968/1970).
3. Action science (AS): This approach was developed by Argyris and Schon (1978, 1996)
with a focus on research in organizations. In contrast to PAR and CAR, the emphasis
is on traditional scientific rigor and the attempt to transform an organization into a
learning organization in which people work and learn together, and grow over time. AS,
referred to as the science of practice, encourages rigorous experimentation and making
theories in use as explicit as possible.
4. Appreciative inquiry (AI): This approach focuses on an organization’s members and
working with them to achieve a jointly constructed and shared purpose, vision, and
goal. AI follows four phases: discovery, dream, design and destiny. Cooperrider et al.
(2008) defined AI as
The cooperative search for the best in people, their organization, and the world around
them. It involves the systematic discovery of what gives a system “life” when the sys-
tem is most effective and capable in economic, ecological, and human terms. (p. 433)

Kurt Lewin (1890–1947), founder of action research, emphasized that theory and practice
should be connected, leading to action, specifically social improvement. Lewin (1946) stated
that action research can “transform unrelated individuals, frequently opposed in their out-
look and their interests, into cooperative teams …on the basis of readiness to face difficulties
realistically, to apply honest fact-finding, and to work together to overcome them” (p. 211).
According to Lewin’s change theory (1946), systematic change follows three phases: unfreezing
(i.e., identifying and removing resisting forces), changing (i.e., creating an unbalance of forces so
that the driving forces are greater than the resisting forces), and refreezing (i.e., reaching a new
state of equilibrium). Action research arose too from the ideas and philosophy of John Dewey
(1859–1952), one of the classical American pragmatists, who was focused on the philosophy of
experience and who had great faith in education to improve society. Action research, being about
collaborative and democratic practices, with a key focus on influencing and impacting pro-
cesses of change, makes it essentially political. As McNiff (2018) explains, this means engag-
ing with the politics of research in general, of the social context, of the researcher, and of the
potential reader. Participatory action research and critical action research are explicitly ideologi-
cal and emancipatory, and are intended to critique and radically transform fundamental social
structures and processes.
Methods
Action research is typically participatory and collaborative and can employ both quantitative
and qualitative data collection methods. Qualitative methods include observation, interview,
and focus group. The researcher’s role is that of the facilitator who questions, problem-poses, and
consults. McNiff (2018) describes action research as “research in action on action for action”
(p. 14). The goal is, through systematic questioning and feedback, to open new “communicative
spaces” so that people may increase the effectiveness and meaningfulness of their work. Action
research encompasses a set of consciously collaborative and democratic strategies for generating
knowledge and designing action in which the researcher and other stakeholders work together.
The process includes a dynamic and powerful cycle of planning, acting, developing, and reflect-
ing (Mertler, 2019). The action research cycle includes five phases: 1. identification of the prob-
lem area, 2. collection and organization of data, 3. interpretation of data, 4. action based on
data, and 5. reflection. Essentially, action research is a cyclical and ongoing process of planning,
acting, developing, and reflecting. Action plans resulting from action research studies may be
informal or formal, and this is dependent on the nature and purpose of the action research proj-
ect. Developing an action plan takes time and thought, looking back and reflecting upon the
entire study, starting with the initial need or topic idea, the strategies for research design, data
collection, and data analysis, with the main focus on the study’s findings. This cyclical frame-
work enables people to commence on a shared and productive process of inquiry in a stepwise
fashion and to build greater detail into procedures as the complexity of issues increases. The
cycle is not necessarily linear, however, and the research can start at any phase and cycle through
the process multiple times.
Action research is based on the assumption that all stakeholders, those whose lives are
affected by the problem under study, should be involved in the research process in order to
inform understanding and subsequent action. As such, knowledge production unfolds and pro-
ceeds as a collective process, actively engaging people who have previously been the “subjects”
of research to collectively investigate and reconcile their own situation. The goal of this work is
improvement (AR) or transformation (PAR), and a report is often less important than the pro-
cess that leads to improvement or transformation, including lessons learned and changes consid-
ered and/or made. Depending on the interests and needs of participants, a written report may be
collaboratively produced, or an oral report or visual display illustrating lessons that were learned
or changes accomplished could become the final research product. Reporting, whatever form
it takes based on mutual collaboration between the researcher and participants, has inherent
relevance and meaning with regard to societal improvement, either directly or indirectly.

Action research can serve as an ideal mechanism for the advocacy of social justice within edu-
cational and societal contexts (McNiff, 2018; Mertler, 2019, 2020). This research approach
describes the complexity of local situations, integrates theory and practice, stimulates reflective
practice, and is committed overall to democratic social change. Moreover, data analysis and
interpretation can do more than possibly solving initial problems; it can also support the devel-
opment of community building necessary for assisting with the long-term implementation of
possible solutions to problems, as well as identifying and addressing newly arising problems or
issues.
A key feature of action research in the field of education is that it involves practitioner
researchers planning for and reflecting on the outcomes of a change in their practice in an ongo-
ing cycle of plan–act–reflect. As such, this is a design that is well suited to EdD or applied
doctoral programs where the dissertation research is “practice” oriented. The strength of this
design is that the research is deliberate and solution oriented, and involves an ongoing process
in which the researcher together with the research participants systematically examines their
own educational practice. The research process is characterized by spiraling cycles of problem
identification, systematic data collection, reflection, analysis, data-driven action, and, finally,
problem redefinition. There are essentially four integral themes: empowerment of participants,
collaboration through participation, acquisition of knowledge, and social change. The linking
of the terms “action” and research highlights the essential features of this research design: try-
ing out ideas in practice as a means of increasing knowledge about or improving practice. As a
result of an action research study, additional questions raised by the data are identified and the
researcher can then plan for additional improvements, revisions, and next steps.
The major limitation of action research is that it can tend to ignore some of the more basic
research literature, and as such is not based on a rigorous research design (Schwandt, 2016).
This often makes it difficult for institutional review boards to grant approval because multiple
people are involved and the researcher cannot always foresee many possible actions because
of the study’s fluid nature and continual development. Higgins (2016), in exploring some of
its pitfalls, also points out that the concept of action research has tended to become reified,
when packaged for methodology textbooks and professional development workshops. As such
the foundational principles may lose their true meaning and purpose, when this approach is
watered down for common and more superficial usage. Criticisms of action research have also
focused on issues of legitimacy, including voice, representation, power, control, and subordina-
tion (McNiff, 2018; Stringer & Aragon, 2021) and misappropriation (McNiff, 2018). A caveat is
that the research process can create large amounts of data in need of analysis to provide effective
interpretations for the implementation of positive change, and this might not always be clearly
understandable to stakeholders in order to gain their input in identifying and supporting pos-
sible solutions to the research problem. In defense of the rigor and credibility of action research,
Mertler (2020) and McNiff (2018) address the importance of ensuring that the findings not
only reflect the perspectives of the researcher but that these are indeed communicated to and
shared with the intended audience so that they can be useful and that the necessary action can
actually occur.
The Critical Genres

Overview
Critical genres are grounded in theories that assume society is structured by class, status, race,
ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation in order to maintain the oppression of marginalized
groups. A critical approach asks questions about the historical forces that shape societal patterns
as well as the fundamental issues and dilemmas of power, positionality, policy, and domination
in institutions, including their role in reproducing and reinforcing inequity and social injustice.
Critical approaches are rooted in the assumption that we live and work within a power-laden
context. The focus is on the complexities inherent in power relationships and the social, his-
torical, and ideological forces that serve to constrain knowledge building. Critical theorists are
wary of notions of absolute truth and dominant ideologies and are concerned with historical
inequities produced by rigid views of knowledge. The quest is to uncover dominant points of
view guised as universal truths, and to step away from dominant ideologies and create spaces
for resistive, counterhegemonic knowledge production that challenges the oppressive status
quo. Narratives are viewed as power-laden discourses developed for the maintenance of domi-
nant ideas or the power of individuals, institutions, or theories. In recognition of the socially
constructed nature of the world, meaning rather than knowledge is sought because knowl-
edge is seen as constrained by the discourses that were developed to protect powerful interests.
Meanings are recognized as individual creations that require deconstruction and negotiated
interpretation. Deconstruction of grand narratives is viewed as an important way of removing
their power (Grbich, 2013; Rantala, 2019, Smith, 2008).
There are two main strands within the broad arena of critical and emancipatory research:
The first strand emerged out of theoretical orientations with regard to postmodernism and
poststructuralism. The second strand developed from the social justice movements beginning
in the 1960s and 1970s, including the civil rights movement, women’s liberation, and the gay
rights movement. The various approaches within this strand—including a variety of feminist
theories and methodologies, critical discourse analysis, critical race theory, queer theory, trans
theory, cultural studies, and critical ethnography—all have an activist or social justice compo-
nent. As explained by Swaminathan and Mulvihill (2017), the use of the term critical in critical
approaches indicates an interest not only with procedures but, more important, the rationale
behind such approaches, as well as draws attention to the very questions that shed light on why
researchers make the choices they do.

Critical research is concerned primarily with examining and changing economic, social, racial,
cultural, and gendered relations of power and has its theoretical roots in Western critical theory.
Critical theorists critique normalized notions of democracy, freedom, opportunity, social struc-
tures, and social justice. Drawing on the work of Paolo Freire, Karl Marx, Max Weber, Mikhail
Bakhtin, and Jurgen Habermas, critical theorists denounce systems of power, domination, and
positionality and pursue questions of racism, sexism, gender oppression, religious intolerance,
and other forms of oppression, denouncing neutrality in scholarship and focusing on “counter-
narratives” to respond to grand narratives and dominant discourses.
Critical research is typically interdisciplinary, including education, social work, law, sociol-
ogy, and environmental studies. This research can be exploratory, theoretical, and applied, and
can encompass ethnographic, grounded theory, phenomenological, action research, and narra-
tive inquiry methodologies. Critical theorists across all traditions of qualitative inquiry offer a
critical pedagogy for social research following in the footsteps of Paolo Freire, turning teachers
and students into critical researchers who are committed to social criticism and the empower-
ment of individuals. Critical theory seeks practical, pragmatic knowledge that is both cultural
and structural and is judged by its degree of historical situatedness and its ability to produce
praxis or action that facilitates social change (Cannella et al., 2015; Capper, 2018; Collins &
Cannella, 2021; Kincheloe et al., 2018; Smith, 2008).
Methods
Criticality in qualitative research centralizes a methodological approach to research that helps
researchers see, engage, contextualize, and make meaning of the complexity of people’s lives,
society, and the social, political, institutional, and economic forces that shape and delimit them,
thereby reinforcing inequity, oppression, lack of inclusion, and social injustice. As Ravitch and
Mittenfelner Carl (2020) explain,
Criticality in qualitative research is cultivated through taking an inquiry stance that
foregrounds issues of hegemony, inequity, and identity, and works to co-create the con-
ditions for research that is antihegemonic (i.e., antiracist, anticolonialist) in its approach
to power inherent in research processes, research settings, and society more broadly.
This entails that researchers cultivate understandings of the active role of reflection in
research. (p. 12)
To be authentic, inquiry is seen as contributing to radical change or emancipation from oppres-
sive social structures, either through sustained critique or through direct advocacy and action
taken by the researcher in collaboration with participants. The researcher and the researched
are not considered separate entities; through interpretation, their constructed meanings become
interwoven (Grbich, 2013). Reflexivity of the researcher is an essential component of data col-
lection and data analysis. Two specific approaches, indigenous research and critical arts-based
inquiry, are briefly described next to illustrate the methods involved.
Indigenous research is concerned with indigenous matters, although it may not involve
itself with indigenous peoples. This research draws on postcolonial theory and perspectives, and
given the empowerment focus, this can be usefully situated within the various strands of par-
ticipatory action research (Marshall et al., 2022). As pointed out by Chilisa (2019), a growing
number of methodologies are written from the experiences of postcolonial indigenous research-
ers in national and regional geographic locations, as they encounter methodological imperial-
ism and deficit-driven and damage-centered research and literature, which chronicle only the
pain and hopelessness of the colonized and which entrench existing structures of domination.
There is an oppressive nature associated with much of research that has been conducted on
indigenous communities or groups, with research being viewed as a “colonial tool”. As more and
more indigenous scholars assert their voices in academia, and historically oppressive institutions
such as universities attempt to unlearn colonial research practices, it is important that culturally
responsive concepts, principles, and methodologies are considered. As Chilisa (2019) describes,
To illustrate culturally responsive methodologies is to acknowledge the local histories,
traditions, and indigenous knowledge systems that inform them…The challenge is
locating and internationalizing indigenous culturally responsive methodologies and
integrating Western culture-informed perspectives with indigenous culturally based
methodologies in ways that permit dialogue between researchers, policymakers, com-
munities, and nations. (p. 210)
Kovach (2018) writes that “choice of methodology is a political act . . . that moves indigenous
research from a dismissive empiricism to that of a socially just relevancy” (p. 215). Storytelling
remains relevant in contemporary indigenous communities, and to claim this custom in
research, indigenous researchers have encompassed “storying” and re-storying as the primary
method. Storying is both personal and collective and can be expressed through spoken words,
letters, dance, or theater. Indigenous methodologies value experiential and personal stories,
including those of the researcher. This research approach is not only concerned with knowledge
creation and cocreation but is also about healing and community building. Because of past
exploitation and misrepresentation of indigenous peoples and cultures, indigenous methodolo-
gies seek to ensure that re-storying (representation) respects the tenets of indigenous epistemol-
ogy, remains contextualized within the experiences of indigenous communities, acknowledges
the conditions of indigenous societies (including colonialism and resistance), and is accessible to
the people and community it seeks to represent (Kovach, 2018). As researchers dig further into
their own positionality, they will be more aware of their own personal and/or professional needs
to conduct the research, and their assumptions that will ultimately shape the entire research
process. An important outcome of reflexivity, therefore, is unearthing power dynamics and
coming to acknowledge and respect the boundaries between researchers and research partici-
pants. This is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 4 of this book.
Critical arts-based inquiry, as another critical genre, situates the artist-as-researcher who is
committed to fostering and promoting a democratic and ethical agenda. This approach is well
suited to researchers who anticipate experiences of critical resistance and positive social change
through inclusive understanding among communities of learners, participants, researchers, and
audiences. Arts-based inquiry is a participatory approach that can be used to resist forms of
social injustice and inequity through the uses of esthetics, methods, and practices of literary,
performance, and visual arts, including theater, drama, dance, film, collage, video, and photog-
raphy (Finley, 2018). The approach is imaginative and intertextual, crosses the borders of arts
and research, and can be applied to critical race, indigenous, queer, trans, and feminist studies.
Finley (2018) explains how activist art as critical performance pedagogy can be used powerfully
to address and transform issues of political significance, including exposing oppression, target-
ing sites of resistance, and engaging community participants in acts of political self-expression
and positive social action both locally and globally. The emphasis is on doing and centers on the
performance of revolutionary pedagogy. Performance becomes resistance by way of critiquing
hegemonic texts that have become privileged stories, told and retold.

Critical research is conducted with the goal of raising social consciousness, demonstrating the
need for social change, furthering liberation goals, and/or advocating for specific policy changes.
Viewing qualitative inquiry through a critical lens forces us to rethink taken-for-granted frame-
works, methodologies, and politics and advocates for a critical stance that addresses social jus-
tice, decolonization, and the politics of research. Maintaining a reflexive approach ensures a
critical review of the position of the researcher in the research and how this impacts the pro-
cesses and outcomes of the research. Critique is often related to representational issues—that
is, how the “other” will be represented. As such, research must of necessity be a dialogic process,
with the subjective lenses that both the researcher and research participants bring to the study
as part of the context for the findings. Ensuring integrity at every step of the research process
means engaging in ongoing reflexivity, writing up the research responsibly, and representing
research participants ethically and authentically. This indeed is an imperative to ensure the
highest standards of both trustworthiness and ethics.
Levitt et al., (2021) articulate principles and practices that support methodological integrity
in relation to critical qualitative research, and propose that central to methodological integrity
are the two core concepts of fidelity and utility. Fidelity is explained as “the ability to represent
the phenomenon under study in a manner that reflects an intimate understanding of the com-
plexities and variety of experiences and practices in the phenomenon under study” (Levitt et al.,
2021 p. 360). Utility is explained as “the effectiveness of the research design and methods, and
their synergistic relationship in achieving the study goals as understood in relation to its epis-
temological values” (Levitt et al., 2021, p. 360). Utility is advanced when researchers produce
findings that can meaningfully advance the critical agenda and when difference is critically
explored and diversity within the data are coherently represented (Levitt et al., 2021).
The preceding discussion provides an overview of some of the current critical genres within
the increasingly broad and ever-expanding arena of critical qualitative research. These
genres vary depending on specific ideology and theory, focus of interest, degree of interac-
tion between researcher and participants, and participants’ role in the research. This brief
overview cannot do justice to this critical arena of qualitative research, and so you are
encouraged to explore and read further as there is a wealth of rich material available regard-
ing the various critically oriented epistemologies. For example, Capper (2018) provides
a detailed and comprehensive explanations including critical race theory, LatCrit, Asian,
TribalCrit, BlackCrit, disability studies theories, feminist theories, queer theory, and theo-
ries of intersectionality.
MOVING FORWARD WITH YOUR CHOSEN QUALITATIVE DESIGN
It should be clear that each qualitative design (tradition or genre), within the broader field of
qualitative research, is founded on a particular philosophy that influences the type of research
design and methods used. As Mills and Birks (2014) put it,
The position of the researcher is the bridge between philosophy, methodology, and the
application of methods. Thus the alignment between the research question, chosen
methodology and personal philosophy, and the ability of the researcher to be reflexive
in relation to the research is critical to ensure congruence in the study that will be mani-
fested in the products of the research. (p. 27)
Having decided on conducting a qualitative study, you will proceed to design your study
within the framework of one of the research designs (traditions or genres). Thus, the compo-
nents of the design process (e.g., the theoretical framework, research problem and purpose, and
methods of data collection and data analysis) will be aligned with and reflect the principles and
features that characterize the design you have selected. Alignment among all components of the
dissertation and the different qualitative methodologies is discussed more fully in Chapter 5.
Remember that traditions and genres can overlap and intersect, but it is recommended that you
understand each one as rigorous in its own right to address its methodological typicality and
uniqueness.
An important assumption that underlies qualitative research is that the world is neither
stable nor uniform, and therefore, there are many truths. Qualitative data are analyzed both
inductively and deductively, requiring flexibility in the research design, which is one of the
hallmarks of qualitative research. Data analysis often occurs concurrently with data collection,
hence the term “design complexity” (Ravitch & Mittenfelner Carl, 2020). As the data are ana-
lyzed, the researcher seeks common themes and then broader patterns within and across those
themes. Qualitative research is iterative, and there is a continuous movement between data and
ideas. Qualitative research reports include detailed descriptions of the study and clearly and
authentically represent the voices of the research participants. Ultimately, your qualitative study
should demonstrate credibility, confirmability, and dependability. Moreover, your study should
have potential for transferability; that is, how and in what ways your study’s findings, and the
knowledge derived therefrom, might, in the eye of the reader, apply or be useful in other similar
contexts.
Following are some recommended resources that you might consider perusing regarding quali-
tative research in general, and the various qualitative designs (traditions or genres) in particular.
This set of resources includes cutting-edge texts as well as some of the seminal works in the field.
Bevan, M. T. (2014). A method of phenomenological interviewing. Qualitative Health Research, 24(1),

136–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732313519710.
This author proposes a phenomenological interview structure that offers an explicit, theo-
retically based approach for researchers. It enables application of phenomenology as a total
method for research, blending general qualitative interview techniques and phenomenological
methods. This approach might be particularly helpful for novice phenomenological research-
ers, to enable development of understanding phenomenology and the specific interview
technique.
Birks, M., & Mills, J. (2015). Grounded theory: A practical guide, (2nd ed.). SAGE.
This highly practical book introduces the reader to the fundamental concepts of grounded the-
ory, providing a comprehensive description of the strategies and techniques employed in this
approach to research. This text contains detailed guidance regarding all aspects of conducting
a grounded theory study, including planning and implementing the study, ensuring the study’s
quality, positioning the researcher in the study, collecting and analyzing data, integrating the-
ory, and presenting findings.
Cannella, G. S., Perez, M. S., & Pasque, P. A. (2015). Critical qualitative inquiry: Foundations and
futures, Routledge.
Critical approaches to qualitative research have made a significant impact on research prac-
tice over the past decade. This comprehensive volume of contemporary, original articles
places this trend in its historical context, describes the current landscape of critical work, and
considers the future of this turn. The book-includes contributions from some of the leading
qualitative researchers, including Norman Denzin. This volume consists of cutting edge arti-
cles that describe the dimensions of critical qualitative inquiry, situating criticality within the
overall development and landscape of qualitative research.
Charmaz, K. (2015). Constructing grounded theory, (2nd ed.). SAGE.
Kathy Charmaz’s newest edition of her classic text on developing a grounded theory study is
an invaluable seminal resource for qualitative scholars, providing a benchmark introduction to
doing grounded theory from a constructivist perspective. Charmaz offers a very clear reformu-
lation of grounded theory analysis and explains previous critique, explaining how a constructiv-
ist approach addresses inherent limitations of the classic approach.
Chilisa, B. (2019). Indigenous research methodologies, (2nd ed.). SAGE.
Critical approaches to qualitative research have made a significant impact on research prac-
tice over the past decade. This comprehensive volume of contemporary, original articles
places this trend in its historical context, describes the current landscape of critical work, and
considers the future of this turn. The book-includes contributions from some of the leading
qualitative researchers, including Norman Denzin. This volume consists of cutting edge arti-
cles that describe the dimensions of critical qualitative inquiry, situating criticality within the
overall development and landscape of qualitative research.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches, (4th ed.). SAGE.
In this revised fourth edition, the authors explore the philosophical underpinnings, guid-
ing assumptions, history, and key elements of five qualitative inquiry approaches: narrative
research, phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, and case study. Various phases of
research design inherent in each of the five traditions are compared, from conceptualization to
analysis and interpretation. This edition reflects advances within each approach, and as such
provides an up-to-date and current account.
Eddles-Hirsch, K. (2015). Phenomenology and educational research. International Journal of
Advanced Research, 3(8), 251–260. http://www.journalijar.com/uploads/287_ijar-6671.pdf.
This article describes the phenomenological research processes used in a dissertation. The
author begins with a brief history of phenomenological methodology and explores a range of
salient features of the three different philosophical approaches. This is followed by an outline
regarding how to carry out a transcendental phenomenological study with specific examples
to illustrate the tools and techniques used, and the ways in which data is collected, organized,
analyzed and synthesized.
Farrell, E. (2020). Researching lived experience in education: Misunderstood or missed opportu-
nity? International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1–8.
This article provides an overview of some of the key philosophical principles of transcendental
and hermeneutic phenomenology, including key proponents, and the similarities and differ-
ences between these two phenomenological lineages. Examples of the application of transcen-
dental and hermeneutic phenomenological approaches to educational settings are explored.
Phenomenology as a methodology is examined in terms of its trustworthiness and its potential
to deepen our understanding of the experiences of others.
Flick, U. (Ed.). (2018). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Collection, SAGE.
This comprehensive handbook offers extensive coverage of multiple data collection methods
and methodologies. Included is online data collection, social media data collection, sampling
methods, and methods of data transcription.
Kim, J. (2016). Understanding narrative inquiry: The crafting and analysis of stories as research. SAGE.
This comprehensive, thought-provoking review of narrative inquiry in the social and human
sciences guides readers through the entire narrative inquiry process—from locating narrative
inquiry in the interdisciplinary context through the philosophical and theoretical underpinnings
to narrative research design, data collection (excavating stories), data analysis and interpreta-
tion, and theorizing narrative meaning. Extremely well researched and referenced, this text
addresses sophisticated theoretical underpinnings of narrative research, with numerous con-
crete examples of research practice in action further enhance its usefulness for those inter-
ested in this inquiry approach.
Largan, C., & Morris, T. (2019). Qualitative secondary research: A step-by-step guide, SAGE.
A comprehensive guide to carrying out Qualitative Secondary Analysis (QSA) that brings
together expert advice and professional insight from leading researchers who have developed
innovative theories and methods of QSA. Each chapter offers insightful case studies, links to
further reading and applied helpful tips to help effectively apply these innovations.
Martin, V. B., & Gynnild, A. (Eds.). (2012). Grounded Theory: The Philosophy, Method, and Work of
Barney Glaser. Brown Walker Press.
This book as an attempt to clarify and extend aspects of what Barney Glaser views as classic
grounded theory. This collection of original excellent research articles and essays by grounded
theorists (many of whom studied under Barney Glaser) is geared for those who are interested
in understanding more about the classic approach, including its history and underlying philos-
ophy, and possibly embarking on a GT PhD. This anthology covers how GT can be learned, con-
ducted either face-to-face or online, and its impact on real world issues.
McNiff, J. (2018). Action research: All you need to know , (2nd ed.). SAGE.
This is a comprehensive guide to doing action research and becoming a self-reflective action
research practitioner and researcher, specifically at the doctoral level. The text provides
myriad ideas and frameworks to understand the concepts and processes of action research,
combined with a practical workbook that offers guidance through the practicalities and com-
plexities of conducting action research in different contexts.
Mertler, C. A. (2020). Action research: Improving school and empowering educators, (6 ed ed.). SAGE.
This practical text covers the process of designing and conducting classroom-based action
research in order to make their instructional practices more effective. The focuses is on the
research methods and procedures that educators can use in their everyday instructional prac-
tices, classroom activities, and school procedures.
Morse, J. (2020). The Changing Face of Qualitative Inquiry. International Journal of Qualitative
Methods, 19, 1–7. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1609406920909938.
Over time, multiple factors that have made space for the establishment and legitimization of
qualitative inquiry. The author discusses what we are doing well in qualitative methods, and
examines the status quo, including present concerns that need critique and resolution, and
future trends.
Peoples, K. (2021). How to write a phenomenological dissertation: A step-by-step guide. Qualitative
Research Methods, (Vol. 56). SAGE.
Before beginning the phenomenological dissertation endeavor, one must first be sure that
one’s methodological choice is appropriate for what one aims to accomplish for dissertation. Is
phenomenological methodology the appropriate method for the research questions proposed?
Before moving forward, one must understand the purpose of phenomenological research and,
more important, what one will need to understand and accomplish as a phenomenological
researcher. This book accomplishes the above objectives by providing a set of guidelines and
recommendations for getting started.
Pelto, P. J. (2013). Applied ethnography: Guidelines for field research, Left Coast Press.
This comprehensive text covers the key topics and skills required: gaining entry; recording and
organizing field data; integrating qualitative and quantitative methods; building and training
research teams; short and long-term ethnographic approaches; writing up research findings;
assessment and evaluation of ethnographic studies, non-Western perspectives on research;
and more.
Przybylski, L. (2020). Hybrid ethnography: Online, offline, and in between, SAGE.
This book provides clear direction for combining online and in-person ethnographic research
to support the reality of much contemporary fieldwork and will be of interest to graduate stu-
dents and faculty learning ethnography and field methods, as well as those designing, conduct-
ing, and writing up their own dissertations and research studies.
Rantala, T. (2019). Exploring Data Production in Motion: Fluidity and Feminist Poststructuralism, Myers
Education Press.
This author demonstrates the use of feminist methodology and illuminates how feminist criti-
cal inquiry is used in examining issues of minority and difference. This book contributes to rec-
ognizing differences within while examining minority worldviews and perceiving difference as
essential force in striving for sustainable ethics in the times of political polarization. The book
is a valuable resource for those interested in both feminist poststructuralist methodology and
postqualitative inquiry and analysis.
Smith, L. T. (2008). Decolonising Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples, University of Otago
Press.
Informed by critical and feminist evaluations of positivism, this author urges “disrupting the
rules of the research game” and engaging in practices that are respectful and ethical versus
that can be considered racist, ethnocentric, and exploitative. The author critically examines
the historical and philosophical base of Western research paradigms. In extending the work of
Foucault, the author explores the intersections of imperialism, knowledge and research; and
addresses the history of knowledge from the Enlightenment to postcolonialism.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research, SAGE.
This classic text is a concise and very readable guide to case study methodology. Unique in his
approach and style, Stake draws from naturalistic, holistic, ethnographic, phenomenological,
and biographic methods to present a disciplined, qualitative exploration of case study meth-
ods. This book is well suited to researchers seeking to more fully understand the case study
approach as perceived by one of the seminal leaders in case study work.
Stringer, E. T., & Aragon, A. O. (2021). Action research, (5 ed.). SAGE.
Presenting research that produces practical, effective, and sustainable outcomes to
real-world problems, this book helps students see the value of their research within a broader
context—beyond academia—and provides a gateway to effecting real-word change on a larger
scale. This edition acknowledges the changes whereby information technology and social
media have transformed research, providing multiple ways of communicating, and also provid-
ing access to an ever-expanding array of tools and resources.
Swaminathan, R., & Mulvihill, T. M. (2017). Critical approaches to questions in qualitative research,
Routledge.
Learning how to formulate questions that examine the power relations between the researcher
and participants is at the heart of critical approaches. This book provides a comprehensive
overview and treatment of critical and humanistic approaches to key questions in qualitative
research, and also examines questions as tools for strategic thinking and decision making at
all stages of the qualitative research process across qualitative traditions including phenom-
enology, ethnography, life history, feminist research, and participatory action research.
Vagle, M. D. (2016). Phenomenology of practice, Routledge.
Max van Manen offers an extensive exploration of phenomenological traditions and methods
for the human sciences. Phenomenology of practice refers to the meaning and practice of phe-
nomenology in professional contexts including education, psychology, and health care. In this
classic text, Van Manen presents a description of key phenomenological ideas as they have
evolved over the past century and thoughtfully addresses the methodological issues pertaining
to reflection, empirical methods, and writing.
van Manen, M. (2016). Phenomenology of practice. Routledge.

Max van Manen offers an extensive exploration of phenomenological traditions and methods
for the human sciences. Phenomenology of practice refers to the meaning and practice of phe-
nomenology in professional contexts including education, psychology, and health care. In this
classic text, Van Manen presents a description of key phenomenological ideas as they have
evolved over the past century and thoughtfully addresses the methodological issues pertaining
to reflection, empirical methods, and writing.
Yazan, B. (2015). Three approaches to case study methods in Education: Yin, Merriam, and Stake.
The Qualitative Report, 20(2), 134–152. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol20/iss2/12/.
Despite being one of the most frequently used qualitative research designs, there is no defini-
tive consensus regarding the implementation and methodology of case study design. Focusing
on the landmark works of three prominent methodologists (Robert Yin, Sharan Merriam, and
Robert Stake), this author examines the areas where these researchers’ perspectives diverge,
converge and complement one another across the varying dimensions of case study research.
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and application: Design and methods. (6th ed.) SAGE.
This landmark text on case study methodology, revised and updated from the original publica-
tion, offers comprehensive coverage of case study as a rigorous research method and how it
is applied in practice. At the outset, the author provides an overall graphic of the entire case
study research process. In each of the succeeding chapters, each step is clearly and thoroughly
explained, from design to collecting, analyzing, and reporting findings.
com/bloomberg-qualitative-5e. The companion website also includes materials and resources
related to some of the issues around the various aspects and characteristic features of qualitative
research designs as discussed in this chapter.
4 ENSURING RIGOR AND ETHICS
IN QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
• Describe the four criteria for determining and enhancing the trustworthiness
of qualitative research, including ways to address each criterion: credibility,
confirmability, dependability, and transferability.
• Define ethics as it relates to qualitative research.
• Clarify all aspects that characterize ethical research practices according to the three
core principles of the Belmont Report: respect, beneficence, and justice.
• Illustrate what is implied by conducting research with vulnerable populations or
groups.
• Present an overview of the challenges and concerns regarding research ethics that
have emerged since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and ways to mitigate
these.
• Outline the role of the qualitative researcher, with emphasis on power and
positionality, representation and voice, intersectionality, criticality, and reflexivity.
OVERVIEW
One major concern in qualitative research, as in quantitative research, has to do with the con-
fidence that researchers and consumers of research studies can place in the procedures used in
the data gathering, the data collected, its analysis and interpretation, and the related findings
and conclusions. As such, establishing trustworthiness is essential. As defined by Morgan and
Ravitch (2018),
The term trustworthiness refers to an overarching concept used in qualitative research
to convey the procedures researchers employ to ensure the quality, rigor, and credibil-
ity of a study while (re)establishing congruence of the epistemological and ontological
115
underpinnings of the researcher with the design, implementation, and articulations of a

research study. Hence, trustworthiness is both an aim and a practice. (p. 1730)
Trustworthiness also ensures that the knowledge gained through the research will actually be
put into practice, an important consideration in determining the usefulness of the findings and
their implications (Nowell et al., 2017). Criteria for determining the trustworthiness of quali-
tative research were introduced by Guba and Lincoln in the early 1980s when they replaced
terminology for achieving rigor, reliability, validity, and generalizability with dependability,
credibility, and transferability. Numerous strategies for achieving trustworthiness were also
introduced. This landmark contribution to the field of qualitative inquiry remains in use today
and forms an underpinning of rigorous research practices.
Rigorous research and ethical research are two sides of the same coin and are mutually inter-
dependent. Ethics in qualitative research is concerned with the shared principles that qualitative
researchers purport to uphold that guide our behavior in the field and our interactions with
research participants. Ethics addresses the protection of human participants in research, includ-
ing issues of confidentiality, privacy, anonymity, advocacy, and human dignity. Moreover, ethi-
cal principles also shape our approaches to qualitative inquiry, including the type of research
questions we raise, our choice of research sites, and the kinds of stories we choose to share and
those we choose not to tell. The implications of the choices we make beyond basic methodologi-
cal decisions are indeed more critical today than ever before.
Qualitative research is, at its core, about sharing, respecting, and most importantly authen-
tically and ethically representing diverse voices. Declaring our positionality and exposing how we
show up makes for fully transparent and trustworthy research. This also conveys the message
of researcher humility and vulnerability in the space we share with our research participants, as
we write about their stories and experiences. To ensure rigor and ethics in qualitative research
implies ongoing self-reflectivity on the part of the researcher. Reflexivity is the active, ongoing
process of examining oneself as a researcher and remaining aware of how one’s assumptions,
biases, and preconceptions affect our research decisions. Importantly, reflexivity can help pre-
pare researchers for many “ethically important moments” that will emerge as they plan for,
conduct, and finally write up their study.
ESTABLISHING TRUSTWORTHINESS
In quantitative research, the standards that are most frequently used for high quality and con-
vincing research are validity and reliability. If research is valid, it is considered to clearly reflect
the phenomena, situation, or materials being described. If work is reliable, then two research-
ers studying the same phenomenon, situation, or materials will arrive at comparable or similar
conclusions. Criteria for evaluating qualitative research differ from those used in quantitative
research in that the focus is on how well the researcher has provided evidence that their descrip-
tions and analyses authentically represent the reality of the phenomena, experiences, or persons
being studied. The trustworthiness section of a dissertation study typically asserts why the find-
ings and implications can be viewed as acceptable and of worth to the reader by making the
Chapter 4 • Ensuring Rigor and Ethics in Qualitative Research 117
methodology and methods that undergird the study transparent. Transparency with regard to
the overall research approach, implementation of the research, and evaluation of a study enable
consumers of the research to consider important details when assessing the study’s value, worth,
and utility.
Qualitative research is characterized by an ongoing discourse regarding the appropriate and
acceptable use of terminology. Current thinking has led to the development of alternative ter-
minology to better reflect the nature and distinctiveness of qualitative research. While some
qualitative researchers still feel comfortable borrowing terminology from quantitative research,
and refer to various “validation strategies” (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Maxwell, 2013), others
object to the use of traditional terms such as validity and reliability. Guba (1981), Guba and
Lincoln (1982), and Lincoln and Guba (1985) were the first scholars to originally make the
argument for the importance of trustworthiness in qualitative research as a means for reassur-
ing the reader that a study was of significance and value. Guba’s (1981) model identified truth
value, applicability, consistency, and neutrality as four criteria applicable to the assessment of
research of any type. Guba argued that these criteria must be defined differently for qualitative
and quantitative research based on the philosophical and conceptual divergence of qualitative
and quantitative research. Yvonna Lincoln and Egon Guba, two of the frontrunners in the early
development of the field of qualitative research, are credited with establishing the first iteration
of trustworthiness in qualitative research in 1985. In sum, they were concerned with evolving
the four questions that evaluators and consumers of current research typically raise:
• Truth value, or how a researcher “can establish confidence in the truth of the findings
of a particular inquiry,” was refashioned as credibility.
• Applicability, or how a researcher “can determine the extent to which the findings of a
study have applicability in other contexts,” was reframed as transferability.
• Consistency, or how a researcher can determine “whether the findings of a study would
be repeated if the study were replicated with similar research participants,” became
dependability.
• The question of neutrality, or how a researcher establishes the degree to which the
findings of a study are determined by the research participants and not based upon
the biases, motivations, interests, or perspectives of the researcher, was adapted as
confirmability.
Krefting (1991) provides a summary and interpretation of Guba’s (1981) model which is
based on the identification of four aspects of trustworthiness that are relevant to both quantita-
tive and qualitative studies: (a) truth value, (b) applicability, (c) consistency, and (d) neutral-
ity. Based on the fundamental philosophical differences between qualitative and quantitative
approaches, the model defines and describes different strategies of assessing these criteria in
each type of research. These strategies are important to qualitative researchers in their efforts
to develop ways of increasing the rigor of their studies and also for readers to use as a means of
assessing the value of qualitative research findings.
Truth Value
Truth value asks whether the researcher has established confidence in the truth of the findings for
the research participants and the context in which the study was undertaken (Lincoln & Guba,
1985). It establishes how confident the researcher is with the truth of the findings based on the
research design, informants, and context. In quantitative studies, truth is often assessed by how
well threats to the internal validity of the study have been managed as well as the validity of the
instruments as a measure of the phenomenon under study. Internal validity is supported when
changes in the dependent variable are accounted for by changes in the independent variable; that
is, when the design minimizes the effects of competing confounding variables by control or ran-
domization. In qualitative research, truth value is usually obtained from the discovery of human
experiences as they are lived and perceived by the research participants themselves. Truth value
is subject-oriented, not defined a priori by the researcher. Lincoln and Guba (1985) termed this
credibility, arguing that internal validity is based on the assumption that there is a single tangible
reality, and that this can be directly measured. When this assumption is replaced by the idea of
multiple realities, as is the case in qualitative research, the researcher’s task becomes one of repre-
senting those multiple realities as revealed by the research participants as authentically as possible.
Applicability
Applicability refers to the degree to which the findings can be applied to other contexts and set-
tings or with other groups; it is the ability to generalize from the findings to larger populations.
From a quantitative perspective, applicability refers to how well the threats to external validity
have been managed. Establishing external validity is the ability to generalize from the study
sample to the larger population and establishing clear sampling techniques is an important fac-
tor in achieving this. Two perspectives to applicability are appropriate for qualitative research.
The first perspective suggests that the ability to generalize is not relevant in qualitative research.
A strength of the qualitative research is that it is conducted in naturalistic settings with little or
no controlling variables. Each situation is defined as unique and thus is less amenable to gen-
eralization. Applicability, therefore, is not seen as relevant to qualitative research because its
purpose is to describe a particular phenomenon or experience, not to generalize to others. Guba
(1981) presented the second perspective on applicability in qualitative research by referring to
“ fittingness” or transferability, as the criterion against which applicability of qualitative data is
assessed. Research meets this criterion when the findings fit into contexts outside the study that
are determined by the degree of similarity or goodness of fit between the two contexts. Lincoln
and Guba (1985) noted that transferability is not the responsibility of the researcher. Rather the
readers of the study will make the determination whether they believe the findings can transfer
to another situation or population.
Consistency
The third criterion of trustworthiness considers the consistency of the data, that is, whether the find-
ings would be consistent if the research were replicated with the same participants or in another
similar context. In quantitative research, reliability is the criterion concerned with the stability,
consistency, and equivalence in the study. Reliability is the extent to which repeated adminis-
tration of a measure will provide the same data or the extent to which a measure administered
once, but by different people, produces equivalent results. Inherent in the goal of reliability is
the value of repeatability so that replication of the testing procedures does not alter the findings.
Unlike the controlled experimental environment that characterized quantitative research, the
qualitative field setting may be complicated by extraneous and unexpected variables and condi-
tions. Additionally, the structure of the experimental design is the antithesis of the methods used
in qualitative research. The key to qualitative research is to learn from the research participants
rather than control them. Moreover, instruments that are assessed for consistency in qualitative
research are the researcher and the research participants themselves. Qualitative research empha-
sizes the uniqueness of the human situation, so that variation in experience rather than identical
repetition is sought. Thus, variability is expected in qualitative research, and consistency is defined
in terms of dependability. Guba’s (1981) concept of dependability implies trackable variability;
that is, variability that can be tracked and therefore ascribed to identifiable sources.
Neutrality
The fourth criterion of trustworthiness is neutrality, the freedom from bias in the research pro-
cedures and the outcomes of the research. Neutrality in quantitative research refers to the degree
to which the results are a function solely of the research subjects and conditions of the research
and not of other biases, motivations, and perspectives (Guba, 1981). In quantitative research,
objectivity is the criterion of neutrality, and this is achieved by rigor of methodology through
which reliability and validity are established. Thus, the objective quantitative researcher is seen
as scientifically distant, that is, someone who is not influenced by, and does not influence,
the study. Qualitative researchers, on the other hand, try to increase the worth of the find-
ings by decreasing the distance between the researcher and the research participants. This is
achieved by interacting and engaging closely with the participants, sometimes being immersed
in the research site for a prolonged period of time, and collecting data directly from the research
participants, often on multiple occasions. Lincoln and Guba (1985) shifted the emphasis of
neutrality in qualitative research from the researcher to the data, so that rather than looking
at the neutrality of the researcher, the neutrality of the data is rather what is considered impor-
tant. In qualitative research there is no reliance on neutrality of the human researcher, and so
these authors suggested that confirmability is the criterion of to replace neutrality; and this is
achieved when truth value and applicability are established.
STRATEGIES TO ENHANCE TRUSTWORTHINESS

IN QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
Unlike quantitative researchers, who apply statistical methods for establishing validity and
reliability of research findings, qualitative researchers aim to design and incorporate method-
ological strategies to ensure the trustworthiness of the findings. In your dissertation you will
be required to articulate evidence of four primary criteria to ensure the trustworthiness of the
study. Transparency is key to ensuring trustworthiness. Trustworthiness means that the com-
munity of researchers and scholars will trust your analysis and interpretation of what others said
and did in the field, thereby supporting the credibility and dependability of your research, and
the transferability of your findings. Toward this end, as a qualitative researcher you will need to
ensure that you are thinking more deeply about the potential impact of all the choices you make
regarding your study’s design, including identification, justification, and limitations for all
methodological choices; and what might be your underlying (explicit and implicit) biases and
assumptions. Refer to Appendix C, Sample Trustworthiness Statements for some useful examples.
Three Broad Approaches to Address Qualitative Trustworthiness

The approaches that qualitative researchers can employ to address the various tenets of trust-
worthiness fall within three broad areas: reflexivity, triangulation, and participant verification.
• Accounting for personal biases which may have influenced findings includes
acknowledging biases in sampling and ongoing critical reflection of methods to ensure
sufficient depth and relevance of data collection; demonstrating clarity in terms of
thought processes during data analysis and subsequent interpretations; meticulous
record keeping and maintaining a clear decision trail to ensure that interpretations
are consistent and transparent; constant seeking out similarities and differences to
ensure that different perspectives are represented; and engaging in dialogue with other
researchers to reduce research bias.
• Triangulation in qualitative research relates to trustworthiness because it is
concerned with using multiple indicators throughout a research project to convey
the dependability, credibility, and the likely transferability of a study. Triangulation
addresses the trustworthiness of qualitative studies in various ways by building into
your study and research process a systematic cross-checking of information and
conclusions through the use of procedures and/or sources to determine where research
findings converge or “triangulate,” and therefore interpret and explain them. The
underlying philosophy of triangulation is to use multiple methods to mitigate the
weaknesses of any one method. There are four common approaches to triangulation.
Researcher triangulation involves the engagement of multiple researchers in a
study that brings together their unique insights during the inquiry. The assumption
is that the team members bring a diversity of approaches that help to investigate
the phenomena from multiple perspectives. Commonalities in their interpretations
make a strong case for the credibility of the findings. Methodological triangulation
refers to the comparison of data collected by various means, for example, structured
interviews, focus groups, observations, critical incidents, surveys, documents, oral
literature, storytelling, and artifacts. Data triangulation includes seeking out as
many data sources as possible in order to examine data at varying times and places
as well as with different individuals so as to capture multiple perspectives and
experiences. Theoretical triangulation includes approaching the research with
various frameworks to facilitate the comparison of different theoretical perspectives
that inform theoretical or conceptual frameworks, the design of interview guides,

data analysis, and interpretation thereby framing the study’s topic in context and
broadening the relevance of the study.
• Participant verification or confirmation includes strategies such as member checks
or peer review (sometimes referred to as “peer debriefing”) to ensure that the final
themes and concepts created adequately reflect the phenomena being investigated.
Member checks include research participant reflections and verification of interview
transcripts. Peer review entails engaging with professional colleagues to serve in
confirming emergent themes or concepts. Engaging in participant verification or
confirmation can occur at any point in a research project and is a critical way to
account for and make explicit any data that may not match with emergent themes
or categories in a study. The systematic search for—and acknowledgment of—
disconfirming evidence, contradictions, discrepancies, or “outliers” that can emerge
through participant verification or confirmation contributes to establishing the
trustworthiness of a study.
Multiple strategies can be used throughout the research process to increase the worth of qualita-
tive studies. Some strategies need to be addressed in the study design stage, while others are applied
during data collection and after the findings have been interpreted. The strategies are described in
the following section under each of the four qualitative criteria for trustworthiness. You will note that
some strategies are useful for establishing more than one criterion (e.g., triangulation and reflexiv-
ity). In your dissertation you will be expected to discuss all four trustworthiness criteria and explain
the actual steps that were taken to address each criterion. These four criteria, taken together, provide
a consistent reference point for researchers when addressing potential limitations, and this consis-
tency could help address arguments about rigor, which has been an ongoing critique of qualitative
research. While studies can have limitations beyond threats to trustworthiness, the goal should be
to try to mitigate these limitations. If appropriate strategies are conducted correctly, threats to trust-
worthiness can be mitigated, and maybe even eliminated, so that the study is not undermined.
Actionable Trustworthiness Strategies for Dissertation Research

Credibility refers to whether the participants’ perceptions match up with the researcher’s por-
trayal of them. In other words, has the researcher accurately represented what the participants
think and say? Remember, this criterion parallels the criterion of internal validity in quanti-
tative research. Credibility of qualitative data can be assured through multiple perspectives
throughout data collection to ensure data are appropriate. This may be done through data,
investigator, or theoretical triangulation; participant validation or member checks; or the rigor-
ous techniques used to gather the data. You can explain how you ensured the credibility of your
study by way of some or all of the following strategies:
a. Triangulate by using multiple methods.

b. Ensure that you include all the necessary details so that readers can adequately
understand all the steps involved in your research process.
c. Search for variations in your findings by seeking instances that might disconfirm or
challenge your expectations and assumptions.
d. Engage in “peer review” by asking colleagues to review your data and codes. In so
doing be careful to remove all identifying information from the data.
e. Make use of “member checks,” by sending interview transcripts to participants for
their review and approval.
f. Monitor your own subjective perspectives and biases by keeping a journal throughout
the research process. Your journal will also be a very useful reference when you move to
the analysis and interpretation of your study’s findings.
Confirmability is concerned with establishing that the findings and interpretations are
clearly derived from the data. In your dissertation, you will be expected to be able to describe in
detail your analytic approach and show that you are able to demonstrate how you got from your
data to your conclusions. Remember, confirmability corresponds to the notion of objectivity
in quantitative research but is based on the premise that qualitative researchers do not strive
to achieve objectivity. Confirmability of qualitative data is assured when data are checked and
rechecked throughout data collection and analysis to ensure that the study’s findings would
likely be repeatable by others. The implication is that the study’s findings should be shown to be
the result of the research rather than an outcome of the subjectivity of the researcher. The goal
is to acknowledge and explore the ways that your biases and prejudices impact your interpreta-
tions of data, and to address these to the greatest extent possible by way of some or all of the
following strategies:
a. Provide an explanation for all methodological and analytical choices that you have
made throughout the entire study so that readers have a clear understanding of your
research process. This process can be documented by also including a clear coding
scheme that identifies all of the codes and patterns identified in the process of analysis.
A data audit prior to analysis can also ensure the criterion of dependability.
b. Include explicit description of all the triangulation strategies that you employed.
c. Engage in ongoing critical reflection and reflexivity by way of journaling.
Dependability refers to the stability and consistency of data over time. This criterion also
addresses whether the data are providing adequate responses to each of the study’s research ques-
tions. Remember, this criterion parallels the quantitative notion of reliability although it is not
assessed through statistical procedures. Dependability of the qualitative data is demonstrated
through assurances that the findings were established despite any changes within the research
setting or participants during data collection. Again, rigorous data collection techniques and
procedures can assure dependability of the final data set, and there are numerous strategies that
you can refer to:
a. Ask colleagues to code several de-identified interview transcripts. Peer review, the
process of checking on the consistency between raters, reduces the potential bias of a
single researcher collecting and analyzing the data.
b. Ask colleagues to confirm the feasibility of emergent themes during the data analysis
process.
c. Ensure that each step of the research process is clearly documented and that the process
is logical, and traceable. Include detailed and thorough explanations of how the data
were collected and analyzed.
d. Clarify how and in what ways triangulation strategies were employed and adequately
addressed.
Transferability refers to the extent to which a study’s findings can be applied to other
similar contexts. As explained by Carminati (2018), generalizability in qualitative research has
been a controversial topic given that interpretivist scholars have resisted the dominant role and
mandate of the positivist tradition within social sciences. Aiming to find universal laws, the
positivist paradigm made generalizability a crucial criterion for evaluating the rigor of quantita-
tive research, which has led generalizability to acquire a quantitative meaning and, as such, this
is inappropriate for describing qualitative studies. Qualitative research has been directed toward
providing in-depth explanations and meanings, and rather than generalizing findings the focus
is on the transferability of the findings. Transferability is often described as corresponding to
the notion of external validity in quantitative research. In quantitative research, generalization
rests on statistical representativeness; that is, the extent to which the study’s results relate to the
broader population. The goal of qualitative research is not to produce “truths” that can be gen-
eralized to other people or settings but rather to develop descriptive context-relevant findings
that can be applicable to broader contexts and make it possible for readers to decide whether
similar processes are at work in their own settings and communities. Because generalizability is
not expected to be addressed in qualitative research, transferability assures the study findings
will likely be applicable to similar settings or individuals.
It is important to realize that unlike the other three trustworthiness criteria (credibility,
confirmability, and dependability) transferability cannot be guaranteed by the researcher,
since it will be up to the reader to make that determination. It is the role of the researcher to
provide a thick description of not only the research participants and the research site but also
of the research findings which then helps the reader determine if the findings are transferable
to a new context. A reader’s decision to utilize or apply the data to their own context or setting
is referred to as transferability judgment. Students will often write in their dissertations that
transferability, or the applicability to use the findings in other settings, was apparent after the
completion of the data collections process. While this cannot be accurately claimed on the
part of any researcher, transferability can be demonstrated by articulating clear assumptions
and contextual inferences of the research setting and participants, including the following
strategies:
a. Provide details regarding the participants and the research context. This allows readers
to make comparisons with other similar contexts.
b. Include thick description (Geertz, 1973). This is an important aspect in enhancing
the complexity of the research to produce findings and interpretations that will allow
readers to make contextualized meaning and decide for themselves whether the study’s
findings will apply to their own context or setting. Fusch and Ness (2015) offer an
excellent definition, stating that “the easiest way to differentiate between rich and
thick data is to think of rich as quality and thick as quantity. Thick data is a lot of data;
rich data is many layered, intricate, detailed, nuanced, and more. One can have a lot
of thick data that is not rich; conversely, one can have rich data but not a lot of it. The
trick, if you will, is to have both” (p. 1409).
c. Describe the way you conducted purposeful sampling. This provides an understanding
of the research participants and the context of your study, thereby allowing readers to
form their own opinions about the meaning of the findings and the authenticity and
relevance of your interpretations.
Be sure to engage in ongoing and sustained reflexivity throughout the research process by
developing detailed descriptions and notes that document initial assumptions, interpretations,
or any potential biases. Remember that ongoing and intentional transparency is key to building
credibility (believability), confirmability (ability to corroborate), dependability (consistency),
and transferability (applicability) into your methodology.
EMBRACING ETHICAL BEST PRACTICES
As Leavy (2017) writes,

The word ethics comes from the Greek word ethos, which means character. Ethics
involve morality, integrity, fairness, and truthfulness. Morality is about knowing what
is right and wrong, and integrity is about acting on that knowledge. Ethics are central to
social research. Because we are human beings engaged in understanding other human
beings — social realities — ethics are of the utmost importance so that our research is
not harmful. (p. 24)
What is often missing in a study is the methodology behind the method. You may know how to
gather data but what kind of sample have you gathered? You may have gathered data from a wide
variety of sources, but was it ethical to collect it? And, was it ethical to use these data? In-depth
consideration of how ethical standards apply in this space and how social media platforms com-
plicate the age-old questions around participant consent or even the notion of a participant at
all. Understanding the biases inherent in the processes, and to approach them in a way that is
ethically sound is key, including the expectations of researchers, users, and the ways in which
platforms converge to shape our understanding of ethical practice in this space.
Tolich and Tumilty (2020) discuss issues regarding practicing ethics and ethics praxis, that
is, the ability and agility to respond ethically as the research process unfolds, in addition to
planning appropriately upfront. As these researchers explain,
Formal ethics review is one stop along the way of practicing ethics in qualitative
research. It begins when establishing relationships and designing a project and ends
with dissemination. Practicing ethics then involves not only thoughtful planning, but
also thoughtful action when encountering participants and communities in the field.
Formal ethics review is a useful stop along the way but is limited in what it can provide
and how it can protect both participants and researchers. It asks people to say what they
will do, as if the researcher can know exactly what will happen. This expectation might
be the case for a quantitative project where questions are predetermined and variables
controlled to maximize the research’s generalizability. But in a qualitative context where
the work is iterative and responsive such foresight will always be limited. What this then
requires of a qualitative researcher for ethical practice is a degree of agility; the ability to
make plans to address ethical considerations that have some “give” in them. This ethical
practice must be flexible, designed to deal with uncertainty and the unforeseen without
comprising ethical duties. (pp. 16–17)
Indeed, when conducting qualitative research, the traditional ethical safeguards of anonym-
ity, confidentiality, and consent are only a starting point. It is critical that researchers develop
an ethics praxis (Tolich & Tumilty, 2020), that is, the ability to respond ethically in the field,
recognizing qualitative research studies as constantly shifting and evolving (sometimes in unex-
pected ways), and therefore requiring ongoing consent discussions (process consent), as well as
thoughtfully employing ongoing safety plans. Head (2020) explores the issues related to ethi-
cal reviews and examines the wider ethical considerations that may arise during the research
process. The author concludes that the ethical conduct of educational research is more complex
than simply adhering to a set of strict “rules” that are part of the administrative process of IRB
review but is an issue of resolving ethical dilemmas as these arise during the research process. As
such, ethical considerations go beyond the scope of a single event review process, and therefore,
addressing ethics is part of a continuous process of learning and development on the part of the
researcher (Head, 2020).
Ethical considerations begin right at the stage of topic development and continue through-
out the research process. There are many considerations that go into the selection of a research
topic. Ethically, you must ask first yourself what the potential value or significance of research
on the proposed topic might be. The value or significance of a research topic is determined by
who will benefit from new knowledge on the topic, whether and to what extent the research
will address an identified social need, and the potential of the research to promote new learn-
ing, social justice, or meaningful social change particularly for underrepresented persons or
groups. Second, you must ensure there are no potential conflicts of interest. For example, if your
research is funded, you will need to ensure that the funder’s agenda does not compete with your
own research agenda, and there should be no pressure or monetary gain for deriving certain
prescribed outcomes or research findings. Ethics become a critical consideration again during
the final phases of representing and sharing research findings. As you represent the research
findings, you will be faced with several ethical considerations, including transparent disclosure
of the methodology, the format of the representation, and how you shape the information you
present. Methodological transparency is critical so that those who are exposed to your research
can clearly understand the processes by which you arrived at the research findings and then
produced your conclusions. Finally, and perhaps most critical, is the content that you share
and how you shape that content, since as the researcher it is up to you to decide what data are
included and what data, if any, are omitted. As a part of this consideration, you will also need
to make ethical decisions about how to address and share any unexpected findings, anomalies,
or outliers.
In conducting social research, there is an ethical mandate to disseminate or share the
research so that others have access to the knowledge that your research has generated. The first
question to ask yourself is with whom you plan to share the research findings. The second
question to ask yourself is how to reach your intended audience. First, in most cases it is con-
sidered an ethical imperative that you share your research findings with your research partici-
pants. Second, researchers typically share their research findings with their academic research
community, and in so doing, build an accessible repository of knowledge on a topic. Typically,
researchers seek to publish their studies in peer- reviewed journals and present their research
at appropriate academic conferences. Third, researchers will need to consider whether to share
their research findings with other relevant stakeholders outside of the academic academy. In
recent years there has been a prominent shift toward sharing research findings beyond the acad-
emy and toward public scholarship, thereby making research relevant in the real world. Toward
this end, some institutions will assess academic research in part based on the real-world impact
of that research.
You may be asking yourself how researchers can prepare to respond appropriately to aris-
ing ethical research issues during the conduct of research? Remember, each research study is
unique and the conditions in which you are undertaking your research are constantly changing
in ways that are not always expected or predictable. When you write a well-articulated research
proposal, you have already considered some potential ethical issues and put into place the neces-
sary procedures for meeting the standards for ethical research. Yet anticipating all the ethical
issues that might arise unexpectedly along the way during the study is unlikely. Therefore, the
challenge is that you will need to be prepared to respond appropriately throughout the research
process to address any and all ethical circumstances. You will also need to indicate in your
dissertation how and when you addressed all relevant ethical issues by providing a detailed
discussion of your attention to ethical praxis. Refer to Appendix D, Sample Ethical Assurance
Statements for some useful examples.
THE BELMONT REPORT AND THE COMMON RULE
Following a number of national and international conventions regarding the conduct of

ethical research, in 1979, the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects
of Biomedical and Behavioral Research produced a report—the Belmont Report—that
outlined basic ethical principles and guidelines that should underlie the conduct of bio-
medical and behavioral research with human subjects. The three principles of the Belmont
Report, which have become the three pillars of research ethics, were later operationalized
(2018) into the detailed rules and procedures that make up the Common Rule, which
governs research at US universities. The Common Rule allows for “expedited” review for
research that involves no more than “minimal risk” to prospective research participants.
Although the regulations do not identify who at an institution can determine whether a proj-
ect is exempt, they do make clear that this determination cannot be left up to the researcher
and so the institutional review board (IRB) or its delegated authority would make that
determination.
In accordance with the Belmont Report (1979), a researcher is mandated to adhere to the basic
ethical principles for human subjects in research: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice.
• Respect for Persons. Participants in a research study must be treated as autonomous

agents, capable of making informed decisions concerning whether or not to participate
in a study. In addition to capable and informed, all potential participants must be free
of coercion or undue influence. Furthermore, persons with diminished autonomy are
entitled to protection.
• Beneficence. All persons must be treated in an ethical manner not only by respecting
their decisions and protecting them from harm but also by making efforts to secure
their wellbeing.
• Justice. Who ought to receive the benefits of research and bear its burdens? This is
a question of justice in the sense of “fairness in distribution” or “what is deserved”.
Justice refers to the fair and equitable treatment of all individuals and groups selected
for participation, and is applied to ensure equality in the selection of potential research
participants. An injustice occurs when some benefit to which a person is entitled is
denied or withheld without good reason or when some burden is unduly imposed.
As outlined in the Belmont Report, the means used to recognize the three core principles
are (a) informed consent, (b) risk/benefit analysis, and (c) appropriate selection of research
participants.
Informed consent (or assent, in research that involves minors, that is, individuals under
the age of 18) is the term given to the agreement between researcher and participant. Any
interaction between researchers and participants that yields data, whether structured and
formal or unstructured and conversational, should be preceded by a thorough explanation
of the research and all associated expectations, and written or verbal affirmation of con-
sent. Research that involves direct interaction between researcher(s) and participants to col-
lect data, such as interviews, surveys, or participant-observations, typically needs to follow
these protocols. The United States Code of Federal Regulations (U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, 2005) mandates that researchers obtain informed consent to do the
following:
• Protect human subjects/volunteers

• Ensure that potential study subjects clearly understand the benefits and risks associated
with their participation in a study
• Provide the potential study subjects with all information needed to reach a decision on
whether or not to participate in a research study.
What does it mean to be informed? Researchers need to make clear to their participants
what material they will collect and how material about them and/or from them will be used.
As a best practice you might want to think about the informed consent as two distinct but
related parts: the formally verified consent (by way of a consent letter) and the ongoing process
of informing participants to ensure that they remain informed throughout the research process.
The researcher is expected to discuss the information in the informed consent letter and
make sure that participants understand that their information will be confidential. This leads
to the concept of deductive disclosure which occurs when a research participant, site, or organi-
zation may be identified or revealed from reading the dissertation or when the study’s findings
are disseminated or shared. As researchers it is critical to protect research participants. Possible
identifying factors include demographic details, description of individuals, personal communi-
cations, location of research site, and references and citations.
Risks/Benefit Analysis implies the researcher’s responsibility to minimize all potential risks
and maximize the potential benefits associated with the study. Anticipating the risks and ben-
efits involves a risk-benefit analysis to determine whether the benefits of the study outweigh the
risks. Remember, however, despite your best efforts at imagining the likely risks and benefits,
no one can anticipate every possible way a participant might be affected nor could you antici-
pate with certainty every way in which you, as the researcher, might be affected.
The anonymity and confidentiality of the participants is preserved by not revealing their
names and identity in the data collection, analysis, and reporting of the study findings. Issues
pertaining to privacy and confidentiality must be managed carefully throughout the research
process, including all communications, data gathering sessions, data analysis, and dissemina-
tion of the study’s findings. Anonymity and confidentiality are terms that are often used inter-
changeably in the research literature. We rarely can have anonymity in social science research;
such a concept is used in biomedical studies that are double-blind (meaning even the researcher
does not know who is part of the experimental group and who is in the control group). As a
social science researcher, you could collect anonymous data through a survey. However, there is
no way that a person could remain completely anonymous in studies that utilize interviews or
observations. We can, however, ensure confidentiality of a participant’s identity. The implica-
tion is that while you as the researcher will know the real identity of the participant, it is your
responsibility to protect your participant’s identity from being revealed. One way to achieve this
is to make use of pseudonyms for all people and places involved. The pseudonym should not be
easily discoverable. It may be helpful to ask participants to select their own pseudonyms so that
they can identify themselves when the study is in print. While you may be required by your IRB
not to disclose the identity of participants, some participants may choose to be publicly named,
such as in situations where historically disenfranchised people’s stories have not been part of any
research. These participants may want to be noted for their time and effort and for sharing their
stories. In this case, you will need to work to get special permission from the IRB and before any
research commences.
Selection of research participants includes issues of justice where questions may arise regard-
ing all choices pertaining to how and in what ways the participants were included or excluded
from the study. In working on your dissertation research, therefore, you will need to indicate
that your study will be conducted in a manner that upholds the following principles from The
Belmont Report (US Department of Health & Human Services, 2005) as they relate to stud-
ies involving human subjects: (a) respect for persons which is concerned with avoiding the abuse
of participants by sharing of information regarding the study and recognizing a participant’s
capacity for deciding to participate on a voluntary basis; (b) beneficence which focuses the
researcher’s attention on doing no harm and ensures the obligation to weigh the benefits of
the research against a participant’s exposure to risk as a result of participation in the study; and
(c) justice as it relates to selection of participants with a focus on benefits to the participants and
other stakeholders, and keeping in mind who will benefit from the study and who will bear the
burden for participation. Table 4.1 outlines the various types of abuse or negligence that can
occur in the research process.
TABLE 4.1 ■ Types of Abuse in Human Research
Physical Control Research participants are physically forced to participate in a study against
their choice. Participation is not voluntary.
Coercion The use of credible threat of harm or force to control another person.
Participation is not voluntary.
Undue Influence The misuse of a position of power or position to lead or influence others to
make a decision they would not otherwise make.
Manipulation The deliberate design and management of conditions or information intended

to lead (or mislead) participants to make a decision they would not otherwise
make. Examples include lying about information, withholding information, or
exaggerating information.
VULNERABLE POPULATIONS
Let us turn for a moment to the topic of research with vulnerable populations. Vulnerability may
be based on age, mental, developmental and intellectual disabilities, institutionalization, lan-
guage barriers, socioeconomic deprivation, or other factors. A common theme in the guid-
ance documents of the Belmont Report pertaining to vulnerable populations developed by
the National Commission (1979) is that vulnerability is primarily described as arising from
intrinsic factors, characteristics, or attributes of the individual that, when present, confer the
label “vulnerable” to the individual and/or group, placing them at potential risk of harm or
exploitation. Sources of vulnerability include situational considerations, cognitive or commu-
nicative vulnerability, institutional vulnerability (due to formal hierarchies or power relation-
ships), deferential vulnerability (due to informal hierarchies or power relationships), medical
vulnerability, economic vulnerability, and social vulnerability. Children, prisoners, individu-
als with impaired decision-making capacity, and economically or educationally disadvantaged
persons are all considered vulnerable populations. The three ethical principles described in the
Belmont Report (respect for persons, beneficence, and justice) are important to examine in the
context of vulnerable individuals or groups participating in research. A combination of intrinsic
factors and situational conditions that lead to vulnerability require attention by an IRB. IRBs
make distinctions about populations that are considered vulnerable so that special safeguards
can be put into place to protect these groups from harm or exploitation.
• Respect for Persons (autonomous decision-making). There is the possibility

that due to intrinsic factors or situational conditions individuals or groups can be
susceptible to coercion or undue influence.
• Beneficence. This refers to ways of weighing the risks of harm against the benefits as a
result of the research. When conducting research that includes vulnerable individuals
or groups, there are two issues related to risks of harm: There may be changes in the
magnitude of an already identified risk of harm due to the vulnerability of the research
participants. Or, there may be previously unrecognized risks of harm that arise because
of the vulnerability of the individual or group.
• Justice. There are various considerations that may arise when assessing justice
involving vulnerable individuals or groups: In some types of research, the vulnerable
group may be the primary group on which the research is conducted because the
study is focused on the source of vulnerability. This means that the research burden
is heaviest on the group based solely on the presence of their vulnerability. This
could also mean that those who experience this vulnerability may be the primary
beneficiaries of the research findings. According to the concept of justice in the
Belmont Report, research with a vulnerable population may in these cases be
acceptable. Some individuals or groups who are vulnerable may become the focus
of the study merely for ease or convenience of access, or because risks of harm or
burdens to them are trivialized but designing studies to specifically exclude vulnerable
individuals or groups from the research hurts the ability to further knowledge,
insights, and understanding.
It is important to note that there are specific ethical considerations with respect to par-
ticular vulnerable populations and concerns from an ethical perspective can include histori-
cally marginalized or otherwise underrepresented or underserved groups, and groups that are
minoritized or mistreated. Moreover, keep in mind that taking group histories and experiences
into account means that sensitive topics might create particular vulnerabilities even in groups
that are not officially (by IRB standards) considered vulnerable or marginalized. As such, you
will need to be cautious to avoid “essentializing, stereotyping, or deficitizing individuals and
groups” (Ravitch & Mittenfelner Carl 2020, p. 199).
Researchers and IRBs must carefully consider the characteristics of the specific population
to be studied in addition to specific situational factors, and determine any potential vulnerabili-
ties, and if so whether there is adequate justification to include these persons in the research, and
what additional protections may be required. Regarding the latter consideration, researchers
and IRBs must also consider the risk of harm to individual research participants and popula-
tions if they are excluded from participation. Some individuals or groups who are vulnerable
may become the focus of study merely for ease or convenience of access, or because risks of
harm or burdens to them are trivialized, because the group is undervalued. This is a significant
issue and should be monitored carefully. On the other hand, designing studies to intentionally
exclude individuals or vulnerable groups from the research because of the complications and
additional requirements for studying them is problematic (either real or perceived) and denies
the group the potential benefit of research.
To ensure an ethical approach, especially in the case of vulnerable populations, there are
some useful questions that researchers can ask themselves during the design of their study,
including the following:
• Is there a moral basis for conducting research on this topic by focusing on a minority
group or seeking to destigmatize an underrepresented or disenfranchised persons or
group?
• Will the research participants benefit from their participation in the study?
• Will the distribution of burdens and benefits to the participants be fair and equitable?
• Does the assessment of vulnerability raise concerns about the capacity of my potential
participants to give consent?
• Do my research plans put in place adequate special protections for vulnerable
participants?
• How am I planning to seek and document voluntary and informed consent in ways
that are appropriate for the research and participants?
• How am I planning to collect data and are the methods appropriate for both the topic
and the participants?
• Is information presented in an understandable and accessible manner?
• Do participants comprehend the research details and their rights as research
participants?
• Are there reasonable accommodations provided for people with disabilities?
• Do the vulnerabilities of the participants require the additional protection of a research
participant advocate or other legally authorized representative?
Additionally, all researchers should be cognizant of the power dynamics involved and
whether they are conducting research with or on any vulnerable populations. As such, reflect
carefully on why you are doing this research and how your participants might be more involved
in the research. Asking yourself the following questions is a way to safeguard that the benefits
for research participants will outweigh the inherent risks:
• Is there a power differential between me and the research participants?

• Is the consent process conducive to true voluntariness/ voluntary participation?
• Are there excessive motivating factors including economic issues?
• Are there any coercive factors, either blatant or subtle?
• Are there potential problematic communication issues?
• Is the recruitment process fair and equitable?
Abiding by the National Commission’s Belmont Report, your own discipline’s ethical
codes, and your university’s IRB regulations, will enable you to proceed cautiously and ethically
in all decisions, including inclusion and exclusion. As such, collectively these efforts will ensure
that you stand a better chance of conducting ethical research which implies protecting and
respecting research participants, honoring trust, and remaining sensitive to the possible conse-
quences of your work to guard against any predictably harmful effects, both in the short-term
and long-term.
PANDEMIC-RELATED CHALLENGES TO RESEARCH ETHICS
At the time of updating this book’s 5th edition, the COVID-19 pandemic continued to dramat-
ically change the patterns of daily social life in new and unpredictable ways. Depending on how
medicine and public health trajectories evolve, methods of qualitative research and the associ-
ated ethical issues will continue to evolve too. As faculty and students navigate the uncharted
waters ahead, we are still trying to figure out what a “new normal” could look like and what
might be the longer-term impact on social science research. Moving research practices online,
and away from in-person, shifted from being a choice to being a mandate, leaving researchers to
significantly re-envision their research plans and practices. As we move forward, in-person data
collection methods such as on-site interviews and focus groups, and participant observation
may well decrease, while online data collection and social media research will, as a matter of
necessity, will tend to increase. As Paulus and Lester (2021) put it, “some people have suggested
that there is no going back, that the world will be forever changed. What this means for quali-
tative researchers is still unfolding, but digital tools and spaces will most certainly be part of
how doing qualitative research is actualized in the years ahead” (p. 336). Moreover, along with
electronic mediation rather than in-person exchanges, research topics and questions for inquiry
might also become more “crisis oriented” or change-centered as qualitative researchers seek to
study both the short-term and the long-term impact of the pandemic on individual lives, on
societies, and on cultures. With these significant changes in the ways that research is conducted,
there is an urgent need to focus on how to minimize exclusion and carry out ethical research.
This includes ensuring access, addressing digital literacy, redesigning sampling and selection
strategies, and also the use of secondary or archival data.
Since the onset of the pandemic, dissertation students have encountered the hurdle of hav-
ing to modify or change an existing research design. This should not present a problem—and
indeed offers emerging research opportunities—as long as students are aware of the limita-
tions, ramifications, and implications of using “socially-distant” methods and tools. Those who
already have approval from their review board will probably need to file an amendment or mod-
ification to their original proposal to shift from in-person to online data collection. Shifting to
remote data collection and storage, and changing methodologies, means modifying your IRB
approval and conducting another round of consents. Researchers will also need to document
when data were received and control for those differences, and this will include accounting for
changing methods midstream, such as switching from paper and pencil surveys to online ver-
sions. If you decide to use online data collection methods that engage with pre-existing material
people have uploaded (as opposed to material you have specifically asked them to generate fol-
lowing a consent process), you will need to carefully consider all potential ethical issues.
Most of the fundamental ethical issues in online research are the same as in face-to-face
contexts. Common ethical issues include who will informed consent be obtained from, how
will data of research subjects be kept secure, and how will the privacy of research subjects be
maintained (Gelinas et al., 2017). As pointed out by Golder et al., (2017), the ethical chal-
lenges involved in conducting social media research remain of great concern. Furthermore,
COVID-19 has pushed us to think even more deeply about what it means to do qualitative
research; not just in terms of using digital tools, but how to engage in digital spaces and online
communities, and to critically evaluate the methodological and ethical implications of engag-
ing with these tools and spaces (Jowett, 2020; Mitchell, 2021; Paulus & Lester, 2021).The main
point to be recognized is that there is always a “person” who may be affected by the research.
As pointed out by AoIR (2019), IDRC (2020), and Lobe et al. (2020) some ethical issues that
should be kept in mind for all research and must not be overlooked in online research are respect
for persons (as the fundamental value), anonymity–pseudonymity, risks/benefits for partici-
pants, risks/benefits for the social good, public versus private space, subject compensation, jus-
tice, cross-cultural issues, special/vulnerable populations, deception, nondisclosure, conflicts of
interest, managing online interactions, dissemination of research findings, and general research
misconduct. With this in mind, researchers will need to understand how social media data dif-
fer from more common data sources in social science and the challenges that provides. It is also
critical that researchers gain knowledge of the types of harms and risks that might be posed to
research participants.
The use of digital technologies in research settings has the potential to increase participa-
tion and engagement when processes are implemented purposefully, but this is not without lim-
itations. Following are some of the challenging elements associated with doing research online
and recommendations for ethical best practices.
Access and Digital Literacy

Conducting research online offers the potentiality for generating new forms of access as well as
producing and sustaining inbuilt exclusionary practices. A significant issue associated with the
use of digital technologies is that of access and the actual ability of stakeholders to participate in
research studies. Using digital media requires access to computers or other devices required to
make use of available resources including appropriate software. Broadly, what the body of schol-
arship focused on the digital divide and the realities of inequitable access reveals is the need for
researchers to remain ever vigilant about the complexities that are always already at work with
technology adoption. An important issue to consider in using digital technologies is the demo-
graphics of the research participants, as their familiarity with and use of digital tools can signifi-
cantly affect their ability and willingness to participate in the research. For example, there is a
segment of the population that is familiar with technologies such as Zoom and others who don’t
even know what this is (American Psychological Association, 2019). As such it becomes neces-
sary that researchers provide training or information sessions to participants on how to access
and use digital tools so that they can actively engage in the process.
The pandemic and resulting digitalization have redefined the discussion around accessibil-
ity and inclusion, exposing—and indeed highlighting—the challenges in meeting the specific
needs of underrepresented communities, including people from low-income families, racial/
ethnic minorities, students of color, and indigenous peoples. In addition to concerns related to
the “digital divide,” that is, the uneven distribution in the access to materials, and/or technology
and connectivity issues there is a need to address access with regard to proper accommodations
for elderly people or those who are socially or culturally disadvantaged who may not be familiar
with technology, as well as those with disabilities including learning disabilities, mobility impair-
ments, and other health and medical-related impairments. Keep in mind how to ensure that those
who were already marginalized do not become “super-marginalized” and lose voice altogether. It
therefore becomes imperative that we implement research strategies and methods that will ensure
and promote access and inclusivity. This has implications for planning data collection, including
both sample selection and the choice and use of specific online data collection methods.
Sampling, Recruitment, and Data Collection

The use of social media sites as both a place for research as well as a place for research participant
recruitment has grown significantly since the onset of the pandemic. This increase in usage of
social media for recruitment of participants offers the opportunity to gain participants from
large geographic spans, differing demographic representations, and targeted professions. Access
and recruitment can shape our sampling choices. As Humphreys (2020) writes, “When recruit-
ing a sample of participants through social media (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn etc.,) purpose-
ful sampling may easily turn into convenience sampling, which is seldom methodologically
ideal” (p. 88).
In the previous edition of this book, I addressed the Internet as a separate part of research, or
indeed everyday life, as it had become an increasingly integrated part of people’s experience. Four
years later, this is even more the case and is reflected in the shift in language from “the Internet”
to “digital media” or social media. Digital technologies in today’s world have indeed become
integral to our lives, as we use digital platforms to obtain information, share and disseminate
information, and communicate. In addition, online platforms are rapidly becoming a part of
academic and professional settings, where scholars and professional practitioners use digital tools
for a variety of purposes, including collaboration, conducting research, data generation and anal-
ysis, accessing online community contexts, and sharing research. Many applications now also
provide the means for even large groups of people to actively participate in all facets of a research
project, from establishing the research objectives and outcomes, through data gathering and
analysis, to reporting and disseminating information about research findings. Since the onset
of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020 doing research using online platforms and tools is
prevalent especially with social distancing becoming an imperative. Indeed, one of the most sig-
nificant impacts of the development of digital media is the extent to which it enables researchers
to publicize widely or enable them to make contact with wider audiences and stakeholder groups
(including practitioners and policy makers), thereby extending the networks of those associated
with their project and publicizing research findings and their outcomes and implications.
Informed Consent
Informed consent is the term given to the agreement between researcher and participant. Any
interaction between researchers and participants that yields data, whether structured and for-
mal or unstructured and conversational, should be preceded by a discussion of the research and
expectations, and written or verbal affirmation of consent. Online researchers will need to con-
sider additional points when informing potential participants about the kinds of data to be col-
lected and expectations for the exchange by carefully thinking through the nature of the study,
types of data to be collected, and the sensitivity and risks associated with the data. Importantly,
you will need to inform your research participants of your expectations at the outset and also
throughout all stages of the inquiry.
At the outset, it is important to realize what will need to be included when you are inform-
ing participants about online studies. For example, if you are conducting an interview on a
video-conference platform, do you expect the camera to stay on? Do you expect the participant
to find a private space where others can’t overhear them? For surveys or questionnaires, is it
acceptable for participants to skip questions or submit an incomplete instrument? All of these
options will require consideration, and research participants will need to be informed.
Next, you will need to consider what process to use when informing participants about the
online research study. How do people in the target demographic for your study prefer to receive
information? If they prefer audio or video to a written document, create a short recording to
explain study expectations. If they prefer visuals, create an infographic or comic-style graph-
ics. If you are conducting interviews or other data collection events that involve talking with
your participants, begin your interaction by reviewing key points and record responses that
affirm they understand. Consider creating a blog or page dedicated to the study and include a
jargon-free description of the purpose and potential value of the research as well as all relevant
factors you want the participants to know. Embed a video introduction, and link to your prior
research or your academic institution to illustrate your credibility.
A further important consideration is the issue of whether consent agreements can be veri-
fied online. When studies involving participants are conducted online, researchers may look for
alternatives to the paper and pen form of agreement. In some internet research ethics protocols,
the click-if-you-agree type of online form is considered as an acceptable approach. An advantage
of a succinct checklist is that the participant won’t simply scroll to the bottom and sign with-
out reading. If a verbal agreement is acceptable, it will be important to record the participants’
response at the beginning of the interview. Another way of accomplishing it is by using an
electronic survey tool such as SurveyMonkey, an approach that also allows you to verify that
the participant meets inclusion criteria. A further option is to provide the consent form as an
e-mail attachment or use an electronic signature platform. Depending on institutional or other
requirements, it may be necessary, however, for the physical signed form to be returned via sur-
face mail.
Privacy and Confidentiality

Going forward there are specific ethical issues related to using software applications and inter-
net sites. Qualitative researchers increasingly conduct research on virtual/online communities,
and cull and analyze user posts from social media platforms including Facebook, Instagram,
Snapchat, Tumblr, and others. In most cases the data that researchers use are publicly available.
However, given the complexity of various social media platforms’ privacy settings, people who
post in these forums may not always be aware that they are posting publicly. This raises ethical
questions about using data from social media platforms as well as instances in which researchers
use social media as part of their recruitment or research method to reach, communicate, and
interact with participants. While information on a social media site that is accessible without
registration or membership may be considered public, the situation is less obvious in regard to
information posted on social media sites or online communities where registration or member-
ship is required. To err on the side of thoughtful research ethics and best practices, participants
should be given the option to allow or disallow information from online profiles or social media
pages to be used as data.
Researchers should consider issues such as implied consent and users’ lack of awareness
of the permanence of their digital footprints when designing studies, and be cautious when
assuming “implied consent,” as there are likely individuals who publicly share data without
fully recognizing that they are doing so. As such, be careful to use social media as part of an
ethically sound research process, only if the benefits of this method outweigh potential bur-
dens to privacy and confidentiality. Unlike in-person research, the asynchronous nature of the
space allows research participants to post to the group, and comment on other posts, at any
time. Social media as virtual spaces can facilitate long-distance interactions and allowing par-
ticipants to engage in research from home, and at times that suit them, can prove beneficial.
However, there are certain situations in which social media sites would not provide a suitable
space for research. Research where participant interactions will need to be closely supervised
or where the researcher might have a particular duty of care to participants, are two examples.
Gathering data using software applications poses one set of ethical issues and focusing on
online communities as research sites bring its own considerations. When gathering data using
various applications, there are particular concerns about protecting anonymity and privacy, and
understandably so. As interviews and observations are increasingly digitized, a researcher can-
not rightfully claim that these data will be destroyed at the end of the study (which is typically a
requirement of most institutional review boards). Files stored on a computer are easily accessed;
files that are backed up automatically onto a server are never actually “destroyed” and remain
accessible, despite best intentions. Making use of applications to transcribe audio-recordings
poses challenges similar to those discussed above, and these center on respecting one’s interview
participants in how their words are represented. While not unique to using software applica-
tions, these remain important ethical considerations to keep in mind throughout the research
process.
THE ROLE OF THE QUALITATIVE RESEARCHER
Qualitative research involves the collection, analysis, and interpretation of narrative and visual
data to gain insight into a particular phenomenon of interest. Taking place within natural or
nonmanipulated settings, qualitative research allows for complex social phenomena to be viewed
holistically. An underlying assumption of qualitative research is that rich data that are nested in
real context can be captured only by way of the interactive process between the researcher and
the research participants (Marshall et al., 2022; Rossman & Rallis, 2017). The researcher strives
to describe the meaning of the findings from the perspective of the research participants, and to
achieve this goal, data are gathered directly from participants. Since description, understand-
ing, interpretation, and communication are the primary goals, the researcher is the primary
instrument for data collection and data analysis. Indeed, the strongest influence on the research
process, including participant reactivity as well as the study’s outcomes, starts and ends with the
researcher. As Charmaz (2015) aptly puts it,
Just as methods we use influence what we see, what we bring to the study also influences
what we can see. Qualitative research of all sorts relies on those who conduct it. We are
not passive receptacles into which data are poured. We are not scientific observers who
can dismiss scrutiny of our values by claiming scientific neutrality and authority. (p. 27)
Ravitch and Mittenfelner Carl (2020) outline the four key pillars of qualitative research
as criticality, collaboration, rigor, and reflexivity. These are essentially the ideal qualities of a
qualitative researcher, too. As these authors state, “All research is powerful. With this power
also comes great responsibility and potential” (p. 391). Criticality means that you are critically
approaching all aspects of the study, paying careful attention to issues of power and equity so
that you are accurately and with integrity representing the experiences of others. Collaboration
entails engaging with participants and others connected to your research (advisors and col-
leagues) in thoughtful and deliberate ways through dialogic engagement practices that support
a critical stance. Rigor in qualitative research encompasses a variety of trustworthiness consid-
erations, including developing and engaging in a research design that seeks and acknowledges
complexity; maintaining fidelity with regard to research participants by being responsive to
emerging meanings that are derived from the data while at the same time ensuring a systematic
approach to data collection and analysis; seeking to understand and represent as complex and
contextualized a picture as possible; and transparently addressing the challenges and limitations
of your study. Reflexivity, being an active and ongoing awareness of your personal role, under-
girds the entire research process and the impact of your role regarding all possible ways that your
subjectivity and assumptions directly relate to and shape your research.
Acknowledging and Embracing Power and Positionality

Conceptualizing the prominence of the researcher as a primary instrument of the research has
significant implications throughout every stage of the research process, in all the ways that the
subjectivity, social identity, positionality, and meaning-making of the researcher profoundly
shape the research process overall (Bourke, 2014; Dean et al., 2018; Esposito & Evans-Winters,
2021; Holmes, 2020; Rowe, 2014; Saldaña, 2018; Sultana, 2007). Further, others see you
through their own interpretations, so how you are perceived also comes into play in fine-tuning
yourself as the catalyst for the research. Positionality is also multidimensional. Not only do
dimensions of culture, class, gender, age, and political or social identity define the degree of
commonality between researcher(s) and participants, but these dimensions extend into the val-
ues and world view that one brings to the research enterprise, thus influencing what is perceived
and understood as knowledge. Accepting that what is perceived in the workplace or social com-
munity as reality is socially constructed, positionality will significantly influence the decisions
made during each cycle of the research process. Issues of positionality and power relate not only
to the relationship between researcher and research participants but also to the subject matter
of the research itself (Mason-Bish, 2019). As such, it is important to acknowledge the delicate
balance between positionality and research topic which is very much shaped by the identity and
positionality of everyone involved in the study.
Positionality is thus an important consideration in qualitative research because it not only
directly influences every phase of the research process, from the way the research problem, pur-
pose and questions are initially constructed, the way the study is designed and conducted, who
is invited to participate, how data are analyzed and interpreted, and finally, the ways in which
outcomes and findings are disseminated and published, including whose voice(s) will be repre-
sented in the final report. Interpretation consists of two related concepts: the ways in which the
researcher accounts for the experiences of the research participants, and the ways in which par-
ticipants themselves make meaning of their experiences. Related to subjectivity is the expression
of voice that results in the reporting of the research findings. Through this voice, the researcher
leaves their own signature or “footprint” on the study.
Positionality refers to the how differences in social position and power shape identities
and access in society. All aspects of our identities are shaped by socially constructed positions
which are embedded in our society as a system. Positionality is thus determined by where one
stands in relation to “the other” (Freire, 1968/1970). Therefore, who we are and what roles we
assume in our research will translate into issues of identity, power, and conflict. Research repre-
sents a shared space, shaped by both researcher and participants. As such, the identities of both
researcher and participants have the potential to impact the research process. Identities come
into play via our perceptions not only of others but also of the ways in which we expect others
will perceive us. As a researcher, it is thus imperative to consider the ways in which race, ethnic-
ity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, socioeconomic class, disability status or other
cultural factors, and impact the instructor/learner dynamic, the research setting, and how you
“show up” and relate to and communicate with your study participants. Because the broader
social context is duplicated within the research context, enacting the role of the researcher will
reproduce the inherent hierarchical power structures that privilege some, silence some, and
deny the existence of others. In order to be attentive to issues of diversity and inclusion, it is
important to highlight the ways research participants who identify as minorities or underrepre-
sented or marginalized groups can feel as they engage with a researcher. In conducting research,
it is also critical to be mindful that in conducting a study that highlights issues of difference
may indeed contribute to the further marginalization of the participants of the study (hooks,
1990). There is an oppressive nature associated with much of research that has been conducted
on Indigenous communities or groups, with research being seen as a “colonial tool.” Esposito
and Evans-Winters (2021) present the concept of intersectionality as a methodological matrix of
analysis that is focused on relationships embedded in power and influence, stating:
Intersectionality goes beyond simplistic one-dimensional critiques and analyses of
power and domination … Consequently, qualitative inquiry from an intersectional per-
spective unashamedly and ardently concedes that individuals can be multiply situated
in the world and, thus, the researcher must be prepared to accept complexity as a part of
the research process. (p. 5)
Ethics is concerned with the shared principles that qualitative researchers purport to uphold
that guide our behavior in the field and our varied interactions with research participants.
Intersectionality recognizes that identities are mutually interlocking as well as relational, and
that this plays out in the real world through power and influence (Esposito & Evans-Winters,
2021). Critical questions include: How might intersectionality inform research ethics or the
ethics of the researcher? Specifically, what are the ethics of the intersectional researcher? Who
gets to decide what qualifies as ethical research? When should conversations about the ethics of
qualitative research or the ethical quality of the research take place? What role does ethics play
in qualitative research that claims to approach inquiry from an intersectional perspective? As
human beings, we have several markers of individual and group identities that are enmeshed
within systems of oppression that serve to sustain social inequality, and reflexivity regarding
these markers is essential.
Sultana (2007) addresses the significance of paying attention to reflexivity, positionality,
and power relations especially when conducting international research and posits that such
concerns are even more important in the context of multiple axes of difference, inequalities,
and geopolitics, explaining that “conducting international fieldwork involves being attentive
to histories of colonialism, development, globalization and local realities, to avoid exploitative
research or perpetuation of relations of domination and control” (p. 375). It is indeed critical
that the politics and intersectionality involved in research across social and cultural boundaries
be heeded and negotiated in order to ensure ethical research practices and avoid perpetuating
marginalization, neocolonial representations, and Western biases. These concerns are particu-
larly significant as research becomes increasingly and ever-more globalized. A heightened focus
on these systems of marginalization and power imbalances can move qualitative researchers
toward increased reflexivity and critical action as we strive for equity, inclusion, democratiza-
tion, collective agency, and emancipatory pedagogies.
As researchers, we reproduce who we are in our studies, and our very positions in the
academy privilege and empower us. Indeed, doctoral students and faculty advisors occupy
highly specialized, uniquely structured roles in both the institutions where they study and
work, as well as in the fields in which they execute their studies. Additionally, their dis-
ciplines promote specific language, conceptual frameworks, and methodological norms to
guide the research process. Smith et al. (2021) explore the unique nuances of the researcher
positionality in dissertations in practice, noting the importance of constructing concep-
tual coherence between the implications of the scholarly-practitioner’s positionality state-
ment and the discussion of the dissertation’s ethical considerations and limitations. The
EdD or dissertation in practice model, more so than with traditional PhD dissertations,
assumes that the researcher holds close personal connections to the research site, partici-
pants, and contexts, with the researcher holding a vested interest in resolving the profes-
sional problem of practice within their place of employment in the presence of colleagues.
For this reason, the full disclosure of the researcher’s positionality becomes all the more
important. Employing a conscious reflexive approach may enhance fidelity of researcher
positionality within practice-based doctoral research that informs professional practice,
especially where that role draws on the insider–outsider role of the scholar–practitioner.
Open and transparent disclosure and articulation of positionality serves to explain how and
in what ways the researcher believes and acknowledges they have influenced their research. In
turn, the reader should then be able to make an informed judgment as to the researcher’s influ-
ence on the research process and to what extent the research can be considered trustworthy.
Engaging in Reflexivity
Qualitative research is about embracing and critically approaching the subjectivities inherent in
the content and processes of the research itself. As Leavy (2017) puts it,
In order to understand reflexivity in contemporary research practice, one needs to con-
sider the historical context within which research reflexivity emerged as a cornerstone of
ethical practice, including the social justice movements that highlighted historical ineq-
uities that worked to exclude minority and disenfranchised groups from the research
process and reinforce dominant and hegemonic stereotypes and ideologies. (p. 48)
As Leavy (2017) explains, being reflexive in our research practice means paying attention to
how power influences our attitudes and behaviors, and our own role in shaping the research
experience. Some of the issues that qualitative researchers, in particular, consider are the planes
of hierarchy and authority on which researchers and participants operate. Maintaining a reflex-
ive approach throughout ensures a critical review of the positionality of the researcher in the
research and how this will impact both the processes and the outcomes of the research.
As we dig further into our own positionality, we explore and uncover our own personal and/
or professional needs to conduct the research, our social and cultural backgrounds as well as
political and ideological assumptions that will ultimately shape the entire research process. An
important outcome of reflexivity is unearthing power dynamics and coming to know, acknowl-
edge, and respect the boundaries between researchers and research participants. The qualita-
tive researcher’s role as both “insider” and “outsider” is one of the most important aspects (and
many argue that it is the most important aspect) of a study’s trustworthiness. At the same time,
ironically, the researcher’s insider/outsider perspective is also the most sensitive, vulnerable, and
unpredictable part of a study’s design. Reflexivity is the process through which researchers seek
to acknowledge, examine, and understand how their positionality (their own social and cultural
background, beliefs, and assumptions) can impact and significantly shape the research process,
including the topic that was chosen, how they frame their research problem, the research ques-
tions they articulate to address the study’s purpose, how they collect data and engage with their
research participants, how they analyze and interpret the study’s findings, and finally how the
research participants are represented. As such, engaging in reflexive practice means being atten-
tive to issues of voice. Who is seen as an authority? Who has the right to speak on behalf of oth-
ers? In the words of Leavy (2017),
The issue of speaking for those with whom we share differences or who may be members
of marginalized or oppressed groups — often referred to as “others ” in the social science
literature — is an ethical quagmire. As we have learned from the social justice move-
ments, it is important to seek out the perspectives of those who historically have been
marginalized for active inclusion in the knowledge- building process. However, when
doing so we must be very mindful of the ways in which we attempt to speak for others or
represent the experiences and perspectives of others. In our attempts to be inclusive, we
don’t want to inadvertently colonize the stories and experiences of others. In this regard,
it is important to be cognizant of these issues and to carefully reflect on how we position
ourselves and others in representations of our research. (p. 49)
While the concepts of objectivity and subjectivity are no longer meaningful in qualita-
tive research, strategies that may be collectively labeled as “reflexive practices” abound in the
qualitative methodological literature (Berger, 2015; Bourke, 2014, Collins & Cannella, 2021,
Denzin & Lincoln, 2018; Esposito & Evans-Winters, 2021, May & Perry, 2014, 2017; McNess
et al., 2015; Roulston & Shelton, 2015). These practices focus on examining one’s subjectivity
and biases and reflecting on how these may shape the research process. As mentioned in the
previous section, the concept of “researcher as instrument” raises important ethical, account-
ability, and social justice issues, including intersubjectivity, intersectionality, power, authorship,
and voice. Importantly, the reflexive researcher understands that a reflective stance is indeed
an imperative—that is, an explicit self-consciousness including social, political, and value posi-
tions. As Berger (2015) explains,
Questions about reflexivity are part of a broader debate about ontological, epistemological
and axiological components of the self, intersubjectivity and the colonization of knowl-
edge. This debate has gained central stage as employment of communication research
methods continues to evolve and the use of the self expands in a diverse plethora of research
strategies across disciplines … Consequently, researchers need to increasingly focus on
self-knowledge and sensitivity; better understand the role of the self in the creation of
knowledge; carefully self-monitor the impact of their biases, beliefs, and personal experi-
ences on their research; and maintain the balance between the personal and the universal...
Reflexivity is commonly viewed as the process of a continual internal dialogue and critical
self-evaluation of researcher’s positionality as well as active acknowledgement and explicit
recognition that this position may affect the research process and outcome. (p. 220)
It is also important to acknowledge that the researcher’s position is, in reality, fluid rather than
static. Berger (2015) states,
Therefore, researchers must continually ask themselves where they are at any given
moment in relation to what they study and what are the potential ramifications of this
position on their research. Measures that can be helpful in gaining and maintaining
such continuous awareness are the strategies for securing reflexivity in general, with
the added refinement of constantly updating one’s own position relative to the study
and repeatedly asking self and discussing with others (co-researchers, peers, colleagues)
about the current position and how it may affect the research. (p. 231)
Reflexivity is the active ongoing process of examining oneself as a researcher and how one’s
assumptions and preconceptions affect our research decisions. Rigorous qualitative research
requires that researchers engage in critical reflexivity on self as a researcher. Addressing meth-
odological issues of power and positionality, which includes a focus on impositions of social
hierarchy and issues of structural inequity in the context of research and in the research process
itself, is central to taking a stance of criticality in qualitative research. Criticality necessitates
that we, as researchers, understand, consider, and approach our roles with humility and with
acknowledgment, awareness, understanding that we carefully consider these issues in order for
our research to be ethical.
Whereas in quantitative research the impact of researcher subjectivity is considered to be
a limitation that needs to be controlled for, in qualitative studies explored subjectivities are an
asset that indeed enrich and enhance the work, providing an additional level of credibility. As
O’Reilly and Kiyimba (2015) explain,
Without this critical reflectivity … there may be an unintended harmful impact as a
result of claims to neutrality, objectivity or non-interpretation, which are essentially
misnomers. Thus the importance of reflexivity becomes an ethical issue as well as a
quality one. (p. 175)
What must be addressed are the relational and transactional aspects of research, including how
interpersonal dynamics and the broader issues of power, privilege, positionality, and identity
shape and impact all aspects of the research process, and ultimately the data, findings, inter-
pretation, conclusions, and recommendations. Reflexivity compels researchers to come to
terms not only with our choices of research problem and those whom we engage in the research
process but also with ourselves and the multiple identities that we embody in the research
setting—that is, the contradictions and paradoxes that form our own lives. As such, reflexivity
has become one of the key markers indicating trustworthiness and rigor of a piece of qualitative
research, and it is a skill that researchers need to cultivate in conducting qualitative work.
As the instrument of data collection and data analysis, reflexivity must remain an active,
intentional, and ongoing awareness to address, monitor, and act on your role as a researcher
and the significant impact that you have on your research, particularly with regard to issues
regarding interpretation and representation. This implies recognizing and acknowledging the
part you play throughout the research process—in the construction of and contribution to the
content and process of your research throughout its conceptualization, development, enactment,
and write-up. Toward this end, it is a useful practice to keep a research journal, as this provides
an ongoing structured opportunity to develop a research habit that can serve to deepen your
thinking around critical and key issues and processes by creating a space for intentional reflec-
tion. Unlike memos that are written at selected moments throughout the research process and
that tend to focus on specific topic areas, the research journal is an ongoing chronology of your
thoughts, questions, assumptions, and ideas—a kind of phenomenological exploration into your
own research process itself. Over time, your entries can allow you to make deeper connections
between current and past ideas, ongoing self-reflection, and your developing perspectives, view-
points, and questions. This chronology is beneficial throughout the research process as well as
when the study is complete and often contains very useful information that can be drawn upon
at the times of analysis and interpretation of the research findings. At that point critical consid-
erations come into play, requiring researchers to ask hard questions of themselves: How do the
participants’ social and cultural identities inform their unique communication and/or relation-
ship characteristics? How does the researcher acknowledge their own social and cultural identi-
ties and minimize the distance between themselves and their research participants? Does the
researcher clearly locate themself within the research context? How does the researcher best elicit
the rich information their research participants can share about their storied lives, which in turn
will make the research story rich and representative of their own experiences? Is the representa-
tion that is constructed by the researcher culturally responsive to and respectful of those studied?
Transparency is key to ensuring rigor, quality, and trustworthiness. Trustworthiness
means that the community of researchers and scholars will trust your analysis and interpreta-
tion of what others said and did in the field, thereby supporting the credibility, confirmability,
and dependability of your research as well as the transferability of your findings. Toward this
end, each chapter of Part II of this book concludes with reflexive questions to ensure that you
are thinking more deeply about the potential impact and complexity of all the choices you
make regarding your study’s design, including identification, justification, and limitations for
all methodological choices, and what might be your underlying (explicit and implicit) biases
and assumptions, and why you hold these. Transparency is an inherent hallmark of rigorous
qualitative inquiry. The importance of reflecting upon your identity and implications for your
research cannot be stressed enough, especially since how you are perceived comes into play. Refer
to Appendix E, Sample Positionality Statements for some useful examples.
Following are some recommended resources that you might consider perusing regarding ways
to address rigor and ethics in qualitative research.
Bourke, B. (2014). Positionality: Reflecting on the Research Process. The Qualitative Report, 19(33),
1–9. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2014.1026.
Through this article, the author provides a reflection on the role of positionality in research,
following the completion of a qualitative research project. Drawing on literature and findings
from the research project, the author highlights potential challenges and opportunities of
being cognizant of one’s positionality, illustrating the significance of positionality and serving
as a reminder of the potential impact on the research process, as well as on participants and
the researcher.
Collins, D. R., & Cannella, G. S. (2021). Racisms in Qualitative Inquiry: Recognitions and Challenges.
Qualitative Inquiry, Special Issue, 1-7, https://journals-sagepub-com.proxy1.ncu.edu/doi/10.1177/107
78004211021802.
This article focuses on “Racisms in Qualitative Inquiry” and brings attention to the institution-
alized perspectives and practices of racism that are embedded in the conceptualizations and
doings of qualitative research. The articles address unexamined purposes, direct practices,
and methodologies of research like coding and biases in representation, along with rethink-
ing and reconceptualizing research though knowledges like Black Studies (and other Ethnic
Studies generally) and the use of methodologies that have been ignored and excluded like
pláticas.
Esposito, J., & Evans-Winters, V. (2021). Introduction to Intersectional Qualitative Research, SAGE.
This book provides an overview of the key elements of qualitative research, with an emphasis
that intersectional concerns be infused throughout the research process. The premise is that
racism and sexism are institutionalized in all aspects of life, including social science research.
Intersectionality recognizes that identities are mutually interlocking as well as relational and
plays out in the real world through power and influence. Methodologically, intersectionality is
presented throughout this book as a tool to examine the ways in which multiple oppressions
manifest themselves.
Holmes, G. D. (2020). Researcher Positionality - A Consideration of Its Influence and Place in
Qualitative Research - A New Researcher Guide . International Journal of Education, 8(4), 1–10.
Novice researchers often struggle with identifying their positionality. This paper explores
researcher positionality and its influence on and place in the research process. Its purpose
is to help graduate researchers better understand positionality so that they may incorporate
a reflexive stance in their research and start to meaningfully clarify their social identity and
positionality.
Jacobson, D., & Mustafa, N. (2019). Social identity map: A reflexivity tool for practicing explicit posi-
tionality in critical qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, 1–12. https://
doi.org/10.1177%2F1609406919870075.
The position from which we see the world around us impacts our research interests, how
we approach the research and participants, the questions we ask, and how we interpret our
studies’ findings. These authors acknowledge the challenges involved in conceptualizing and
practicing positionality. They have developed a Social Identity Map that researchers can use
to explicitly identify and reflect on their social identity and positionality. This map is not meant
to be used as a rigid tool but rather as a starting point to guide researchers to deeply reflect as
they engage in their research.
Macleod, C. I., Marx, J., Mnyaka, P., & Treharne, G. J. (Eds.). (2018). The Palgrave handbook of ethics in
critical research.
This edited volume draws on stories from the field in critical research conducted in a broad
range of contexts and disciplines. Discussion centers on the complex issues surrounding ethi-
cal considerations and dilemmas that arise in conducting critical research. Chapter authors
illustrate concerns regarding the power differentials that exist among and between various
stakeholders in the research context, and the significance of challenging conventional wisdom
and avoiding complacency, which is unlikely to lead to ethically responsible research. Ethics
principles that are addressed include oppression, democratic collaboration, claiming owner-
ship of the data, issues of informed consent, respect for persons, and the “justice” imperative.
May, T., & Perry, B. (2017). Reflexivity: The essential guide, SAGE.
This text introduces a host of influential thinkers and their key ideas on reflexivity, incorpo-
rating examples from a range of disciplines and research settings. Drawing on the authors’
extensive experience of real research settings, this book provides students an opportunity to
examine the role of reflexivity in their research practice. These authors discuss how reflexivity
can be utilized for reflexive practice and the ongoing development of a qualitative researcher
as insider/outsider and within research spaces. Practice-based examples are provided for
qualitative research within institutional contexts.
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., & White, D. E. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustwor-
thiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16, 1–13. https://journals.sagepub.com/
doi/full/10.1177/1609406917733847.
To be accepted as trustworthy, qualitative researchers must demonstrate that data analysis
has been conducted in a precise, consistent, and exhaustive manner through recording, sys-
tematizing, and disclosing the methods of analysis with enough detail to enable the reader to
determine whether the process is credible. The purpose of this article is to guide research-
ers using thematic analysis, while exploring issues of rigor and trustworthiness. This article
contributes a purposeful approach to thematic analysis in order to systematize and enhance
trustworthiness.
Saldaña, J. (2018). Researcher, analyze thyself. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1),
1–7.
In this article, the author prompts questions for considerations of researcher positionality and
researcher identity specific to the role of the researcher in qualitative analysis. Specific traits
for qualitative researchers are discussed in context of the self as a researcher within the larger
qualitative research community.
Sultana, F. (2007). Reflexivity, Positionality and Participatory Ethics: Negotiating Fieldwork
Dilemmas in International Research. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 3(6),
374–385.
This paper addresses the significance of paying attention to issues of reflexivity, positional-
ity and power relations in order to undertake ethical and participatory research. Drawing
from international fieldwork experience, the paper posits that such concerns are even more
important in the context of multiple axes of difference, inequalities, and geopolitics The author
emphasizes that the politics involved in research across social and cultural boundaries need to
be heeded to ensure ethical research practices, and avoid perpetuating marginalization, neo-
colonial representations, and Western biases.
Whiting, R., & Pritchard, K. (2017). In A. Cunliffe, C. Cassell, & G. Grandy (Eds.), Handbook of
Qualitative Business and Management Research Methods, SAGE.
In the context of qualitative research, ethics are defined as the moral principles that guide
research from inception through to publication and the curation of data. The chief concern is to
minimize risk of actual or potential harm whilst ensuring the maximum benefit of the research.
This article focuses on the ways that qualitative researchers can engage with issues of trust-
worthiness and ethics and adopt an “ethics as process” case-based approach which entails
ongoing reflexive questioning of ethical considerations throughout the research cycle.
com/bloomberg-qualitative-5e. The companion website offers materials related to some of
the issues discussed in Chapter 4, including resources that address qualitative research ethics,
research guidelines during and after the pandemic, and researcher positionality and reflexivity.
• Appendix C: Sample Trustworthiness Statements

• Appendix D: Sample Ethical Assurance Statements
• Appendix E: Sample Positionality Statements
ACHIEVING ALIGNMENT
5 THROUGHOUT YOUR
DISSERTATION
• Offer a comprehensive overview of the concept of alignment in qualitative research.

• Highlight and clarify the key elements and concepts that must be aligned
throughout the dissertation.
• Explain how to ensure and check for methodological congruence throughout a
qualitative dissertation in order to best conduct and write up the research.
• Provide guidelines and suggestions regarding establishing and maintaining
congruence, and therefore methodological integrity, throughout the qualitative
dissertation process.
OVERVIEW
Your dissertation is a multifaceted product that should, in the end, demonstrate that you were
capable of conceptualizing, managing, conducting, and presenting a rigorous and compre-
hensive qualitative research study. Of importance, your final product should also indicate
and provide clear evidence that you have addressed alignment at every step of the process,
and that all of the key pieces of the larger “whole” are congruent and fit with each other.
Qualitative research is recursive in that it builds on and depends upon all of its component
parts. Making sure that you have achieved alignment among all the key components and ele-
ments means that your study is tight in terms of methodological integrity. Methodological
integrity is essential both at a philosophical and a practical level and is an indication of a study
of worth and quality.
There are numerous key elements and concepts that must be aligned and remain consis-
tent throughout the dissertation so that the study remains methodologically sound. This pro-
cess begins when the researcher identifies a worthy topic, goes on to formulate the research
147
problem and purpose of the study, and then develops a set of appropriate research questions
to address the study’s purpose. Because the research questions are directly tied to the research
purpose, answering the questions must, in the final analysis, accomplish the study’s purpose
and also contribute to shedding light on and addressing the research problem. The problem,
purpose, and research questions constitute the essential thrust of a qualitative study, and clear
and evident alignment among these three core elements enhances the logic, coherence, con-
sistency, and transparency of the research overall. It should be clear from reading Chapter 3
that each research design within the broader field of qualitative research (also referred to as
traditions or genres) is founded on a particular philosophy that influences the type of research
design and methods used. Therefore, one of the core issues related to planning and conduct-
ing a methodologically sound qualitative study is how to choose an appropriate and suit-
able research design that will address your research problem. All of the research components,
including the theoretical or conceptual framework, methods of data collection, methods
of data analysis, and data presentation, will need to be aligned with and reflect the prin-
ciples and features that characterize your chosen methodology (qualitative research) so that
there is a conceptual fit across all levels. In essence, the theoretical or conceptual framework,
research design, and research methods together must generate data appropriate and adequate
for responding to the study’s research questions. Finally, once you have conducted the study,
your conclusions should tie together the study’s major findings. Your recommendations,
which follow your findings and conclusions, are, in turn, the application of those conclusions
to practice, policy, and future research.
This chapter seeks to provide you with a clear understanding of the concept of align-
ment in qualitative research, highlights and clarifies the key elements that must be aligned
throughout the dissertation, and explains how to ensure and check for alignment throughout
the research process. Alignment (or lack of alignment) is often a key question or issue at the
time of the dissertation defense. The final dissertation manuscript should provide clear evi-
dence that you have addressed alignment at every step of the process so that the study reflects
methodological integrity. Table 5.1, Aligning Key Dissertation Components, serves as an at-a-
glance road map, indicating the key components and elements that should be taken into
account vis-à-vis alignment, and for ease of use, the table includes reference to relevant chap-
ters in this book. Checking for and achieving alignment is something you should be aware
of at the very start of your study, but keep in mind right throughout the research and writing
process. Again at the completion stage, you will revisit the importance of alignment once
more to make sure that all the elements that constitute your entire document are aligned and
that there are no holes, gaps, or inconsistencies. The intent is that by reading this chapter, you
will come away with a clearer understanding of the key concepts of alignment, congruence,
and methodological integrity vis-à-vis qualitative research. As you conduct your research and
write up your study, you will remember that the key is to achieve and actualize very clear
alignment at all levels. As such, continue to ask yourself: Is everything in sync or am I missing
something?
Chapter 5 • Achieving Alignment Throughout Your Dissertation 149
TABLE 5.1 ■ Aligning Key Dissertation Components
Chapter
Areas for Alignment Reference
1 Research Problem and Research Methodology (Qualitative Research) 3, 6
2 Research Problem and Research Purpose 6
3 Research Problem, Research Purpose, and Research Questions 6
4 Research Problem, Research Purpose, and Research Design (qualitative genre 3, 6, 8

or tradition)
A. Case Study
B. Ethnography
C. Phenomenology
D. Grounded Theory
E. Narrative Inquiry
F. Action Research
G. The Critical Genres
5 Research Design and Research Methods 3, 8
A. Case Study
B. Ethnography
C. Phenomenology
D. Grounded Theory
F. Action Research
6 Research Problem and Literature Review 6, 7
7 Literature Review and Theoretical/Conceptual Framework 7
8 Theoretical/Conceptual Framework, Research Questions, and Research 6, 7, 9, 10

Findings
9 Qualitative Methodology, Research Design, and Data Analysis 3, 8, 9

A. Case Study
B. Ethnography
C. Phenomenology
D. Grounded Theory
F. Action Research
(Continued)
TABLE 5.1 ■ Aligning Key Dissertation Components (Continued)
Chapter
Areas for Alignment Reference
10 Qualitative Methodology, Research Design, and Presentation of Findings 3, 8, 10
A. Case Study
B. Ethnography
C. Phenomenology
D. Grounded Theory
F. Action Research
11 Research Findings, Interpretations, and Conclusions 10, 11
12 Conclusions and Recommendations 10, 11
RESEARCH PROBLEM AND RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The starting point for any research study, and indeed the first major challenge in conducting
research, involves identifying and developing a sound topic. Once you have identified a gen-
eral area of interest, you will need to begin narrowing your topic. The process of developing a
researchable topic is a process of idea generation; the movement from a general interest toward a
more clearly refined idea around a researchable problem.
The goals of theoretical research are either to contribute new knowledge or extend current
theory to a new area. The goals of applied research are to use knowledge to contribute directly
to the understanding of a problem or generate a solution for the problem. You should be asking:
• Is my worldview aligned with a qualitative research approach?

• Does my intended research problem “fit” with the underlying philosophy and
characteristics of qualitative research?
• Do the problem, purpose of the study, and the research questions have the potential to
serve the goal of the research, either applied or theoretical?
• Is there sufficient theory to explain the phenomenon, or a reasonable solution to the
research problem, sometimes referred to as the “so what?” test?
As a field, qualitative research is broad and deep. While subtly nuanced in many ways, the
overall field itself is defined by key characteristics. To begin, you will need to become knowl-
edgeable about the characteristics of qualitative research, including the strengths, challenges,
and limitations associated with this approach to inquiry.
Quantitative research is applied to describe current conditions, investigate relationships,

and study cause–effect phenomena. Qualitative research, in contrast, is suited to promoting a
deep understanding of a social setting or activity as viewed from the perspective of the research
participants. This implies an emphasis on exploration, discovery, and description. Both research
approaches involve complex processes in which particular data collection and data analysis
methods assume meaning and significance in relation to the assumptions underlying the larger
intellectual traditions within which these methods are applied. However, rather than determine
cause and effect, or predict or describe the distribution of an attribute among a population,
qualitative researchers are interested in understanding how people interpret their experiences
and how they construct their worlds. The two paradigms or orientations that inform qualita-
tive research, namely social constructivism (or interpretivism) and critical theory, both place
emphasis on seeking understanding of the meanings of human actions and experiences and on
generating accounts of meaning from the viewpoints of those involved. Both paradigms assume
that reality is socially constructed and that there is no single observable reality, but rather mul-
tiple realities or interpretations. Qualitative researchers study individuals and groups in their
natural settings, attempting to make sense of or interpret phenomena in terms of the meaning
that people bring to them. The intent of qualitative research essentially is to examine a social
situation or interaction by allowing the researcher to enter the world of others and to achieve a
holistic understanding rooted in real-world complexity and to describe, explain, and communi-
cate that understanding.
Since description, understanding, interpretation, and communication are the primary goals
of qualitative research, the researcher is the primary instrument for data collection and data
analysis. Whereas in quantitative research the role of the researcher is to remain detached, with
the aim of being as objective as possible, in qualitative research the researcher as instrument
openly brings her or his experience and perspective to the research. Qualitative research does
not purport to be objective, nor is this a goal. However, to be rigorous, qualitative research does
strive to be transparent and to openly, legitimately, and clearly document and communicate all
decisions taken throughout the research process. Qualitative research seeks to establish credibil-
ity, dependability, and confirmability and is concerned with the issue of transferability rather
than generalizability (as in the case of quantitative research); that is, how and in what ways the
findings of a particular study might apply or be useful in other similar contexts.
RESEARCH PROBLEM AND RESEARCH PURPOSE
Your study’s research problem and research purpose contain similar information but are pre-
sented in different ways. The problem includes some background and context for the issue that
is in need of exploration and also provides a rationale for the importance of the topic. The
research purpose is an extension of the research problem. The problem statement serves a foun-
dational role in that it communicates what is the formal reason for engaging in the dissertation
in the first place. The problem statement is the discrepancy between what we already know and
what we want to know. The statement also illustrates why we care—that is, the reasons why
your study should be conducted.
Once you have identified your own narrowly defined topic and concise problem statement,
you are ready to formulate your purpose statement. The purpose statement is the major objective
or intent of the study and enables the reader to understand the central thrust of your research.
In essence, your research purpose will shed light on or serve to deepen understanding of your
research problem.
Note that choice of a qualitative approach is directly tied to research problem and purpose.
As the researcher, you actively create the link among problem, purpose, and approach through
a process of reflecting on your problem and purpose, focusing on researchable questions, and
considering how to best address these questions. Thinking along these lines affords a research
study methodological congruence. It is important to understand that a research problem should
not be modified to fit a particular research approach. You cannot assume a qualitative approach
regardless of your research problem. In other words, research approach follows research prob-
lem; the appropriate research approach is the one that best fits with your research problem.
RESEARCH PROBLEM, RESEARCH PURPOSE,

AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS
These are the three core elements that form the very backbone of your study. As stated previ-
ously, the research problem and purpose contain similar information but are presented differ-
ently. The problem statement provides background and context to situate the research problem,
and also provides a rationale for the importance of the study. The research purpose is an exten-
sion of the research problem and also provides a framework for the research questions. The
research questions in turn mirror the research purpose; that is, if you look closely, the questions
are actually the research purpose in narrative form, and they should shed light on the purpose.
Because the research questions are directly tied to the research purpose, answering the ques-
tions must accomplish the study’s purpose and also, in the final analysis, contribute to shedding
light on and addressing the problem. One must in effect be able to trace all the ideas in the
research questions back through the purpose statement to the problem statement; this under-
scores, therefore, that you must ask relevant and effective questions. The research questions,
which can be answered by qualitative and quantitative data, will necessarily correspond directly
to the research methodology (qualitative genre or tradition).
Qualitative research is recursive in that it builds and depends upon all of its component parts.
Qualitative research is also flexible, and that is certainly one of its hallmarks. Your research
questions are often informed by your personal and/or professional experiences, literature you
have read, and the way that you understand the world. Furthermore, as you begin to implement
your research, the preliminary data you collect will also inform (and possibly lead you to refine)
your research questions. That said, achieving alignment between your research purpose and
research questions is key. You will not want any new questions that you may develop to be mis-
aligned with your purpose, and hence with your research problem.
Remember that the first chapter of your dissertation (which you begin developing in the
proposal stage) is the most critical, and everything that follows hinges on how well this chapter
is constructed. This first chapter of the dissertation is also critical in that it forms part of the
research proposal. The introductory chapter therefore sets the stage for the study; it also makes
a case for the significance of the problem, contextualizes the study, and provides an introduc-
tion to its basic components—most specifically, directing the reader to the research problem,
research purpose, and research questions.
RESEARCH PROBLEM, RESEARCH PURPOSE, AND RESEARCH

DESIGN (QUALITATIVE GENRE OR TRADITION)
One of the core issues related to planning and conducting a qualitative study is how to choose an
appropriate and suitable research design, also referred to as qualitative genre or tradition. What
is the best place to start? Should your decision be based on the philosophical paradigm on which
your study is based? What if you don’t know quite yet what is the philosophy of your research?
Should you choose a design that is most familiar or appealing to you, or that you have heard
other students using? Should you choose a design that will be the easiest to apply? How will you
justify your choice? Defining the purpose of your research will help bring you clarity.
Qualitative inquiry includes a variety of research designs, each of which is based on particu-
lar views about the social world and how it is known (ontology) and views about knowledge and
how it is knowable (epistemology). Each worldview carries with it certain values and perspec-
tives, including how the quality of research is to be evaluated. Philosophy and method, rather
similar to form and function, create an integrated whole. When research is approached without
clarity of underlying philosophical constructs, execution will be haphazard, often leading to
inaccurate and meaningless findings. The worldview of a researcher determines the type of
research problem and research purpose that are selected, as well as methodological approach,
specific methods of data collection, specific data analysis procedures, interpretation of data, and
presentation of findings. Worldview or paradigm in essence, therefore, determines the study’s
overall research design—that is, the way you as the researcher plan for, articulate, and set up the
doing of your study. Worldview therefore influences all phases of the research project and the
many choices within each phase, forming the study’s philosophical substructure. As such, quali-
tative research is a truly holistic activity whereby the various layers of research align with one
another. Qualitative researchers should therefore approach their research through a particular
paradigmatic lens, worldview, value, and philosophical commitment.
As the researcher, you actively create the link among problem, purpose, and methodology
through a process of reflecting on your research problem and purpose, focusing on researchable
questions, and considering how to best address these questions. A central issue for qualitative
research is that there are considerable differences in epistemological positions that methodologi-
cal choices are informed by (and inform). Scholars have argued that the different qualitative
methodologies are also underpinned by particular theoretical assumptions and that consistency
between their philosophical positions and methods should be clear and focused. All the study’s
components should therefore be interconnected and interrelated so that the study itself is a
grounded and cohesive whole rather than the sum of fragmented or isolated parts. Thinking
along these lines affords a research study “methodological congruence”. O’Reilly and Kiyimba
(2015) also emphasize that methodological congruence is inextricably linked to quality in
quality research, stating: “The different methodological approaches are informed by different
ontological and epistemological foundations, and these fundamentally influence everything
about how the research is conceptualized, actioned, and analyzed” (p. 68).
There are numerous qualitative designs, each of which has ways of defining a research topic;
critically engaging the literature on that topic; identifying significant research problems; design-
ing the study; and collecting, analyzing, and presenting the data in such a way so that the study’s
findings will be most relevant and meaningful. Each of the qualitative research designs brings
to the fore ideological, conceptual, and methodological implications. Understanding the logic
behind a research design allows your study to be appropriately positioned within an inquiry
tradition and also lays the foundation for supporting your study’s findings. The position of the
researcher, in essence, is the bridge between philosophy, design, and the application of methods.
Thus, the alignment between the research questions, chosen design, personal philosophy, as
well as the ability of the researcher to be reflexive in relation to the research, is critical to ensure
the study’s methodological congruence.
Having decided on a qualitative research approach, you will proceed to design your study
within the framework of one of the research designs (traditions or genres) of qualitative inquiry.
At the outset of any study, the researcher needs to carefully consider a number of important
methodological issues, not least of all the theoretical perspectives that drive a particular research
design and how these fit with the proposed study. Thus, the components of the design process
(theoretical framework, research purpose, and methods of data collection and data analysis)
will reflect the principles and features that characterize the chosen qualitative design. As the
researcher, you must carefully consider how these components relate to the study goals, driving
questions, guiding theories, and commitments. You should be asking:
• Which design does my intended research topic and problem “fit best” with?
• What is the purpose of my research?
• Is my worldview aligned with the design that I have selected? Why? Why not?
• Is the chosen design a comfortable match with my research skills?
Bearing in mind that qualitative methodologies are informed by different ontological and
epistemological foundations—and that the researcher’s values and assumptions fundamen-
tally influence everything about how research is conceptualized, conducted, analyzed, and
presented—you will need to be somewhat knowledgeable about the various qualitative research
designs, including their key philosophical underpinnings and characteristic applications. Next
is a review of the most common qualitative designs, which will assist you in making an appro-
priate choice among these.
A. Research Design: Case Study

A case study is a qualitative design for providing an intensive description and contextually
bounded analysis of a social phenomenon (or multiple bounded phenomena), be this a social
unit or a system such as a program, institution, process, event, or concept (Bloomberg, 2018;
Creswell & Poth, 2018; Stake, 1995, 2005; Yin, 2018). Single case study and multiple case study
are among the most widely used and versatile qualitative methodologies. One of the key attri-
butes of case study is that it reflects a bounded system or a “case.” To identify and define the case,
you would begin by asking questions about how the case will be bound and what specifically
will be analyzed within the bounded system—that is, the unit of analysis. This methodology
is an exploratory form of inquiry that affords significant interaction with research participants,
providing an in-depth picture of the unit of study. The researcher explores the bounded system
(or bounded systems) over time through in-depth data collection methods involving multiple
data sources. Case study research produces a detailed description of a setting and its partici-
pants, accompanied by an analysis of the data for themes, patterns, and issues.
B. Research Design: Ethnography

Ethnography is associated with the social sciences, including folklore, anthropology, history,
urban development, education, linguistics, communication, culture studies, and sociology. As
both a method and a product, ethnography has multiple intellectual traditions located in diverse
disciplines. Ethnographers may be interested in social change (critical ethnography) or focused
on studying populations that have been marginalized or overlooked (feminist ethnography,
confessional ethnography). A researcher may be interested in their own personal experience
and become the subject of their own research in order to think more analytically and reflexively
about this experience within the broader societal context (autoethnography). Among emergent
techniques are ethnographic novels and visual ethnography including photography, video, and
electronic media. Due to the diversity within the methodology of ethnography, it is important
for researchers working within this approach to be transparent regarding which epistemological
position informs their work.
The ethnographic researcher studies a cultural or social group (or subgroup) in its natural
setting, closely examining customs and ways of life, with the aim of describing and interpreting
cultural patterns of behavior, values, and practices (Van Maanen, 1988, 1995, 2006). Rooted in
cultural anthropology, the ethnographer enters into a close interaction with participants in their
natural settings as “participant observer” to seek an in-depth understanding of how individuals
in different cultures and subcultures make sense of their lived reality. Fieldwork is a cornerstone
of ethnography and involves the researcher’s active participation and “immersion” in a commu-
nity or setting over an extended period of time. Data are collected through interviews, observa-
tions, document/artifact analyses and examination of life histories. Research findings recreate
shared beliefs, meanings, practices, social interactions, and behaviors of a connected group of
people.
C. Research Design: Phenomenology

Phenomenology is a way of thinking that emphasizes the need for researchers to achieve an
understanding of their participants’ worlds from the participants’ points of view and the ways
in which those participants make sense of the world around them. As such, a phenomenological
design is not a suitable design when the researcher has a problem-solving purpose.
Phenomenology is both a philosophy and a method, the purpose of which is to investigate

the meaning of the lived experience of people in order to identify the core essence of human
experience or phenomena as described by research participants themselves. Types of phenom-
enological research include realistic, constitutive, existential, and hermeneutical. The epistemo-
logical position of phenomenology is that the knowledge gained through the research process
should reflect the participants’ perspectives regarding the ways in which they make sense of
their worlds. Phenomenology does not endeavor to develop a theory to explain the world; rather,
the aim is to facilitate deeper insight to help us maintain greater contact within the world (Smith
et al., 2009; van Manen, 1990, 2016). Phenomenologists focus on describing what all partici-
pants have in common, the basic purpose of research being to reduce individual experiences
with a phenomenon to a description of the universal essence. Experience (verstehen) is to be
examined as it actually occurs and on its own terms, and this is seen as more important than
the researcher’s own understanding of that experience. The congruence with regard to the
epistemological foundation ensures that the interpretation provided is that of the participants
rather than the researchers. Data collection occurs through interviews, written surveys, art, and
photographs, all of which can provide insight into the human experience. An emergent cod-
ing strategy such as open or selective coding is usually used, and depending upon the number
of participants in the study, the thematic analysis may include both individual and collective
perspectives.
D. Research Design: Grounded Theory

The purpose of grounded theory is to inductively generate theory about a particular behav-
ioral phenomenon that is grounded in, or emerges from, the data. Theory can be defined as
“an explanatory scheme comprising a set of concepts related to each other through logical pat-
terns of connectivity” (Schwandt, 2016). The goal is to move beyond description and to have
the researcher generate or discover a theory of social processes, actions or interactions that are
grounded in the views of the research participants (Corbin & Strauss, 2015). Study participants
would all have experienced the process, and the development of theory might explain practice or
provide a framework for further research.
Grounded theory draws on data from a subgroup of individuals from a substantive area.
Research involves multiple recurrent stages of data collection and the refinement of abstract
categories of information. Theory development is a continual process of generating meaning
and of building consensus to explain phenomena from the people experiencing the phenom-
ena. Open coding, followed by selective coding intertwined with memo writing, are hallmarks
of grounded theory analysis. The epistemological premise of grounded theory assumes that
the theoretical knowledge to be gained through research cannot be presupposed. As such, the
methodological approach is congruent with this premise and regards knowledge production
as something that can be gained only through an inductive process (Charmaz, 2014, 2016;
Charmaz et al., 2018). Furthermore, due to this unfolding process, the methodology promotes
iterative cycles of simultaneous data collection and analysis of data.
E. Research Design: Narrative Inquiry

The intent of narrative research is to develop a deep and nuanced description of a person, place,
or event. The narrative researcher is immersed in the complexity of the multiple layers of stories
human beings live day to day. The information gleaned from the story or stories is then retold
or “restoried” by the researcher into a “narrative chronology” in order to provide the meaning of
experiences (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Ultimately, the narrative combines views from the partici-
pants’ lives with those of the researcher’s life, culminating in a collaborative narrative (Andrews
et al., 2013; Clandinin, 2007, 2013; Connelly & Clandinin, 1990, 2006; Daiute, 2014; Kim,
2016). Paramount to all narrative work is the centrality of relationship in the research pro-
cess and recognition of the sacredness of the stories that participants share and trust within
the research environment (Mills & Birks, 2014). Uncertainty and tension guide the work, and
rather than produce conclusive findings, the process offers understanding and meaning. There
is an inherent reflexivity in narrative research that demands the attention of the researcher and
the participant collaborators as the story emerges and evolves through multiple iterations.
Narrative researchers hold a range of different ontological and epistemological positions.
Narrative inquiry relies on observations, interviews, field notes, text data, and other artifacts such
as photos, videos, artwork, journals, or letters to provide data for a descriptive analysis. Interview
methods are the primary data collection tool, however, as interviews offer a basis for sharing power
and allowing participants to tell their stories in their own ways and on their own terms. The pur-
pose of narrative analysis is to help readers understand why and how things happened (or didn’t
happen) in the way they did and help them empathize with the protagonist’s lived experience.
There are various analytic models and typologies of narrative analysis, and under the broad rubric
of narrative inquiry, each of these retains an integrity that permeates throughout data collection
and data analysis, as such, maintaining an internal congruence with its theoretical roots.
F. Research Design: Action Research

Action research is a systematic, collaborative, and democratic orientation toward inquiry that
seeks effective solutions to complex problems that people confront in their communities and
organizations (McNiff, 2018; Mertler, 2019, 2020; Stringer & Aragon, 2021). Especially valu-
able to those involved in professional, organizational, educational, and community research,
action research focuses on specific situations that people encounter by engaging them in collab-
orative relationships and working on developing localized solutions. Action research challenges
the claim of neutrality and objectivity by traditional social science standards and seeks full
collaborative inquiry by all participants, often to engage in sustained change in organizations,
institutions, or communities. This research design blurs the distinction between researcher
and participants, creating an ideally democratic inquiry process to collaboratively question
practice, make changes, and evaluate the impact of those changes (Stringer & Aragon, 2021).
Participatory action research (PAR) draws heavily on the concept of emancipation as articulated
by Freire (1968/1970) that sustainable empowerment and development must begin with the
concerns of the marginalized and entails a cycle of research, reflection, and action.
Being about collaborative and democratic practices makes action research essentially
political because the research aims to influence a process of change. The research itself is an
intervention because it seeks to promote actual change by informing and impacting a practice,
procedure, system, or environment, thereby leading to the improvement of life for a desired tar-
geted group of individuals. The strength of action research is indeed its focus on generating solu-
tions to practical problems or issues and its ability to empower those working in practice-based
environments by engaging them in the research process. As such, the most influential theoreti-
cal framework for action research is critical theory, as it aims to encourage and facilitate inclu-
sion and active participation.
G. Research Design: The Critical Genres

In the past two decades, a critical turn has taken place in the social sciences, humanities, and
applied fields, with scholars challenging the historical assumptions of neutrality in inquiry, assert-
ing that all research is fundamentally political (Denzin & Lincoln, 2018). The critical traditions,
including postmodern, poststructural, and postcolonial perspectives, contribute to critical dis-
course analysis. A variety of emergent genres are situated within the critical paradigm, including
critical ethnography, autoethnography, critical discourse analysis, critical race theory and analysis,
feminist approaches (increasingly referred to as gender studies), indigenous research, queer/quare
theory and analysis, trans theory, and cultural studies. Critical genres are grounded in theories
that assume society is structured in such a way to maintain the oppression of marginalized groups.
Each genre embraces changing existing social structures and processes as a primary purpose
and has openly political agendas and emancipatory goals. It is increasingly argued that research
involves issues of power and positionality and that traditionally conducted social science research
has silenced groups in society by making these groups the passive objects of inquiry. Viewing
qualitative inquiry through a critical lens forces us to rethink taken-for-granted frameworks, para-
digms, methodologies, and politics, and advocates for a critical stance that addresses social justice,
decolonization, and the politics of research (Denzin & Lincoln, 2018).
As a field of research in its own right, critical inquiry is skeptical of narratives, viewing
these as containing power-laden discourses developed for the maintenance of dominant ideas
or the power of individuals, institutions, or theories (Denzin & Lincoln, 2018). Deconstruction
of grand narratives is viewed as an important way of removing their power (Grbich, 2013).
In recognition of the socially constructed nature of the world, meaning rather than knowl-
edge is sought because knowledge is seen as constrained by the discourses and dominant points
of view that were developed to protect powerful interests and ideological forces that serve to
constrain knowledge building. A critical approach asks questions about the historical forces
that shape societal patterns as well as the fundamental issues and dilemmas of power, posi-
tionality, policy, and domination in institutions, including their role in reproducing and
reinforcing inequity and social injustice. The key purpose of a critical research agenda is to
address, challenge, and hopefully change problematic social circumstances and racialized dis-
courses, place intersectionality and positionality under the spotlight, and in so doing, bring
about greater equity and social justice (Cannella et al., 2015; Capper, 2018; Chilisa, 2019;
Esposito & Evans-Winters, 2021).
RESEARCH DESIGN AND RESEARCH METHODS
Methodology determines how the qualitative researcher thinks about a study, how decisions
about the study are made, and how researchers position themselves to engage with participants
and with the data that are generated by the study. The term methods commonly denotes specific
techniques, procedures, or tools used by researchers to generate and analyze data. The meth-
ods that a qualitative researcher chooses are informed by both the research approach and the
research methodology so that there is a conceptual fit across all levels. Research design is the way
you as the researcher plan for, articulate, and set up the doing of your study, and applying the
chosen methods.
O’Reilly and Kiyimba (2015) write extensively on the necessity for congruence between
ontology, epistemology, and methodology in terms of how this informs the choice of methods
for data collection and data analysis in qualitative research. Based on the research questions,
specific data collection methods are chosen to gather the required information in the most
appropriate and meaningful way. A solid rationale for the choice of methods used is crucial, as
this indicates methodological congruence and illustrates that the choice of methods is grounded
in the chosen methodology and in the study’s overall research design. Before you can collect any
data, therefore, a clear and aligned statement of the problem, purpose of the study, and research
question(s) must be developed, followed by the development of a data collection protocol that
clearly address the research question(s).
A researcher can tend to become comfortable with a particular method or set of methods,
and this can lead to misalignment of research goals. It is unwise to arbitrarily select a method
without carefully considering what kinds of data you are seeking. A clear, logical, and direct
relationship must be established between the intent of the study and what and how data will
be collected. Choice of method is therefore based on relevance and value; not just speculation
or convenience. The most commonly used types of qualitative data collection methods involve
interviews, observations, focus groups, and document reviews:
• Interviewing techniques include unstructured, semistructured, or structured; can be

formal or informal; and can occur once or multiple times.
• Observational techniques can be obtrusive or unobtrusive and either participant or
nonparticipant.
• Focus groups are essentially group interviews. Researcher skill is required for
facilitation, recording, and reporting.
• Document review refers to the collection of data from written artifacts including
policies, legislation, lesson plans, mission statements, letters, memos, posters, diaries,
and other forms of written text. Artifacts and visual material such as photos, blogs,
artwork, music, or graffiti are also considered appropriate documentary material.
Many of the qualitative designs include specific and dedicated research methods that are
integral to the research design and sequence. To achieve triangulation, qualitative studies usu-
ally combine several data collection methods over the course of the study. When considering the
use of various methods, the researcher should carefully consider whether these chosen methods
will address and can be applied to the research questions while at the same time ensuring that
these methods are also crucial to maintaining integrity with regard to the selected research
design.
A. Research Methods: Case Study

Data collection in case study research is typically extensive and draws on multiple methods
of data collection including interviews, document review, observation, focus groups, surveys,
life history, and critical incidents. Indeed, one of the strengths of the case study approach is
its methodological eclecticism; that is, a variety of methods can be used, including methods
that generate quantitative data such as statistical data provided by census material. Remember,
however, while case studies incorporate many types of data (qualitative and quantitative), not
all these data may be appropriate for your particular study. Methods vary depending on the
particular case and related research questions. It is therefore important to take into account the
important link between research questions and the type of data that will serve to answer your
questions.
Triangulation is critical in attempting to obtain an in-depth understanding of the phenom-
enon under study; to add rigor, breadth, and depth to the study; and to provide corroborative
evidence of the data obtained. By way of triangulation, the researcher makes use of multiple and
different sources and methods, and these are reported as part of the research design, including
peer review or peer debriefing (which provides an external check of the research process) and
member checks (where participants’ views are solicited regarding the credibility of findings,
analysis, and interpretation).
B. Research Methods: Ethnography

Ethnographers seek to study the meaning of the behavior, interaction, and communication among
members of the culture-sharing group by describing and analyzing patterns of roles, artifacts,
and ceremonies of the cultural group. Rooted in cultural anthropology, ethnography involves
extended observations, with the researcher as participant observer becoming immersed in the
day-to-day lives of the research participants. Fieldwork is a cornerstone of ethnography, typically
involving the researcher’s participation in a community or setting over an extended period of time.
To produce a holistic “cultural portrait,” the researcher gains access to the group through “gate-
keepers” and key informants. Both the process and the outcome of research ethnography are ways
of examining a culture-sharing group as well as the final written product of that research.
Ethnographers typically study groups, communities, or organizations by making use of a
variety of data collection methods, including participant observation, interviews, document
review, and artifacts. As with all the qualitative methodologies, decisions about data collec-
tion methods should be guided by your research questions. In an ethnographic study, data are
collected on an ongoing basis, and data collection and data analysis proceed simultaneously.
Ethnographic interviewing is an elaborate system consisting of a series of interviews to tap into
participants’ cultural knowledge. This interviewing approach is grounded in cognitive anthro-
pology and seeks to elicit the cognitive structures that reveal participants’ worldviews. The value
of the ethnographic interview lies in its focus on culture from the participants’ perspectives and
through firsthand encounters. This approach generates a typology of categories of meaning,
thereby highlighting the nuances of the culture. Observation is typically included as a data col-
lection method, and it is important that the researcher be aware that there are multiple levels of
observation contained within a setting. Often what is not present or obvious is just as important
as what is present and obvious.
C. Research Methods: Phenomenology

Phenomenological research involves studying a small number of subjects through extensive and
prolonged engagement to develop patterns and relationships of meaning (Moustakas, 1994).
In this process, the researcher “brackets” her or his own experiences to understand the par-
ticipants’ experiences (van Manen, 1990). The notion of bracketing is considered one of the
key elements that distinguish Husserlian phenomenology. Heidegger, Husserl’s pupil, moved
phenomenology from a descriptive to an interpretive endeavor, focusing on the hermeneutic
perspective, which recognizes that human existence is always embedded in a world of mean-
ings. Therefore, phenomenology becomes hermeneutical when its method becomes interpretive
rather than purely descriptive (Mills & Birks, 2014).
Phenomenology (including Hermeneutics as a method for examining text) typically
involves several in-depth interviews with individuals who have experienced the phenomenon
of interest. The purpose of this type of in-depth interviewing, described by Seidman (2019), is
to explain the meaning of a concept or phenomenon that several individuals might share. This
approach to data collection rests on the assumption that there is a structure and an essence to
shared experiences that can be narrated. The value of phenomenological interviewing is that
it permits an explicit focus on the researcher’s personal experience combined with those of the
research participants by focusing on deeper meanings that guide actions and interactions. The
researcher, in taking on a reflexive stance, reflects on essential themes that constitute the nature
of this lived experience. The researcher then writes a description of the phenomenon, maintain-
ing a strong relationship to the topic of inquiry. Phenomenology is not only description, how-
ever; it is also an interpretive and highly intuitive process in which the researcher interprets the
meaning of individuals’ lived experience.
D. Research Methods: Grounded Theory

The objective of grounded theory is to generate theory from the data or modify or extend exist-
ing theory. Grounded theory researchers approach interviews and documents for the theoreti-
cal usefulness of the data, seeking to analyze the meaning that the data convey and thereby
developing theoretical categories. The researcher works to integrate categories into a theoretical
framework that specifies causes, conditions, and consequences of the studied process. Through
theoretical sampling coupled with theoretical sensitivity, the researcher strives to ensure that the
raw data are reflected or grounded in the final theory produced.
Data collection and data analysis are concurrent and continual activities. Open-ended
interviews and observations are used to collect data. Analysis involves a number of strategic
methods that facilitate the development of a theory that is grounded in the data. Researchers
typically begin with open coding—that is, coding data for major categories of information. From
this type of coding, axial coding emerges—that is, identification of one open-coding category
as the “core phenomenon.” This process gives way to causal conditions (factors that cause the
“core phenomenon”), strategies (actions taken in response to the core phenomenon), contextual
and intervening conditions (situational factors that influence the strategies), and consequences
(outcomes as a result of the strategies). The final step in the process is selective coding; that is,
the researcher develops propositions or hypotheses that interrelate the categories or assemble a
story line that describes the interrelationships among categories. Thus the theory developed by
the researcher is articulated toward the end of the study, with the intent of having explanatory
power to make a significant contribution in terms of knowledge building and potential practi-
cal application.
E. Research Methods: Narrative Inquiry

Narrative inquiry is an interdisciplinary methodology that draws from traditions in literary
theory, oral history, drama, psychology, folklore, and film philosophy (Connelly & Clandinin,
2006). The assumption is that people construct their realities through narrating their stories.
Inquiry involves a collaboration between the researcher and participants that is established over
time in the storytelling, retelling, and reliving of personal experiences.
Narrative inquiry begins with the experiences as expressed in lived and told stories of indi-
viduals or cultures. In this form of research, the researcher studies the lives of one or more indi-
viduals through the telling of stories, including poetry, play, or performance. Life history is an
integral research technique as developed by the Chicago School of Sociology. This data collec-
tion method offers a basis for sharing power by allowing research participants to tell their stories
in their own ways. The information gleaned from the story or stories is then retold or “restoried”
by the researcher into a “narrative chronology” in order to provide the meaning of experiences
(Kim, 2016). Ultimately, the narrative combines views from the participants’ lives with those
of the researcher’s life, culminating in a collaborative narrative that offers understanding and
meaning (Andrews et al., 2013; Clandinin, 2013; Connelly & Clandinin, 2006; Daiute, 2014;
Kim, 2016). Paramount to all narrative work is the centrality of relationship in the research pro-
cess and recognition of the sacredness of the stories that participants share and trust within the
research environment (Mills & Birks, 2014).
In narrative inquiry research, data analysis and interpretation work in tandem because data
are analyzed and interpreted concurrently to develop an understanding of narrative meanings.
Kim (2016) talks about “flirting with the data,” which includes looking for common elements,
noticing differences and diversity, and seeking metaphors. Typically, field notes and interview
transcriptions are shared with the narrator, and the written analysis may be constructed col-
laboratively. As such, there is recognition that the researcher is not just passively recording and
reporting the narrator’s reality. There is a reflexivity inherent in narrative research that demands
the attention of the researcher and the participant collaborators as the story and its meanings
emerge and evolve through multiple iterations.
F. Research Methods: Action Research

In action research, many different data collection methods are used, including observation,
interview, and focus group. Participatory action research draws heavily on the concept of eman-
cipation as proposed by Freire (1968/1970) and entails cycles of research, reflection and action.
This action routine provides a simple yet powerful cyclical framework that enables people to
commence on a shared and productive process of inquiry in a stepwise fashion and to build
greater detail into procedures as the complexity of issues increases. This approach is based on
the assumption that all stakeholders—those whose lives are affected by the problem under
study—should be involved in the research process in order to inform understanding and sub-
sequent action. Knowledge production unfolds and proceeds as a collective process, actively
engaging people who have previously been the “subjects” of research to collectively investigate
and reconcile their own situation. When ideally executed, action research creates a fully demo-
cratic inquiry process, blurring the distinctions between the researcher and participants to col-
laboratively question practice, make changes, and evaluate the impact of those changes.
The research protocol is iterative, cyclical, and participative in nature and is intended to fos-
ter deeper understanding of a given situation, starting with conceptualizing and particularizing
the problem and moving through several proposed interventions and evaluations. Data collec-
tion and analysis are interwoven throughout the research process to produce understanding and
inform future action. When practitioners use action research, it has the potential to increase the
amount they learn consciously from their experience; the action research cycle can be regarded
as a learning cycle. Action research studies often have direct relevance to improving practice and
advocating for change.
G. Research Methods: The Critical Genres

Inquiry in critical traditions is conceived as contributing to radical change or emancipation
from oppressive social structures, either through sustained critique or through direct advocacy
and action taken by the researcher, often in collaboration with participants. Researchers work-
ing within a critical framework ask themselves what will be the outcome of their research in
terms of making some impact on a larger social purpose. Learning to formulate research ques-
tions that examine power relations between the researcher and research participants is at the
heart of critical approaches. Reflexive subjectivity of the researcher—that is, constant reflective
and self-critical processes—therefore becomes an essential component of data collection and
data analysis. The researcher and the researched are not considered separate entities; rather,
through interpretation, their constructed meanings become interwoven (Grbich, 2013). Critical
research is concerned primarily with examining and changing economic, social, racial, cultural,
and gendered relations of power and has its theoretical roots in Western critical theory. These
researchers critique normalized and hegemonic notions of democracy, freedom, opportunity,
social structures, and social justice (Cannella et al., 2015; Capper, 2018; Chilisa, 2019; Esposito
& Evans-Winters, 2021).
RESEARCH PROBLEM AND LITERATURE REVIEW
The study’s literature review is a vital component of the dissertation research process, serving to
contextualize your study in the following ways:
• Traces the etiology or history of the specific fields and topics related to your study’s
research problem;
• Cultivates familiarity and expertise regarding issues and debates in the field, providing
context and background for the research problem;
• Identifies key theories related to the phenomenon and/or context under study and
which of these will most appropriately frame and situate your study; and
• Assists with developing an argument for the rationale and significance of your research.
The literature review must be relevant and appropriate for the specific study at hand. Each
body of literature that you review must be tied to or address some aspect of the research prob-
lem. You should be asking:
• To what extent does my literature review frame the context of my specific research
problem?
• To what extent does my literature review highlight the significance of my study?
• To what extent does my literature review address the historical and current (and even
future) relevance of my research problem?
LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL/CONCEPTUAL

FRAMEWORK
The terms theoretical framework and conceptual framework are often used interchangeably
throughout the literature. Whereas a deductive approach to literature review typically makes
use of theories and theoretical frameworks, the inductive approach tends to lead to the devel-
opment of a conceptual framework, which may take the form of a conceptual model (Imenda,
2014; Kivunja, 2018). The conceptual or theoretical framework that you choose must be clearly
situated within the body of literature that is being reviewed. Theory (or concepts) helps to situ-
ate a study within ongoing conversations in relevant fields and adds new dimensions and layers
of understanding about the phenomenon of interest, hence extending the meaningfulness of
your study’s data. An important part of theory (or concepts) in the dissertation is that inclusion
serves to make an argument for the rationale and significance of your study. You should be
asking:
• In what theory or concept is my study grounded or based?

• To what extent does my conceptual or theoretical framework explicate the ways in
which theory or concepts contribute to or addresses this study?
THEORETICAL/CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK, RESEARCH

QUESTIONS, AND RESEARCH FINDINGS
A well-conceived conceptual or theoretical framework should serve to guide your study and
play a central role throughout the entire research process. As explained by Ravitch and Riggan
(2017) and Ravitch and Mittenfelner Carl (2020), the framework generates the focus of the
research as much as it is informed and shaped by it. The framework offers a source of thinking,
planning, and conscious action throughout the research process, helping to situate your study
within its appropriate context, grounding the researcher’s philosophical stance, and articulating
how all key methodological elements are related. As O’Reilly & Kiyimba (2015) discuss, collec-
tion and analytic methods should be born out of a transparent theoretical framework so that the
work is rigorous, trustworthy, and has veracity.
A theoretical/conceptual framework, research design, and research methodology together
must generate data appropriate and adequate for responding to the research questions. Ravitch
and Mittenfelner Carl (2020) explain that the framework contributes to creating relevant
research questions and then matching the methodological aspects of the study with these
questions. As these authors explain it, the conceptual framework helps align the analytic tools
and methods of a study with the focal topics and core constructs as these are embedded in the
research questions. Research questions are initially linked to the research problem and may also
be theoretically linked based on the literature and related research, thereby illustrating that the
study holds potential significance for that field. While the theoretical/conceptual framework
makes the case for why a study is significant and how the study design appropriately answers the
research questions, it also becomes the repository for the study’s findings, which in turn provide
answers to the research questions. Findings and interpretation must be integrated with the lit-
erature and theoretical/conceptual framework.
QUALITATIVE METHODOLOGY, RESEARCH

DESIGN, AND DATA ANALYSIS
Research methodology is the overall (and specific) way you as the qualitative researcher plan for,
articulate, and set up the doing of your study. Methodology addresses the many ways in which
you will bridge the context of your study, including the development of your study’s purpose,
research questions, data collection methods, and methods of data analysis. Qualitative analysis
encompasses the processes that are needed to make sense and meaning of the data. Data analysis
includes a variety of recursive processes for looking across your data set, including examining
raw data, developing and applying multiple coding processes that combine to create categories,
identifying emerging patterns within categories, and constructing analytic themes that reflect
important concepts in the data. In turn, these themes ultimately become your study’s findings,
which are interpreted in light of the literature and theoretical perspectives.
While data analysis in qualitative research is typically composed of the previously men-
tioned processes, the actual methods of data analysis must be informed by and contingent
upon both your research design and research methodology. While qualitative researchers share
a common appreciation of the analytic process, there are some key philosophical differences
among the various qualitative designs, and each of the designs promotes specific strategies for
data analysis. It is imperative, therefore, that each methodology retains an integrity and congru-
ence between ontology, epistemology, and methods used. Because different qualitative research
traditions or genres promote specific strategies for data analysis, whatever analytic approach you
choose to use must align with the philosophical underpinnings of your chosen design. When a
researcher mistakenly attempts to engage in research by starting with methods and choosing an
analytic approach after the data have been collected, it is evident the parameters of a particular
design have not been considered, and the risk is that the research will lack integrity, rigor, and
trustworthiness.
A. Data Analysis: Case Study

The type of analysis associated with case study research can be a holistic analysis of an entire case
or an embedded analysis of part of a case (Yin, 2018). Throughout data collection, a detailed
description of the social processes that constitute a bounded entity emerges. The researcher
develops themes to be analyzed, not for generalizing beyond the case but for understanding the
dynamics and complexity of the case itself. When a study involves multiple cases, the researcher
will examine and describe themes within each case (within-case analysis), followed by thematic
analysis across cases (cross-case analysis). Analysis and interpretation of case study takes place
in an iterative manner. The researcher collects data, analyzes it to see what the data are saying
(analysis), and seeks to understand what it means (interpretation). This process builds trustwor-
thiness and also provides an audit trail. While case study is characterized by methodological
eclecticism, the centrality of contextualized deep understanding as the ultimate objective is
recognized as key.
B. Data Analysis: Ethnography

Ethnographers analyze data for a description of the culture-sharing group, including emergent
themes and an overall interpretation. Patterns of behavior and thinking indicate how and in
what ways the cultural group works and lives, leading to an overall illustration of “how a system
works” (Fetterman, 2010). Ethnographic data analysis takes place as an ongoing activity and
is an activity that is intertwined with data gathering. Ethnographic analysis is an inductive
process—that is, a process of working to discover what the data mean. Description is at the
core of analysis, and researcher interpretation provides a window into the research setting and
its meaning. Ethnography relies on extended fieldwork, and data collection and data analysis
are concurrent. Analysis and interpretation go back and forth as the story comes together as a
meaningful whole. Ethnographers strive to produce viewpoints from within the social group
(emic) as well as from the perspective of the observer (etic). To counteract ethnocentrism (evalu-
ation of other cultures according to preconceptions originating in the standards, traditions,
and customs of one’s own culture), the researcher takes on both emic and etic perspectives. At
the same time, however, the researcher runs the risk of “going native”; that is, they identify so
completely with the group that they can no longer step back and take an objective perspective.
Because of this fine interplay and balance of perspectives, triangulation of observations and
data sources becomes particularly important in ethnographic research.
C. Data Analysis: Phenomenology

Analysis in phenomenological research proceeds from the central assumption that there is an
essence to an experience that is shared with others who have had a similar experience. As such,
the experiences of those participating in the study are analyzed as unique expressions and then
examined in order to identify and extract the essence. The focus is on “life as lived”—that is,
the “lived experience.” Phenomenological research makes use of significant statements, the gen-
eration of meaning units, and the development of an “essence” description (Moustakas, 1994).
Researchers who use this approach are reluctant to describe specific analytic techniques, fearing
that these might be seen as rules and become inflexible (Hycner, 1985). As such, the focus is on
attitude and the response to the phenomenon under study. The aim is to achieve an analytic
description of the phenomena not affected by prior assumptions.
Building on data from the first and second research questions (“What have you experienced
in terms of the phenomenon?” and “What contexts or situations have typically influenced or
affected your experiences of the phenomenon?”), data analysis is an attempt to highlight signifi-
cant statements that provide understanding and insight with regard to how participants experi-
ence the phenomenon, which Moustakas (1994) refers to as horizonalization. The researcher
then goes on to develop clusters of meaning or themes from these significant statements.
Themes lead to textural and structural description. van Manen (1990) refers to data analysis as
phenomenological reflection in order to be able to grasp essential meaning. The researcher typi-
cally employs member checking whereby participants review the researcher’s interpretations
and descriptions.
D. Data Analysis: Grounded Theory

Data analysis in grounded theory starts at the moment of initial contact with the phenomenon
being studied and continues throughout the development of a grounded theory. The constant
comparative method is used for data analysis and involves an interplay among the researcher,
the data, the emerging categories, and the developing theory. Theoretical sensitivity is impor-
tant on the part of the researcher in order to be able to determine what kind of data need to be
collected and what aspects of the data are most important for the grounded theory.
Central to grounded theory are three stages to analysis that include procedures for identi-
fying and naming the data and developing categories of information (open coding), intercon-
necting the categories and looking for relationships among them (axial coding), and looking
for the story line of the theory by reflecting on the data and the findings that were produced
during open coding and axial coding (selective coding). The theory is then rechecked with the
data and with the published literature for additional ideas in developing the grounded theory
and understanding its broader significance, thereby ending with a discursive set of theoretical
propositions (Birks & Mills, 2015; Corbin & Strauss, 2015; Holton & Walsh, 2017).
Constant comparative analysis is a foundational pillar of classic grounded theory. Through
the comparative processes of axial coding, categories are related to one another, with a search
for causal explanations for events and interactions. Coding and memoing are the key heuristic
techniques in constant comparative analysis. As Holton and Walsh (2017) explain, the concep-
tualization of data through coding and memoing is the foundation of grounded theory analysis,
with the goal being the discovery of a latent pattern of social behavior that might explain an
issue or concern. This latent pattern analysis approach spotlights and unravels the complexity
of embedded and often subtle patterns of behavior in a social setting to reveal a plan of action.
This pattern, the “core category,” emerges as data are open coded and conceptualized. Once the
pattern emerges, the analysis shifts to concentrate theoretically sampling and selectively cod-
ing further data in order to elaborate and eventually saturate the core category and any other
concepts that have some relationship to the core. As such, the constant comparative approach
begins with the first data that are collected and continues on to theoretical saturation and,
finally, integration.
E. Data Analysis: Narrative Inquiry

Data analysis in narrative inquiry is analyzed for the story it has to tell. This involves interpreta-
tion, which in turn affects how we as researchers represent our research findings. One may con-
strue analysis and interpretation as two separate concepts, as analysis may imply objectivity and
interpretation may imply subjectivity. However, in narrative inquiry, these two concepts work
in tandem because the data are analyzed in order to develop an understanding of the narrative
meaning of research participants’ lived experiences through storytelling, and these meanings are
interpreted concurrently with their analysis (Clandinin, 2007, 2013; Kim, 2016).
Narrative analysis can occur by way of a variety of methods such as the “paradigmatic mode
of analysis” (which relies on paradigmatic cognition, a thinking skill that humans use to orga-
nize experiences as organized and consistent) or a “narrative mode of analysis” (based on nar-
rative cognition that attends to the particular and special characteristics of human action that
take place in a particular setting). One of the means of data analysis and interpretation involves
what Kim (2016) refers to as narrative smoothing, a method that is used to make participants’
stories coherent and engaging:
It is like brushing off the rough edges of disconnected raw data. However it can also
be problematic because it involves certain omissions, such as the selective reporting of
some data (while ignoring other data), or the lack of context due to the researcher’s
assumption that what is clear to him or her will also be clear to the reader. (p. 192)
Kim (2016) offers a detailed account of different methods and models of analysis in narrative
inquiry. Essentially, analysis and interpretation work in tandem to find narrative meaning in
the process of storytelling, retelling, and reliving of personal experiences. Typically, field notes
and interview transcriptions are shared with the narrator so that the written analysis may be
constructed collaboratively. As such, there is recognition that the researcher is not just passively
recording and reporting the narrator’s own reality.
F. Data Analysis: Action Research

Action research encompasses a set of consciously collaborative and democratic strategies for
generating knowledge and designing action in which trained experts in social research and
other stakeholders work together (Stringer & Aragon, 2021). Action research can create large
amounts of qualitative and/or quantitative data in need of analysis to provide effective interpre-
tations for the implementation of positive change. The data analysis and interpretation process
needs to be accurate and clearly understandable for all stakeholders to gain their input regard-
ing identifying and supporting possible solutions to the problems that are being researched.
Data analysis and interpretation can also potentially support the development of community
building necessary for assisting with long-term implementation of possible solutions, as well as
identifying and addressing emergent problems or issues.
The research protocol is iterative, cyclical, and participative in nature and is intended to
foster deeper understanding of a given problem situation, starting with conceptualizing and
particularizing the problem and moving through several interventions and evaluations. Data
collection and analysis are interwoven in the process. The purpose of data analysis in action
research is very clearly twofold: to produce understanding or theory and to inform future action.
Because the researcher’s role is that of facilitator who questions, problem-poses, and consults,
the research is less about producing a report that includes findings and more about lessons learned
and changes considered and/or made. Depending on the interests and needs of participants, a writ-
ten report may be collaboratively produced, or an oral report or visual display illustrating lessons
that were learned or changes accomplished could become the final research product. Reporting,
whatever form it takes based on mutual collaboration between researcher and participants, has
inherent relevance and meaning with regard to societal improvement, either directly or indirectly.
G. Data Analysis: The Critical Genres

The critical and postmodern turns in critical inquiry, characterized by skepticism toward mas-
ter narratives and grand theories, have been directed toward phronesis (Marshall et al., 2022),
that is, practical contextualized knowledge that is responsive to its environment. Critical genres
are grounded in theories that assume society is structured in order to maintain the oppression of
marginalized groups. Reflexive subjectivity of the researcher—that is, constant reflective and
self-critical processes—is an essential component of data collection and data analysis, which
are ongoing and intertwined. The focus is on asking questions that examine historical and cur-
rent inequity and oppression, and through this questioning process uncovering and unraveling
hegemonic forces of policy, power, and dominance in institutions, including their role in repro-
ducing and reinforcing inequity, oppression, and discrimination.
The researcher and the researched are not considered separate entities; through interpreta-
tion, their constructed meanings become interwoven (Grbich, 2013). Inquiry is designed to
contribute to radical change or emancipation from oppressive social structures either through
a sustained critique or through direct advocacy or action taken by the researcher, often in col-
laboration with participants in the study.
QUALITATIVE METHODOLOGY, RESEARCH DESIGN,

AND PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS
By way of data analysis, you are forming a record of frequently occurring phenomena or patterns
of behavior. Once you have established patterns, these patterns need to be explained. This is
where interpretation or representing of findings comes into play. Whereas data analysis presents
the findings of your research by organizing data from various sources into categories to pro-
duce a readable narrative, the purpose of representation of findings is to provide interpretative
insights into your study’s findings themselves. During the writing and representation phase of
research, the researcher allows a story to emerge, and as we try to most meaningfully and effec-
tively communicate our research findings, we must keep our intended audience at the forefront.
Your presentation will hopefully lead your audience to understand your findings as clearly as
you do. Remember, organization and presentation of findings must align with
• research methodology (qualitative research),

• research design (qualitative traditions or genres), and
• research questions.
The findings of qualitative research are typically reported in a narrative manner, and quali-
tative studies usually include extensive samples of quotations from participants, which provide
the detail to substantiate the story that you are telling. By using the participants’ own words,
the researcher aims to build the reader’s confidence that the reality of the participants and the
situation studied are accurately represented. Methodological challenges posed by intellectual,
political, and ethical factors have increasingly impacted qualitative research design. The com-
plexities presented by new technologies and contexts, including social media networking, have
opened the way for innovative and creative modes of presentation. Moreover, there is an increas-
ing demand that research be directly useful to the researched—that is, the research participants
and research setting or context. Just as there are clear analytic distinctions among traditions or
genres demanding that the researcher will have to think about data analysis in a particular way,
so also are there distinct interpretation and representation strategies. As such, the ways the find-
ings are represented and presented are specific to each qualitative design.
A. Presentation of Findings: Case Study

In case study research, the researcher reports the meaning of the findings—that is, a detailed
analysis of themes and the overall lessons learned from the bounded case or cases, which can
be an event, process, program, or individual. The findings are typically reported in a narrative
manner to include extensive samples of quotations from participants, to produce storylines or
vignettes. Findings are presented in such a way to illustrate a response to all research questions.
B. Presentation of Findings: Ethnography

Ethnography is a report of data gathered through multiple methods, typically in-depth
interviews and participant observation, where the participants’ perspectives are presented.
Illustrating in great detail how a culture-sharing group works and lives is the final product of
an ethnographic study. The researcher positions herself or himself and strives to provide thick
description (Geertz, 1973) of the social context. The final product is in effect a holistic cul-
tural portrait of the group and incorporates the views of the participants (emic) as well as the
views of the researcher (etic). Van Maanen (1988, 1995, 2006) recommends presenting ethno-
graphic research through different styles of “tales” as a way of presenting truthful cultural por-
traits. These include realist tales (displays a realistic account of a culture which is published in a
third-person voice), confessional tales (a highly personalized account that displays the author’s
power of observation that calls attention to building credible and authentic cultural descrip-
tion), and impressionist tales (the researcher relates her or his own experiences as an autoeth-
nographic account. The tale is told through the chronology of events in the research process,
drawing attention not only to the culture under study but also to the experiences that were inte-
gral to the cultural description and interpretation). The presentation of findings often advocates
for the needs of the group, or suggests societal changes or action. Ethnographic products can be
narrative, art based, or performance based. Performance ethnography is a staged reenactment
in which culture is represented through performance (including staged production, artwork,
dance, storytelling, or film) rather than text. Much of the work in this vein is aligned with the
principles of critical pedagogy.
C. Presentation of Findings: Phenomenology

Whereas a narrative study reports the stories of experiences of a single individual or several
individuals, a phenomenological study describes the common meaning for several individuals
of their lived experiences of a concept or a phenomenon. Phenomenology has a very strong philo-
sophical component, drawing heavily on the writings of Husserl (1859–1938) and those who
expanded on his views, including Heidegger, Sartre, and Merleau-Ponty. Phenomenologists
focus on describing what all participants have in common as they experience a phenomenon.
As such, the basic purpose is to reduce individual experiences to a composite description of the
universal essence of experience—that is, according to van Manen (1990), “a grasp of the very
nature of the thing” (p. 177). From structural description (“how” things occurred—that is,
the context) and textural description of the lived experience of participants (what the partici-
pants experienced), the researcher writes a composite description that presents the essence of the
phenomenon or essential invariant structure. At its core, phenomenology is the study of the lived
experiences and the development of the essence of these experiences rather than explanations or
analysis of experience (Moustakas, 1994).
D. Presentation of Findings: Grounded Theory

In a grounded theory study, the result of the process of data collection and data analysis is
a theory, a substantial-level theory, written by the researcher. The theory emerges by way of
memoing in which the researcher records ideas about the evolving theory throughout the ana-
lytic process. The theory may be tested later to determine whether it can be generalized to other
samples or populations, or the study may end at this point with the generation of theory being
the end goal of the research.
E. Presentation of Findings: Narrative Inquiry

Regarding presentation of data, a narrative researcher can take a literary orientation or a chron-
ological approach (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Active collaboration with participants is a key
component so that researchers present participants’ stories while at the same time remaining
reflective about their own personal and political backgrounds and agendas, which of necessity
shapes how they “restory” the account of the study’s findings.
F. Presentation of Findings: Action Research

Action research, or the more emancipatory participatory action research (PAR), typically relies
on inquiry that is collaboratively developed. Since the goal of this work is improvement or trans-
formation, there may be no actual final report. Indeed, a report is often less important than
the process itself that leads to improvement or transformation. The researcher’s role is that of
a facilitator who questions, problem-poses, and consults. As such, the research is less about
producing a report that includes findings and more about lessons learned and changes con-
sidered and/or made. Depending on the interests and needs of participants, a written report
may be collaboratively produced, or an oral report or visual display illustrating lessons that
were learned or changes accomplished could become the final research product. Reporting,
whatever form it takes, based on mutual collaboration between researcher and participants has
inherent potential relevance and meaning with regard to societal improvement, either directly
or indirectly.
G. Presentation of Findings: The Critical Genres

To illustrate marginality and social oppression, and the impact thereof, critical researchers have
an avowedly and explicitly political agenda and make use of narrative, performance, poetry,
autoethnography, and ethnographic fiction as their forms of representation. The researcher’s

goal is to take a stand against social injustice by having greater impact than allowed by an
article in an academic journal or book. An emphasis can be on storytelling and the produc-
tion of counterstories to balance hegemonic representations, thereby providing witness to social
injustices and marginalization. Another critical form of representation is that of performance or
“cultural performance”—that is, a staged reenactment of the injustice being exposed. This type
of representation can be in the form of art-based studies, music, and other forms of media. As
evidenced at the many qualitative research conferences over the past decade, critical researchers
are increasingly turning their findings into various performative styles, borrowing from the arts
and humanities to create a writing genre similar to theater performance.
Critical perspectives include a heightened awareness of and sensitivity to how the researcher
represents participants in the study. There is a strong focus on scrutinizing the complex inter-
play between the researcher’s own personal biography, power, and status and the ways in which
the researcher interacts with the research participants. A key implication of these concerns is
that researchers pay close attention to participants and to the voice they use in their work as a
representation of the relationship between themselves and their participants. As pointed out by
Marshall et al. (2022), further implication of the critical perspective is that the traditional crite-
ria for judging the trustworthiness of the work have become contested.
RESEARCH FINDINGS, INTERPRETATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS
In qualitative research two general rules apply:
• Findings and interpretation together are the basis for drawing trustworthy conclusions.
• Each conclusion should be tied to a respective finding or set of findings.
The If/Then/Therefore/Thus Matrix (Table 11.1 presented in this book) provides a useful
way to go about aligning findings and conclusions, and then recommendations. Your conclu-
sions should tie together the major findings and also include a summary of the major research
interpretations (what the findings mean). This discussion should be directly linked to answering
your research questions. It should be very clear to your reader that your research findings pro-
vide a response toward addressing the research problem.
As a general rule, you should provide at least one conclusion for each finding. However, the
process is not altogether linear, and so it is possible that one conclusion can (but does not always)
cut across more than one finding, thus addressing a set of findings. It is important to bear in
mind when thinking about and formulating each of your conclusions that they must be logi-
cally tied to one another.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In qualitative research two general rules apply:
• Conclusions are the springboard for developing actionable/doable recommendations.

• Recommendations follow your findings and conclusions. These are the application of
those conclusions.
Table 11.1, The If/Then/Therefore/Thus Matrix provides a useful way to go about generating
recommendations, and then circling back to make sure that these recommendations are firmly
aligned with the study’s findings and conclusions.
CHAPTER SUMMARY
The objective of this chapter is to provide a clear understanding of the concept of alignment in
qualitative research by highlighting and clarifying key elements and concepts and explaining
how to ensure and check throughout for alignment and therefore methodological integrity and
congruence. All of the study’s components should be interconnected and interrelated so that
the study itself is a grounded and cohesive whole rather than the sum of fragmented or isolated
parts. It should be clear from reading this chapter that methodological integrity and congruence
is essential both at a philosophical and a practical level and is an indication of a study of worth
and quality. A high-quality dissertation demonstrates additional characteristics as well, regard-
less of the topic or research methods, including transparency in reporting by way of a logical trail
of evidence so that the study can be considered trustworthy. Ensuring alignment, transparency,
and trustworthiness helps to clarify how data were collected, coded, analyzed, presented, and
interpreted in ways that directly and clearly provide answers to the study’s research questions.
Throughout this book, as you will notice, there is a clear focus on achieving alignment
among all key elements of the dissertation. It is indeed imperative that you ensure and check
for alignment throughout a qualitative dissertation in order to best conduct and write up the
research. As you proceed to plan and carry out your study, Table 5.2, Actualizing Alignment
Flowchart, will be a useful roadmap. Use this chart as a “cheat sheet” to ensure that you are
actually achieving alignment at each step of the way so that your final product—your completed
dissertation—is, in all aspects, methodologically congruent. Indeed, the key is alignment, on
all of the many levels explained in this chapter. As you work through the research and writing
processes of your dissertation, continue to ask yourself: is everything in sync or am I missing
something?
With a researchable problem in mind and with a clear idea of the core elements of qualitative
research, including criteria for rigor and trustworthiness, ethics and reflexivity, and the critical-
ity of alignment and methodological integrity, you are in a position to think about carrying
your ideas further and consolidating these ideas in terms of developing a feasible dissertation
proposal.
TABLE 5.2 ■ Actualizing Alignment Flowchart
*Qualitative *Theoretical/
Research Conceptual
*Research *Research Methodology *Research Framework
*Research Problem Problem *Research Problem *Research
Problem *Research *Research *Research Design *Literature Design *Findings
*Qualitative Problem Purpose Purpose *Methods (Data *Theoretical/ *Research *Interpretations
Research *Research *Research *Research Collection & Conceptual questions *Conclusions
Methodology Purpose Questions Design Analysis) Framework *Findings *Recommendations
Ask Is your Does the Is there a Is there Is there a clear Does the Does the Do the findings and
Chapter 5
yourself worldview problem clear link a direct relationship literature trace chosen interpretations
•
these aligned with clearly between the connection between the the topics framework form the basis for
questions qualitative identify the research among the research related to serve as an drawing trustworthy
to highlight research reason or problem, research methodology, the research “analytic conclusions?
the methodology? justification research problem, research problem framework”?
importance for the study purpose, and research design, and and provide
of (applied or research purpose, data collection sufficient
alignment! theoretical)? questions? and methods? background
research and/or context?
design?
Does your Does the Are the Does your Are your data Does the Does the Are your conclusions
intended research research chosen collection selected framework set logically connected to
problem fit purpose questions research methods suited literature up a structure each other?
with qualitative convey the set up to design fit to the type of data develop an to present
research? intent of the directly and suitably with you are collecting argument the research
study? appropriately the study’s given the chosen for the findings?
address the research research design? rationale and
research problem and significance of
Achieving Alignment Throughout Your Dissertation
purpose? purpose? the research?

175
(Continued)
TABLE 5.2 ■ Actualizing Alignment Flowchart (Continued)
*Qualitative *Theoretical/
Research Conceptual
*Research *Research Methodology *Research Framework
*Research Problem Problem *Research Problem *Research
Problem *Research *Research *Research Design *Literature Design *Findings
*Qualitative Problem Purpose Purpose *Methods (Data *Theoretical/ *Research *Interpretations
Research *Research *Research *Research Collection & Conceptual questions *Conclusions
Methodology Purpose Questions Design Analysis) Framework *Findings *Recommendations
Do the Is there a clear Is there a Do the Are your

problem, relationship relevant theory representation recommendations
purpose and between the or concept to and the application of
questions research explain the presentation your conclusions?
address the methodology, phenomenon of the findings
goal of the research design, under study? fit with the
research and data analysis research
(either methods? design?

applied or
theoretical)?
Are your Do you provide Do the findings

methods of justification provide a direct
data analysis that the response to
informed by framework each of the
and contingent supports the research
upon the chosen research questions?
research design? problem?
Following are some recommended resources that you might consider perusing regarding
establishing alignment and methodological congruence among the various elements of your
dissertation.
Mills, J., & Birks, M. (Eds.). (2014). J. Mills& M. Birks (Eds.), Qualitative methodology: A practical
guide, SAGE.
This edited volume focuses on the theoretical underpinnings of major qualitative methodolo-
gies: action research, discourse analysis, critical ethnography, grounded theory, historical
research, case study, narrative research, and phenomenology. The book is a practical guide
to the very early stages of designing a qualitative study, with the reader being introduced to key
concepts as building blocks, and offers strategies to maintain an ethical research approach,
and appraise the quality of a qualitative study.
O’Reilly, M., & Kiyimba, N. (2015). Advanced qualitative research: A guide to using theory, SAGE.
This book addresses the more complex theoretical issues embedded in qualitative research
and adopts a reflective stance that emphasizes the nuanced role of the researcher. Throughout
each chapter, theory is powerfully and pervasively interwoven in the discussion of its impact on
various aspects of the research process. The book has both a theoretical and an applied focus
and is an important and useful resource for those seeking to practically engage with advanced
qualitative research methods.
Ravitch, S. M., & Mittenfelner Carl, N. (2020). Qualitative research: Bridging the conceptual, theoreti-
cal, and methodological, SAGE.
This text is focused on developing knowledge with regard to the methodological (how to design
and conduct qualitative research), theoretical (philosophical underpinnings), and conceptual
(the ways the researcher conceives and shapes the study and its multiple components) aspects
of qualitative research. This critical text dynamically draws out and highlights the key compo-
nents and complexities involved in the qualitative research process as they apply to and impact
trustworthiness, methodological integrity, and rigor
II
PART
CONTENT AND
PROCESS
A Chapter-by-Chapter Road Map
Chapter 6 Introduction to Your Study

Chapter 7 Developing and Presenting Your Literature Review
Chapter 8 Presenting Methodology and Methods
Chapter 9 Analyzing Data and Reporting Findings
Chapter 10 Qualitative Meta-Synthesis: Analyzing and Interpreting Findings
Chapter 11 Drawing Trustworthy Conclusions and Presenting Actionable
Recommendations
E ach chapter in Part II mirrors the respective chapter of an actual dissertation. Chapters 6
through 8 set up the study and constitute the study’s framework. As pointed out in Part I,
these three chapters form your proposal. Chapters 9 through 11 discuss how you actually
make meaningful use of the data that you have collected. As you are working on developing
your dissertation chapters, you will be making revisions according to the feedback of your
dissertation chair and other members of your advisement committee. Working on address-
ing the feedback and recommendations you are continually receiving means that you will be
editing and updating your chapter drafts accordingly. A detailed change matrix simplifies the
review process and indicates that the student has demonstrated a clear and thorough response
to reviewers' comments. To assist you with organization and ability to keep track of your work
as it is being updated, edited, and revised, and also to assist the committee members in being
able to easily review different versions of your revised drafts, you may consider making use of a
change matrix that has been designed specifically for this dual purpose. Refer to Appendix F,
Change Matrix Template, which is a tool that can be utilized throughout the process as you
craft and refine each chapter along the dissertation journey.
The first chapter of your dissertation is the most critical, and everything that follows hinges
on how well this first chapter is constructed. Chapter 1 of your dissertation begins with the
context, which introduces the research by providing the background that sets the stage for the
research problem to be investigated. The next step is to describe the purpose of the research—that
is, how you will go about addressing the problem. To carry out the purpose, research questions are
179
180 Part II • Content and Process: A Chapter-by-Chapter Road Map
developed that, when answered, will shed light on the problem you have identified. Ultimately,
the study’s findings will provide a direct response to the research questions.
The second chapter of the dissertation typically constitutes a review of topic-specific lit-
erature. A dissertation demonstrates your ability to write a coherent volume of intellectually
demanding work. A key part of the dissertation that illustrates your scholarship is the way in
which you have analyzed, organized, and reported the relevant literature. In conducting a lit-
erature review, you are forced to think critically and consider the role of argument in research.
Thus, reviewing the literature is research in and of itself. We also address the theoretical or
conceptual framework as an integral element of the research process and provide detailed expla-
nation regarding how to understand and develop this often misunderstood concept, where it
would be introduced in the dissertation, and how it functions in analysis.
The third chapter of the dissertation typically presents the research design and method-
ology used in conducting your study and includes multiple interrelated elements that reflect
the sequential nature of qualitative research. This chapter is intended to show the reader that
you have a clear understanding of qualitative research and its characteristic features, including
the methodology (tradition or genre) that you have selected for your study. In addition, this
chapter must display your understanding of the methodological implications of the choices you
have made and, in particular, that you have thoughtfully addressed the linkages and align-
ment among all key components, including the research problem, purpose, research questions,
research approach, and selected research methods.
Once you have collected your data by way of the various data collection methods, your next
step is to manage, organize, and make sense of all the separate pieces of accumulated informa-
tion. Your task is to transform raw data into something meaningful by analyzing them and
making inferences from discrete pieces of information. This process is based on induction: The
researcher starts with a large set of data and seeks to progressively narrow them into smaller
important groups of key data. When you reach this point in the research process, it is essential
to keep an open mind, remembering that qualitative research is all about discovery. You will
need to look carefully at all of your data, seeking to uncover important insights regarding the
phenomenon that you are researching. In this findings chapter, which is typically the fourth
chapter of a dissertation, the procedures you use to accomplish analysis of data and reporting
findings need to be well thought out, explicitly documented, and directly connected to your
study’s research questions.
Subsequently, in the following chapter, (although this can sometimes be combined with the
fourth chapter depending on institutional and/or program requirements), you will provide a
review of the analysis and synthesis of all your data sources and insights, creating an interpreta-
tion that is holistic and integrated. Your goal in conducting analysis of findings is to discover
what your findings mean or, more precisely, what meaning you can make of your findings by
integrating them with literature, research, and practice. Meaning comes from looking at dif-
ferences and similarities, and from inquiring into and interpreting causes, consequences, and
Part II • Content and Process: A Chapter-by-Chapter Road Map 181
relationships. This process requires a good deal of careful thinking and critical reflection; that is
reflexivity. Analytical approaches are linked to particular forms of data collection and are under-
pinned by specific conceptual and philosophical traditions or genres. Methodological congru-
ence implies that there are analytic distinctions among traditions or genres. Each qualitative
tradition or genre is sensitive to particular analytic methods and strategies, as such demanding
that the researcher think about data analysis and representation in a particular way. Be sure to
acknowledge that there are multiple ways of interpreting findings, that you have sought rival
explanations, and that your interpretations are but one perspective. The human-as-instrument
in qualitative inquiry is both its greatest strength and its greatest weakness. Nowhere does this
ring more true than in analysis and interpretation. This is indeed one of the greatest strengths of
qualitative research, but also the source of one of the greatest critiques of the field.
The final chapter of your dissertation is much more than just a cursory summary of find-
ings. Presenting trustworthy conclusions and actionable recommendations is an opportunity to
have the final statements about the outcomes of your study, and stimulate your readers to think
more deeply about the study’s findings and the implications thereof in terms of practice, policy,
and future research.
Each chapter of Part II includes various road maps—in the form of tables and figures—to
guide and plan your thinking. The book’s appendixes include completed examples of such road
maps as well as multiple tools that can be downloaded from the book’s companion website for
ease of use.
The author is careful to point out at the outset and throughout the chapters of this book
that while most institutions will approach the proposal and dissertation in common ways, at
the same time, there are differences in terms of the chapter organization and presentation of
the proposal and dissertation, page limits and/or expectations for each chapter. Additionally
as explained previously, the EdD is a practice-based approach to the doctorate where students
conduct research through inquiry into a problem of practice; an essentially practitioner centered
approach. PhD research is rooted in theory and must incorporate substantial theoretical and
empirical evidence to support its claims and purpose. In the PhD degree, students conduct
research that contributes to the broader discipline rather than a specific problem rooted in an
applied, professional practice. This book therefore presents information as guidelines that are
meant to be flexible per institutional expectations, protocols, templates, and requirements, and
subject to modification depending on your institution, department, and program. Table II.1,
Overview of Dissertation Content, illustrates of the contents of an entire dissertation. This is a
brief prelude to the various steps involved in each of the chapters that are described in Part II of
this book.
TABLE II.1 ■ Overview of Dissertation Content
Chapter 1: Chapter 5:
Introduction Chapter 2: Chapter 3: Chapter 4: Analysis and
to Research Literature Research Presentation of Interpretation Chapter 6: Conclusions and
Problem Review Methodology Findings of Findings Recommendations
• Context • Purpose • Purpose • Purpose • Purpose • Conclusion • Recommendations
• Problem • Rationale for • Introduction • Description of • Description of • Typically, each • Typically there are
topics findings must meaning tied to conclusion recommendations
• Purpose • Overview of
be objective. each finding is drawn should for (a) practice,
• Description: information
• Research subjective. be tied to the (b) policy, and (c)
topic I needed • Findings are
questions respective further research.
not subject to • Analysis
• Description: • Overview of findings and
• Research interpretation relates to
topic II methodology interpretations.
approach by researcher. research
• Description: • Demographic questions and
• Anticipated
topic III data is synthesized
outcomes
• Summary • Analysis and with data from
• Researcher other methods
synthesis of
assumptions • Theoretical and literature.
data
or conceptual
• Rationale and
framework • Issues of Matrix of Findings Through Recommendations: “If/Then/Therefore/Thus”
significance
trustworthiness
• Narrative “If I find this “Then I “Therefore I “Thus I recommend that . . .”
• Researcher
description • Limitations . . .” think this conclude that . . .”
perspectives
• Graphic • Summary means
• Definitions of
depiction . . .”
terminology
6 INTRODUCTION TO
YOUR STUDY
• Develop an understanding of how to think through and identify the core

foundational elements in setting up and carrying out a feasible research study.
• Understand how to develop the research problem that is situated within the context
of your topic of interest and in relation to your doctoral program (PhD or EdD).
• Narrow and refine the research problem statement.
• Develop a purpose statement that addresses, and is aligned with, the research
problem.
• Identify appropriate research questions that are tied to and aligned with the purpose
and, when answered, will shed light on the research problem.
• Describe and define content for additional chapter elements including research
approach, anticipated outcomes, researcher’s assumptions and perspectives, rationale
and significance, and definitions of key terminology.
• Highlight the significance of alignment among the research problem, research
purpose, research questions, qualitative inquiry, and chosen qualitative design
(tradition or genre).
OVERVIEW
The first chapter of your dissertation is the most critical, and everything that follows hinges on
how well this first chapter is constructed. Chapter 1 of your dissertation begins with the context,
which introduces the research by providing the background that sets the stage for the problem
to be investigated. Once you have identified a sound, researchable problem, the next step is to
describe the purpose of the research—that is, how you will go about addressing the problem.
183
To carry out the study’s purpose, three to four research questions are developed that, when
answered, will shed light on the research problem you have identified. Therefore, the problem,
purpose, and research questions are the building blocks—the very core—of your study; they are
intrinsically tied together and the basis from which everything else develops. The first chapter
of a dissertation is about defining what is to be studied and why it is worth studying. We begin
this chapter by reviewing the key elements involved in setting up a sound qualitative study.
Although the requirements vary among programs and/or institutions, three foundational ele-
ments need to be included in a dissertation’s first chapter—namely the problem, purpose, and
research questions, all of which must be perfectly aligned, thereby establishing methodological
congruence right from the start.
RESEARCH PROBLEM
Beginning researchers often confuse a topic with a research problem, so we provide some clari-
fication. As explained in Chapter 2 of this book, the starting point for any research project, and
indeed the first major challenge in conducting research, is coming to some decision about a
sound, researchable topic. The topic is the subject of inquiry around a particular research prob-
lem that your study will address. A topic refers to a general area of interest. For example, we may
be interested in the issue of change because we are living in a time when rapid and increasing
changes are taking place all around us. A research problem is more specific. It seeks to under-
stand some aspect of the general topic. For example, given our interest in change, we want to
better understand how people learn to master or adapt to change. Thus, our problem focuses on
the participants’ perceptions with respect to some specific change event. The problem therefore
indicates the need for the study, describes the issue or problem to be studied, and situates it in a
broader educational or social context. The process of developing a researchable topic is a process
of idea generation—the movement from a general interest toward a more clearly refined idea
around a researchable problem. It is important that the problem becomes specific and narrow
enough to let you master a reasonable amount of information.
The heart of a dissertation is articulation of the research problem. This is the place where
most committee members will go first to understand and assess the merits of a proposal or
a dissertation. The problem statement is a brief discussion of a problem or observation, suc-
cinctly identifying and documenting the need for and importance of the study. After reading
the problem statement, the reader will know why you are doing this study and be convinced
of its importance. The reader will not be left with an unanswered “So what?” question at the
study’s conclusion. In qualitative research, the problem should be open ended and exploratory in
nature. A problem that leads to a question that can be answered with “yes” or “no” is not suitable
for scholarly qualitative research.
Identifying the Research Problem

All qualitative research emerges from a perceived problem—some unsatisfactory situation, con-
dition, or phenomenon that we want to confront. Sometimes, the source of research is around a
particular scholarly debate, a pressing social issue, or some workplace phenomena we want to better
Chapter 6 • Introduction to Your Study 185
understand. You will need to clearly describe and document the research problem that prompted
the study and include appropriate sources to document the existence of a problem worthy of
doctoral-level research. The problem indicates the need for the study. In writing up your problem
statement, be sure that it refers to an important, authentic, genuine problem that we know little
about but that is significant and therefore worthy of investigation. Ask yourself, “So why is this a
problem?” The fact that there may be little in the literature on the subject is not a problem. For every
problem, there has to be a worthwhile reason for the study to be conducted. We do not do research
because we are interested in a certain topic or because we have a hunch about something and we
want to go and prove it, as would be the case with quantitative research. A qualitative research prob-
lem is driven by incomplete knowledge or limited understanding. You address the problem not by
solving or changing it but by better understanding its cause(s) and the implications thereof.
In recent years, discussion of the education doctorate has received increased attention in
the literature (Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate, 2014; Ma et al., 2018). Much of this
discussion has argued for distinguishing the PhD program (designed to prepare educational
researchers for positions in higher education) from the EdD or professional practice doctoral
program (designed to cultivate the leadership abilities of practicing professionals who wish
to remain in the school system and tackle problems of practice in their local settings). Many
institutions of higher education have attempted to translate these conceptual ideas regarding
the educational doctorate from the literature into practice by designing and launching new
and unique professional practice doctoral programs through their participation in the Carnegie
Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED). Investigating a “problem of practice” is a signature
feature of the EdD dissertation. Therefore, while formats and emphasis for EdD dissertations
vary across institutions, a defining feature that distinguishes them from PhD dissertations is
that they target a problem of practice. According to the CPED, an organization of over 80
institutions committed to establishing quality EdD programs, a problem of practice is a spe-
cific contextualized issue that is embedded in the work of a professional practitioner, which
if addressed, has the potential to lead to enhanced understanding, experience, and outcomes
(Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate, 2014).
Identifying an appropriate research problem, and one that meets specific program require-
ments, is a common stumbling block for students who are just beginning the dissertation jour-
ney. All too often, students have grand ideas about conducting big and important research in a
particular area of interest to them. And all too often, we remind students that, although every
topic should have the potential to make a contribution to a particular field, this should not be
the overriding objective. Rather, what is most important is that a topic be so narrowly defined
and focused that it is specific enough to be carried out to its conclusion. If you have too many
aspects associated with your problem, which is often the case, in your study you may not be able
to properly manage and account for all of these in the depth that is required.
A note regarding use of the word “impact” is warranted. Remember, qualitative research
seeks to evoke deeper understanding of a phenomenon, as opposed to measuring “cause–effect”
relationships which the word “influence” denotes. As such, stay away from quantitative phrases,
such as “relationship between,” “effect of,” “correlation between,” or “influence of”, and con-
sider using qualitative terminology, such as “understand,” “explore,” “discover,” or “generate.”
(Creswell & Baez, 2021). In conducting qualitative inquiry, you are not attempting to measure
a relationship among variables (as is the case in quantitative research) but rather to address the
impact of a proposed research problem. As described by Chandler (2014), the nature of the concept
of “impact” is identified as the demonstrable contribution, change or benefits that result from
research findings. The context within which that impact takes place is broad beyond academia
alone, extending into the realms of society or culture, including public policy or services, health,
the environment, or quality of life. The outcomes or indicators of impact encompass the indi-
vidual, community, or global levels and are the application of new knowledge or understanding.
The implication is that qualitative researchers will consider the nature of the research impact,
the context of the research impact, and the outcome of the research study; that is the overall
demonstrable impact. In so doing, this will help us to recognize the significance or importance
of the research and its reach or pervasiveness into a society or culture.
Evaluating a Researchable Problem

Refining the problem to be addressed calls for reflecting on whether that problem can and
should be researched in the first place. First, whether the problem can or cannot be researched
involves giving some thought to the practical feasibility or do-ability involved (Marshall et al.,
2022). Important judgments will have to be made regarding the possibility of access to potential
sites and potential research populations, availability of sources of information, the researcher’s
knowledge and skills, and the availability of time and resources at your disposal to collect and
analyze data over a sustained period of time. I say possible access as site permissions and recruit-
ment of research participants is not always guaranteed, and so you should always have an alter-
nate back-up plan should you run into difficulties regarding access.
Feasibility
Let us focus for a moment on the concept of feasibility, which is central to any research project.
One of the key aspects of thinking about and preparing for the dissertation study is indeed
considering the feasibility of the study, including where the data needed to answer the given
research questions are located and how these data will be collected. Will you need a data use
agreement? Perhaps the data already exist in some type of a database or an archive. While no
human participants are needed in such studies, it is still important to know how such databases
can be obtained. If the database or the information needed is available to the general public, it
can be accessed and used. However, if the database and the data are private, it is essential to
consider whether the owner is willing to share these and under what conditions. Frequently,
a data use agreement is necessary. Sometimes there could be restrictions with regard to what
information can be shared as well as how these data will need to be presented in the final dis-
sertation manuscript. Thinking about these considerations early on, and finding out who is
the appropriate person to engage with and request the database you are considering using, is
essential so that a study is not designed around information that ultimately is not available or
useful to the researcher. In conducting qualitative research, the data are typically collected from
human participants. In such cases, several issues need to be considered: how the data are going
to be collected (instrumentation), from whom (what and where is the research population), and
what will be the appropriate sample size. In terms of ethical considerations, understanding if
permission to use a given instrument is needed and from whom is the first step.
In addition, because many students conduct data collection through online methods, it
is very important to know whether a given instrument can be placed online by the researcher
(some publishers prohibit such uses) and whether or not the instrument is only available for
administration through the proprietary online service offered by the copyright holder (making
it impossible to embed it in the self-constructed survey, e.g., on Qualtrics). Planning to use an
instrument without such understanding and consideration can become a source of unneces-
sary frustration and inconvenience, so being “feasibility savvy” right from the planning stages
is highly recommended! In terms of feasibility, your main concern is where the data needed to
answer the given research questions are located, and how these data will be collected.
Aside from the question of do-ability, is the question of should. This question is complex
and brings various factors into play. Considering the should-do-ability of a study calls into con-
sideration the practical as well as the theoretical implications of pursuing a research problem
(Marshall et al., 2022). In considering both do-ability and should-do-ability, you therefore need
to take the following aspects into account:
1. Potential audience: Who would appreciate the worth of my study? Who would care
enough to read it? Who would be interested?
2. Intellectual value and worth of the study: What, if any, is the wider significance of
this research? Who would benefit by this study? Would a study in this area contribute
to the ongoing conversation in a particular social science discipline or applied field?
Would the study generate theoretical and/or conceptual understanding? Will the study
contribute to the development of professional practice? What, if anything, would be
the significance for policy?
3. Personal and professional goals: Will this study further my personal and/or
professional interests? Will it enhance my career and/or career change? Will the
research problem sustain my interest over the ensuing months and years?
4. Ethical considerations: Does the research involve practices or strategies that might
embarrass or harm participants? Are there any risks to others in reporting the findings
and outcomes of the potential study?
In seeking to evaluate a researchable problem, you should determine whether your problem
statement would pass the ROC test. That is, your problem must be researchable (feasible or
doable), original, and contributory:
Researchable
• Could the problem be addressed by collecting and analyzing data?

• Do you have the time, resources, and skills to carry out the research?
• Is the research study (both the research site and the research participants) accessible?
• Will you be able to find an organization that will provide you written formal
permission to conduct research at its site?
• Are you able to access data through public sources that require no permission to use the
data for research, or will consent be needed?
Original
• Is this a replication study with a new population or passage of time?

• Will this study examine or explore a new issue or different perspective of an existing
problem?
• Is this a study that has not been previously conducted and that may create new
knowledge?
Contributory
• Should the problem be studied? In other words is the study warranted?

• Will this study advance scholarly knowledge?
• Will this study contribute to practice and/or policy?
• Will this study contribute to a community or society at large?
• Will this study make a difference in your profession?
Refining and Honing Your Problem Statement

Since all forms of systematic inquiry may be considered as actions in response to problems,
having a well-conceived problem statement is an essential component of your research. As illus-
trated by Figure 6.1, Interlocking Components of the Research Problem, the problem statement
serves a foundational role in that it communicates the formal reason for engaging in the disser-
tation study. The problem statement should identify:
a. Who is impacted by the problem (e.g., individuals, organizations, industries, or

society) as described by past researchers in the scholarly literature?
b. What is not known that should be known about it as described by past researchers in
the scholarly literature?
c. What could the potential negative consequences be if the problem is not addressed in
this study as described by past researchers in the scholarly literature?
FIGURE 6.1 ■ Interlocking Components of the Research Problem
Who is Affected or Implications

Specific Problem
Impacted? “What might be the
State the problem as a
consequences if this
relevant issue in need
problem is not
of remediation
addressed or resolved?”
Table 6.1, Problem Statement Development Template, is a tool you might find useful in out-
lining and articulating your problem statement. This tool enables you to think about each of
the prompts presented in relation to the broad research topic and drill down to articulate a more
specific research problem.
TABLE 6.1 ■ Problem Statement Development Template
Think about the following prompts in relation to your proposed topic:
1. What?
In no more than a few sentences, explain a concern or problem that the research will address.
Remember, qualitative research emerges from a perceived problem—some unsatisfactory situation or
condition that you seek to examine. How do you know from the literature or practical experience that this
is a problem that needs investigating? What might be missing in the current body of knowledge? Refer to
relevant, current, peer-reviewed literature and research that supports the presence of the problem, and
briefly describe the nature of that support.
Make notes here to respond to this prompt.
2. Who, How, Where, and When?
In no more than a few sentences, describe the impact of the problem. Who is negatively impacted by the
problem, and how? When and where is the problem evident? Refer to relevant, current, peer-reviewed
literature and research that addresses the impact of the proposed research problem. Remember,
qualitative research seeks to evoke deeper understanding of a phenomenon, as opposed to measuring
“cause–effect” relationships which the word “influence” denotes.
(Continued)
TABLE 6.1 ■ Problem Statement Development Template (Continued)
3. Why?
In no more than a few sentences, identify the conceptual basis for the problem. What does the literature
outline as the cause of the problem? Remember, the research problem is driven by incomplete or limited
understanding. Also, what might be the consequences if the problem is not addressed or resolved? As
the researcher, you are attempting to address the problem not by solving or changing it but by better
understanding its cause(s) and the implications thereof. Thereby, you will need to substantiate the
significance of the problem—hence, the justification for the proposed study. Refer to relevant, current,
peer-reviewed literature and research that supports the basis of the problem, and briefly describe the
nature of that support.
4. Synthesis
Can you clearly articulate your problem statement? That is, if somebody were to ask you what you were
researching, could you succinctly explain the what, who, how, where, when, and why of the proposed
study? As you think about this more, you may discover areas of your problem statement in need of
further refinement or revision.
Once you have identified your own narrowly defined topic and clear, concise problem state-
ment, you are ready to formulate your purpose statement and research questions that must be
addressed and answered to shed light on the research problem.
PURPOSE STATEMENT
The research purpose refers to how you will go about addressing the problem. A purpose state-
ment is a declarative statement that summarizes the research project’s main goal or goals, and
provides some guidance with regard to establishing the study’s research questions. Specifically,
the purpose statement is the major objective or intent of the study; it enables the reader to under-
stand the central thrust of the research. A critical aspect is that the purpose must align perfectly
with the problem statement. Given the importance of the purpose, it is helpful to frame it as
a concise—almost “bite-sized”—statement that can be retained by the reader and researcher
alike. Because the purpose is a critical piece of the entire study, it needs to be given careful
attention and must be written in clear and concise language. Once the problem has been clearly
developed and stated, then the purpose will need to evolve to align directly with the problem
statement. One way of assuring this alignment is to maintain one—and only one—wording for
the purpose. Once you settle on the wording, use that exact wording throughout your docu-
ment whenever you present the purpose.
Henceforth, it is recommended that each succeeding chapter of the dissertation include the
purpose statement in the introductory paragraph. Please note, however, that inclusion of the
purpose statement in this way is a requirement that applies to some programs but not all. If you
choose to include the purpose statement in the opening section of all your chapters, be sure that
you word this statement exactly the same throughout so that it can be easily identified. Even if
you do not include the purpose statement in each chapter’s introductory paragraph, in every
instance that you mention your study’s purpose, be sure to adhere to the same wording through-
out. Accuracy and precision in this respect allow for clarity and help avoid potential confusion.
This is a time not to be creative but rather to remain practical!
Note that there is a close relationship between the research design (qualitative tradition or
genre) and the purpose statement. In all traditions, you are trying to discover something. With
case study, ethnography, or phenomenology, you are trying to understand, describe, or explore
a phenomenon. In grounded theory studies, you are trying to develop or generate theory.
Therefore, you need to be specific about the words that you use to define your purpose state-
ment. In addition, the purpose statement should include terms that refer to the specific meth-
odology, the research site, and the research participants. Qualitative language should include
wording such as “The purpose of this study is to describe, or develop, or discover, or explore, or
understand . . . ”. Another feature of qualitative writing is to avoid words that are largely associ-
ated with quantitative research. Typical words to avoid include directional and causal words
such as “relationship”, “comparison”, “cause”, “effect”, and “influence”.
You will see from Figure 6.2, Road Map for Developing the Dissertation’s Foundational
Elements, the purpose of the study is directly related to and flows from the research problem,
and that the research questions in turn are related to and flow from the purpose. A good strategy
for testing the interconnectedness and logic of your problem, purpose, and research questions—
your study’s key foundational elements—is to lay all three of these out on one page as illus-
trated in the road map provided below. It is vital to complete this step before you begin writing
FIGURE 6.2 ■ Road Map for Developing the Dissertation’s Foundational

Elements
PROBLEM:
Research indicates that significant numbers of people in doctoral programs complete all
the course requirements yet do not go on to complete the research or produce their
dissertations. Hence, despite their significant investment in time and money, these people
never receive the doctoral degrees they set out to obtain, and thus remain ABD. There is
little information as to why this phenomenon occurs.
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this case study is to explore the perceptions of doctoral candidates
regarding why they have not managed to complete their dissertations.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS:
1. On completion of their course work, to what extent do participants perceive that they
were prepared to conduct research and write their dissertations?
2. What do participants perceive that they need to learn to complete their dissertations?
3. How do participants attempt to develop the knowledge, and acquire the skills and
attitudes that they perceive are necessary to complete their dissertations?
4. What factors do participants perceive might help them to complete their dissertations?
5. What factors do participants perceive have impeded and/or continue to impede their
progress in working toward completing their dissertations?
Chapter 1 because these three elements are the heart of your study, and you must get them right.
This simple exercise helps you achieve clarity around the problem in its simplest form, and it
identifies how you will go about shedding light on the problem. This step forces you to implode
for clarity before you explode and fully develop the subject matter. In other words, to keep
your problem in focus, you need to reduce it to simple terms before you can present it in more
scholarly and elegant ways. When you do this, you are less likely to lose sight of exactly what
aspects of a particular phenomenon you seek to explore. If you take the time to produce this
one simple page, it will greatly facilitate the writing of a well-developed first chapter. Chapter 1,
while one of the shorter chapters in a dissertation, is arguably the most important because every-
thing that follows is a result of how well the critical elements—problem, purpose, and research
questions—have been developed.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
As you can see from Figure 6.2, Road Map for Developing the Dissertation’s Foundational
Elements, the research questions are directly tied to the study’s purpose. This underscores that
you must ask the right questions to shed light on the research problem. Research questions are
general questions about the phenomenon under study—what the researcher wishes to learn or
understand about it. Note that the research questions are quite different from the more spe-
cific questions asked in interviews: A study's research questions provide a framework for under-
standing a phenomenon, whereas interview questions are intended to produce the data for the
answers to each of the research questions. One way to distinguish interview questions from
research questions is that interview questions are written in a concise and conversational man-
ner so that they can be asked of anyone, whereas research questions, while also needing to be
concise and devoid of jargon, are formal so these would seem awkward if asked in conversation
(Lahman, 2022).
Your guiding research questions are the intersecting point between every aspect of
the research design, and the centrality of research questions in the study is therefore key.
Conceptualizing, developing, writing, and rewriting research questions are all part of a
dynamic, reflective qualitative inquiry process. Good qualitative questions are significant tools
that shape a study design and analysis, and using qualitative research questions reflexively can
help a researcher to clarify the study’s purpose (Chambliss & Schutt, 2020; Swaminathan &
Mulvihill, 2017). In qualitative studies, research questions are developed at the start of a project,
and these become modified as the research process proceeds to address emergent issues. It is
therefore important that the researcher remain responsive to the phenomena and contexts of
the study so that the research questions may (and often do) evolve over time. This requires a
mindset that allows you to adopt a research approach that is flexible and responsive to change,
refinement, and modification. Although initial questions often emerge from a researcher’s pas-
sions and interests in particular topics, ultimately, the goal is to refine and possibly expand the
inquiry through reflexive, iterative, and dialogic processes that are central to the theoretical and
ethical positions taken up by the researcher. During the inquiry process, a researcher needs to
see questions as tools for discovery as well as tools for clarity and focus. In the end, qualitative
questions must draw the reader into the research with a focus on the significance of the research
problem and purpose and at the same time function as lenses that are directed outward by the
researcher to capture the nuances of the lives, experiences, and perspectives of others.
You may be required to develop a set of research questions, or the expectation may be to gen-
erate a central research question with appropriate subquestions. Whatever the required format,
each question that you develop should fulfill the following criteria:
• Clear: Lack of ambiguity means that the reader can understand the purpose of the
study without needing any additional explanation.
• Focused: Narrowly focused means that the question can be thoroughly explored in the
research.
• Concise: Clarity should be obtained in the fewest possible words without any
unnecessary descriptors.
• Complex: A good qualitative research question is not a yes/no question, but will
require a composition of ideas and research prior to presenting an answer.
To ensure ongoing alignment, make sure that research questions capture the same language
that you use in your problem and purpose statements. Qualitative research questions should
also be interconnected—that is, related to each other in some meaningful way. As such, the
questions should be displayed in a logical order. Mostly, the research questions must be substan-
tively relevant; they must be worthy of the research effort to be expended. Therefore, you need
to consider carefully the nature of your research questions and the kind of understanding they
may generate. Maxwell (2013) offers a useful categorization of the kinds of understanding that
qualitative inquiry can generate by way of the following types of questions:
• Descriptive: These ask what is going on in terms of actual observable (or potentially
observable) events and behavior.
• Interpretive: These seek to explore the meaning of things, situations, and conditions
for the people involved.
• Theoretical: These are aimed at examining why certain things happen and how they
can be explained.
Qualitative research questions are typically open ended and usually start with how or in
what ways and what. In developing your research questions, it is important that the questions
be open ended to foster exploration and discovery. Therefore, avoid wording your questions in
ways that solicit yes or no answers. Your research questions should also be nondirectional. This
means that they should not imply cause and effect or in any way suggest measurement. Do not
use terminology that suggests or infers quantitative research, such as affect, influence, cause, or
amount. Once you have developed your research questions, it is a good idea to step back and test
them. You do this by reading each one and asking, “What kind of information will I likely get in
response to this question?” At this point it is also useful to think about developing your elevator
speech, referenced in Chapter 1 of this book, using Table 1.1, Dissertation Proposal Alignment
Worksheet. Remember, alignment will likely be met if you can establish the link between the
problem, purpose, and research questions by highlighting key words. See also Appendix G:
Sample Alignment Plan: Problem, Purpose, Research Questions, which is a useful tool to assist
with mapping alignment between the three foundational elements of your study.
ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS
In addition to the research problem, purpose, and research questions, there are other associated
elements or subsections that appear in a fully developed Chapter 1. It should be noted, however,
that aside from the problem, purpose, and research questions, there may be some variations in
required subheadings depending on individual programs and/or universities. Begin this section
with one or two brief introductory paragraphs in which you tell the reader what research meth-
odology you have used and mention the site and research sample. In this introduction, you also
should lay out the organization of the remainder of the chapter so that the reader has a clear idea
of this up front. After this brief introduction, you are ready to discuss the context. Following
is an outline of typical subheadings included in the dissertation’s first chapter. These headings
appear in sequential order:
Context: This is the beginning of the dissertation; it is the stage setting leading up to and
introducing the problem to be addressed in the study. The context provides the history, back-
ground, and issues germane to the problem. It gives the reader an understanding of circum-
stances that may have precipitated the problem, the current state of the situation surrounding
the problem, and the primary reasons that an exploration of the problem is warranted. It is
important to embed your discussion of the context in the ongoing dialogue in the literature.
This is not a formal review of the literature, as in the literature review chapter of the dissertation;
rather, it helps you to build the case for why your research should be undertaken and to convince
the reader of the study’s need and value. It is in this way that you situate the context and the
legitimacy of the research problem.
• Research Problem: as described previously

• Purpose: as described previously
• Research Questions: as described previously
Research Design Overview: This section briefly describes the study you are conducting,
and specifically identifying which among the different qualitative traditions you will be choos-
ing. Chapter 3 of this book addressed all the current qualitative designs, and now would be a
good time to refer back to that discussion. Figure 6.3, Mapping Your Research Design, is a use-
ful “at-a-glance overview” mapping tool to determine an appropriate research design for your
study, indicating some of the key methodological elements to consider when choosing among
qualitative research designs. All of the elements must be aligned, and this tool is a way to think
FIGURE 6.3 ■ Mapping Your Research Design
∑ Provide a brief ∑ State your research

overview of the purpose
underlying
philosophy of the
design
Research Research
Design Purpose
Data Data
Collection Analysis
∑ List all methods of ∑ Describe the data

data collection to analysis method to
be used in your be used in your
study study
about checking for design alignment. Say after me: It’s “A” for alignment! Alignment, align-
ment, alignment. All methods must ALIGN with your chosen research DESIGN. (It rhymes
too!) As discussed previously in Chapter 3 of this book, each qualitative design (tradition or
genre) is based on a philosophy that determines the types of methods to be used; during both
data collection and data analysis. Once you have completed all four sections of this map, you
will be able to check for alignment with your chosen design. If alignment is not clear, or if
alignment seems to me completely absent, you might consider an alternate and more appropri-
ate qualitative design.
In this section of the dissertation’s first chapter, you will also describe the site and research
participants, the data collection methods that you use, and the type of data that you are collect-
ing, as well as the strategies you use for data analysis. As part of your proposal you made some
decisions regarding what research participants you will need information from (methods to cre-
ate a research sample), how you could appropriately collect information (data collection meth-
ods), and, once you have done that, how you planned to analyze the information (data analysis
methods). You also proposed methods to address how you would ethically protect the rights
of all your research participants in line with the ethical principles of the Belmont Report, and
as stipulated by your institutional review board (IRB). In this chapter, after your proposal was
approved, all these methods must be clearly discussed. This discussion will be greatly expanded
in your methodology chapter.
Rationale and Significance: This discussion is presented in two well-thought-out para-

graphs (or in some institutions may be required as two separate sections) that provide the ratio-
nale for the study and its significance. The rationale is the justification for the study presented
as a logical argument. This describes the genesis of the study and why it is important to carry it
out. This is distinct from the significance of the study, which addresses the benefits that may be
derived from doing the study. The significance addresses questions regarding your study such
as “So what?” or “What difference does it make?” When judging the significance of a study’s
contribution, researchers ask questions such as:
• Does the research expand knowledge and insight?

• Does the research deepen understanding?
• Does the research improve practice and/or policy?
Therefore, the issue of significance reaffirms the research purpose and is a more detailed
explanation of the implications and potential contributions of your study—that is, what ben-
efits will be derived from the study. Significance suggests what is important, what is worth
paying attention to, and what really matters. Think about the following questions: What is
important about this study? Who might want to pay attention to this study? For whom or what
groups is this study relevant? And . . . so what? All of these questions capture the broad meaning
of significance. And remember, within the field of qualitative research, significance within this
context should not be confused with the probabilistic meaning of statistical significance that is
central to quantitative research!
In other words, in attempting to establish the significance of your research, you should
think about the various ways in which your study is likely to contribute to (a) theory (by add-
ing to research and literature), (b) potential practical application, and/or (c) ways in which the
study might improve policy. As such, consider both the applied and theoretical significance
of your study: With every doctoral study, an applied understanding of the findings needs to
be present alongside a greater contribution to the body of research and knowledge in the field.
High-quality doctoral research not only results in practical or applied significance, but also
makes a further contribution to the existing body of knowledge, thereby deepening under-
standing and expanding insight in your field of practice and/or research.
The Researcher: This section informs the reader what you—as the researcher—bring to
the study. Begin by describing your background, education, and professional experience that
lends itself to your interest in and knowledge about the subject of your inquiry. You also can
share your unique perspectives and interests as they relate to the study. Additionally, explain
how your past and current experience may inform and/or contribute to this study, and in
what ways. As we addressed in Chapter 4 of this book, conceptualizing the prominence of the
researcher-as-instrument has significant implications throughout every stage of the research
process, and addresses all the ways that the subjectivity, social identity, positionality, and
meaning-making of the researcher profoundly shape research processes and methods. As such,
in the interest of transparency, your positionality with regard to the research site and research
participants should also be made clear, and so you should briefly address this. We will circle
back to the issue of researcher positionality in Chapter 8 of this book. In the methodology chap-
ter of a dissertation, this discussion will need to be expanded so that the reader can develop an
idea of the potential impact and complexity of all the choices you made regarding your study’s
design, including identification, justification, and limitations for all methodological choices,
and what might be your underlying (explicit and implicit) biases and assumptions and why you
hold these. As emphasized throughout the current qualitative research literature, a researcher
can never remain neutral, and nor are they expected to be neutral since objectivity is not the
goal. Rather, as stressed in previous chapters, transparency is an inherent hallmark of rigorous
qualitative inquiry, since objectivity and neutrality are inherently unattainable.
Researcher Assumptions: Related to your positionality, statements about your assump-
tions reflect what you hold to be true as you go into the study and from which you believe you
will be able to draw credible conclusions. Your assumptions are based on certain premises that
may either hold up or be shown to be unwarranted. These assumptions are the important issues
around your topic that you believe to be true as you begin your research. Later on, at the end of
your research (in the analysis chapter), you will revisit and reflect on your initial assumptions.
Definitions of Key Terminology: This section provides the definitions of terminology
used in the study that do not have a common meaning or those terms that have the possibility
of being misunderstood. These terms should be operationally defined or explained; that is, you
must clarify how these terms are used in your study. If you use the definitions of others, be sure
to include the authoritative sources to support these definitions. Which terms to define and
clarify is a matter of judgment, but generally, these are the terms that are central to your study,
that are used throughout, and that may not be understandable to all readers. Making terms
explicit adds precision and ensures clarity of understanding.
The reflexive questions that follow can serve as prompts for journaling throughout the disserta-
tion process, and in this case, for the first chapter of your dissertation, in which you are setting
up and establishing the study’s key components.
REFLEXIVE QUESTIONS
INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
Research Problem
1. Is my research problem an issue of social and/or cultural significance? Why? In what

ways?
2. What does this problem or issue mean to me, either personally or professionally?
3. Will this research add to the knowledge base in my field and/or discipline?
4. Will examining this problem have the potential to raise social awareness in my field and/
or discipline?
5. What difference can this research potentially make in terms of changing policy and/or
practice? How, and in what way(s)?
(Continued)
(Continued)
6. What assumptions do I bring to this research, and why?

7. Have my assumptions and perspectives related to the research topic, research problem,
or context changed over time? If so, how, and in what ways? Why?
Research Purpose
1. Have I framed the research purpose in a meaningful way?

2. What personal and/or professional agenda am I trying to address or resolve with this
research purpose in mind?
3. What biases on my part may shape the purpose of this research?
4. What personal and/or professional insights have driven me to conduct this research?
5. Is this research purpose socially relevant and meaningful?
Research Questions
1. Are my questions open ended as is typical of qualitative research?

2. Are my questions substantively relevant and worthy of research?
3. Do my questions challenge or confront any prevailing assumptions?
4. Do my questions stimulate critical thinking?
5. Do my questions display an open mind and come across as unprejudicial?
CHAPTER SUMMARY DISCUSSION
This chapter described the critical components that ground and frame a research study:
problem, purpose, and research questions. The research problem is the social or cultural issue
that identifies the importance of and need for the study in order to produce new knowledge
that will therefore deepen understanding. All qualitative research emerges from a perceived
problem—some unsatisfactory situation, condition, or phenomenon that you have identified
and/or experienced and that you wish to confront, examine, and understand. The research pur-
pose is the major objective or intent of the study and will hopefully shed light on the research
problem. Research questions undergird the research process, and asking meaningful and rele-
vant research questions is at the heart of critical thinking and problem solving. The way you
frame your purpose and questions directly shapes your research, both in terms of content and
process. The interconnectedness of these components was emphasized, as these are at the core
of the research, and everything that follows hinges on how well these components are con-
structed and aligned. In addition to these major components, the chapter also described and
illustrated all the other elements that may constitute a well-developed introductory chapter,
including research approach, researcher positionality, assumptions, and perspectives, rationale
and significance of the study, and definitions of key terminology.
Quality Assessment Chapter Checklist

Problem ✓ Is the background of the problem clearly presented?
✓ Is adequate background information presented for an understanding of the

problem?
✓ Is the problem appropriate for qualitative inquiry?
✓ Is the problem sufficiently narrow in scope? That is, can you differentiate the
problem from your broader topic?
✓ Is the problem clearly and logically articulated?
✓ Does the discussion move from the general to the specific?
✓ Is the problem clearly situated within the literature? That is, does the literature
serve to place the problem in context?
✓ Is there a logical segue that leads directly to the purpose statement?
Purpose ✓ Is the purpose specific, focused, and unambiguously stated?
✓ Is it clear as to how the research purpose will address the problem?
✓ Is the purpose relevant to your chosen research tradition?
Research ✓ Are the research questions clearly focused and unambiguously stated?
questions
✓ Are research questions open ended so that they will foster exploration and
discovery?
✓ Would answers to research questions shed light on or address the research

problem?
✓ Are all the research questions interconnected? That is, is there a natural
relationship among them?
✓ Is there alignment among the problem, purpose, and research questions?
Research ✓ Is your research design appropriate and feasible as a means of qualitative

design inquiry?
✓ Is your research methodology, including all methods used, appropriate and

feasible for a qualitative research design?
Researcher ✓ Does this section inform the reader what the researcher brings to the study?
perspectives
✓ Do you discuss how researcher experience and perspective are related to the
problem?
✓ Do you make a clear statement of researcher positionality?
Researcher ✓ Are researcher assumptions and biases transparently revealed and explained?
assumptions
Rationale and ✓ Is there a well-thought-out rationale that provides justification for this study?
significance
✓ Is a convincing argument explicitly or implicitly made for the importance or
significance of this research?
✓ Is it clear how this research will add to the existing body of knowledge and/or
contribute to enhancing practice and/or policy?
(Continued)
Quality Assessment Chapter Checklist (Continued)

Definition of ✓ Does the chapter conclude with definitions and/or explanations of key
terms terminology that might not have a commonly understood meaning?
✓ If you include definitions, have you properly cited all relevant authoritative
sources?
Addressing ✓ Is your research problem aligned with your research methodology (qualitative
alignment research)?
✓ Is your research problem aligned with your research purpose?
✓ Is your research purpose aligned with your research questions?
✓ Is your research problem aligned with your chosen research design (tradition or
genre)?
✓ Are your methods for data collection and data analysis aligned with your
research design?
Grammar ✓ Have you checked for institutional and/or programmatic requirements regarding
and writing the content and structure of Chapter 1?
mechanics
✓ Have you checked for institutional and/or programmatic requirements regarding
appropriate use of qualitative language and terminology?
✓ Is the writing throughout clear and readable? (Refer to Chapter 2 “Guidelines for
Academic Writing.”)
Following are some recommended resources that you might consider perusing regarding ways
to develop the many elements of your dissertation’s first chapter.
Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M., Bizup, J., & FitzGerald, W. T. (2016). The craft of
research. SAGE.
This book offers clear, helpful, and systematic guidelines on how to conduct qualitative
research and report it effectively. Throughout the book, the authors emphasize the importance
of precision in designing and crafting a viable, coherent study.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five tra-
ditions, (4th ed.). SAGE.
A classic in qualitative research methods, this text provides a comprehensive summary of the
major qualitative traditions or genres including narrative research, phenomenology, grounded
theory, ethnography, and case study. Consistent with the authors’ view throughout the book is
the emphasis on how the three structural elements, stating the problem, formulating the pur-
pose statement, and generating research questions, relate to the particular chosen qualitative
design, and how this evolves through close attention to methodological congruence.
Maxwell, J. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach, (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Building on his landmark publication A Realist Approach for Qualitative Research, Joseph
Maxwell expands his approach to qualitative inquiry and provides researchers and students
with a broad and practical guide to planning qualitative research. This text illustrates how the
interconnected components of design interact and provides strategies for creating coherent
and workable relationships among key design components.
Saldana, J. (2015). Thinking qualitatively: Methods of mind, SAGE.
This book acknowledges the challenge of teaching students not just how to collect and ana-
lyze data but how to actively think about them. Rather than a “how-to” manual, the chapters of
this book constitute an epistemological exercise in understanding and reflecting on qualitative
methods, thereby encouraging the development of the core analytical skills and interpretive
frames needed for approaching the qualitative research endeavor.
com/bloomberg-qualitative-5e. The companion website offers materials related to the disser
tation’s introductory chapter, as discussed in Chapter 6.
• Appendix F: Change Matrix Template

• Appendix G: Sample Alignment Plan: Problem, Purpose, Research Questions
DEVELOPING AND
7 PRESENTING YOUR
LITERATURE REVIEW
• Provide an understanding of the function and purpose of a literature review (the

“what”).
• Describe the role and scope of a research-based critical literature review in a
dissertation (the “why”).
• Outline the skills related to the various steps involved in preparing for, conducting,
and presenting a thorough and systematic review of the literature, including
identifying and retrieving relevant material and sources, analyzing, evaluating, and
synthesizing ideas found in the literature, and finally writing up a comprehensive
and well-structured chapter (the “how”).
• Offer a thorough appreciation of the nature, role, structure, function, and use of a
theoretical or conceptual framework based on qualitative research principles, and
outline the key distinctions between the two types of frameworks.
• Explain how to build and develop a relevant framework to support and guide the
study.
• Reinforce the significance of alignment between research problem, research
questions, research findings, literature review, and theoretical or conceptual
framework.
OVERVIEW
This chapter provides a guide to what some see as one of the most daunting tasks involved in
writing a dissertation—that of reviewing topic-specific literature. A dissertation demonstrates
your ability to write a coherent volume of intellectually demanding work. A key part of the
203
dissertation that illustrates your scholarship is the way in which you have analyzed, organized,
and reported the relevant literature. With thoughtful preparation, careful planning of your
work and time, and helpful guidelines, this is a manageable task.
In conducting a literature review, you are forced to think critically and consider the role of
argument in research. Thus, reviewing the literature is research in and of itself. Because a disser-
tation is really about demonstrating your ability to conduct and carry out a research project, our
intent throughout this book is to help you understand what it means to be a researcher. With
regard to the literature review chapter, an underlying assumption is that if you can understand
the ideas and master the techniques and methods inherent in the literature review, this will be
helpful to you in your own research.
Often students put off doing the literature review because they do not fully understand its
purpose and function, or they are unsure of the procedures to follow in conducting a literature
search. In this chapter, we attempt to address both of these issues. We also address the theoreti-
cal or conceptual framework as an integral element of the research process and provide detailed
explanation regarding how to develop this framework, where it would be introduced in the dis-
sertation, and how it functions in analysis. Once you have completed your literature review, you
may want to refer to Appendix B, Rubric for Evaluating a Literature Review.
FUNCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE LITERATURE REVIEW
The review of relevant literature involves the systematic identification, location, and analysis
of material related to the research problem. This material can include books, book chapters,
articles, abstracts, reviews, monographs, dissertations, research reports, and electronic media.
The literature cited should support the argument being made and demonstrate that the author
has a grasp of the major ideas and findings that pertain to their topic. A key objective is to pro-
vide a clear and balanced picture of current leading concepts, theories, and data relevant to your
topic or subject of study. The material, although consisting of what has been searched, located,
obtained, and read, is not merely a simplistic summative description of the contents of articles
and books, nor is it a series of isolated summaries of previous studies. Your readers are being
asked to view this literature review as representing the sum of the current knowledge on the
topic, as well as your ability to think critically about it.
Areas of inquiry within disciplines exist as ongoing conversations among authors and theo-
rists. By way of your literature review, you join the conversation—first by listening to what is
being said and then by formulating a comment designed to advance the dialogue. The literature
review thus involves locating and assimilating what is already known and then entering the con-
versation from a critical and creative standpoint. As Torraco (2005) defines it, “The integrative
literature review is a form of research that reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative lit-
erature on a topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic
are generated” (p. 356). Ultimately, your review “tells a story” by critically analyzing the litera-
ture and arriving at specific conclusions about it. Developing a scholarly literature review utiliz-
ing academic writing is a vital component of your research process—and of your dissertation.
Chapter 7 • Developing and Presenting Your Literature Review 205
Engaging in this critical review contextualizes your study and includes several interrelated pro-
cesses and goals:
• Trace the etiology or history of the specific fields and topics related to your study.
• Cultivate familiarity with and expertise in specific areas of knowledge, including issues
and debates in the field.
• Become familiar with and learn more about the specific vocabulary, terminology, and
concepts in the field of interest.
• Identify key theories and/or concepts related to the phenomenon and/or context under
study, and which of these will most appropriately frame and situate your study.
• Identify factors and influences related to the phenomenon and/or context to be studied.
• Offer new and possibly innovative perspectives regarding conceptualization of the
research topic.
• Offer new and possibly innovative perspectives regarding development and/or
refinement of research questions.
• Assist with developing an argument for the rationale and significance of your research.
In order for a literature review to support your research, you will need to examine and artic-
ulate various aspects of relevant peer-reviewed literature in an integrated and critical way, mak-
ing central connections, and asking the kind of questions that will shed new light on key issues
related to your phenomenon of study. The importance of including scholarly peer-reviewed lit-
erature cannot be stressed enough, and this is discussed in more detail further on. Journals and
academic papers play an essential role in the dissemination and sharing of knowledge within
and beyond the academic community, including with stakeholders who may be involved in
commissioning the research. To ensure quality with these publications, journal editors require
that the work is peer reviewed. The advantage of the peer-review process is that reviewers pro-
vide feedback to editors and writers regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript,
which enhances the credibility and quality of the research that is published.
A literature review entails a technical form of writing in which facts must be documented
and opinions substantiated. Producing a good literature review requires time and intellectual
effort. It is a test of your ability to manage the relevant texts and materials, analytically interpret
ideas, and integrate and synthesize ideas and data with existing knowledge. One of the ways to
improve your writing is to read as widely as possible. Look for examples of good and bad writ-
ing. Try to identify ways in which other authors have structured and built their arguments, as
well as the methods and techniques they have used to express their ideas.
Academic writing requires continual practice with re-reading and revisions before submit-
ting it to faculty for feedback. Dissertations and peer-reviewed articles have all undergone mul-
tiple reviews and revisions by others before being finalized or published. Part of becoming an
independent scholar is openly accepting and engaging within this revision process as a method
to continually improve academic writing skills. As doctoral studies are ongoing, skills and new
learning will be required to become an independent scholar capable of creating knowledge
rather than being only a consumer of knowledge. This process involves learning about and
appreciating the iterative and collaborative nature of academic writing. Part of becoming a suc-
cessful academic scholar is the ability to provide as well as be open to receiving critical feedback
on scholarly research and the development of your academic writing. Remember, critical feed-
back within the research process is not meant to be a personal criticism; rather, it is designed to
indicate areas in need of clarity as well as improvements in content, design, and analysis, thereby
elevating the level of your academic writing to produce clear, accurate, concise, and grammati-
cally correct written discussions.
ROLE AND SCOPE OF THE LITERATURE

REVIEW IN THE DISSERTATION
The major purpose of reviewing the literature is to determine what has already been done that
relates to your topic. This knowledge not only prevents you from unintentionally duplicating
research that has already been conducted, but it also affords you the understanding and insight
needed to situate your topic within an existing framework. As Boote and Beile (2005) explain,
A substantive, thorough, sophisticated literature review is a precondition for doing sub-
stantive, thorough, sophisticated research. “Good” research is good because it advances
our collective understanding. To advance our collective understanding, a researcher or
scholar needs to understand what has been done before, the strengths and weaknesses of
existing studies, and what they might mean. (p. 3)
A review of the literature enables you to acquire a full understanding of your topic; what has
been already said about it; how ideas related to your topic have been researched, applied, and
developed; the key issues surrounding your topic; and the main criticisms that have been made
regarding work on your topic. Therefore, a thorough search and reading of related literature is,
in a very real sense, part of your own academic development—part of becoming an “expert” in
your chosen field of inquiry.
It is incumbent on you, as the researcher, to find out what already exists in the area in which
you propose to do research before doing the research. You need to know about the contributions
that others have made relative to your topic because this prior work, as well as current research
and debate, will provide you with the framework for your own work. In reviewing the literature,
areas of concentrated interest, as well as areas of relative neglect, will become apparent, and
so you will begin to identify a “space” for your own work. You also will gain a deeper under-
standing of the interrelationships and intersections between the subject under consideration
and other subject areas. Therefore, a review of the literature allows you to get a grip on what
is known and to learn where the “holes” are in the current body of knowledge. A review of the
literature also enables you to recognize previously reported concepts or patterns, refer to already
established explanations or theories, and recognize any variations between what was previously
discovered and what you are now finding as a result of your study.
Qualitative researchers typically use existing literature to guide their studies in various ways
depending on the type of study being conducted. Depending on the research tradition you
have adopted, there are subtle differences in the interplay between prior knowledge and discov-
ery. As such, there are differences regarding the purpose and process for planning the research
design and presenting the review of the literature with respect to each of the research traditions.
There are some general guidelines regarding whether the literature is referred to before ask-
ing questions and data collection or after data collection and data analysis. For example, in a
phenomenological study, the literature is reviewed primarily following data collection so that
the information in the literature does not preclude the researcher from being able to “bracket”
or suspend preconceptions. If conducting a grounded theory study, some literature review is
conducted initially to place the study in context and to inform the researcher of what has been
done in the field. The main literature review is conducted during concept development, how-
ever, because the literature is used to define the concepts and further define and clarify the
relationships in the theory developed from the empirical data. In grounded theory, the literature
becomes a source for data (Corbin & Strauss, 2015). When categories have been found, the
researcher trawls the literature for confirmation or refutation of these categories. The objective
is to ascertain what other researchers have found and whether there are any links to existing the-
ories. In conducting an ethnographic study, the literature is reviewed before data are collected,
serving as a background for the research question and informing the researcher as to what will
be studied and how it will be studied. With narrative inquiry and case study, both “before” and
“after” approaches are employed: An initial review is conducted after the development of the
research question to shape the direction of the study, and the literature also is reviewed on an
ongoing basis throughout the study to compare and contrast with the data that have emerged
and the study’s theoretical or conceptual framework.
No matter which qualitative tradition or genre you have adopted, the review of related lit-
erature is more than just a stage to be undertaken and a hurdle to be overcome. Right from the
beginning, literature review is an essential, integral, and ongoing part of the research process.
At the initial stages, a preliminary search and analysis of the literature is usually necessary to
focus on a researchable topic and evaluate its relevance. It is the progressive honing of the topic,
by way of the literature review, that makes most research a practical consideration. Having done
that and having developed a narrowly defined problem statement, you then set or situate your
problem within a context. To do this, it is important to consult the literature to see whether
the study’s problem has been addressed and how and to what extent the issues surrounding the
problem have been addressed. Being familiar with previous research facilitates interpretation of
your study’s findings because the latter will need to be discussed in terms of whether and how
they relate to the findings of previous studies. If your findings contradict previous findings, you
can describe the differences between your study and the others, providing a rationale for the
discrepancies. However, if your findings are consistent with other findings, your report could
include suggestions for future research to shed light on the relevant issues.
Besides providing a foundation—a theoretical or conceptual framework for the problem to
be investigated—the literature review can demonstrate how the present study advances, refines,
or revises what is already known. Knowledge of previous studies offers a point of reference for
discussing the contribution that your study will make in advancing the knowledge base. As such,
the literature review is a conscious attempt to keep in mind that the dissertation research emerges
from and is contained within a larger context of educational inquiry. The literature that describes
the context frames the problem; it provides a useful backdrop for the problem or issue that has
led to the need for the study. The literature review also can assist you in refining your research
questions. Furthermore, previous studies can provide the rationale for your research problem,
and indications of what needs to be done can help you justify the significance of your study.
Aside from the dissertation’s literature review chapter which includes a formal review of
related and relevant literature, and which demonstrates that you show command of your subject
area and an understanding of the research problem, you will more generally need to conduct
reviews of the literature at various stages of the dissertation process. As a qualitative researcher,
you will also need to demonstrate the ability to assess the methodologies that you will be using in
your research. This type of assessment is necessary to display a clear and critical understanding
of how you will be conducting your study and why you have chosen to conduct it that way. The
aim of the methodology chapter is to indicate the appropriateness of the various design features
of your research, including your research approach and the specific methodology employed.
In this regard, relevant references from the literature are necessary to illustrate the respective
strengths and weaknesses of each of the data collection methods you intend to employ. The
actual literature review writing process is therefore cyclical, iterative, and ongoing. While devel-
oping your literature review, additional sources may need to be identified. This means return-
ing to searching the literature, analyzing the findings, and integrating this information into
the literature review. Similarly, remaining current with the research in the area of interest may
lead to incorporating additional sources. It is important to realize that the literature review does
not formally end once you have written your introductory and literature review chapters but
carries over into subsequent chapters as well. The literature review process is therefore ongoing
throughout the entire dissertation process, up until completion.
Now that we have covered the role of the literature review in a dissertation, you are most
likely asking, “What is the scope of a literature review?” Just how much literature you will need
to cover is a difficult question to answer. Aside from the inclusion of seminal literature and
landmark studies, keeping the literature current is important so that the study remains relevant
and meaningful. As a general rule of thumb, a literature review should represent the most cur-
rent work undertaken in a subject area, and usually a five-year span from the present is a tenta-
tive limit of coverage at most institutions, although this is something you will need to check
with your chair or department. For historical overviews, however, you might reach beyond the
five-year span. The following general guidelines can assist you:
• Avoid the temptation to include everything. Bigger is not necessarily better! A concise,
well-organized literature review that contains relevant information is preferable to
a review containing many studies that are only peripherally related to your research
problem.
• When exploring a heavily researched and well-developed area, review only those works
that are directly related to your specific research problem.
• When exploring a new or little-researched problem area, gather enough information to
develop and establish a logical framework for your study. Therefore, review all studies
that are related in some meaningful way to your research problem.
As you continue reviewing the relevant and appropriate literature, you will know when you
have reached a saturation point when you begin to encounter the same references and can no
longer find any new sources. As such, you will have “exhausted the literature!” With regard to
the length of a literature review, this will depend, to a large extent, on the complexity of your
study and the requirements of your school or program. Therefore, be sure to clarify this expecta-
tion prior to writing your review.
Remember, because you are attempting to provide a comprehensive and up-to-date review
of your selected areas, it is important to revisit the literature review toward the end of your study
to make sure no new research has been overlooked. This step is especially important if much
time has passed since you wrote the original literature review for your proposal. Thus, as your
study comes to a close, it may be necessary to conduct a new literature search to make sure that
all new studies conducted since you wrote the original literature review are included. Moreover,
as we remind you in Part III of this book, the literature review is an important early task. Once
you complete your study, you will need to carefully re-read your literature review and ensure
that everything therein is directly relevant to your study. Based on your findings and the analy-
sis and interpretation of those findings, whatever is deemed irrelevant should be eliminated.
Equally important, if a section of literature review is missing, it will need to be added. Your
literature review must, of necessity, be both comprehensive and current!
PREPARING FOR THE LITERATURE REVIEW
Developing a literature review can appear to be a daunting task, but it can be successfully
accomplished through an organized and methodological approach rather than attempting
to quickly complete it. The activities required to develop a literature review are part of an
interconnected cyclical process involving searching literature, identifying and organizing the
sources, reviewing the sources and recording notes, critically evaluating the material, syn-
thesizing information, and writing the article review. Searching, reading, and writing are
all connected and support one another throughout the process of developing the literature
review. Finding relevant material for a comprehensive literature review involves multiple
strategies and a wide variety of sources. As such, it is important that you become familiar with
your institution’s library. You should check on what services your library provides, how to
access these services, and the regulations and procedures regarding the use of library services
and materials. You will want to make sure that you are focusing your efforts primarily on
original, research-based articles.
Peer-Reviewed Literature
Scholarly journals are journals which are well respected for the information and research they
provide on a particular subject. They are written by experts in a particular field or discipline,
and their purpose is to advance the ongoing body of knowledge within the discipline. These
articles might present original research data and findings, or take a position on a key question
within the field. Generally, scholarly journals are targeted for professional or academic research-
ers and provide detailed analysis concentrating on a single discipline or academic field. The
publisher is typically a professional association or an academic press.
Scholarly journals are oftentimes, but not always, peer reviewed. A peer-reviewed or ref-
ereed article has gone through a process where other scholars in the author’s field or discipline
critically assess a draft of the article. The actual evaluations are similar to editing notes, where
the author receives detailed and constructive feedback from the peer experts. Peer-reviewed
journals publish articles only if they have passed through the official editorial process. The peer
review and evaluation system is used to safeguard, maintain, and improve the quality of schol-
arly materials that are published. Keep in mind that not all scholarly journals go through the
peer review process. However, it is safe to assume that a peer-reviewed journal is also scholarly.
In short, “scholarly” means the article was written by an expert for an audience of other experts,
researchers or students. “Peer-reviewed” takes it one step further and means the article was
reviewed and critiqued by the author’s peers who are experts in the same subject area.
While the vast majority of scholarly journals are peer reviewed, keep in mind that just
because a journal is peer reviewed does not guarantee that all articles in it are included in the
peer review process. Some article types in a peer-reviewed journal, such as news items, editori-
als, and book and article reviews, may not be peer reviewed. Note that popular resources do not
typically go through the same review process as academic resources; in many cases, popular
resources are reviewed by a single editor, who may or may not have expertise in the subject area.
Examples of popular resources include magazine and newspaper articles, and websites. Popular
resources are usually written for a broad audience and do not always use the same, formal lan-
guage as authors of academic articles. Trade publications are neither considered academic or
popular; they are resources written for those who work in a specific industry. Authors can be
staff editors, journalists, practitioners or academics in the field. These publications include
news, statistics, trends and other information relevant to an industry. These made be published
by trade or professional associations, and articles are typically short and may not include refer-
ences, or not nearly as many as in scholarly journal articles. Additionally, governments produce
a large amount of publications including congressional, agency and administrative departmen-
tal reports. While most of these publications are considered to be authoritative and credible,
they may not generally be considered scholarly or peer reviewed.
Peer-reviewed materials are generally obtainable through your library databases. This step
is where your university library becomes an especially useful and efficient resource. Through
their subscription to these databases, libraries have become rich gateways to information, and
ever-increasing technological advancements have opened up a range of new possibilities to
researchers. There are a few hundred databases that can link you to the relevant scholarly pub-
lications. Each database has its own unique features, and familiarizing yourself with these fea-
tures will afford you efficient access to conduct appropriate electronic searches. Once accessed,
you can search according to your topic of interest and obtain either abstracts or full-text articles.
Search processes are not necessarily the same across all databases. The art of database searching
involves learning how to input terms that will connect you with the material most related to
your topic. Because database formats change frequently, you should check with librarians for
recent information regarding new tools or strategies included in the latest versions of the data-
bases. Aside from online searches, you also should spend time in the library getting used to call
numbers related to your topic in order to find the appropriate sections. To produce a compre-
hensive literature review, you have to be extremely thorough. Many sources that are needed for
review are not available online, and so conducting a literature search using only online sources
might mean that you miss some critical information.
Grey Literature
Grey literature is essentially information that is produced outside of traditional publishing
and distribution channels, and can include reports, policy literature, working papers, newslet-
ters, government documents, speeches, white papers, urban plans, and so on. This literature
is typically produced by organizations such as government and inter-governmental agencies,
non-governmental organizations, and industry, and is used to store information and report on
activities, either for their own use or wider sharing and distribution, and without the delays and
restrictions that are associated with commercial and academic publishing. The term “grey liter-
ature” relates to the uncertainty of the status of this information. However, in cases where there
may not be much information on a topic in peer-reviewed research, grey literature may provide
a very valuable source of information as well as introduce alternate viewpoints. Additional ben-
efits to using grey literature include:
• Grey literature can be published much more swiftly since it does not have to be
subjected to the lengthy peer-review process that is entailed in publishing via
traditional channels.
• Online information from organizations may be updated more frequently than
traditional published journals or books.
• Some grey literature may contain additional depth and detail; for example, a
dissertation may include raw data that is not published in a journal article that the
author may go on to write.
• Grey literature may provide a broader overview of an issue or topic, such as a white
paper or fact sheet.
• Potentially minimizes reporting or publication biases since grey literature is more likely
to include negative results; for example in clinical trials.
However, because grey literature typically does not go through a peer review process, the
quality can vary, and so you must critically evaluate your sources by asking the basic questions:
Who? What? Where? When? and Why?
Who: Authority
• Who is the author (i.e., the individual or organization who created this resource)?
• What kind of academic or professional credentials do they have?
• Are they affiliated with any institutions or organizations?
• Is the author a recognized expert in the area they are writing about?
What: Content
• Is the information provided suitable for your topic?

• Does the information seem credible based on other sources that you have read?
• What kind of facts and opinions are expressed?
Where: Scope
• Who is the intended audience for this resource?

• What does the URL indicate about the scope and/or purpose of this resource?
When: Currency
• How recently was this resource published or last updated?

• How current are the sources that the author cites?
• Are any of the links broken?
Why: Objectivity
• Is the information consistent with other scholarly resources related to this topic?
• Is there any evidence that this resource may be biased (for example, information found
on a political party website or private company website)?
• Do the page’s links lead to credible sources?
• Are the author’s sources clearly cited with references or a bibliography? Can the
citations be easily verified?
RETRIEVAL AND REVIEW
Retrieval and review have their own set of requisite technical skills. A comprehensive literature
search on a topic involves managing databases, references, and records. A common thread run-
ning through the discussion of the various stages involved in conducting a literature review
is how to manage and organize information, materials, and ideas. Table 7.1, Road Map for
Conducting the Literature Review, illustrates the various steps involved in constructing a com-
prehensive and well-developed review.
TABLE 7.1 ■ Road Map for Conducting the Literature Review
1: Identify and Retrieve Literature
• Search library catalogs or library stacks.
• Familiarize yourself with online databases and identify those that are relevant for your field of study.
• Develop parameters that will yield focused results by selecting pertinent keywords or descriptors
and specifying a limited range of publication dates (go back 5–10 years).
• Try out general descriptors and various combinations of subdescriptors. In this way, your search is
refined, and all possible yields are covered.
• Search the Internet for relevant information and resources, making sure to include only reliable
sources of information.
• From all the sources that you use, try to obtain both theoretical and empirical (research-based)
literature.
• Make sure to seek scholarly peer-reviewed literature including primary and secondary sources.
• Identify and include any relevant seminal works and landmark studies related to your topic.
• Seek sources that provide “state of the art” scholarship on a particular topic, as opposed to outdated
literature and research including up-to-date work will ensure that your review remains current.
• In collecting literature, be prepared to refine your topic more narrowly.
• Keep control: From the beginning, develop a system for recording and managing material.
• At the end of the study, revisit online databases to check for any new literature that may have
emerged.
2: Review and Critically Analyze Literature
• Look for essential components in the literature.
• Extract and record information by asking systematic questions of the literature.
• Develop an analytic format and use it consistently. A concept map may be helpful in this regard.
• Write a short overview report on each piece of literature reviewed, including specific detailed
information. These are your annotations, which become your annotated bibliography, and this assists
with digesting scholarly literature.
• For research articles, extract technical elements and establish tables or matrices.
• While analyzing the specifics, be on the lookout for broader themes and issues.
(Continued)
TABLE 7.1 ■ Road Map for Conducting the Literature Review (Continued)
3: Synthesis: Write the Review
• Organize separate elements as one integrated, creative whole.
• Determine the patterns that have emerged, such as trends, similarities, and contradictions/
contrasts; these are the “common threads”.
• Identify themes and translate them into corresponding headings and subheadings (See Appendix H,
Sample Literature Review Theme Development).
• Use headings and subheadings liberally to organize the review. Consider making a “concept map” of
relevant literature for organizational purposes (See Appendix I, Sample Literature Review Outlines).
• Write a first draft, an interaction that will undergo multiple revisions.
• Ensure that your discussion flows logically and coherently, and that it is written clearly
• Ensure that all sections are well supported by citations to avoid plagiarism.
• Develop an objective overview and be careful not to insert opinion-based wording.
• Test the draft by inviting/soliciting feedback from colleagues and advisors.
• Edit, revise, and refine, by incorporating critical feedback from your advisors.
4: Develop and Present a Theoretical or Conceptual Framework
• Develop the framework as an integral part of your study. It is a repository for the findings as well as a
tool for analysis. As such, careful development is essential.
• Establish categories that are directly tied to each of the research questions.
• Develop descriptors for each category that are based on the literature, pilot study findings, and
personal “hunches.”
• Be prepared to refine and revise your conceptual framework as the study progresses.
• The framework can be presented in narrative and/or diagrammatic form.
Source: This chart first appeared in Bloomberg, L. D. (2007b). Understanding qualitative inquiry: Content and process
(Part I). Unpublished manuscript.
Following is a more detailed explanation of each of the steps involved in the review process.
Step 1: Identify and Retrieve Literature

Conducting a literature search requires time management, organization, and conscientious
note taking. Establishing a schedule to sufficiently search the literature, organize the identified
sources, and record clear notes about the obtained information will assist in a comprehensive
understanding of the existing research literature. The recorded notes will assist with categoriz-
ing the obtained information to identify concepts and themes in preparation for developing the
literature review. Ensure that your notes are clear and comprehensive, as these will create the
foundation for the development of the literature review.
The literature review process involves locating and assimilating what is already known. To
do this, the writer must experience “immersion in the subject” by reading extensively in areas
that either directly or indirectly relate to the topic under study. To begin, you need to select
available documents, published and unpublished, on the topic. Through your search, you will
begin to identify the relevant seminal works and landmark studies, as well as the most current
work available.
Primary and Secondary Sources

Primary source documents contain the original work of researchers and authors. These sources
contain firsthand information, meaning that you are reading the author’s own account of a spe-
cific topic. Examples include scholarly research articles, books, diaries, speeches, manuscripts,
interviews, records, and audio and video sources. Secondary sources describe, summarize, or
discuss information or details that are originally presented in another source. Secondary sources
are written by authors who interpret the work of others, including abstracts, indexes, reviews,
encyclopedias, magazine articles, almanacs, popular journal articles, commentaries, and text-
books. Also included among secondary sources are wikis and websites. Secondary sources are
useful because they combine knowledge from many primary sources and provide a quick way
to obtain an overview of a field or topic. They also are a useful resource for obtaining other
sources of information related to your research topic. At the same time, secondary sources can-
not always be considered completely reliable, and this is something you will need to determine.
As such, as a serious graduate researcher, you should not rely solely on these but should base your
review on primary sources as much as possible.
Seminal Works
Remember, too, that seminal works are integral to your research. Sometimes referred to as piv-
otal or landmark studies, seminal works present an idea of great importance or significance, and
so they are cited and referred to time and time again in the research. Seminal work may emerge
naturally as you progress in your search. But identification of seminal work also relies on your
own thoroughness in the examination and synthesis of scholarly literature. It is important to
keep in mind that seminal studies may have been published quite some time ago. Therefore,
limiting a database search to the past 5 years, for example, may exclude seminal studies from
your results. To avoid overlooking pivotal research that may have occurred in years past, it is
recommended that you not use a date limiter in your literature search. As you proceed in your
search, note which authors are making significant contributions to increasing the knowledge
base with regard to your chosen topic. In addition to seeking primary material, you might want
to revisit the earlier studies of these writers to note the development of their theory or ideas. As
mentioned previously, the use of peer-reviewed material is essential, as this ensures that you are
including literature that has been critically evaluated and is therefore considered credible.
A Comprehensive Search Process

In preparation to conduct research, a comprehensive literature search is needed to identify as
many possible sources relevant to the chosen topic. This information will facilitate an in-depth
understanding of the existing related research, helping to understand what has been concluded
and what still needs to be researched. Completing a thorough review of the peer-reviewed
literature will allow the identification of potential areas of inquiry as well as increase the under-
standing of important concepts and theories related to the chosen topic. At this stage, the litera-
ture search is exploratory, allowing the research topic to be more clearly understood, developed,
and then focused. The goal is to become an informed consumer of research to be capable of
becoming a creator of needed knowledge by completing the dissertation. Remember, in your
literature review chapter you will be expected to explain your search process, including the
databases and key words that you used. As such, be sure to document these details as you are
conducting the search! The retrieval effort consists of a series of stages:
Stage 1: Use keywords and combinations of keywords (descriptors) to identify potential

sources: Using various combinations of keywords maximizes the possibility of locating
articles relevant to your planned study. Seek and make records of citations that seem to be
relevant to your topic.
Stage 2: Skim and screen the sources: Assess each piece of literature to ascertain whether the
content is relevant to your study.
Stage 3: Acquisition: Print documents that are available electronically. In some cases, only
an abstract is available. In those cases where the material seems relevant, you need to obtain
the full-text document. Check out books; copy articles from journals and chapters from
books; and if material is unavailable through your own library, order interlibrary loans.
A comprehensive literature search on a topic that covers all the necessary sources and
resources is a demanding and rigorous process. It is seldom possible to find all the information
required within the space of a few weeks. Often, initial search strategies may not reveal what you
are looking for; therefore, you will need to search more widely in the databases and also make
use of more complex combinations of words and phrases. Proceed with persistence, flexibility,
and tenacity. Persistence means being thorough in your search and keeping detailed records of
how you have managed your search activities.
Organizing Strategies
Following are some organizing strategies to assist you in the identification and retrieval process:
1. Because you will return to the library databases time and again to continue your
review, it would be wise to develop a system of keeping track of keywords (descriptors)
and combinations of keywords you have used. In the dissertation, you will have to
report on how the literature was selected and what procedures were used to select the
material, so keeping a record of this information is important.
2. It is also important to keep track of each book or document that you consult. In this
regard, you should keep diligent bibliographic citations. You will save much time by
writing each reference in its proper form initially. There are various software programs
available such as EndNote (www.endnote.com), Ref Works (www.refworks.com),
Zotero (www.zotero.org), and ProCite (www.procite.com) that enable you to create
a list of bibliographic references. These online research management, writing, and

collaboration tools are designed to help researchers easily gather, manage, store,
and share all types of information, as well as generate citations and bibliographies.
Endnote integrates well with most library search engines. Zotero automatically creates
references from uploaded PDF files, which means you are storing the references and
research in the same place, which is convenient and useful.
3. You may prefer to maintain an ongoing alphabetically arranged, accurate record by
way of a Word document; many times, this way is the easiest and most efficient. We
suggest that you prepare a typed list of each piece of literature reviewed, making sure
that all details (authors, titles, dates, volume numbers, page numbers, etc.) are correct.
This list then becomes a working draft of your references. To avoid the frustration of
having to search for information at a later stage (and possibly not being able to track it
down), keep a close check on this list, making sure not to inadvertently omit any details
as you go along. If the reference is a book, be sure to include the library call number
because you may need to return to it later. This list will encompass all materials that
you have retrieved and thus will have some bearing on your study. In the final version
of your dissertation, you will include only a reference list, not a bibliography—that is,
not all the reading you may have done but only a list of those texts that are cited in the
body of the manuscript.
4. Collecting literature is an ongoing process. You need to develop some system for
classifying sources into those that have a direct bearing on your topic and those that are
more peripherally related to your topic. You need to be selective in choosing material
most relevant to your study. Always keep in mind the problem that your study is
addressing. As you gather and sort material, ask yourself how and in what ways the
material relates to your research problem. You might categorize each piece of material
as very important, moderately important, or mildly important. After locating pertinent
material for review, you should store these files, especially those that are central to
your topic and that you think you might cite. When possible, you should save material
electronically to allow for efficient and easy retrieval.
Exploring and Evaluating Web Resources

Although not always scholarly, the Internet will more than likely be your initial starting point
for topic ideas and information. Start by searching for some of the keywords related to your area
of interest to begin a very broad scan of the range of topics and information sources. Use key-
words such as trending news or trending topics, recent research, controversial issues, policy debates,
and other relevant terms to locate recent news. With the tremendous amount of information
available via electronic media, it is crucial that you learn to access this information. However,
anyone anywhere can put information on the web, so any information from the Internet should
be cited with caution. Remember that using the Internet to find academic information takes a
lot of hard work to carefully evaluate and determine whether a web resource is reliable, authori-
tative, or even scholarly.
The Internet has made it possible for anyone to publish web pages. Most websites have not
undergone a review process for inclusion in a collection. For these reasons, you should closely
evaluate any Internet resources you find to ensure they contain balanced, factual information.
One of the key purposes of evaluating online resources is to judge how trustworthy or reliable
they are if you intend to use and cite them. A second purpose is to identify the sort of informa-
tion that is immediately obvious in print publication—that is, information about the publisher
and author. Reliable Internet resources may include peer-reviewed journal articles, government
reports, conference papers, industry and professional standards, scientific papers, news reports,
and quick facts and figures. However, keep in mind that just because a website is well presented
does not mean that it contains accurate information. Following are a few things you can look
for in Internet resources to determine whether or not they are reliable and accurate sources of
information.
1. Can you identify the author of an Internet resource? Is it clear who is responsible for the
document? If so, is there any information about the person or organization responsible
for the document? Authority means knowing about this author’s education, work
history, affiliations, additional publications, etc.
2. Who published the Internet resource? Was the web page published by a business,
university, government organization, or professional association?
3. Can you find the date the Internet resource was last updated or published? Currency
means knowing the date when the document was produced or last updated, and this
enables you to identify the historical context for the document.
4. Does the Internet resource cite the work of others? Are sources clearly listed so they can
be verified? Is there editorial input? Are spelling and grammar correct?
5. Does the content of the resource seem balanced and scholarly, or is it biased? Are biases
and affiliations clearly stated? The aspiration to be objective, however difficult it might
be to achieve, is a traditional value of academic research.
6. What is the intended audience for the Internet resource? Is it appropriate for
university-level research? Or is it geared toward secondary education or a more general
audience?
7. What is the domain of the Internet resource? If it ends in .org, .gov, or .edu, it is more
likely to be a scholarly source. If it ends in .com or .net, it is less likely to be a scholarly
source.
Blogs can also be a valuable source for information on trending issues, current events, recent
research, debates, and more. Scholars, associations, executives, innovative researchers, everyday
practitioners, and students are just some of the people who write blogs. Knowing about and read-
ing blogs that are written by experts in the field, or relevant associations, may be an important
step in identifying current studies and trends in a subject area. The website ResearchBlogging.org
aggregates blog posts regarding recent peer-reviewed research and publications. Most online
popular and news magazines have blog sections. Psychology Today offers a large index of its blogs
with a guide to its blogging experts’ credentials. Harvard Business Review Blog Network fea-
tures entries written by top executives and business leaders.
The ease of access of web-based articles makes these sources of materials highly attractive.
Remember, if you cannot determine the author of information or the date it was produced,
however, it has no place in academic research. Although many websites for government agen-
cies, professional organizations, and educational institutions provide useful information, you
should always evaluate information obtained from a website for currency, legitimacy, accuracy,
and potential bias.
Step 2: Review and Critically Analyze the Literature

Once you have undertaken a comprehensive literature search, you will need to critically assess
each piece of material to analyze its content. In other words, you read with the goal of producing
a product—an analytical evaluation. Toward this end, you need to put yourself in the role of
researcher and prepare a systematic and comprehensive method of critical analysis. Narrowing
potential research topics as well as continuing to identify related sources is needed to further
understand and clarify what will be eventually studied. Remember, simply reading and describ-
ing/summarizing a source is not enough to be considered a scholarly consumer of the literature.
Sections and related paragraphs should consist of discussions focused on identified concepts/
themes from the research findings to provide a comprehensive review of the related literature.
In addition to a critical analysis of a particular source, multiple sources also need to be com-
pared and contrasted, and this information needs to be related with the specific topic, issue, or
problem currently under investigation. The ability to provide an accurate evaluative critique of
another scholar’s research is the analysis component of creating a quality literature review.
Analysis entails the task of systematically breaking down something into its constituent
parts to describe how they relate to one another. Analysis should be viewed not as a random dis-
section but as a methodological examination. Although there is a degree of exploration involved
in analysis, you should aim to be systematic, rigorous, and consistent. In this way, the identi-
fication of the individual and similar elements in a range of materials can be compared and
contrasted. Analysis lays the foundation for critique. Critique identifies the strengths and key
contributions of the literature as well as any deficiencies, omissions, inaccuracies, or inconsis-
tencies. By highlighting the strengths and identifying the deficiencies in the existing literature,
critical analysis is a necessary step toward adding to the knowledge base. When writing the
literature review, you will need most of this information in order to put together a synthesized,
analyzed, and evaluated product. You are practicing dissecting literature for the important spe-
cific pieces of information needed. You are condensing the amount of information that you will
need to refresh your memory later. And you are developing a way to document, compare, and
contrast what has been researched, what has been found, what has worked, what has not, and
what has been recommended. All of these are the essential skills you will need to have in your
toolbox for the dissertation journey. Right now you cannot know just how extremely important
these skills are as you are collecting your sources.
Analysis consists of two main stages:
Stage 1: Skim and Read
• Skim the book or article first, gaining a basic overview, noting the topic, structure,
general reasoning, data, and bibliographical references.
• Go back and skim the preface and introduction, trying to identify the main ideas
contained in the work.
• Identify key parts of the article, or if a book, identify key chapters. Read these parts or
chapters, as well as the final chapter or conclusion.
Stage 2: Highlight and Extract Key Elements

What you are trying to do is understand the historical context and state of the art relevant to
your topic. You are looking at what has been covered in the literature, but you are also look-
ing for gaps and anomalies. Although there will be considerable variation among the different
pieces of literature, it is imperative to develop a format and use it consistently. A consistent for-
mat will pay off when you begin to synthesize your material and actually write the review. Begin
by asking specific questions of the literature. These questions will help you think through your
topic and provide you with some idea of how to structure your synthesis discussion.
• What are the origins and definitions of the topic?

• What are the key theories, concepts, and ideas?
• What are the major debates, arguments, and issues surrounding the topic?
• What are the key questions and problems that have been addressed to date?
• Are there any important issues that have been insufficiently addressed or not addressed
at all?
Most journals use what is known as an IMRD structure: An abstract followed by intro-
duction, methods, results, and discussion. These sections typically contain conventional fea-
tures, which you will start to recognize. If you learn to look for these features you will begin
to read and comprehend the article more quickly. In analyzing research studies, you need to
identify and extract some of the more technical elements common to all research studies, such
as problem, purpose, research questions, sample, methodology, key findings, conclusions, and
recommendations. The purpose of reading analytically is to identify and extract these perti-
nent components in the literature. However, as you read and analyze, you should be on the
lookout for the broader themes, issues, and commonalities among the various authors. Also
be aware of “outliers” (i.e., points of divergence and difference). Regarding research articles
reviewed, make notes of major trends, patterns, or inconsistencies in the results reported. Also
try to identify relationships between studies. These findings will all be important to mention
in the final synthesis, which aims to integrate all the literature reviewed. A concept map can be
developed to begin processing information learned from related sources, helping to organize
collected information into themes or categories and then organize this into an outline in prepa-
ration to develop a more comprehensive literature review. Concept maps are therefore useful for
the identification of potential areas of inquiry for the dissertation. Once writing begins, addi-
tional searches and concept mapping will likely be needed to expand upon the earlier identified
themes or categories. This expansion of reviewing additional sources during the writing process
allows for a more comprehensive search and understanding of the related existing research.
As you continue to read and analyze the literature, also begin to think about what other
information you might need so you can refine your search accordingly.
Organizing Strategies
Following are some organizing strategies to assist you in analyzing your material:
1. Read your “very important” documents first. Highlight, make notations in the
margins, or write memos on sticky notes of inconsistencies, similarities, questions,
concerns, and possible omissions as you go along.
2. Develop a computerized filing system of Word documents for your literature review.
For every piece of material that you read, write a brief summary that covers the
essential points: major issues, arguments, and theoretical models. Include conclusions
that you can draw, and note any inferences that you can make regarding your own
study.
3. As you read, be sure to make a note of any pertinent comments or quotations that
you think might be useful in the presentation of your review. In so doing, be careful
to copy quotations accurately. Make sure to use quotation marks when extracting
material directly so as to avoid inadvertently plagiarizing others’ ideas and/or words.
Direct quotations also require page numbers, and it will save you considerable time and
energy later in the process if you have documented these page numbers accurately.
4. Reflect on what you have read and draw your own conclusions. As you are reading jot
down any questions that come to mind.
Using Annotated Bibliographies

Taking good notes on all relevant article that you read will place you on the fast track to becom-
ing an expert in your topic area. Whether you write in complete paragraphs, which is excellent
practice in developing scholarly writing, or use bullet points, the key is to identify critical infor-
mation that will lead to making you an expert in your area of research. Through taking notes
in this way, you will gain a clearer understanding of the puzzle that is the broad topic area, so
that you can finally pinpoint and articulate what your specific puzzle piece will be; that is, your
research problem.
An annotated bibliography is both a summary and an evaluation of a resource. Writing an

annotated bibliography will help you gain an in-depth understanding of your topic and is useful
for organizing and cataloging resources when developing an argument. An annotated bibliogra-
phy is a concise text that summarizes the study, evaluates the reliability of the information, and
evaluates how the information relates to previous and future research; thereby setting the stage
with regard to how and in what ways, this can be useful for your own research. Using annotated
bibliographies is one key means to begin organizing literature for later synthesis and inclusion.
Whereas a bibliography is a list of sources (books, journals, websites, blogs, periodicals, social
media, etc.) that one has used for researching a topic, an annotated bibliography is essentially a
summary, evaluation, and reflection of each of your sources.
Annotated bibliographies typically include three brief paragraphs: summary, evaluation of
the text, and reflection regarding usefulness and applicability to your own research. As such,
there are some key questions to ask yourself in developing your annotations:
• Summarize: Ask yourself: What are the main arguments? What is the point of this
book or article? What topics are covered? If this is a research article, what is the thesis
and scope of the study, the findings (including any unexpected findings), and the
conclusion? Essentially, if somebody asked you what this book or article was about,
what would you say?
• Assess: After summarizing a source, it is helpful to evaluate it. Ask yourself: Is this
a useful source? How does it compare with other sources in my bibliography? Is the
information credible and/or reliable? Is this source biased in any way? What is the goal
or objective of this source? Do I think the author of this source has achieved this goal
or objective? Why or why not? If this is a research article, what is your determination
with regard to how this study fits with other related studies and previous research? Are
these findings important? What are the research implications?
• Reflect: Once you have summarized and assessed a source, you need to ask how, if at
all, it fits with your research. Ask yourself: Was this source helpful to me? How, and
in what ways does it help me shape my argument? How, if at all, can I use this source
in my research? Has this source changed the way I think about my topic or research
problem? If so, how and in what ways?
As you can see, when you write annotations for each source that you read, you are not just
collecting information; you are being forced to read each source more carefully and much more
critically. At the professional level, annotated bibliographies allow you to see what has been
done in the literature and where and how your own research and scholarship can fit. Writing an
annotated bibliography also helps you gain a good perspective on relevant bodies of literature
and what is being said about your topic. You will begin to develop a good understanding of
the issues in your field (current and/or historic) and what others are debating or discussing.
Remember, you want your annotations to be useful and meaningful to you, so adding a note
that places the material in the context of something else that you’ve read or in relation to your
own research projects will serve to make the annotation more valuable and persuasive. An
annotation should present a brief synopsis of each scholarly article, including key elements,
recommendations for further research, and critique (strengths and weaknesses). Mostly,
this exercise helps you develop your own point of view, a critical element of a good literature
review. The templates provided in this chapter (Table 7.2, Template for Research Literature
Overview; Table 7.3, Template for Analysis and Critique of Research-Based Literature; and Table
7.4, Template for Analysis and Critique of Theoretical Literature) can assist you in organizing
your annotations.
TABLE 7.2 ■ Template for Research Literature Overview
Significance Other Notes (such as

Summary of Key or Context and referencing follow-ups
Points Including Page Relationship to Your mentioned in the
APA Citation Numbers Topic article)
Example: Example: Example: Example:
Orcutt and The purpose of this article This article specifically The researcher provides
Dringus was to report qualitative addresses instructors’ background information
(2017) + title of findings based on six teaching presence, and about the CoI (Community
article selected instructors' delves into the actions of Inquiry) model, which
perceptions of teaching of the instructor to set is foundational to online
presence in their online the tone of the online learning (p. 19). I intend
classrooms (p. 21). The classroom. This article to propose that instructor
researchers concluded also features numerous presence in the online
that the establishment novel methods of classroom is as important
of authentic teaching instructor presence in as a traditional classroom.
presence is vital, and that the online classroom This article helps my future
the onus is on instructors which could be used for proposal.
to set the tone (pp. 23–25). purposes of analysis.
Add source
Add source
Add source
Digesting Scholarly Sources

Digesting scholarly sources can be very challenging, and the more you read, the more difficult
it becomes to remember all of the key information. It is therefore essential to be extremely detail
oriented and methodical so that you do not miss anything. Various tools, in addition to anno-
tated bibliographies, may be useful at this point in the process. Table 7.2, Template for Research
Literature Overview, is a useful template for a more general overview of the research studies you
are reviewing, and can provide a useful running reference as you spend time delving into the
literature around your topic area. Keeping notes such as these provides some organizational
TABLE 7.3 ■ Template for Analysis and Critique of Research-Based Literature
Study Title:
Author/Researcher:
Publication Date:
Full Citation:
Methodological Approach/Research Design/Sampling Methods/Methods of Analysis
Bodies of Literature Reviewed
Theoretical/Conceptual Framework
Research Sample/Participants
Research Site
Research Problem
Research Purpose
Research Question
Subquestions
Data Collection Instruments
Key Findings
Limitations of the Study
Conclusions
Controversies/Disagreements With Other Researchers
Recommendations/Implications for Practice, Policy, Theory, Future Research
Assign 2-3 keywords that identify the theme of the article
Add any selected quotes here that might be useful. Be sure to include page number(s) so that you can
refer to quotes from this source.
Overall Impressions/Notes to Self: Value/Relevance for Current Dissertation/Call for Further Research
Source: A version of this chart first appeared in Bloomberg, L. D. (2007b). Understanding Qualitative Inquiry: Content and
Process (Part I). Unpublished manuscript.
structure help to prevent you from becoming overwhelmed with the volume of literature you
have reviewed.
Regarding primary research-based sources, consider preparing a summary sheet that com-
pares important characteristics across all the studies that you have reviewed. A template for
the analysis and critique of research-based literature is provided as Table 7.3. A template for
the analysis and critique of theoretical literature is provided as Table 7.4. These are both use-
ful analytical tools for methodological analysis of the articles prior to beginning the review by
TABLE 7.4 ■ Template for Analysis and Critique of Theoretical Literature
Study Title:
Author/Researcher:
Publication Date:
Full Citation:
Overview of Theory or Concept
Key Premise(s) or Claim(s)
Reasoning: Evidence is provided that clearly supports the claim(s).

Opposing claims are recognized and addressed.
Relevance: Determine the extent to which the information directly

supports your topic and is useful to your study. What are the implications
for your current research?
Add any selected quotes here that might be useful. Be sure to include page number(s) so that you can
refer to quotes from this source.
Overall Impressions/Evaluation: Does the author suggest the findings can be applied in theory and/or
practice? How useful does this work seem to you with regard to theoretical and/or practical applications?
(Add as necessary)
Synthesis: Integrate the pieces of your critique to emphasize your own main points about the author’s
work; its relevance and/or application to other theories you have reviewed and to your own study. (Add as
necessary)
Source: A version of this chart first appeared in Bloomberg, L. D. (2007b). Understanding Qualitative Inquiry: Content and
Process (Part I). Unpublished manuscript.
conveying the results of your analysis, noting similarities and differences among research stud-
ies and/or theories. These tools act as a quick reference and serve as a record of your literature
search. In addition, as you fill out each section for each resource, you begin to visualize and
internalize the patterns of systematic research efforts. You may see certain links between con-
cepts, gaps in terms of methodology, or recommendations for future research efforts that might
suggest a feasible and worthy topic area for your study. Use the sections in each table to help you
review, critique, and summarize each piece of literature. Remember, you do not need to com-
plete every section, as some might not always apply. The sections are listed as a means to help
you generate ideas as you work on reviewing and critically analyzing the literature. Tables such
as these can appear in the appendix of your dissertation. Alternatively, they can be included in
the body of the literature review chapter to augment and clarify the narrative discussion.
When you first start writing your analyses and evaluations of the literature, these may be
fairly lengthy. This is somewhat useful because it means that when you need to use them, you
will be reminded of the article or book, and you will be able to pick and choose what you need.
As you become focused more on what it is that you will actually be writing about, your analy-
ses and evaluations will most likely become shorter and more concise. With practice, you can
more appropriately capture all of the required elements. Remember, just as you would not build
a home without a sturdy and solid foundation, if you want to make steady progress, scholarly
work cannot proceed without the necessary foundation for a comprehensive analysis of the rel-
evant literature.
When you have finished reviewing and critically analyzing all the scholarly sources you
have collected, be sure to revisit your entire (and rapidly growing) bibliography to make certain
that it is complete and up to date. You now have a complete record of what the literature states
about key elements, ideas, and concepts related to your study. Reading through your summaries
will serve to highlight important themes, issues, commonalities, and differences. In effect, these
are the answers to your critical questions. The resulting insights will give you a sense of the for-
est as well as the trees. This sense will prepare you to integrate the material you are reading and
proceed with writing a coherent and logical synthesis of the literature.
As mentioned previously, one component of becoming an independent scholar is learning
how to provide an evaluative critique of the work of other scholars. A critique of scholarly work
requires your ability to use high-level critical thinking skills. In addition, you must be able to
write constructively and communicate your ideas well, with clear and focused writing. To do
so, first you need to demonstrate your ability to clearly and precisely summarize and critically
evaluate specific information. Second, you need to demonstrate your ability to clearly pres-
ent that evaluative information in writing that meets academic and professional expectations.
These skills will be invaluable as you go on to develop your literature review and proceed on
your journey toward becoming an independent scholar.
Exhausting the Literature

A useful indicator that you have discovered all of the available literature on your topic is that you
keep seeing the same articles and books over and over again, even when changing your search
terms and techniques. When the research has been exhausted, you will be familiar with all the
key researchers/theorists, seminal studies, and recent developments in the field. There will be
no more new content to discover! Before concluding that you have exhausted the research, it is
important to ensure that you have done everything possible to comprehensively research your
topic. To achieve this, there are some important steps to take before you decide to stop searching
and begin the task of synthesizing your information.
1. The first step is to make sure you are using all of the library search techniques and
processes.
2. After conducting a search for your research topic, search for your terms within
other library databases, as well as within Google Scholar, which is a freely accessible
web search engine that indexes the full text of scholarly literature across an array of
publishing formats and disciplines.
3. Look at the subject terms and/or author-supplied keywords associated with the
articles that you have already found. This can help lead you to articles that you did not
previously locate during your previous searches. You can also continue refining your
search by adding additional search terms or by applying limiters.
4. Another resourceful method for uncovering additional research on your topic is to
look at the citing articles, that is, those articles which cited your original article, and in
this way you are building on the research established in your original article. This is an
effective method particularly when you are focused on seeking the latest research on
your topic. Again, Google Scholar is an effective resource.
5. Similar to looking at the citing articles, looking at the related articles for those you
have already found is an excellent way to uncover additional research related to your
topic. Be aware that related articles will likely be older than your current articles.
Again, Google Scholar, is a good starting point for looking at related articles. Results
are ranked by relevancy which means that the most similar articles should appear at
the top of your list of results. Additionally, several library databases provide links to
similar, related, or recommended articles.
6. Web of Knowledge is another valuable research tool for discovering more articles
related to your research topic, including seminal and high-impact articles, and for
conducting an in-depth analysis of citing articles for articles you have already found.
This is a step beyond looking at the citing articles in Google Scholar since Web of
Knowledge allows you to view another level of citing articles, as well as analyze results
by category, author, research area, and more.
7. SAGE Navigator is a database that provides an extensive overview of nearly 300 social
science topics (including business, education, and psychology) written by SAGE editors
and renowned academics. In addition to providing topic overviews, this database
allows you to browse a list of between 60 and 120 recommended readings from the key
literature, including journal articles, book chapters and more. These sources have been
hand-selected by experts in their field, and can save you valuable time in identifying
seminal research.
8. Finally, it is important to ensure that you are not limiting your searches only to
full-text articles. Academic databases make multiple citations available so scholars are
knowledgeable about the breadth of research that has been published. In other words,
you want to be able to find out that a particular book or article on your topic exists, even if
your library does not provide full-text access. Utilizing the free interlibrary loan service is
a useful way to expand your research by accessing full-text resources that are not available
through your library. Contact your librarian, or review your library’s interlibrary loan
guide for instructions regarding creating an account and placing loan requests.
Step 3: Synthesis
After you select the literature and organize your thoughts in terms of critically analyzing the
literature into discrete parts, you need to arrange and structure a clear and coherent argument.
In other words, the next step is to integrate or combine your resources and determine what
conclusions can be drawn from the resources as a group. To do this, you need to create and pres-
ent a synthesis—reorganizing and reassembling all the separate pieces and details so that the
discussion constitutes one integrated whole. In essence, a literature review requires a synthesis
of different subtopics to come to a greater understanding of the state of knowledge on a larger
issue. This works very much like a jigsaw puzzle. The individual pieces (arguments) must be
put together in order to reveal the whole (state of knowledge). Learning to synthesize and pres-
ent the identified information by concepts, themes, issues, or topics is necessary, as a literature
review is not simply an overview of reviewed literature, a study-by-study presentation, or a book
report. Appendix H, Sample Literature Review Theme Development, indicates all key elements of
effective thematic presentation.
What Is Synthesis?
Whereas analysis involves systematically breaking down the relevant literature into its constitu-
ent parts, synthesis is the act of making connections between those parts identified in the analy-
sis. Synthesis is about recasting the information into a new and different arrangement—one
that is coherent, logical, and explicit. This process might mean bringing new insights to an
existing body of knowledge. The intent is to make others think more deeply about and possibly
reevaluate what may hitherto have been taken for granted. Synthesis thus builds a knowledge
base and extends new lines of thinking.
Synthesis is not a data dump; it is a creative activity. In discussing the literature review,
Hart (2018) refers to the “research imagination.” An imaginative approach to searching and
reviewing the literature that includes having a broad view of the topic; being open to new ideas,
methods, and arguments; “playing” with different ideas to see whether you can make new link-
ages; and following ideas to see where they might lead. We see the literature review as somewhat
of a sculpture—a work of art that, in its molding, requires dedication, creativity, and flexibility.
Synthesis Versus Summary

A common challenge that students face when writing their literature review chapter is the ability
to synthesize information in a scholarly manner. A literature review is not a summary of stud-
ies or a list of studies; rather, you should be focusing on the common threads that hold together
groupings of studies. Instead of merely presenting each source or study one after the next (like an
annotated bibliography or a summary list of research), a literature review should be organized
according to each subtopic (issue or theme) that is included in the discussion, all related to
the larger topic. Presenting the literature in this way allows several authors to “speak” at once,
thereby creating a dialogue about a topic between multiple researchers and their findings.
It is imperative to understand that a literature review is a critical analysis, a comprehen-
sive understanding, and a synthesis of the existing research concerning a particular topic.
Eventually, the importance of as well as a gap or gaps in the existing knowledge base need to
be clearly indicated from the synthesis of the related research findings to support the need to
research the proposed topic. Summarizing and synthesizing information are both strategies that
are used in reading, review, and research. Both are important skills or techniques in making
sense of what one is reading. However, it is important to remember that they are different activi-
ties. Each has a different purpose, process, and outcome. Table 7.5, Comparison: Synthesis and
Summary, highlights the key differences between summarizing and synthesizing information.
TABLE 7.5 ■ Comparison: Synthesis and Summary
Synthesis Summary
An advanced reading technique or skill that A basic or intermediary reading technique.

requires critical analysis, creativity, and insight.
Combines and contrasts information and ideas Information is collated, reiterated, and restated.
from different sources.
Information from different sources is integrated Information is pulled together and listed to
to highlight important points of connection highlight important or key points.
and relatedness, to address similarities and
differences, and to draw conclusions.
Combines parts and elements from a variety of Addresses distinct sets of information. Each piece
sources into one unified or integrated entity. of information or source remains distinct and
separate.
Focuses on deeper ideas and details. Presents a cursory overview.
The final product reflects the author’s knowledge The final product indicates and describes what the
about the sources but also creates new insights sources stated.
or perspectives that add value to the intellectual
discussion.
Synthesis extends the literal meaning of a text to A summary captures the literal meaning of texts.
the inferential level. The final product achieves The final product demonstrates an understanding
new ways of thinking and understanding about a of the overall body of literature that was
body of literature. summarized.
How to Synthesize
The good news is that you are already experienced in synthesizing information. You infer rela-
tionships among sources probably on a daily basis, such as between a story you heard from a
news source and discussions about the same topic with others. Similarly, to synthesize the litera-
ture you have collected, you will look to find relationships between your scholarly sources. The
first step is digesting the material and understanding the content of the sources. The second
step is to review and critically analyze the sources. The third step is to synthesize—that is, going
beyond your critique to determine the relationships or patterns among sources, identifying and
then comparing and contrasting common concepts or themes. For example, you might find in
your readings that certain themes emerged, such as Theme A, B, and C. You might group infor-
mation from your sources by theme and then compare and contrast. Another scenario could be
that your critical analysis revealed that there was one seminal study done that all other research-
ers expanded upon. Are there overall themes or patterns in the literature? Based on whatever
patterns or themes you find, try to infer beyond what the sources have indicated. Determine
what this information is suggesting and whether it provides support and a direction for the
research topic. What do you believe the patterns or themes suggest? Do they suggest future
areas of inquiry? May they suggest a direction for your own research efforts?
An essential skill for the development of a well-synthesized literature review is learning how
to provide an evaluative critique of the work from other scholars. A critique of scholarly work
requires the ability to use high-level critical thinking skills; to write objectively and construc-
tively; and to provide ideas in clear, logically organized, and focused writing.
• Identify similarities or commonalities among the articles by group in terms of

concepts, patterns, and relationships. For example, did the authors use similar
conceptual or theoretical frameworks, sample participants, methodologies, or
instruments and procedures to collect data? How and in what ways were the findings
similar? Are any studies an extension of another? Remember, you should be noting
not only that articles are similar but how they are similar. In so doing, rather than
summarizing, you are highlighting comparisons among articles, providing relevant
information and at the same time synthesizing the various works.
• Determine the differences or contradictions among the articles by group. Again, you
should be noting not only that articles are different but also how they are different. For
example, did the authors use different theoretical or conceptual frameworks, sample
participants, methodologies, or instruments and procedures to collect data? In what
ways are the findings different or contradictory?
• Arrive at some general conclusions about each topic given the relationships inferred
from the group of articles within each topic. Try to detect the existence of any
reoccurring concepts, relationships, patterns, or themes and if any of these are in need
of further inquiry.
A key element that makes for good synthesis is integration, which is about making connec-
tions between and among ideas and concepts. It is about applying what you are researching
within a larger framework, thereby providing a new way of looking at a phenomenon. Your
literature review is a demonstration of how your research problem is situated within the larger
conversation and/or part of a broader theoretical scheme. To achieve a well-integrated literature
review, you must be sure to emphasize relatedness and organize the material in a well-reasoned
and meaningful way. The body of the literature review should provide an objective discussion
presenting a synthesis of the previous relevant research. Paragraphs should clearly indicate
related concepts or themes synthesized from the research review, any identified contradictory
concepts, and underlying related conceptual/theoretical framework(s) supported by American
Psychological Association–formatted, in-text, peer-reviewed reference citations published
within the past five years. Because your review should not read like a book report (one author
or study after another), you should strive to craft sentences and paragraphs that reflect multiple
sources in one reference. As a general rule, the majority of your reference citations should be
in parenthetical form to emphasize an explanation of content rather than what each reference
stated, or what each author did or said. For example, you would add the author and date of pub-
lication at the end of the sentence—that is, “(Bloomberg, 2018).” In contrast, the use of nonpar-
enthetical reference citations, or “Bloomberg (2018) stated,” places the focus on the author, not
on concepts.
Because a literature review is not simply a summary of different sources, it can be especially
difficult to organize the information in a way that makes the writing process simpler. One way
that seems helpful in organizing literature reviews is the synthesis matrix. The synthesis matrix
is a chart that allows a researcher to sort and categorize the different arguments presented on
an issue or topic. Refer to the two versions of synthesis matrices that follow and decide which
might work best for you. One way of creating a synthesis matrix is to organize your literature by
way of each study’s key components (Table 7.6). Another way to create a matrix is to organize
the reviewed literature by topics or main ideas (Table 7.7) These tables are designed to assist you
with synthesizing the literature in different ways (your choice!) and are intended as working
tools to be used in developing your literature review.
With Synthesis Matrix A, you will begin grouping studies according to your research com-
ponents. Across the top of the chart are the spaces to record relevant information pertaining to
each study. Each of your sources is then broken down into various categories. When the matrix
has been populated, and as you study your matrix closely, you will more clearly notice similari-
ties and differences across all the sources that you have listed. Based on what you see emerging
in the matrix, you will be able to start writing your review. As you find new information that
relates to your already identified topic, record it appropriately, adding to the matrix.
TABLE 7.6 ■ Synthesis Matrix A (Research Components)
Study/Research Components: ____________________________
Author(s)
(Year) Purpose Simila- Unique-
Title of Study Sample Methods Findings Themes rities nesses
Title A
Title B
Title C
TABLE 7.7 ■ Synthesis Matrix B (Topics or Main Ideas)
Topic or Main Idea: ____________________________
Source #1 Source #2 Source #3 Source #4
Main Idea A
Main Idea B
Main Idea C
Main Idea D
With Synthesis Matrix B, you will begin grouping studies according to topics or main
ideas. A new matrix can then be created for any new sources that you acquire and for new
topics or main ideas you have identified. Across the top of the chart are the spaces to record
sources (literature titles), and along the side of the chart are the spaces to record the main
points of argument regarding the topic at hand. As you examine your first source, you will
work vertically in the column belonging to that source, recording as much information as
possible about each significant idea presented in the work. Follow a similar pattern for all of
your subsequent sources. As you find new information that relates to your already identified
main points, record this in the pertinent row. In your new sources, you will also probably find
new main ideas that you need to add to your list at the left. As you write your review, you will
work horizontally in the row belonging to each point discussed. As you combine the infor-
mation presented in each row, you will begin to see each section of your paper taking shape.
Remember, some of the sources may not cover all of the main ideas listed on the left, but that
can be useful also. The gaps on your chart could provide clues about the gaps in the current
state of knowledge on your topic.
It is important to continue to point out that although the writing process as described might
seem somewhat linear, in actuality, the writing process is more cyclical, iterative, and recursive.
As you are writing, you might find you need additional resources. This means going back to
searching the literature, analyzing the information, and integrating this with existing work.
Similarly, you should work to stay current with research in your field, which may also lead you
to incorporate additional sources. This will certainly take time and energy as you go back and
forth. It cannot be stressed enough that synthesis is an essential component of a quality litera-
ture review. This will be an ongoing process where drafts are refined, revised, and reworked
until a final best version is crafted.
Step 4: Presenting the Synthesized Review

A literature review must be based on a well-thought-out design or plan that integrates the mate-
rial discussed. The results of your analysis can provide you with ideas for the structure of your
review. To present a coherent and logical review, it is important to create a detailed outline prior
to writing. You really cannot begin without this! An outline will save you time and effort in the
long run and will increase your probability of having an organized review. Don’t be surprised,
however, if the outline changes as you write. In fact, this is quite often the case, as you will need
to arrange and then rearrange to maintain a logical flow of thought. There are many differ-
ent ways to create an outline, as illustrated in Appendix I, Sample Literature Review Outlines.
Outlines can be structured section by section, with the use of headings and subheadings, or by
using a mind map tool such as Mindmeister. Using headings as the structural element right from
the start will help ensure that you address this important technical detail, and “get it right”, as
you structure the chapter with APA level headers. For more details about how to format head-
ings, including headings in the introduction of a paper, see information about headings and
headings in sample papers on the APA Style website. Mind maps are another excellent way to
create an outline for a literature review, and is a graphical representation of information that
conveys the relationship between individual ideas and concepts. No matter how complex or
broad a subject is, a mind map brings order to the chaos and helps you see the “bigger picture.”
To create the outline, you need to determine how various theorists define the topic and the
themes and/or patterns that have emerged. Themes and patterns translate into headings and
subheadings. Differentiating each major heading into logical subheadings gives structure to the
review as a whole, helping to advance the argument and clarifying the relationships among sec-
tions. Headings and subheadings also enable the reader to see at a glance what is covered in the
review. With a completed outline, you can begin to sort your references under their appropriate
headings and so begin to present your discussion. Following are some important guidelines for
writing.
Documentation Strategies
In the introduction section to your literature review let the reader know what resources and
strategies you used to conduct the review. For instance: The literature review in the study
was conducted by utilizing [name] University’s online databases, such as ProQuest, Ebsco
Host, SAGE Online Journals, and available databases in the Google Scholar and the disser-
tation collection at the [name] library. Multiple search options were used to restrict search
and access only to related topics, peer-reviewed and scholarly journals, and publications
published within the last five years. Specific search terms and keywords, such as “name these
term],” were used to navigate relevant resources. The combination of words such as [name
these terms] were used to locate relevant sources with more focus on specific themes of the
study.
Headings and Sub-Headings

Use headings and subheadings liberally to organize each section, and be sure to consult the style
manual to ensure correct usage and placement. Consider making a “concept map” of relevant
literature for organizational purposes. Each section should be reflective of deductive reasoning;
starting broadly and narrowing the focus as the chapter progresses. Use transitions to effectively
tie one section with another.
Be Selective
The literature cited should support the argument being made and demonstrate that the author
has a grasp of the major ideas and findings that pertain to their topic. A comprehensive litera-
ture review need not, however, include every piece of material that you have located and/or read.
Include only material that is directly relevant to your research problem and the purpose of your
study. Although all the material that you reviewed was necessary to help you to situate your own
study, not every citation with respect to an issue need be included. The use of too many or non-
selective references is an indication of poor scholarship and an inability to separate the central
from the peripheral.
Provide Integration and Critique

It is your task as a writer to integrate, rather than just report on, the material you have read.
Comment on the major issues that you have discovered. Never present a chain of isolated sum-
maries of previous studies; the focus should be on synthesis, the common threads that hold these
studies together. We have stressed throughout this book that you will need to demonstrate an
analytical and critically evaluative stance. Once you have pulled together all of the salient perspec-
tives of other authors vis-à-vis your topics, you need to stand back and provide critique. However,
providing a critique in an academic work does not mean you make a personal attack on the work of
others. When it comes to writing a critical evaluation, you must treat that work with due respect.
Ensure Legitimacy
In using the literature on a topic, you are using the ideas, concepts, and theories of others.
Therefore, it is your responsibility to cite sources correctly and comply with academic and legal
conventions. This means being scrupulous in your record keeping and ensuring that all details
of referenced works are accurately and fully cited. This includes work obtained via electronic
media such as the Internet, although copyright protection for data on the Internet is currently
in a state of flux.
Limit Use of Quotations

As stated in Chapter 2 of this book, try to limit the use of direct quotations and quote only
materials that are stated skillfully and are a clear reflection of a particular point of view. The
practice of liberally sprinkling the literature review with quoted material—particularly lengthy
quotations—is self-defeating; unessential quotations are a distraction from the line of
thought being presented. Mostly, you should paraphrase rather than quote directly. However
remember that any ideas whatsoever that you borrow from others require proper citation or
acknowledgment.
Employ Scholarly Academic Style

There are various conventions in academic writing, including such things as the use of certain
words and phrases. Some words that might be common in everyday language and conversation
are inappropriate for use in a dissertation. For example, “it is obvious,” “it is a fact,” “every-
one will agree,” and “normally” are assumptions and presuppositions and as such are often
imprecise. In addition, be sure to guard against using discriminatory or non-inclusive language.

Present an objective overview and be careful not to insert opinion-based wording. Bear in mind
at all times you are writing not an editorial column but a piece of scholarly research to be read by
the academic community. You can benefit from seeking feedback from others. It often takes a
critical, objective eye to point out gaps, flaws, and inconsistencies in one’s writing.
Revise, Revise, and Revise

A first draft should be just that—a preliminary, tentative outline of what you want to say based
on a planned structure. Every writer goes through a series of drafts, gradually working toward
something with which he or she can be satisfied. Often what is helpful is to distance yourself
from your review and then go back and revisit. Time away for thinking and reflection tends to
create “aha moments” and fresh insights. The final draft should be as accurate as possible in
terms of both content and structure.
Step 5: Develop the Theoretical or Conceptual Framework

As your literature review is being developed, the synthesis of the research findings should be
organized around a viable theoretical or conceptual framework. The review and critique of
existing literature should begin to build a logical framework for the research, and justify the
study by identifying gaps in the literature and demonstrating how the study will contribute to
knowledge development. Development of this framework, which follows the literature review,
posits new relationships and perspectives vis-à-vis the literature reviewed, thereby providing
the theoretical or conceptual link between the research problem, the literature, and the meth-
odology selected for your research. In this way, this framework is the scaffolding of the study,
drawing on theory, research, and experience, and as such, becoming the heuristic device or
model that guides your study. Most important, it becomes a working tool consisting of categories
that emanate from the literature. These categories then become the repository for reporting the
findings and guiding data analysis and interpretation, and so the framework in effect becomes
an analytic framework; a useful working tool. You may be thinking that this still sounds very
abstract, and with good reason.
Experience has shown that the theoretical or conceptual framework is one area that many
doctoral candidates struggle with as they begin to prepare for their dissertation research.
Melding a theoretical or conceptual framework explicitly within the dissertation displays
scholarly maturity—that is, increased capacity to think about the conceptual background
and context of the research. Students are expected to raise their level of thinking from micro
(content) to meta (process) levels of conceptualization. Engaging with the framework is an essen-
tial prerequisite within a dissertation, as this is the means through which to articulate the wider
theoretical or conceptual significance of the research, the chosen research design, the study’s
findings, and how the study will ultimately make a contribution to knowledge. Traditionally,
both PhD and EdD research must include a relevant framework to frame or inform every aspect
of the dissertation. Using a theoretical or conceptual framework for your dissertation can help
you to better analyze past events by providing a particular set of questions to ask, and a particu-
lar perspective to use when examining your topic.
As a research-practitioner, the author recognizes the significance of seeking intellectual

rigor and the role of theoretical or conceptual frameworks in achieving this, and students very
often encounter difficulties in conceptualizing the framework vis-à-vis their own research. The
reason for this knowledge gap is that the term is a somewhat abstract notion, conjuring up a
“model” or “diagram” of some sort. Moreover, there do not appear to be uniform and consis-
tent definitions, and discussions in the literature are often not clear, precise, or fully explained.
Moreover, oftentimes experienced researchers and advisors themselves encounter challenges in
guiding candidates as to what constitutes a rigorous and meaningful theoretical or conceptual
framework (Anfara & Mertz, 2015; Ravitch & Riggan, 2017).
These respective difficulties result in large part from research methodology texts lacking
a common language regarding the nature of theoretical and conceptual frameworks. As the
author of this book, who thoroughly reviewed the qualitative research literature, it became
increasingly clear that those writers who do attempt to explain the notion of theoretical or
conceptual frameworks do not do so conclusively and therefore oftentimes offer only vague
or insufficient guidance to students in terms of understanding the actual role and place of the
framework in the dissertation. Moreover, these two terms are usually used interchangeably in
the literature, and some argue that they are in fact two different constructs, both by definition
and as actualized during the research process (Adom et al., 2018; Collins & Stockton, 2018;
Imenda, 2014; Kivunja, 2018). As such, with the prevailing confusion, the structure and func-
tion of this framework continue to mystify and frustrate. Although both types of frameworks
are used to understand a research problem and guide the development, collection, and analysis
of research, it's important to understand the difference between the two. When working on
coursework or dissertation research, make sure to clarify what is being asked and any specific
course or program requirements. Questions that students regularly ask include the following:
• What is a theoretical or conceptual framework, and from where is it derived?

• Why should I include this framework in my dissertation? That is, what purpose does
it serve in the research process? And what are its role, function, and application in the
dissertation?
• How can the theoretical or conceptual framework strengthen my study? In other
words, what is its value?
• What might be the limitations of a theoretical or conceptual framework in my study?
• How do I create and develop my study’s framework, and where would I place it in the
dissertation?
Each of these key questions is addressed next.
Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks: Making a Distinction

At the outset, it is important to point out that while the terms theoretical framework and con-
ceptual framework are usually used interchangeably, they are two different constructs, both by
definition and as actualized during the research process. This view, proposed by Imenda (2014),
Adom et al. (2018), Collins and Stockton (2018), and Kivunja (2018), claims that whereas a
deductive approach to literature review typically makes use of theories and theoretical frame-
works, an inductive approach tends to lead to the development of a conceptual framework,
which may take the form of a (conceptual) model. A theoretical framework refers essentially to
the theory that a researcher may choose to guide them in their research. A theoretical frame-
work is a single formal theory or a combination of related theories, typically required in a PhD
dissertation where the primary goal is to contribute to the existing knowledge base. When a
study is designed around a theoretical framework, the theory is the primary means in which the
research problem is understood and investigated.
Thus, a theoretical framework is the application of a theory to offer an explanation of an
event or shed some light on a particular phenomenon or research problem. A conceptual frame-
work includes one or more formal theories (in part or whole) as well as other concepts and
empirical findings from the literature. It is used to show relationships among these ideas and
how they relate to the research study. Conceptual frameworks are commonly seen in qualitative
research in the social and behavioral sciences, for example, because often one theory cannot
fully address the phenomena being studied. In some cases, a research problem can be meaning-
fully researched not in reference to a theory but rather in terms of concepts inherent within
theory. In such cases, the researcher may have to synthesize existing views in the literature con-
cerning a given situation, both theoretical and from empirical findings. The synthesis that is
developed may be called a conceptual framework or model, which essentially represents an inte-
grated way of looking at the problem. Such a model could then be used in place of a theoretical
framework. A conceptual framework is therefore the result of bringing together a number of
related concepts to provide a broader understanding of a phenomenon of interest or of a research
problem. The process of arriving at a conceptual framework is an inductive process whereby
small individual pieces (concepts) fit together to illustrate possible relationships. Viewed this
way, a conceptual framework is derived from concepts, and a theoretical framework is derived
from a theory.
A research study is a complex system consisting of multiple interconnected parts. The theo-
retical or conceptual framework will constitute the glue that ties these parts together and estab-
lishes a sense of interdependence. Grant and Osanloo (2014) define a theoretical framework as,
. . . the foundation from which all knowledge is constructed (metaphorically and liter-
ally) for a research study. It serves as the structure and support for the rationale for the
study, the problem statement, the purpose, the significance, and the research questions.
The theoretical framework provides a grounding base, or an anchor, for the literature
review, and most importantly, the methods and analysis. (p. 12)
Ravitch and Mittenfelner Carl (2020) view a conceptual framework that functions as an “inte-
grative ecosystem,” describing it in the following way:
The conceptual framework is a generative source of thinking, planning, conscious
action, and reflection throughout the research process. A conceptual framework
makes the case for why a study is significant and relevant, and for how the study design
appropriately and rigorously answers the research questions . . . When conceptualized

holistically, a conceptual framework serves as the “connective tissue” of a research study
in that it helps you to integrate and mobilize your understanding of the various influ-
ences on and aspects of a specific research study in ways that create a more intentional
systematic process of explicitly connecting the various parts of the study. (pp. 33–35)
These authors go on further to explain,

The guiding sources for constructing a conceptual framework include (a) the researcher,
(b) tacit theory or working conceptualizations, (c) the goals of a study, (d) study setting
and context, (e) broader macro-sociopolitical contexts, (f) formal or established theory.
(2020, p. 39)
This framework therefore guides the entire research process, enabling researchers to make
reasoned defensible choices, match research questions with those choices, align methods of
analysis with research questions, and thereby guide data collection, analysis, and interpreta-
tion. Many researchers contend that without a theoretical or conceptual framework, there
would be no way to make reasoned decisions in the research process (Grant & Osanloo, 2014;
Marshall et al., 2022; Maxwell, 2013; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Miles et al., 2019; Ravitch &
Riggan, 2017). Indeed, the framework that you will develop for your study will no doubt play an
extremely central role throughout the entire research process and, most important, in the final
analysis. Without theoretical or conceptual development and refinement, and a clear relation-
ship to your research design and implementation, the study could remain weakly conceptual-
ized, undertheorized, and less generative of quality data.
Miles et al. (2019) define a conceptual framework as “the current version of the researcher’s
map of the territory being investigated” (p. 20). Implicit in this view is that conceptual frame-
works evolve as research evolves. This notion accommodates purpose (boundaries) with flex-
ibility (evolution) and coherence of the research (plan/analysis/conclusion), which all stem from
the study’s framework. It is important to realize that thinking about your theoretical or con-
ceptual framework and actually building it is an iterative process. As such, an initial framework
can—and most likely will—be revised, reflecting emergent findings and new insights (Anfara
& Mertz, 2015; Maxwell, 2013; Ravitch & Riggan, 2017). Of interest is that Weaver-Hart
(1988) argues that conceptual frameworks contain an inherent dilemma, recognizing that the
term itself is a contradiction because concepts are abstract whereas frameworks are concrete. As
a consequence, she views the conceptual framework as “a structure for organizing and support-
ing ideas; a mechanism for systematically arranging abstractions; sometimes revolutionary or
original, and usually rigid” (Weaver-Hart, 1988, p. 11).
Whatever type of framework you choose for your study (be it conceptual or theoretical)
while guiding and grounding the research, it evolves and unfolds both generatively and recur-
sively as the research process progresses. As such, your chosen framework should be construed as
including both rigor and fluidity in its iterative development and refinement. Because it is so cen-
tral a component of your dissertation, and because its scope is far reaching throughout the sub-
sequent chapters of a dissertation—ultimately serving as an analytic framework—development
of the theoretical or conceptual framework requires careful, logical, and thoughtful explication.
More about your analytic framework is forthcoming in Chapter 9 of this book.
Role, Function, and Application of the Framework

As mentioned above, the terms theoretical framework and conceptual framework are often used
interchangeably, and rarely is a clear differentiation made. A theory is a relationship among
related assumptions and generalizations. By virtue of its application nature, good theory in the
social sciences is of value precisely because it fulfills one primary purpose: to explain the mean-
ing, nature, and challenges of a phenomenon, often experienced but unexplained in the world
in which we live, so that we may use that knowledge and understanding to act in more informed
and effective ways. Theory gives you the means to go beyond your relatively narrow research
problem and think about it in a more principled, generalized way, to build collective knowledge
about the issues, problems, and solutions that have relevance within broader spheres of interest,
research, and praxis. Concepts are defined as interrelated ideas that enable us to impose some
sort of meaning on the world; through them, reality is given sense, order, and coherence (i.e.,
concepts are the means by which we are able to come to terms with our experience). This idea
suggests conceptualization as “meaning making” in research. The implication is that a con-
ceptual framework is more than just a set of theories and issues related to the research topic.
The framework informs the reader of the study’s substantive focus and purpose. In developing
the framework, the researcher should be able to say, “Here’s how I am positioning my research
problem within an established arena of ideas, and here’s why it matters.” In this way, personal
observations and experiences are transformed into systematic inquiry by reviewing the work of
other scholars and practitioners, thereby building a theoretical or conceptual rationale to guide
your study.
What is key is the cyclical role for theoretical or conceptual frameworks in providing coher-
ence for research. A well-conceived framework is influenced by and at the same time influences the
research process at all levels and at all stages. Developing the framework compels researchers to
be explicit about what they think they are doing and also helps them to be selective—to decide
which are the important features of the research, which relationships are likely to be of signifi-
cance, and hence what data they are going to go ahead and collect and analyze (Maxwell, 2013;
Ravitch & Riggan, 2017). As explained by Adom et. al. (2018), the theoretical or conceptual
framework explains the path of a research study and at the same time frames and grounds the
study firmly within meaningful constructs. The chosen framework guides and should reso-
nate with every aspect of the research process from the definition of the problem, literature
review, methodology, presentation and discussion of the findings as well as the conclusions that
are drawn. The framework also assists in stimulating research while ensuring the extension of
knowledge by providing both direction and impetus to the research inquiry, thereby enhancing
the empiricism and rigor of the research.
It becomes clear, then, that the relationships between theoretical variables, constructs,
or concepts are an essential component of high-quality research and are expressed explicitly
through conceptualizations and frameworks. The conceptual framework itself gives meaning
to the relationship between variables by illustrating that theories have the potential to provide
insight and understanding regarding research topics; it is the device that makes sense of data.
In this way, the conceptual framework becomes the lens through which your research problem
is viewed, providing a theoretical overview of intended research as well as some sort of method-
ological order within that process.
A well-defined theoretical or conceptual framework contributes toward thinking more
acutely about your research. Like a telescope or microscope , the framework narrows and begins
to focus your field of vision, thus helping you limit the scope of your study. After all, it is usually
not possible to study everything about your research topic. It helps define the research problem
and purpose, and aids in the selection of appropriate bodies of literature for review. It serves
as a filtering tool for developing appropriate research questions. Additionally, it provides the
boundaries or scaffolding for your study, acting as a guide for data collection and analysis, and
interpretation of findings. This way of viewing the framework locates it as fulfilling an integrat-
ing function between highlighting theories or concepts that offer explanations of the issues or
phenomena to be explored, and determining the fieldwork to be undertaken. This view of the
framework thus locates it as providing coherence to the research act through providing traceable
connections between theoretical perspectives, research strategy and design, fieldwork, and the
significance of the findings. A framework is, quite simply, the very structure of the research and
how the different components are brought together; essentially a bridge to explain the research
problem and purpose and the actual practice of conducting the research.
Viewed this way, then, the framework fulfills two distinct roles: First, it provides a theoreti-
cal or conceptual clarification of what researchers intend to investigate and enables readers to
be clear about what the research seeks to achieve and how that will be achieved. Second, the
conceptual framework forms the theoretical and methodological bases for development of the
study and analysis of the findings. Students often do not realize how critical the framework is
in guiding the analysis of the data that have been collected. It cannot be stressed enough that
the framework is a practical working tool for guiding the analysis of the data that is collected,
and therefore serves as the foundation for what will become your study’s analytic framework.
How the theoretical or conceptual framework functions specifically with regard to data analysis
is elaborated upon in this book's Chapter 9, “Analyzing Data and Reporting Findings”. In that
chapter you will come to see your framework as the “golden thread” that can sew your disserta-
tion together by establishing coherence across the literature review, research problem and pur-
pose, research questions, methodology, analysis of data, and finally the conclusions you are able
to draw from the study’s findings.
The Value of the Framework

Theory or concepts help to situate a study within ongoing conversations in relevant fields, guid-
ing all aspects of the study and adding new dimensions and layers of understanding about the
phenomenon of interest, and hence extend the meaningfulness of data. As Grant and Osanloo
(2014) describe it,
Theory provides clear directions for how the researcher has moved beyond intuition and
“pre-theoretical commitments” to a solid basis for understanding and conceptualizing
a topic within the context of the study. A theoretical framework permits the researcher
to identify the design and the evaluation of a problem in a way that will allow the theory
to be measured, tested, and extended to serve as a guide for the design of a study. (p. 21)
A well-conceived framework should serve to guide your study and play a central role
throughout the entire research process. The framework can strengthen your study in multiple
ways:
1. Organizes and focuses the study. Qualitative researchers can feel overwhelmed by
the mountain of data that confronts them. First, by serving as a “sieve” or “lens,”
the framework assists the researcher in the process of sorting through the data and
knowing how the pieces drawn from the various data relate to each other and where
they “fit” in the larger picture. Second, framework “frames” every aspect of the study in
terms of both the process and the product, illustrating how theory or concepts intersect
with other components of the study, including research questions, methods, working
assumptions, data analysis, and analysis and interpretation of findings.
2. Provides the “idea context,” making an argument for the rationale and significance of
the study for its intended field and discipline.
3. Is an explicit statement of theoretical or conceptual assumptions that permits the
reader to evaluate them critically. Making your framework explicit provides clarity for
the reader as to exactly what your study is about. By not grounding your study within
an explicit conceptual or theoretical frame, your study takes on “so what?” quality.
4. Situates the research within a scholarly conversation and connects the researcher to the
existing body of knowledge. Guided by relevant theory or concepts, the framework
provides you with labels and categories that help explain and develop descriptions and
analyses.
5. Articulating the theoretical or conceptual assumptions of a research study forces you to
address questions of “why” and “how.” It permits you to move from simply describing a
phenomenon observed to generalizing about various aspects of that phenomenon.
6. Having a theoretical or conceptual structure helps you to identify the limits to those
generalizations. The framework specifies which key variables or factors influence a
phenomenon of interest. It alerts you to examine how those key variables or factors
might differ and under what circumstances.
7. The framework, once developed and articulated, becomes the means by which new
research data can be interpreted and coded for future use, as well as a means to guide
and inform future research efforts and improve professional practice.
8. The framework ultimately serves as a mechanism to consider and reflect on the
significance and value of your research once it is completed, as well as to consider next
steps and actionable recommendations.
Potential Limitations of the Framework

While the theoretical or conceptual framework has a role and function in the dissertation
process, there are some critiques that are worthy of mention and that should be taken into
consideration:
Anfara and Mertz (2015) make an important statement about the role and function of the
theoretical framework in qualitative research. In acknowledging that the term does not have
a clear and consistent definition, they also point out very clearly that a framework allows the
researcher to “see” and understand certain aspects of the phenomenon being studied while hid-
ing other aspects. A theoretical framework can reveal and/or conceal meaning and understand-
ing. It can allow us to see familiar phenomena in novel ways, but it can also blind us to certain
aspects of the phenomena or distort the phenomena being studied by filtering out critical pieces
of data. As such, it is important to bear in mind that while your framework provides a mean-
ingful way of seeing, thinking, and understanding, no theoretical or conceptual framework
provides one perfect or complete explanation of what is being studied, an important consid-
eration in your research process in terms of the effects of your framework on your research
(including data collection as well as data analysis). Indeed, as exemplified in Anfara and Mertz
(2015), using different frameworks on the same data can broaden and deepen the understand-
ing derived. Moreover, “a framework can potentially disrupt the dominant narrative in the field,
and even what counts as knowledge about a phenomenon” (Anfara & Mertz, 2015, p. 229).
These authors also point out two other potential additional limitations of conceptual or theo-
retical frameworks: First, while the framework certainly has the ability to organize and focus
a study, the framework could be too reductionist, stripping the phenomenon of its complexity
and interest. Second, the framework could be too deterministic, forcing the researcher to “fit”
the data into predetermined categories.
The following section presents a description of how a theoretical or conceptual framework
is developed, how it is evolves into an analytic framework to become a coding scheme that is
used to organize, sort, and analyze the data.
CREATING YOUR THEORETICAL OR CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Once you have spent some time thinking about the role of the theoretical or conceptual frame-
work in your research, it is time to start thinking about finding a potential framework that
might fit meaningfully with your study, and provide the lens for understanding your study.
Conceptualization and development of a theoretical or conceptual framework for your study is
an evolving, iterative, generative, and reflexive process that integrates all aspects of the study in
an explicit and transparent way. You are no doubt thinking how to find a conceptual or theoreti-
cal framework. Remember, the framework does not just emerge automatically, nor is it derived
from one single theorist’s book. Rather, it is developed by researchers themselves who uncover
what is relevant among the ideas circulating around their research problem, making new con-
nections, and then formulating an argument that positions them to appropriately address that
problem. So, the good news is that you have an opportunity to create a unique framework for
your study! The best way to select an appropriate framework is to immerse yourself in the empir-
ical literature related to your topic of interest. You may find one more than one relevant theory,
and further exploration will enable you to make an appropriate selection. Alternatively, you may
not find a specific theory to guide your study; however, you will certainly discover a variety of
interrelated core concepts and sub-concepts from which to draw on.
Because the theoretical or conceptual framework is meant to be a solid foundation on which
to build your research, it is important to examine your own epistemological beliefs when mak-
ing a selection. Our beliefs are influenced by assumptions, values, and ethics. In this vein, it is
important to reflect on your own worldview and way of conceptualizing problems. What is the
lens with which you view the world? For example, if you view the world from a pragmatic lens,
choosing critical theory would not be the best way for you to proceed with a theoretical frame-
work, whereas, if you view the world through a lens of interconnectedness of human beings,
social network theory might be a good choice as your study’s theoretical framework. There is no
one theory that fits best with any inquiry. However, it is the researcher’s responsibility to select
and provide a clear rationale for the choice of theory or concepts to ensure that this aligns and
supports the structure of the study’s purpose, research questions, significance, and design.
In order to select the most appropriate and best-suited theoretical framework for your dis-
sertation research, consider the following guidelines:
1. Begin by identifying your beliefs, values, or worldview.

2. Consider several theories or philosophical viewpoints that intersect meaningfully with
your epistemological beliefs, values, or worldview and broaden your way of thinking
about the concepts in your study.
3. Develop a working knowledge of each of these theories or viewpoints and try to
understand why each theory is important to you.
4. Conduct a brief literature review to find support for your theories.
5. Consult the ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database to review how others have
applied the specific theories you are considering.
6. Consider arguments that oppose your beliefs and/or theories.
7. Apply answers to “how” the theory connects to your problem, the study’s purpose,
significance, and design.
8. Having gone through the steps above, you will finally be able to select one theoretical
framework that provides a solid, descriptive ‘blueprint’ for your reader. As outlined
by Grant and Osanloo (2014), rich theories will offer both an elevation blueprint
(i.e., provide structure for the dissertation) and a floor plan (i.e., provide concepts and
purpose). This will help you focus your study’s design and analysis plan to better build
your research.
Although presented here in a somewhat stepwise fashion, please remember that this
process is not linear, but rather cyclical and iterative. Building your framework is in effect
a dynamic sense-making process, helping to refine the research as it progresses—as much
guiding the study as it is derived from the study. Indeed, the framework generates the
focus of the research as much as it is informed and shaped by it (Ravitch & Riggan, 2017).
Personal observations and experiences are thereby transformed into systematic inquiry by
reviewing the work of other scholars and practitioners on the topic, thereby building a theo-
retical or conceptual rationale to guide the study. The researcher’s choice of a theory or con-
cepts provides structure to the entire dissertation. The framework that is developed offers
a common world view or lens from which to support one’s thinking on the problem and
analysis of data.
The process of developing your framework requires deep thinking and critical analysis on
your part. It also requires creativity and innovation, since your framework will become the
basis for understanding, analyzing, and designing ways to investigate relationships within the
social system you are studying. Think of a philosophy, theory, and/or any relevant concepts
on which the topical issue of your dissertation is based. To start generating ideas, brainstorm
all possibilities! Review any key social science theories that might be related to your study
and choose one or more that can explain or shed light on your research problem and purpose.
There are many different lenses—including psychological theories, social theories, organiza-
tional theories, economic theories, and social justice theories—any of which may be used to
examine and define concepts and explain phenomena. Often times, these frameworks may
come from an area outside of your immediate academic discipline. Remember, too, that it
is quite usual to develop and discard several potential theoretical or conceptual frameworks
until one is finally chosen. Again, this is part of the iterative qualitative research process, so
don’t be dismayed!
A review of the literature for studies similar to yours will reveal what types of theoretical
or conceptual frameworks other researchers have utilized. You are highly encouraged to read
through the literature review chapters or sections of dissertations and journal articles related
to your study because in this way, you will begin to see how this topic was approached by
other scholars. Remember to access peer reviewed literature only, (not “popular sources” such
as Google or Wikipedia). Your institution’s library is certainly a good place to start. Begin
by using key words that will enable a thorough search. Be sure to connect with a librarian if
you need assistance or support with your search. As certain theories resonate with you, dig
in deeper by reading the original theorist’s works and also taking time to explore relevant
qualitative research texts. Keep a list of the theories you come across as you are exploring so
that you can return to these later as you narrow your focus. Through a brainstorming exer-
cise you will start to more closely narrow your list, by more closely examining only two to
three possible theories, making detailed notes for yourself. Table 7.8, Theoretical Framework
Brainstorming Template, is a tool for collating the information you have gathered pertain-
ing to potential frameworks that are relevant to your topic area. Check your notes carefully
TABLE 7.8 ■ Theoretical Framework Brainstorming Template
Theory Notes
Name the theory: Definition: Here you will define the theory using appropriate
citations
Description: Here you will describe the theory in sufficient detail

so that a reader can understand what it entails and how it might be
applied to particular problems or issues. Include details regarding
how has the theory may have changed and evolved since its original
development.
Application: Here you will explain (a) How might this theory help
frame your work? (b) How can your work potentially contribute to a
deeper understanding of this theory?
References: Here you will provide the peer reviewed literature you
accessed to review this theory (Do not include any popular sources
like Google or Wikipedia)
Theory #1 Definition:
Name the Theory Description:
Application:
References:
Application:
References:
Application:
References:
against this template to ensure you are identifying and recording all relevant information,
and in so doing, create a list of “theoretical annotations”. Appendix J, Theoretical Framework
Brainstorming Samples builds on Table 7.8 by offering some examples of a completed theoreti-
cal framework template.
As you work through and develop your template, reflect on your study’s title and research
problem. The research problem anchors your entire study and forms the basis from which
you construct your theoretical or conceptual framework. Also, discuss with your advisor the
assumptions or propositions of these theories, with a focus on their potential relevance and con-
nection to your research.
PRESENTING YOUR THEORETICAL OR CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
The review and critique of existing literature culminates in a theoretical or conceptual frame-
work. The framework is described in detailed narrative form and can also be summarized and
displayed as a schematic diagram—that is, a visual device that represents the overall design of a
research project including key concepts and their relationships. Thinking and reflective inquiry
require that you create structures that will enable you to examine your own assumptions and ask
deep questions of your research. In this regard, diagrams of various kinds become useful and
relevant.
Diagrams may include mind maps, flowcharts, tree diagrams, and so on. A concept map
(Cañas & Novak, 2005; Kane & Trochim, 2006; Maxwell, 2013; Miles & Huberman, 1994;
Miles et al., 2019; Wheeldon & Ahlberg, 2012) is one type of diagram that lays out key ideas
related to your area of research and indicates relationships between these areas. Concept map-
ping entails plotting the conceptual “space” of your research and is a useful medium for think-
ing about information and visualizing relationships in different ways, developing and testing
ideas, and containing the study by indicating and highlighting connections, gaps, and/or
contradictions. Concept maps can also assist in data analysis in a number of ways, assisting
researchers in the development of deeper insights by recognizing explicit and implicit meanings
and assumptions (Wheeldon & Ahlberg, 2012).
Used as a learning and teaching technique, concept mapping visually illustrates the rela-
tionships among a set of concepts and ideas. Often represented in circles or boxes, concepts are
linked by words and phrases that explain the connections between the ideas, helping students
organize and structure their thoughts to further understand information and discover new rela-
tionships. Most concept maps represent a hierarchical structure, with the overall broad concept
first, with connected subtopics and more specific concepts following. Concepts are usually pre-
sented as boxes or circles, and are connected to each other (or not) with lines, arrows, or sym-
bols, indicating some type of relationship among them. For a thematic analysis, boxes typically
represent concepts such as themes identified in the data (i.e., codes) or higher-level conceptual
themes the researcher generates. Current qualitative software packages are becoming increas-
ingly sophisticated in terms of concept-mapping functions that depict complex conceptual rela-
tionships. Concept maps can be developed collaboratively with colleagues or advisors and as
such can engender the high-level conversation and dialogue that is necessary to promote, stimu-
late, and expand reflective inquiry.
A diagram is more than just a repository of thought, however; it is a working and living
document that arises from analysis. As such, the diagram becomes an important analytic tool
in your qualitative research process. As Corbin and Strauss (2015) explain, diagrams “begin as
rudimentary representations of thought, and grow in complexity, density, clarity, and accuracy
as the research progresses” (p. 117). It is important that while you may choose to present your
conceptual framework in diagrammatic or pictorial form, you should be prepared to explain,
describe, and articulate that diagram in great detail, including all major constructs or concepts
as well as relationships among all the key elements.
Remember, there is no single way to go about developing, using, articulating, and present-
ing a theoretical or conceptual framework. A useful starting point is to engage in a process
of critical inquiry and self-examination, and to continue this critical stance throughout the
research process. Identification of your own personal and professional motivation for engaging
in your chosen research topic or phenomenon is a useful beginning. Ask yourself why you have
engaged in your research, what about it interests you, how your motivation might impact your
research approach, what are your underlying assumptions and hunches, and what informs these
assumptions and hunches. Next, proceed to ask yourself questions that relate to the broader
intellectual conversations in your field, as these constitute the context and background for your
research: Ask yourself what are some of the key arguments, what your stance is vis-à-vis these
arguments, what are the key critical questions that you have vis-à-vis conversations in the field,
how you conceptualize your research in relation to these conversations, and what you hope your
study will contribute to the overall intellectual conversation.
The reflexive questions that follow can serve as prompts for journaling throughout the dis-
sertation process, and in this case, the literature review chapter of your dissertation, in which
you are developing your literature review and your study’s theoretical or conceptual frame-
work. Remember, the major purpose of reviewing the literature is to determine what has already
been examined as it relates to your topic, thereby highlighting the significance of your research
problem. This affords you the understanding and insight needed to situate your study within
an existing “conversation”; acquire a deep understanding of your topic and research problem;
discover what contributions other writers and researchers have made relative to your topic and/
or research problem; and become aware of any key issues and debates in the field, thereby begin-
ning to develop a “space” for your own work. A review of the literature guides your study, both
during the development phase as well as during analysis. Development of a theoretical or con-
ceptual framework is for the purpose of proposing new relationships and perspectives vis-à-vis
the literature reviewed, thereby providing a theoretical or conceptual link between the research
problem, the literature, and the methodology selected for your research.
REFLEXIVE QUESTIONS
LITERATURE REVIEW
Review of the Literature
1. Have I considered the key relevant bodies of literature that might relate to my research
topic and research questions, thereby adequately framing the context of my research
problem?
2. How and in what ways have my assumptions informed the way I understand and define the
research problem, based on which I have selected what research to review?
3. Have I addressed the major theoretical conversations and debates in the field(s) around
my research topic (both current and historical)?
4. Am I cognizant of the ways in which different studies and fields of study intersect and
diverge, and have I reported these relationships accurately?
(Continued)
(Continued)
5. Have I sufficiently considered and addressed how my research topic or research problem
is framed or studied differently within and across fields?
6. Have I adequately addressed and critiqued all relevant literature, including elements that
I had not expected or perhaps chosen not to address?
Theoretical or Conceptual Framework
1. In what ways will my theoretical or conceptual framework serve as a relevant and mean-
ingful structure for my study?
2. Why did I select this framework, and what are the possibilities for the chosen framework
to substantiate my research problem?
3. Have I considered alternative framework options?
4. If there were other options that I considered, why did I choose not to include these? On
what factors did I base my decision?
Broadly speaking, a literature review is a narrative that integrates, synthesizes, and critiques
the research and thinking around a particular topic. It sets the broad context of the study,
clearly demarcates what is and is not within the scope of the investigation, and justifies those
decisions. A literature review should not only report the claims made in the existing litera-
ture but also examine it critically. Such an examination of the literature enables the reader
to distinguish what has been and still needs to be learned and accomplished in the area of
study. Moreover, in a good review, the researcher not only summarizes the existing literature
but also synthesizes it in a way that permits a new perspective. Thus, a good literature review
is the basis of both theoretical and methodological sophistication, thereby improving the
quality and usefulness of subsequent research. As the foundation of the research project, a
comprehensive review of the literature in a dissertation should accomplish several distinct
objectives:
• Frame the research problem by setting it within a broader context and current body of
knowledge related to the study’s topic of inquiry.
• Focus the purpose of your study more precisely.
• Lead to the refinement of research questions.
• Form the basis for determining the rationale and significance of your study.
• Enable you to convey your understanding of your research approach, as well as the specific
data collection methods employed.
• Link your findings to previous studies.
• Place research within a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art
developments.
• Enable you to justify, support, and substantiate your study’s findings.
• Contribute to analysis and interpretation of your study’s findings.
• Enable you to develop a theoretical or conceptual framework that can be used to guide
your research.
It should be apparent that the literature review is a sophisticated form of research in its own
right that requires a great deal of research skill and insight. You are expected to identify
appropriate topics or issues, justify why these are the appropriate choices for addressing the
research problem, search for and retrieve the appropriate literature, analyze and critique the
literature, create new understandings of the topic through synthesis, and develop a concep-
tual framework that will provide the underlying structure for your study. Your conceptual or
theoretical framework emanates from your literature review and is used to limit the scope of
the relevant data by focusing on specific concepts and/or theories and defining the specific
viewpoint (framework) that you as the researcher will take in analyzing and interpreting the
data to be gathered. Your conceptual framework will also provide the basis for understanding
the essence of your study and building knowledge by confirming or challenging theoretical
assumptions.
Thinking about the entire literature review process may initially be overwhelming and
intimidating. Instead of viewing it as one big whole, think of it as a series of steps—and steps
within those steps. Tackle each topic one by one and set small achievable goals within each topic
area. Be sure to subdivide your work into manageable sections, taking on and refining each sec-
tion one at a time. The important point, and one that we stress throughout, is that you should
proceed in stages. Like the skier traversing the terrain, the best way to be successful is to divide
and conquer!

Preparing the Literature ✓ Are you familiar with all available resources, including library
Review indexing systems and electronic databases?
✓ Have you set up your own systems for identifying, retrieving,

organizing, and storing your information?
✓ Have you made sure that all information is securely saved by way of
electronic storage and backup systems?
(Continued)

Writing the Literature ✓ Do you have a clear introduction to this chapter that includes your
Review purpose statement (if required) as well as an explanation of how the
chapter will be organized?
✓ Does your review show a clear understanding and critique of each

topic?
✓ Do you write with authority and develop a critical perspective in
discussing the work of others?
✓ Is the review comprehensive? Does it cover the major issues and

thinking around each topic?
✓ Does your review adequately frame the context of your specific

research problem?
✓ Does your review highlight the significance of your research

problem?
✓ Does the review reflect appropriate bodies of peer-reviewed

literature?
✓ Does your review include relevant historical as well as current and

most up-to-date coverage?
✓ Have you identified the key readings and authors (including seminal
authors) in your area of research?
✓ Does the path of your argument flow logically?
✓ Is the review analytical and critical, and not merely summative and
descriptive? Do you include opposing points of view?
✓ Is the review well organized and systematically presented?
✓ Do you include an introductory paragraph that outlines the way you

organize the different bodies of literature?
✓ Are the methods for conducting the literature review sufficiently
described?
✓ Does the order of headings and subheadings seem logical?
✓ Do you include logical segues between sections?
✓ Do you make use of transitions to link and integrate paragraphs?
✓ Do you include summary paragraphs at the end of each major

section as well as an overall summary at the end of the chapter?
✓ Is the writing throughout clear and readable? Refer to “Guidelines

for Academic Writing” in Chapter 4.
✓ Have you checked that you have not used somebody’s words without
appropriate quotation marks or stated the ideas of others as if they
were your own, thereby constituting plagiarism?
✓ Have you avoided too much paraphrasing and too many direct
quotations that detract from the readability of the chapter?
✓ Are all authors who make the same point combined in a citation?
Developing the Theoretical ✓ Does your framework draw on theory, research, relevant concepts,
or Conceptual Framework and experience?
✓ Does your framework depict the overall “territory” of your research?
✓ Does your framework provide theoretical clarification of what you

intend to investigate?
✓ Does your framework illuminate the relationships among

theoretical or conceptual variables?
✓ Does your framework enable a reader to understand what your study

seeks to achieve and how that will be achieved?
✓ If you have developed a diagrammatic model, is this clearly and

accurately presented? In other words, does it make sense and have
meaning?
✓ If you have developed a diagrammatic model, is this accompanied by

comprehensive descriptive narrative?
✓ If you have developed theoretical or conceptual categories, are these

directly tied to the research questions?
✓ Do you have at least one theoretical or conceptual category per

research question?
✓ Have you included descriptors that are based on the literature, pilot
studies, and your own hunches?
✓ Do these descriptors make sense?
✓ Are there any other descriptors that you may have forgotten to
include?
✓ Does your theoretical or conceptual framework add value to the way

you and others understand your research?
✓ Does your chosen framework enhance the theoretical or conceptual

quality of your dissertation?
Addressing Alignment ✓ Is your research problem aligned with your literature review?
✓ Is your literature review aligned with your theoretical/conceptual

framework?
✓ Is your theoretical/conceptual framework aligned with your

research questions and research findings?
Grammar and Writing ✓ Are all citations included in the reference list?
Mechanics
✓ Have all citations that you have not included been eliminated from
the reference list?
✓ Are the majority of your references published in the past 5 years?
✓ Have you checked your recommended style manual for format,

punctuation, grammar, and correct use of each and every citation?
✓ Have you edited and reedited your work?

Following are some recommended resources that you might consider perusing regarding
enhancing your critical writing skills and developing your literature review and theoretical or
conceptual framework.
Adom, D., Hussein, E. K., & Agyem, J. A. (2018). Theoretical and conceptual framework: Mandatory
ingredients of a quality research. International Journal of Scientific Research, 7(1), 6–9.
Theoretical and conceptual frameworks guide the paths of a research and offer the founda-
tion for establishing its credibility. Though these terms seem similar, they are different from
each other in concept and in their roles in the research process. This article explains the mean-
ings of the terms, their importance in the research process and their difference and similari-
ties while offering insightful suggestions on how these frameworks can be constructed and
utilized.
Anfara, V. A., & Mertz, N. T. (Eds.). (2015). Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research, (2nd ed.).
SAGE.
Recognizing a lack of understanding of the role of the theoretical framework in qualitative
research, the purpose of this edited text is to explain through discussion and example what a
theoretical framework is, how it is used in qualitative research, and the impact it has on the
research process. The book is essentially a “reflective thinking tool”: It is presented in the for-
mat of a multiplistic conversation about how theory is used in actual qualitative studies.
Casanave, C. P., & Li, Y. (2015). Novices’ struggles with conceptual and theoretical framing in writ-
ing dissertations and papers for publication. Publications, 3(2), 104–119.
These authors address the problem that novice scholars in social sciences sometimes have
in constructing conceptual or theoretical frameworks for their dissertations and papers for
publication. They explain ten problems that novice scholars have with theoretical/conceptual
framing, using their own experiences as manuscript reviewers and writers.
Collins, C., & Stockton, C. (2018). The central role of theory in qualitative research. International
Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1), 1–10.
These authors address the role of the theory as a “device in the qualitative toolbox”, explaining
the various ways in which theory has been considered in qualitative methodology publications
and highlight the ways in which a central role for theory can be useful for a study. They offer an
evaluative quadrant for determining the appropriate use of theory in qualitative research and
a diagram of the qualitative project that points to the central role of a theoretical framework.
They also caution against the overreliance on theory in terms of potentially limiting the ability
to see emergent findings in the data.
Cooper, H. (2017). Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step by step approach, (5th ed.). SAGE.
The focus is on the basic tenets and best practices of sound data gathering with the task of pro-
ducing a comprehensive integration of past research on a topic
Grant, C., & Osanloo, A. (2014). Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical framework
in dissertation research: Creating the blueprint for your "house". Administrative Issues Journal:
Connecting Education, Practice, and Research, 4(2), 12–26. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1058505.
The theoretical framework is one of the most important aspects in the research process, yet is
often misunderstood by doctoral candidates as they prepare their dissertation research study.
Using a metaphor of the "blueprint" of a house, this article explains the application of a theoret-
ical framework in a dissertation. Steps for how to select and integrate a theoretical framework
to create a structure all aspects of the research process are described.
Kivunja, C. (2018). Distinguishing between theory, theoretical framework, and conceptual frame-
work: a systematic review of lessons from the field. International Journal of Higher Education, 7(6),
44–53. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1198682.pdf.
Kivunja cites Ravitch and Riggan (2017) to explain that conceptual framework is the logical con-
ceptualization of the research study, that includes the underlying thinking, structures, plans
and practices and implementation of the entire research project. Kivunja refers to the frame-
work as the “master plan” for the study, concluding that the theoretical framework is drawn
from the theoretical literature regarding a research topic, but the conceptual framework is
much broader and is drawn from the researcher’s synthesis and critical thinking.
Ravitch, S. M., & Riggan, M. (2017). Reason and rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research,
(2nd ed.). SAGE.
This book presents conceptual frameworks as a method for aligning research design, litera-
ture review, and methodology. The authors explore the notion of a conceptual framework—
defined both as a process and a product—to direct and ground researchers as they confront
common research challenges. Examples vividly illustrate how conceptual frameworks inform
research design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, and write-up of the qualitative study.
Wallace, M., & Wray, A. (2016). Critical reading and writing for postgraduates, (3rd ed.). SAGE.
As these authors explain, critical literature reviews reflect the intellect of the reviewer, who
has decided the focus, selected appropriate texts for review, engaged critically with and inter-
preted the text, synthesized what was found, and made a convincing argument. Overall, this
is a useful text that clearly signposts a route through the pathways involved in critiquing not
only research sources in your field, but also the “right” sources so as to enable students to
apply ideas suggested in the progressive development of their skills of critical analysis and
appreciation.
com/bloomberg-qualitative-5e. The companion website offers materials related to the disser-
tation’s literature review, as discussed in Chapter 7.

• Appendix B: Rubric for Evaluating a Literature Review
• Appendix H: Sample Literature Review Theme Development
• Appendix I: Sample Literature Review Outline
• Appendix J: Theoretical Framework Brainstorming Samples
PRESENTING RESEARCH
8 METHODOLOGY, DESIGN,
AND METHODS
• Identify the key components of the methodology chapter

• Provide an explanation of how each component of qualitative research methodology
must be developed and presented.
• Explain the significance of alignment among qualitative research design (tradition or
genre), data collection methods, data analysis strategy, and presentation of findings.
• Illustrate how all of the components of a methodology chapter must be intentionally
and thoughtfully aligned to form a logical and interconnected sequence, and thereby
contribute to the overall methodological integrity and trustworthiness of the study.
• Explain consistent and transparent ways in which the four trustworthiness criteria
can be addressed to mitigate threats that would present potential limitations to, and
therefore undermine, the rigor of the qualitative study.
• Emphasize the centrality of reflexivity on the part of a critical and ethical qualitative
researcher, including addressing researcher positionality.
• Present information as guidelines that are meant to be flexible per institutional
expectations and requirements and subject to modification depending on
department and program requirements.
OVERVIEW
The methodology chapter of a dissertation includes all the specific procedures used in conduct-
ing your study. Research methodology implies the various interrelated elements and methods
that reflect a study’s sequential nature. This chapter is intended to show the reader that you have
a good understanding of the methodological implications of the choices you have made and, in
particular, that you have thought carefully about the linkages between your research problem,
research purpose, and research questions. Moreover, you are expected to clearly convey the rea-
sons for your methodological choices and illustrate that you have achieved alignment among
all the key components of your study, including your selected research design and research
255
methods. Additionally, all methods used in a study must be systematic, logical, fully explained
and justified, and supported with scholarly sources.
To write this chapter, you will need to conduct a series of mini literature reviews pertain-
ing to the methodological issues involved in qualitative research design. You need to show the
reader that you (a) have knowledge of the current issues and discourse and (b) can relate your
study to those issues and discourse. In this regard, you need to explain how you have gone about
designing and conducting your study while making sure that you draw supporting evidence from
the literature for the decisions and choices that you have made. Note that in the methodology
chapter of your proposal, you projected what you would do based on what you know about the
particular methods used in qualitative research, in general, and in your qualitative design (tra-
dition or genre), in particular. Hence, your proposal is written in future tense. In the disserta-
tion’s methodology chapter you will now be reporting on what you have already done. You write
after the fact; hence, you write in past tense. As such, many of the sections of the dissertation’s
methodology chapter can be written only after you have actually conducted your study (i.e., col-
lected, analyzed, and synthesized your data).
The methodology chapter is usually one of the dissertation’s lengthiest because of the amount
of material involved. This chapter can include multiple “how-to” matrices, charts, and figures.
Although not all of these may make their way into the main body of your final dissertation,
these can and often do appear as “working tools” in your dissertation’s appendix. Think of the
methodology chapter as essentially a discussion in which you explain the course and logic of your
decision-making throughout the research process. In practice, this means describing the following:
• The rationale for your research methodology (qualitative research) and choice of
qualitative design (tradition or genre)
• The research sample and the population from which it was drawn, as well as all details
pertaining to recruitment, permissions, and consent
• The type of information you needed to conduct the study
• How you set up the study and the methods that you used to gather your data (your
selected data collection tools)
• The way in which you have analyzed and synthesized your data
• Issues of trustworthiness and how you addressed these, including credibility,
confirmability, dependability, and transferability
• Ethical considerations involved in your study, including informed consent and privacy
(anonymity and confidentiality), as well as issues of cultural integrity
• Researcher positionality considerations, accompanied by transparent and authentic
explanation
• Acknowledgment of the limitations and delimitations of the study and actions taken to
address these issues
Chapter 8 • Presenting Research Methodology, Design, and Methods 257
The dissertation’s methodology chapter covers a lot of ground because you will be expected
to document each step that you have taken in designing and conducting the study. The format
that is presented here covers all the necessary components of a comprehensive methodology
chapter. However, as has been pointed out throughout, please be aware that while most insti-
tutions will approach the dissertation in common ways, at the same time there are differences
in terms of the organization and presentation. Before proceeding to write, be sure to discuss
with your advisor how to structure the chapter as well as the preferred order and length of
each section. Most important, make sure (a) your sections are in a logical sequence and (b)
what you write is comprehensive, clear, precise, and sufficiently detailed so that others will
be able to adequately judge the soundness of your study. Table 8.1, Road Map for Developing
a Methodology Chapter: Necessary Elements, is intended to illustrate the necessary pieces that
constitute a sound methodology chapter and a suggested sequence for including all of these
pieces.
TABLE 8.1 ■ Road Map for Developing a Methodology Chapter: Necessary

Elements
Introduction
Provide a brief overview of your study, including research problem and purpose. Go on to explain how the
chapter is organized so that the reader has an idea of what to expect. Organization is typically based on
the major headings included in the chapter.
Research Sample
Describe the research sample and the population from which that sample was drawn. Define and discuss
the purposeful sampling strategy that you have selected (see Table 8.2, Overview of Purposeful Sampling
Strategies), as well as your criteria for sample selection. In this section, describe the research site if
appropriate (i.e., program, institution, or organization), including any site permissions.
Information Needed
Describe the kinds of information you will need to answer your research questions. Be specific about
exactly what kind of information you will be collecting. Three general areas of information are needed for
most qualitative studies: contextual, demographic, and perceptual information.
Research Methodology and Design
This section outlines your overall research methodology, that is, the way you set up and conducted the
qualitative study. This discussion will address qualitative research in general, why this methodology
is appropriate for this particular study, and will also include the rationale for the specific qualitative
research design (tradition or genre) that you have chosen. Next, you will list all steps taken in carrying
out your research from data collection through data analysis. The narrative in this section is often
augmented by a flowchart or diagram that illustrates the various steps or stages involved. The two
sections that follow elaborate in greater detail on your methods of data collection and the process of data
analysis and synthesis.
(Continued)

Elements (Continued)
Data Collection Methods
Explain that a selected literature review preceded data collection; although this informs the study,
indicate that the literature is not the data to be collected. Identify and present all the data collection
methods or tools that you used, and clearly explain the steps taken to carry out each method,
ensuring both rigor and cultural integrity. Include in the discussion any field tests or pilot studies
you may have undertaken. To show that you have done a critical reading of the literature, you should
discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each method of data collection used.
Data Analysis and Synthesis
Report on how you managed, organized, and analyzed your data in preparation to report your
findings and then how you went on to analyze and interpret your findings. It is important to note also
that this section of the methodology chapter can thus be written only after you have written up the
findings and analysis chapters of your dissertation. Please note that some universities or programs
may require that these two chapters be combined so always be sure to follow the template or outline
that is provided by your program or institution.
Issues of Trustworthiness
This section discusses the criteria for evaluating the trustworthiness of qualitative research—
credibility, confirmability, dependability, and transferability. Moreover, you should indicate to the
reader that you have a clear understanding of the implications thereof vis-à-vis your own study
specifically, and the strategies you employed to ensure and enhance the trustworthiness of your
study. Transparency is key to building trustworthiness. (See Appendix C, Sample Trustworthiness
Statements)
Ethical Considerations
This section should inform the reader that you have considered all ethical issues that might
arise vis-à-vis your study, as outlined in the Belmont Report, and that you have taken the
necessary steps to address these potential issues, including informed consent and privacy
(anonymity and confidentiality), and also cultural integrity. Special consideration must be
applied when conducting research with vulnerable populations. (See Appendix D, Sample Ethical
Assurance Statements.)
Researcher Positionality
Here is an opportunity to declare your positionality and explain how your own power, privilege, or
social identity may impact the research site or research participants, and thereby have any bearing
on the way the study was conducted, as well as on the research findings and implications. (See
Appendix E, Sample Positionality Statements.)

Elements (Continued)
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations and delimitations identify potential weaknesses inherent in the study’s methodology and
scope. You need to cite all potential limitations and your means to address these limitations. The
discussion should include problems inherent in qualitative research generally, as well as limitations
that are specific to your particular study. Regardless of how carefully you plan a study, there will
always be some limitations, and you need to explicitly acknowledge these. Note that generalizability
is not considered a limitation as this is not the goal of qualitative research; rather, the focus is on
transferability, that is, the ability to apply findings in similar contexts or settings. Limitations are external
conditions that restrict or constrain the study’s scope or may affect its outcome. Delimitations, on the
other hand, are conditions or parameters that you, as the researcher, intentionally impose in order
to limit the scope of your study (e.g., including participants of certain ages or groups; conducting the
research in one single setting; collecting data only during a certain time frame, etc.).
Chapter Summary
A final culminating summary integrates all the elements that you have presented in this chapter. Make
sure that you highlight all the important points. Keep your concluding discussion concise, focused, and
precise. Do not include any new information in the summary that has not already been discussed in the
chapter.
INTRODUCTION
The chapter begins with an opening paragraph in which you restate the study’s purpose and
research questions and then go on to explain the chapter’s organization. You then proceed to
discuss how your research lends itself to a qualitative approach and why this approach is most
appropriate to your inquiry. Critical to a well-planned study is the consideration of whether a
qualitative approach is suited to the purpose and nature of your study. To convey this notion to
the reader, it is necessary to provide a rationale for the qualitative research approach, indicating
to the reader that you are familiar with all key aspects of qualitative research, as well as justifi-
cation for this choice. In your discussion, you begin by defining qualitative inquiry as distinct
from quantitative research. Then you go on to discuss the values and benefits derived from
using a qualitative approach—in other words, its strengths. You would not talk about its weak-
nesses here; you will do that in the last section of the methodology chapter called “Limitations
and Delimitations.” In addition, you need to explain your reasons for choosing a particular
qualitative design (tradition or genre), namely, case study (or multiple case study), ethnography,
phenomenology, grounded theory, narrative inquiry, action research, or any one of the many
critical genres. You will describe your choice of tradition or genre, and also indicate why this is a
warranted and logical fit with your study.
Make sure that this first section flows logically and that you structure your discussion well
by using appropriate headings and subheadings. Once the overall approach and supporting
rationale have been presented, you can move on to explain who the research participants are, the
sampling strategies you used to select the participants, what kind of data were needed to inform
your study, and the specific data collection and data analysis strategies employed.
ESTABLISHING CULTURAL INTEGRITY
Culturally responsive research recognizes culture as central to the research process and uses
the cultural standpoints of both the researcher and the research participants as a framework
for research design, data collection, and data interpretation. Especially when researchers are
engaged in research that has a cross-cultural dimension they are obliged to explain what they
did, how they did it, and why they did it, with respect to sociocultural and political dimensions,
in order to ensure the study has cultural credibility. The conventional notion of credibility in
qualitative research is certainly useful, provided it is adapted and applied in a culturally mean-
ingful way, leading to establishing cultural integrity in qualitative research.
Qualitative researchers are increasingly engaged in conducting studies that pose particular
challenges in terms of ensuring that both the conduct of the studies in question and their find-
ings are culturally appropriate and meaningful. There are also key ethical issues to take into
account with regard to transcribing and translating data, and so the question arises as to how
you ethically represent your participants’ words and accurately convey their full meaning. The
ethical issues that arise in transcribing and translating others’ words center on how we represent
our research participants and how we demonstrate respect for them in transposing their spoken
words into text that we then manipulate through an analysis and then write up as findings.
Marshall et al. (2022) capture this dilemma well when they explain,
Thus, in transcribing, what stance will the researcher take on “cleaning up” words, sen-
tences, and phrases? Is it ethical to represent our interview partners who have spoken
to us in incomplete sentences or used incorrect grammar exactly that way? Or are we
doing them a disservice in presenting their imperfect speech to the world in disserta-
tions or articles? When translating from one language to another, how do we ensure that
we have shown respect for our research partners in representing their worldviews and
thoughts? These issues center on respect for our participants that becomes more salient
when we transform their words into analyzed categories or themes and represent them
publicly. (p. 228)
Ensuring the rigor and trustworthiness of any study is essential to ensuring the credible
and meaningful application of its findings. When studies include a cross-cultural dimension,
however, extra vigilance is required. This is because the rigor and trustworthiness of a qualita-
tive study investigating an issue that has a cross-cultural dimension cannot be achieved with-
out adapting and applying research methods in a culturally meaningful way—without in-depth
knowledge and, to the extent possible, an acute understanding of the sociocultural and political
dynamics of a particular research setting. Because the self-representations and positionality of
researchers can evoke stereotypes that influence the feelings and opinions of the respondents, it
is important for qualitative researchers to know how to situate and position themselves within
the research setting. In contexts where researchers lack in-depth knowledge and understanding
ID:c0008-p0555
of the sociocultural and political dynamics of the research setting, there is a risk of inadvertently
imposing their own beliefs, values, and patterns of behavior upon the cultural settings and
participants in which the study is being conducted. Without appropriate cultural knowledge,
researchers can indeed risk misinterpreting or misrepresenting the data, thereby not achieving
the goal of establishing “cultural integrity.”
When it comes to data collection in qualitative research, developing acute cultural awareness
includes becoming knowledgeable about preferred data collection methods used by researchers
in the location where research is to be conducted. Additionally, you will need to develop an
understanding of policy platforms that may influence research agendas thereby leading to the
need to appropriately tailor your research design. One way to build cultural awareness is to par-
ticipate in cultural competency training, which may include working with interpreters, paying
close attention to cross-cultural communication, and developing a deeper appreciation of the
intricacies of conducting research within a specific context, setting, or location. Researchers
will also need to understand what topics or issues might be highly sensitive or even off limits
prior to establishing a research agenda, and to carefully reconsider those topics that can be sen-
sitive for various reasons. Collaborating with local communities and researchers and studying
country-specific journals can be helpful in this regard.
RESEARCH SAMPLE
In this section, you need to identify and describe in detail the method used to select the research
sample, including the research site and research participants. This provides the reader some
sense of the scope of your study. In addition, your study’s credibility relies on the quality of
procedures you have used to select the research participants. Some research is site-specific, and
the study is defined by and intimately linked to one or more locations. If you are working with
a particular site, be it a particular place, region, organization, or program, the reader will need
some detail regarding the setting. Although it is typically mentioned briefly in the beginning
pages of Chapter 1 of your dissertation (the introduction), in this section of the methodology
chapter you will need to talk more specifically about how and why the site was selected.
After discussing and describing the site, you will proceed to tell the reader about the research
sample—the participants of your study. You also need to explain in some detail how the sample
was selected and the pool or population from which it was drawn, typically referred to as the
“target population.” This discussion should include the criteria used for inclusion in the sample,
how participants were identified, how they were contacted, the number of individuals con-
tacted, and the percentage of those who agreed to participate (i.e., the response rate).
In qualitative research, sampling is based on the decisions that a researcher makes regard-
ing from whom data will be collected, who is included, how they are included, and what is
done to conceal or reveal identities in research. All sampling decisions must be made within the
constraints of ethics and feasibility. A researcher should make conscious choices in the design
of their samples rather than accepting whatever sample presents itself as simply the most conve-
nient or attractive. Moreover, to address the trustworthiness of a study, one of the key aspects of
sampling is to make clear the criteria that were used to select the sample and to clearly describe
the characteristics of the members of the sample. This facilitates insights regarding the transfer-
ability of the findings from one context to another, allowing readers to determine the useful-
ness and applicability of the study’s findings in their own context or setting. Additional details
regarding trustworthiness criteria, and ways to ensure these criteria, are discussed further on in
this chapter.
Recruitment Procedures
When designing your study, one of the first steps to consider is the recruitment process, with
due diligence in mind. Recruitment is the systematic process of publicizing the availability of
a study and providing brief initial information to potential research participants to gain inter-
est. How will you find participants for your research? There are some recruitment methods to
consider:
• Recruitment via posting of a physical flyer or electronic message on bulletin

board. This is a popular method of recruitment. Some of the benefits are that many
people can learn about the study in a short period of time, it is relatively inexpensive,
permissions to post may be needed but are easily gained, and it provides participants
the opportunity to contact the researcher at their own convenience.
• Recruitment via email or electronically distributed material. This is also a popular
method of recruitment. Some of the benefits are that eligible people can be targeted (if
there is a distribution list with a high proportion of eligible individuals), it is relatively
inexpensive, and it allows participants the opportunity to contact the researcher at
their own convenience. One extra required step is that the researcher must gather
permission to obtain or access the distribution list, but this permission is often not
difficult to obtain.
• Recruitment via mail or physically distributed material. Some of the benefits
of this method are that it can be perceived as more of a personal message from the
researcher, eligible people can be targeted, and it allows people to contact the researcher
at their own convenience. A limitation is that mass mailing can be expensive and
time-consuming (especially if done by hand).
• Recruitment via formal presentation, phone call, or other verbally presented
material. Some of the benefits of this method are that it involves a personal message
from the researcher, and immediate verbal interaction is made possible. Limitations
include that some of the audience may not be interested, “cold calling” or solicitation
door-to-door can tend to be perceived negatively, and these methods can be
time-consuming.
Regardless of which method you use to recruit your research participants, there are some
important guidelines that apply in all situations:
• Do not recruit participants before you obtain IRB approval. Recruitment is

considered the first step of the informed consent process, so it may not occur until after
institutional review board (IRB) approval. Remember your recruitment process and
recruitment materials must be reviewed and approved by the IRB before you attempt
to contact participants in any way or distribute any materials. Do not pre-contact or
even casually mention the study to potential participants at any time before you receive
IRB approval.
• Make a distinction between recruitment and consent. Informed consent is the
process by which an individual is educated on the potential benefits and risks of being
a participant in a research study and they have had sufficient time to make a decision
whether to participate based on the given information. Any recruitment materials
should represent separate pages/ letters/ messages/ presentations and must be clearly
differentiated from the consent form. The consent form is a standalone document,
similar to a contract, between the researcher and participant. There are strict federal
guidelines for the content of a consent form.
• Site permission should not involve identification of participants. Sometimes
researchers seeking site permission may ask the site to determine whether participants
are available or who those participants are. Do not make this error! When requesting
site permission, it is important to be clear that you do not yet have the IRB approval.
Make it clear that you are seeking permission to conduct research at the site in the
future and after IRB approval. You will send materials and instructions at a later time
(following the IRB approval).
• Field tests and pilot tests. While no recruitment or data collection can begin until you
obtain IRB approval, a field test can be conducted to have experts in the field review an
untested set of survey/interview questions to ensure credibility, dependability, and risk
level. In a field test you are determining the usefulness of a data collection instrument
that you have developed. Data are not actually collected, and so IRB approval is not
necessary. A pilot study, on the other hand, is typically conducted to test certain factors
or elements related to the dissertation. A pilot test may be considered a “mini study,”
and the sample for the pilot study is similar to the sample for the dissertation study. As
such, in a pilot study, data are collected and so IRB approval is therefore necessary.
Avoid Coercion or Undue Influence
a. If the researcher is in a position of authority, it is not appropriate for the researcher to

distribute recruitment materials. Furthermore, researchers should not seek to include
employees they supervise or individuals for whom they impact employment, pay, or
benefits of any kind. Make sure to minimize the risk of coercion or undue influence
resulting from dual relationships between the researcher and the potential participants,
the risk of adverse employment related consequences, and privacy and confidentiality
concerns.
b. In studies that involve sensitive topics, it is recommended that you offer people time
to consider participation. Volunteers should not be recruited and then asked to
immediately participate, as this could be perceived as coercive. Researchers should give
participants time and space to consider participation without scrutiny or pressure, and
it is advisable to avoid in-person recruitment when working with sensitive topics.
Ensure Confidentiality Whenever Possible

When researchers give their recruitment presentation to a large group, they should not require
volunteers to single themselves out as participants in front of others. Whenever possible,
researchers should allow individuals to confidentially volunteer to participate in the study or
opt out of participation without others having any information regarding their choice.
Be aware that a site may have its own IRB, research ethics review board, or other commit-
tee that fulfills the role of an IRB. It is therefore important to know the difference between site
permission and site IRB review and approval:
• Site permission is the administrative approval to engage in recruitment or study

activities at a site.
• Site IRB review and approval involves a research ethics review of a study, with a focus
on protection of human subjects.
Online Site Permissions

Following is a brief overview of online site permissions, which is increasingly becoming the
norm:
Online Private Websites: Site permission is required from the appropriate authority to
grant access to personnel and resources. Permission is needed to post recruitment advertise-
ments on private websites, to obtain access to membership rosters, or to use membership rosters
that are restricted to members (even if the researcher is also a member). If the owner/administra-
tor of the site states that they do not need to give permission, be sure to provide that communi-
cation to your institution’s IRB.
Online Public Websites: Site permission is often not required if anybody can join the
specific group and if there are no restrictions to the content or location of posts. However, even
public groups may have restrictions regarding content or advertising, such as for study recruit-
ment materials. Site permission is also not required if the researcher is using a private message
or e-mail function to search for and send recruitment material one-to-one, or if the researcher
is posting materials to their own page. In all other circumstances, permission is required from
the administrator of the specific group or site. LinkedIn professional groups have site admin-
istrators, so permission is required before posting. Typically the administrator will direct the
researcher to a specific folder or location that is acceptable for recruitment posts. Facebook
groups also require administrator permission. Note that often, a LinkedIn, Facebook, or other
social media pages for a business or organization should be considered private. Appropriate
site permissions and, if needed, site IRB approval will likely need to be obtained. Businesses
and other organizations may have policies regarding what may be posted to such sites. If the
site is an official site of the organization and the site maintains an IRB, the site’s IRB will need
to review and approve, or they can declare that they will rely on your institution’s IRB. It is
permissible for researchers to post to their own social media sites, whether it is their personal
site or one created for their study. In such cases, site permission is not needed but any materials
to be posted to the site require review by your institution’s IRB. If posting to your own site, be
aware of protecting the privacy of individuals who may visit. The site is intended to provide
information regarding your study and should not be used to collect data on individuals or
in any way compromise their privacy. Please also be aware that if you will recruit people you
know, your institution’s IRB will most likely require the recruitment and data collection to be
fully anonymous such that the researcher will not know who does/does not participate and the
data collected will contain no direct or indirect identifiers. This is in place to minimize the
risk of undue influence resulting from dual relationships between the researcher and potential
participants.
There are some additional caveats to bear in mind regarding site permissions more generally:
1. For sites that have their own IRBs and will be providing IRB review and approval,
an issue of concern is whether researchers must obtain both site IRB approval and site
permission. This is something to check with your own institution.
2. Site permission can be a lengthy process, which can introduce a significant delay in the
overall dissertation process. Try to begin the process of obtaining site permission early
on, but keep in mind any restrictions the site may impose, as some sites may limit the
period of time their permission is in place.
3. You also cannot assume that a site will provide permission for a study, so try to develop
a back-up plan in case you need to apply elsewhere.
4. The site or location where recruitment and/or study activities will take place may be a
physical location, such as a school, business, or hospital, or it may be virtual, such as a
social media page or online forum.
Purposeful Sampling
In your methodology chapter, you will also need to discuss why the specific method of sample
selection used was considered most appropriate for the study. In qualitative research, selection
of the research sample is purposeful (Patton, 2015). This type of sampling is sometimes referred
to as purposive sampling. There are a number of variations of purposeful sampling including
typical, maximum variation, homogenous, and snowball sampling, among others, and the
choice that is selected will depend on the purpose of the study. Table 8.2, Overview of Purposeful
Sampling Strategies, presents the variety of purposeful sampling strategies that can be used in
qualitative research.
TABLE 8.2 ■ Overview of Purposeful Sampling Strategies
Purposeful Sampling
Strategy Explanation
Typical case sampling Participants are selected because they represent the norm or average and
are in no way atypical, extreme, or unusual. Typical cases can be identified
by recommendations of knowledgeable individuals or by review of extant
demographic or programmatic data that suggest that this case is indeed
average.
Critical or crucial case Participants who can be used to make a previously justified point particularly
sampling well or dramatically, or who are known to be particularly important or are
key informants, are selected for in-depth study.
Snowball, network, or A few participants who possess certain characteristics are selected, and
chain sampling they are asked to identify and refer others who are known to have the same
or similar characteristics, and who might be good sources given the focus of
inquiry. The researcher does the recruiting.
Negative case sampling Participants that are expected to disconfirm the researcher’s expectations
or are purposively selected. As the researcher develops a tentative
conclusion based on the data, it becomes important to search for instances
in which the expectation might not hold so that potential issues can be
addressed or qualifications can be made.
Criterion sampling Participants are chosen because they meet a certain set of criteria as
predetermined by the researcher. The researcher identifies cases that meet
the specified criteria.
Extreme or deviant Participants are selected because they represent the extremes related to
sampling an experience or phenomenon. The researcher assumes that studying the
unusual will illuminate the ordinary, and that these cases are potentially rich
and unusual sources of information for comparative purposes.
Maximum variation or Participants are selected because they represent the widest possible range
heterogeneity sampling of the characteristics or dimensions being studied. This method identifies
important common themes or patterns that cut across variations (Patton,
2015). This strategy was first identified by Glaser and Strauss (1967) in their
presentation of grounded theory. The findings will indicate what is unique
about each situation as well as what is common across these diverse
settings.
Homogenous sampling In contrast to maximum variation or heterogeneous sampling, participants

who share only similar experiences or characteristics are selected
for intensive study. The focus is on similarities rather than variation or
differences.
Stratified purposeful This is a hybrid approach where one sampling method is selected, and then
sampling other methods are added. Sampling in this way illustrates subgroups of
interest, facilitates comparisons among them, and adds to triangulation.
(Continued)
TABLE 8.2 ■ Overview of Purposeful Sampling Strategies (Continued)
Purposeful Sampling
Strategy Explanation
Theoretical or Purposeful sample selection is ongoing to illuminate the theoretical or

theory-based, or conceptual ideas of interest. As the theoretical framework emerges through
concept sampling data analysis, the researcher decides from whom to collect additional data.
Sampling is an evolving process guided by emerging theory. Grounded
theoretical sampling was initially developed by Glaser and Strauss (1967).
Gentles and Vilches (2017) describe theoretical sampling as being guided
by an evolving theory (one that emerges throughout the data collection
and analysis) with the aim to develop categories and to integrate those
categories in ways that reveal their relationship to a theory being developed.
Their definition of theoretical sampling refers to the “generative selection”
of examples of concepts or categories in the form of specific pieces of
illustrative data, which researchers seek out.
Intensity sampling The researcher seeks information-rich cases that manifest the phenomenon
intensely, but not extremely (Patton, 2015). Intensity sampling is similar
to the extreme-case strategy, but there is less emphasis on extreme. The
researcher seeks to identify sites or individuals in which the phenomenon of
interest is strongly represented.
Emergent or The researcher takes advantage of emerging opportunities to select

opportunistic sampling participants. This might involve critical, negative, extreme, or typical
sampling. Since qualitative research is an ongoing and emergent process,
the researcher might not be able to affirm the sample in advance, as the
focus of the study might change and opportunities that could not be foreseen
might arise.
Convenience sampling This is the least desirable sampling strategy. The tendency is to rely on
participants who are readily available. This can save time and effort but
is at the expense of information and credibility, and so the researcher
must acknowledge the limitations of the sample and be very cautious in
attempting to extrapolate the findings beyond the given target population.
Relying on convenience or opportunities can sometimes tend to produce
“information-poor” rather than “information-rich” cases (Patton, 2015).
Purposeful random One of the purposeful sampling procedures mentioned above is used,
sampling followed by a randomization procedure. This sequential strategy is
appropriate when the potential number of cases within a purposeful
category is more than what can be studied given the available time and
resources and adds to triangulation and credibility (Patton, 2015).
Note 1: Quantitative studies employ random probability sampling so that results can be generalized. Since generaliz-
ability is not the goal of qualitative research, a purposeful (or purposive) sampling strategy is employed to provide
context-rich accounts of specific populations. The researcher specifies the characteristics or attributes of the popu-
lation of interest and then locates individuals who display those characteristics or attributes.
Note 2: The sample size in qualitative research is relatively small but consists of “information-rich” cases. In-depth
interviews make a large sample size unnecessary, particularly as qualitative researchers do not seek to generalize.
It is recommended that researchers use their judgment regarding the number of participants in the sample.
The logic of purposeful sampling lies in selecting information-rich cases, with the objective
of yielding insight and understanding of the phenomenon under investigation. This method is
in contrast to the random sampling procedures that characterize quantitative research, which is
based on statistical probability theory. Random sampling controls for selection bias and enables
generalization from the sample to a larger population—a key feature of quantitative research.
As the name “purposeful sampling” suggests, a qualitative researcher has a purpose (or rea-
son) for selecting specific participants, events, and processes. In qualitative research, the logic of
selection is grounded in the value of information-rich cases and emergent, in-depth understand-
ing not available through random sampling. From this perspective, purposeful selection is a
strategy for accessing appropriate data that fit the purpose of the study, the resources available,
the questions being asked, and the constraints and challenges being faced. Purposeful selec-
tion is more than a technique to access data; our selection choices frame who and what matters
as data. Moreover, these selection choices interface the other methods in a study to ultimately
become the stories that are told, an extremely important consideration for researchers.
The purposeful selection of research participants represents a key decision in qualitative
research. Thus, in this section, you need to identify and describe the sampling method or strat-
egy chosen, and also provide a brief rationale for your choice. The strategy that you choose
depends on the purpose of your study, and you need to make that clear in your discussion. For
example, in a phenomenological study, you might employ “criterion-based sampling.” Criterion
sampling works well when all the individuals studied represent people who have experienced the
same phenomenon. In a grounded theory study, you would choose the strategy known as theo-
retical sampling (or theory-based sampling), which means that you examine individuals who can
contribute to the evolving theory. In a case study, you might use the strategy of maximum varia-
tion to represent diverse cases to fully display multiple perspectives about the cases, or you may
choose to use the strategy of extreme or deviant sampling because you choose to focus on poten-
tially rich and unusual sources of information for comparative purposes. Snowball sampling is a
convenience sampling method. In using this method, the existing research participants recruit
further participants, and sampling continues until data saturation is achieved. This sampling
method, which is also referred to as chain sampling, is an efficient and cost-effective means to
access people who would otherwise be difficult to find, thereby helping researchers gain access
to the target population.
Sample Size
The “target population” is all members of a group of interest to the researcher, which is typi-
cally very large. The research sample is a representative portion of the target population that
can be clearly identified and directly accessed. While most research samples are selected from
an accessible population, the goal is to learn more about the characteristics of the target popula-
tion. Purposeful sampling procedures ensure that those characteristics will be included or repre-
sented in the research sample. What to consider as the correct, appropriate, or acceptable sample
size in a qualitative study is often the big question! There is no specific number of participants
that are needed for a qualitative study, as is the case with quantitative research. Qualitative
research replaces the large sample sizes needed for quantitative research for smaller samples that
are studied in greater and deeper detail. In quantitative research, the process of random selec-
tion is utilized in which the research sample is chosen in such a way that each member of the
target population has an equal chance of being selected for inclusion in the sample. Sample size
is calculated using power of analysis formulas in order to ensure statistically significant results.
The sample size must be large enough to provide minimally adequate representation of the tar-
get population since the study’s results are expected to be generalizable (Mertler, 2022; Palys &
Atchison, 2020).
Since the goal of qualitative research is not to generalize to a larger population, but rather to
develop a deep understanding of a specific phenomenon, the qualitative researcher intentionally
selects specific individuals and sites in order to understand the phenomenon. Sample selection
is thus based on the researcher’s judgment regarding the degree to which potential participants
possess the information needed to address and answer the study’s research questions. The size
of samples used in qualitative research is relatively small and varies greatly from one study to the
next. Sample will depend on several factors, most importantly the choice of research tradition
or genre. The objective is to strike a reasonable balance between the number of participants and
the depth to which the researcher can study the chosen sample, while remaining mindful that
the primary goal of qualitative research is to provide an in-depth description of the phenomenon
under study. As qualitative researchers have noted, having some guidelines around sample size
and criteria ahead of conducting the study is necessary to formulate sample saturation (Guest
et al., 2020; Hennink & Kaiser, 2019; Hennink et al., 2017; Sim et al., 2018; Tracy, 2010;
van Rijnsoever, 2017). Achieving saturation is an indication that the research sample has been
adequately explored as no new codes or themes emerge from continued research. Saturation
can be determined through the researcher’s own understanding, knowledge, and purview of
the sample, population, and themes (van Rijnsoever, 2017). The concept of data saturation is
revisited further on in this chapter as it relates to triangulation of methods. Additionally, this
is discussed in this book's Chapter 9 as it relates to analysis of data and development of themes.
Remember, one of the basic tenets of qualitative research is that each research setting is
unique in its own mix of people and contextual factors. The researcher’s intent is to describe a par-
ticular context in depth, not to generalize to another context or population. Representativeness
in qualitative research, and extrapolating from the particular to the general, is secondary to the
participants’ ability to provide rich information about themselves and their setting. As such,
sampling is not just about the selection of people as participants but also their specific locations
and environments which become the broader context for the study.
Once you have offered an explanation and rationale for your sampling strategy, you need to
go on to discuss the nature and makeup of your particular sample. Describe who these individu-
als are, disclose how many individuals constitute the sample, and provide any relevant descrip-
tive characteristics. It is also helpful to include charts to augment and complement the narrative
discussion. Providing information regarding selection procedures and research participants will
aid others in understanding your study’s findings. Having provided a description of the research
sample and the setting, you are now ready to proceed to explain exactly what types of informa-
tion you need from the participants.
OVERVIEW OF INFORMATION NEEDED
This section briefly describes the kinds of information or data you need to answer your research
questions and thus shed light on the problem you are investigating. Four areas of information
are typically needed for most qualitative studies: contextual, demographic, and perceptual. The
following sections define the content and the specific relevancy of each of these areas.
Contextual Information
Contextual information refers to the context within which the participants reside or work. It is
information that describes the culture and environment of the setting, be it an organization or
an institution. It is essential information to collect when doing a case study set in a particular
site or multiple similar sites because elements within the environment or culture typically influ-
ence behavior. Lewin’s fundamental proposition is that human behavior is a function of the
interaction of the person and the environment. This theory is particularly relevant when one is
trying to understand the learning behaviors of a discrete segment of a population in a particular
organizational or institutional setting.
Given the nature of contextual information, such a review would provide knowledge
about an organization’s history, vision, objectives, products or services, operating principles,
and business strategy. In addition, information on an organization’s or institution’s leaders
and its structure, organizational chart, systems, staff, roles, rules, and procedures would be
included in this area of information. The primary method of collecting contextual information
is through an extensive review of organization or institutional internal documents, as well as a
review of relevant external documents that refer in some way to the organization or institution.
Documentation can be of a descriptive and/or evaluative nature. Refer to Appendix K, Template
for Document Summary Form.
Demographic Information
Demographic information is participant profile information that describes the participants in
your study. Relevant demographic information is needed to help explain what may be underly-
ing an individual’s perceptions, as well as the similarities and differences in perceptions among
participants. In other words, a particular data point (e.g., age) may explain a certain finding that
emerged in the study. The key word is “relevant”; only collect information that is pertinent to
the study and that will not be too intrusive and/or exclusionary. Be very aware of asking infor-
mation that may be confusing, intimidating, or offensive in any way. Always provide partici-
pants with the option not to answer any questions that are posed to them.
Demographic information is typically collected by asking participants to complete a personal
data sheet either before or after the interview or other data collection methods have taken place. The
information is then arrayed on a matrix that shows participants by pseudonym on the vertical axis
and the demographic data points on the horizontal axis, as the example that is illustrated in Table
8.3, Template for Participant Demographic Matrix. Create a table that includes the specific demo-
graphic information you seek to include in your own study. This matrix, which is usually presented
TABLE 8.3 ■ Template for Participant Demographic Matrix
Participant Years Program Concentration/

Code Pseudonym Enrolled Discipline Age
in the prior section, in which you discuss your research sample, can also later be used in conjunc-
tion with frequency charts. The latter, to be explained further on, list the findings to help you with
cross-case analysis, which is required later in the dissertation process.
Perceptual Information
Perceptual information refers to participants’ perceptions related to the particular subject of
your inquiry. Particularly in qualitative research when interviews are often the primary method
of data collection, perceptual information is the most critical of the kinds of information
needed. Perceptual information relies, to a great extent, on interviews to uncover participants’
descriptions of their experiences related to such things as how experiences influenced the deci-
sions they made, whether participants had a change of mind or a shift in attitude, whether they
described more of a constancy of purpose, what elements relative to their objectives participants
perceived as important, and to what extent those objectives were met.
It should be remembered that perceptions are just that—they are not facts—they are what
people perceive as facts. They are rooted in long-held assumptions and one’s own view of the
world or frame of reference. As such, they are neither right nor wrong; they tell the story of what
participants believe to be true. Refer to Appendix L, Template for Participant Summary Form.
When starting to think about the types of information or data you will be collecting, and
from whom, it is recommended that you create a matrix that aligns your research questions
with the information you will need and also the methods that you will use to collect that infor-
mation. Creating this type of alignment ensures that the information you intend to collect is
directly related to the research questions, therefore providing answers to the respective research
questions. For planning purposes, the alignment indicates the particular methods you will use
to collect the information. It is useful to create a table similar to Table 8.4, Template for Overview
of Information Needed, which illustrates how you might go about setting up such a matrix.
Figure 8.1, Data Collection Overview: Making Informed Decisions, is an example of a tool
that can assist you in clarifying the types of information you will be collecting and from whom,
and the data collection methods that were used. Greater detail pertaining to specific qualitative
data collection methods is addressed further on in this chapter.
TABLE 8.4 ■ Template for Overview of Information Needed
Information Yielded
(a) Background, History,
Culture, Mission, Site
Type of Information
Description, etc.
Needed
(b) Age, Ethnicity, Discipline,
(a) Contextual (context/
etc.
background)
(c) Participants’ Attitudes,
(b) Demographic
Research Perceptions, Ideas, Method of Data
Questions (c) Perceptual Thoughts, etc. Collection*
Research
Question 1
Research
Question 2
Research
Question 3
*
Lists of documents and instruments for all data collection methods should appear in your dissertation as appendixes.
FIGURE 8.1 ■ Data Collection Overview: Making Informed Decisions
• Interviews
• Focus Groups
Data Collection • Critical Incidents
Methods • Observation
• Survey
• Document Review
• Textual/narrative
Data Types • Visual
• Audio
• Numeric
• Persons
Data Sources • Places
• Events/Activities
• Objects, artifacts, documents
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN
Once you have clearly outlined the information you need and the methods you will use to
obtain those data, you are ready to develop and present your methodology; that is, your overall
plan for conducting the study. Engaging in research involves choosing a research design that cor-
responds with your study’s problem, purpose, research questions, choice of site, and research
sample. This calls to the fore the concept of methodological congruence, whereby all the study’s
components are interconnected and interrelated so that the study itself is a cohesive whole rather
than the sum of fragmented, isolated, or disparate parts. You will also need to consider whether
the selected research design is an appropriate fit with your worldview and your research skills.
It is thus important to understand the philosophical foundations underlying different types of
qualitative research so that you can make informed decisions as to the choices available to you
in designing and implementing a research study. Remember, although all qualitative research
holds a number of characteristics and assumptions in common, there are key variations in the
disciplinary base that a qualitative study may draw from, what the intent of the study may be,
and hence how a qualitative study may be designed and implemented. Thus, a narrative life
history study would be differentiated in terms of design and implantation from a case study
that seeks to investigate participants’ experiences in a particular bounded context, from an eth-
nographic study that focuses on culture, and from a grounded theory study that is designed to
build a substantial theory. Other considerations regarding choice of research design have to do
with identifying a theoretical or conceptual framework that forms the scaffolding or underlying
structure of the study.
Once you are sure what information you need and the methods you will use to obtain that
information, you are ready to develop your research design. Whatever combination of methods
you choose to use, there is a need for a systematic approach to your data. The main objective of
this section of the methodology chapter is to identify and present the data collection methods
and explain clearly the process you undertook to carry out each method. There is a great deal
that is written about transparency in qualitative research. It is generally acknowledged that
researchers owe it to their research sponsors as well as to the broader research community to
divulge the details of their designs and the implementation of their studies. Be sure to include
in your discussion any field tests or pilot studies you may have undertaken to determine the
usefulness of any instruments you have developed. And remember, field tests do not require
IRB approval because you are only determining the usefulness of the instruments that you have
developed, and as such no actual data are being collected. However, pilot tests which are in
themselves “mini studies” do require IRB approval.
Because qualitative research is flexible, you should also mention any modifications and
changes you might have made to your design along the way. That is, describe all the steps that
you took as you moved through the study to collect and analyze your data. Indicate the order
in which these steps occurred, as well as how each step informed the next. The narrative can be
accompanied by a flowchart or diagram that illustrates the steps involved. Various formats of a
flowchart or diagram can be used to illustrate the methodology you have employed; however, in
applying your creativity be careful to keep this visual as simple and as informative as possible.
Elaborate flowchart designs can often miss the point or be distracting, and so simplicity and
logic are key. Figure 8.2, Template for Research Methodology flowchart, is an example of which
you may provide a version in your own chapter to illustrate the different phases of your own
study's methodological process. Appendix M, Sample Research Methodology Flowchart, illus-
trates another example that may be useful in this regard.
FIGURE 8.2 ■ Template for Research Methodology Flowchart
∑ Literature Review (Community of Inquiry, Knowles Theory of Andragogy,

Adult Learner, Facilitation Methods)
∑ Conceptual Framework (Social Presence, Cognitive Presence, Teaching
Presence, Adult Education Facilitation Methods)
Define
∑ Instruments Created and Field Tested (Interview Guide, Focus Group

Protocol)
∑ IRB Approval Obtained
∑ Research Target Population (students enrolled in U.S. online courses
delivered by non-profit or public degree granting institutions) and Identify
Design Potential Participants (students enrolled in U.S. online courses since 2020).
∑ Select and Invite Participants (utilizing Qualtrics)
∑ Secure Agreement to Participate (Informed Consent)

∑ Conduct survey, Interviews. Transcribe all Interviews Verbatim
∑ Hold Focus Group. Transcribe Verbatim
∑ Ongoing Journaling
Collect
∑ Create NVivo Database and Upload Transcribed Interviews and Documents

∑ Begin Coding with Preliminary List of Start Code and Add New Codes
∑ Refine Coding Scheme. Use Coding Scheme Development Charts to
Document Revisions
∑ Analyze and Synthesize Data: Within Case Analysis
Analyze ∑ Analyze and Synthesize Data: Across Case Analysis
∑ Ongoing Journaling
You are now ready to discuss the methods you will use in your study to gather and thereaf-
ter, the methods you used to analyze your data.
METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION
Extensive engagement with participants, and the data, and “immersion” in the setting is
an essential feature of all qualitative research, whatever modes of data gathering are used.
Engagement with participants in their social worlds is essential to understanding subjective
meanings, and it is important that the study’s findings are informed by the data rather than the
researcher’s own preconceptions. This requires reflexivity—that is, a deep awareness on the part
of researchers of their own preconceptions and assumptions, and reflection on their roles and
emerging understandings while engaged in the research process. As Charmaz (2015) explains,
Methods extend and magnify our view of studied life and, thus, broaden and deepen
what we learn of it and know about it. Through our methods, we first aim to see this
world as our research participants do—from the inside. Although we cannot claim to
replicate their views or reproduce their experiences in our own lives, we can try to enter
their settings and situations to the extent possible. (p. 24)
As you have delved into the qualitative literature, you may already notice the terms method-
ology, method, and design are sometimes used differently or interchangeably by different authors.
And that is okay! Although qualitative research as an overall inquiry approach is based on cer-
tain central tenets and principles, it is at the same time characterized by an ongoing discourse
regarding the appropriate and acceptable use of terminology. Scholarly discourse involves nego-
tiating different perspectives and working with an appreciation of differences. As you gain expe-
rience with these terms, you will be able to clarify the meaning based on the context of the
discussion. A note of clarification: Methodology reflects the overall research approach and the
way the researcher goes about conducting the study. The term methods commonly denotes spe-
cific and systematic techniques, procedures, or tools used by the researcher to generate and ana-
lyze data. Based on the research questions, specific data collection methods are chosen to gather
the required information in the most appropriate and meaningful way. It should be noted that a
solid rationale for the choice of methods used in your study is crucial, as this indicates method-
ological congruence and illustrates that the choice of methods is grounded in the study’s overall
research design (qualitative tradition or genre). You can see how research design precedes and
dictates the choice of research methods. Therefore, you would need to first select an appropriate
research design, and then select methods of data collection and analysis that are appropriate and
relevant.
Information gathered during data collection needs to be recorded in a manner that enables
the researcher to analyze and meaningfully report the data. Moreover, it is critical that you
clearly and accurately explain how you obtained your findings for the following reasons:
1. Readers of the study will need to know how the data were obtained because the methods
you chose impact the findings and, by extension, how you likely interpreted these.
2. In most cases, there are a variety of different methods you can choose to investigate
a research problem. The methodology section of your paper should therefore clearly
articulate the reasons why you chose a particular procedure or technique.
3. The reader will want to know that the data were collected or generated in a way that is
consistent with accepted practice in the field of study.
4. In the social and behavioral sciences, it is important to provide sufficient information
to allow other researchers to adopt or replicate your methods. This is particularly
important when a new method has been developed or an innovative use of an existing
method or combination of methods is utilized.
This section of your methodology chapter describes what the literature says about each of
the methods you used in your study to gather data. In other words, you discuss how the instru-
ments you have chosen are appropriate to your study, making use of the literature, and of course
including relevant citations, to support each of your choices. Note that the literature you review
to identify and describe your chosen methods offers the reader a rationale for your selection
and choice, but is not a data collection method per se. This discussion regarding your data col-
lection methods should include some detail regarding the strengths and weaknesses of each
method. This serves to show that you have done a critical reading of the literature and that you
acknowledge that data collection methods, although certainly useful, are not without some
disadvantages. You should present the methods of data collection in the order in which you used
these, and be sure to structure the discussion well by having a separate heading for each method.
Additionally, lists of documents and instruments for all data collection methods should appear
in your dissertation as appendixes.
A common pitfall in writing this section is the tendency to describe the data collection
methods chosen as if they exist in a vacuum without explaining the logical connections among
the methods you have chosen, your research questions, and your research methodology (qualita-
tive genre or tradition). Following are the sequential steps that must be covered in this section.
Be specific and precise in your discussion as you proceed:
1. Describe each data collection method you used.

2. Provide a rationale for each of the methods selected.
3. Indicate how you have triangulated your methods to achieve trustworthiness.
4. Provide complete information about how you used each method.
5. Describe how you developed each of your instruments.
6. Describe how you may have field-tested any of your instruments.
7. Describe how you recorded, managed, and safeguarded your data.
8. Explain the steps you took to preserve confidentiality and anonymity of research
participants.
9. Describe any inherent limitations in your method of data collection and how, if at all,
you have addressed these limitations.
Triangulation Strategies
Triangulation is a powerful way of enhancing the quality of the research, particularly cred-
ibility. It is based on the idea of convergence of multiple perspectives for mutual confirmation
of data to ensure that all aspects of a phenomenon have been thoroughly explored. The trian-
gulated data sources are assessed against one another to cross-check data and interpretation.
Providing a number of different slices of data in this way also minimizes distortion from a single
data source or from a biased researcher, as may be the case in data based on a single applica-
tion of one method. Researchers and readers will need to consider how the triangulation either
contributed to confirmation of certain aspects of the study or to the overall completeness with
which the phenomenon of interest was addressed.
Multiple data-gathering techniques are frequently used in qualitative studies as a delib-
erate strategy to develop a more complex understanding of the phenomena being studied.
Triangulation strengthens your study by enhancing the quality of data from multiple sources
(e.g., people, events), in multiple ways or means (by using different data collection tools and
methods). The idea is that this practice will afford an in-depth understanding of the phenom-
enon under study by illuminating different facets of situations and experiences and helping to
portray them authentically, in their entirety and complexity. Patton (2015) discusses four types
of triangulation:
• Of methods (methodological triangulation)

• Of data sources (data triangulation)
• Among different researchers (investigator triangulation)
• Of perspectives (theory or disciplinary triangulation)
Note that as a researcher you do not need to employ all of the triangulation strategies.
Moreover, investigator triangulation does not typically apply to dissertations, as a disserta-
tion is traditionally done alone, with one single researcher, unless using collaborative inquiry
as a research methodology. Based on your study’s research questions, you will choose specific
data collection methods (and combinations of methods) to gather the required information
in the most appropriate and meaningful way. There are several methods used in qualitative
research to choose from: interviews (often the primary method), focus groups, document
review, observation, and critical incident reports. Surveys and questionnaires, which are tradi-
tionally quantitative instruments, can also be used in conjunction with qualitative methods to
provide corroboration and/or supportive evidence. A variety of combinations of methods can be
employed, and this combination should be thoughtfully applied so as to gather data in meaning-
ful ways and for a specific purpose. For example, individual interviews may be followed by a
focus group where you would stimulate discussion around important issues that emerged from
the interviews. Additionally, you may follow your individual interviews with critical incident
questionnaires, again, with the purpose of probing and exploring more deeply around key issues
that emerged in the interviews. What is also important is to ensure that your instruments are
not a repeat of the same questions. For example, in a focus group you should not be asking the
very same questions that you asked in the interviews or survey, as that makes no sense. Multiple
instruments are for purpose of triangulation, to ensure that you are gathering corroborative data,
not the “same” data.
Data Saturation
According to Fusch & Ness (2015), there is a direct link between data triangulation and data
saturation; the one (data triangulation) ensures the other (data saturation). Data triangulation is
a method to achieve data saturation. Triangulation, as explained earlier, is a strategy of exploring
multiple levels and perspectives of the same phenomenon by which the trustworthiness of the
findings is ensured. Saturation is an integral concept because it provides an indication of trust-
worthiness and therefore is often included in criteria to assess the quality and rigor of qualitative
research (Guest et al., 2020; Hennink et al., 2017; Hennink & Kaiser, 2019; Sebele-Mpofu,
2020; Sim et al., 2018; van Rijnsoever, 2017). The term data saturation is best described as data
adequacy: meaning no new information is obtained. Data saturation is reached when there is
enough information to replicate the study when the ability to obtain additional new informa-
tion has been attained, and when further coding is no longer feasible (Hennink et al., 2017;
Malterud et al., 2016). In essence, an adequate sample must be selected to accomplish coding,
thematic analysis, and credible interpretation. Oftentimes, researchers do not adequately report
their data saturation to promote transparency placing their trustworthiness plan in question. A
researcher should choose the sample size that has the best opportunity for reaching data satura-
tion. Remember, a large sample size does not guarantee that one will reach data saturation nor
does a small sample size; rather, it is what constitutes the sample size. If one has reached the point
of no new data, one has also most likely reached the point of no new themes; therefore, essen-
tially, one has reached data saturation.
Data saturation has attained widespread acceptance as a methodological principle in quali-
tative research. Saturation is reached when no new data can be obtained, and is commonly
taken to indicate that, on the basis of the data that have been collected or analyzed hitherto, fur-
ther data collection and/or analysis are unnecessary. The origins of the concept of data satura-
tion emanate from grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), where it is used to determine data
adequacy for theory development; and has emerged to become a core and indeed essential meth-
odological element across the field where it is used to justify sample sizes for qualitative stud-
ies. Sample sizes must be ascertained in qualitative studies like in quantitative studies but not
by the same means. The prevailing concept for sample size in qualitative studies is “saturation.”
You may be wondering how do sample size and data saturation interact. A guiding principle
in qualitative research is to sample only until data saturation has been achieved. Data saturation
means the collection of qualitative data to the point where a sense of closure is attained because
new data yield redundant information. Data saturation is reached when no new analytical infor-
mation arises anymore, and the study provides maximum information on the phenomenon. In
this context, Malterud et al. (2016) propose the concept “information power” to guide adequate
sample size for qualitative studies, explaining that the more information the sample holds, rel-
evant for the actual study, the lower amount of participants is needed. In quantitative research,
ID:c0008-p078775
by contrast, the sample size is determined by a power calculation. The typical relatively small
sample size in qualitative research depends on the information richness of the data, the variety
of participants (or other units), the broadness of the research question and the phenomenon, the
data collection method (e.g., individual or group interviews), and the type of sampling strategy.
As the researcher, you will decide when data saturation has been reached and hence whether
the sampling can be ended and the sample size is sufficient. The most important criterion is
the availability of sufficient substantive in-depth data illustrating the patterns, categories, and
variety of the phenomenon under study. You will review the analysis, findings, and the quality
of the participant quotations that you have collected, and then decide whether sampling might
be terminated because of data saturation. To err on the side of caution, you may choose to
carry out a few more interviews or observations or perhaps an additional focus group discussion
just to confirm that data saturation has indeed been reached. The concept of data saturation is
addressed in greater detail in Chapter 9 of this book as it relates to qualitative data analysis.
Qualitative Data Collection Methods

Following is a discussion of each of the most commonly used qualitative data collections tools,
including the strengths and limitations of each one, as well as important points of consideration
with regard usage. Table 8.5, Qualitative Data Collection Methods: A Summary Overview illus-
trates the various qualitative data collection methods from which to choose.
TABLE 8.5 ■ Qualitative Data Collection Methods: A Summary Overview
Method Function
Document • Data are collected in their natural setting

Review
• Records, documents, and artifacts provide contextual information and insights
into material culture
• Facilitates discovery of cultural nuances
Survey • Provides demographic information
• Provides contextual information
• Provides perceptual information
• Can include both quantitative (numerical) and qualitative (open-ended) elements
Interview • Fosters interactivity with participants
• Elicits in-depth, context-rich personal accounts, perceptions, and perspectives
• Data are collected in their natural setting
• Interviews can be unstructured, structured, or semi-structured
• Explains and describes complex interactions and processes
• Facilitates discovery of nuances in culture
(Continued)
TABLE 8.5 ■ Qualitative Data Collection Methods: A Summary

Overview (Continued)
Method Function
Focus Group • Notes or verbatim transcriptions are used to document the interview
• Fosters interactivity and dialogue among participants
• Describes complex interactions
• Clarifies and extends findings yielded by other methods
• Allows for increased richness of responses through synergy and interaction
Observation • Notes or verbatim transcriptions are used to document the interview
• The researcher observes and records behavior but does not interact with
participants
• Provides data collected in their natural setting
• Useful for describing complex processes and interactions
• Runs the risk of observer effect and observer bias
Participant • Field notes are used to document observations

Observation
• Fosters face-to-face interaction with participants
• Provides data collected in their natural setting
• Facilitates insight into complex social and cultural nuances by allowing the
researcher to develop relationships with participants
• Runs the risk of observer effect and the potential for the researcher to become
emotionally involved
Critical Incident • Field notes are used to document observations

Questionnaire
(CIQ)
• Engages participants in the reflective process regarding extreme situations (high
and low points of an experience)
• Draws on the personal meaning of experience
Life History • Provides critical perceptual information
• Discovers retrospective information and its impact on current experiences
• Enhances participants’ critical thinking, reflection, and depth of response
• Encourages participants to extract deeper meaning from their own experiences
Note: Rather than rely on any one method, qualitative researchers typically triangulate a variety of data collection
methods to ensure trustworthiness.
Interviews
Interviewing has always been one of the most common sources of qualitative data (Charmaz,
2015; Seidman, 2019). The interview is often selected as the primary method for data collec-
tion because it has the potential to elicit rich and “thick” descriptions. Further, this method
offers researchers an opportunity to clarify statements and probe for additional informa-
tion. Remember, the credibility of interview data depends largely on audiotaping and tran-
scription to produce verbatim quotations. Typically, interviews for qualitative research are
in-depth in order to capture perceptions, attitudes, and emotions of the interview partici-
pant. Interviews aim to elicit participants’ views of their lives, as portrayed in their stories,
and so gain access to their experiences, feelings, and social worlds. Indeed, the generativity
of the interview depends on both partners and their willingness to engage in a deep discus-
sion about the topic of interest. As Brinkmann and Kvale (2015) note, an interview is an
“inter-view”—that is, an exchange of views between two persons. Whatever type of interview
protocol used, the success of an interview depends on the nature of the interaction between
the interviewer and the research participant and on the interviewer’s skill in asking good
questions. In all cases, treat participants with respect, acknowledging their contributions, and
analyzing the ways in which the data they have shared with you informs your larger research
questions.
The questions that are included in the interview protocol or guide ultimately shapes how
they function in the field and what information you gather from data collection activities.
Additionally, the specific parameters of your research design will direct the overall organization
of your protocol. While researchers may refer to different types of interview protocols, there are
three general types: unstructured, semi-structured, and structured.
• Unstructured interview protocols, which generally do not include a predetermined

set of questions, as is typical of ethnographic interviewing—lead to more natural
exchange and conversations that may proceed in multiple directions. Informal
conversational interviewing using an unstructured interview protocol defers to
spontaneity in an interaction that unfolds naturally.
• Semi-structured interview protocols balance interview questions with interview
dynamics, that is, they generally reconcile a frequent need to incorporate a set of
questions tied to their study’s research questions and broader research framework with
some spontaneity, and often results in unexpected participant responses to follow up
with probing questions. With semi-structured interview guides, a mix of questions,
prompts, and topics informs your work but leaves open opportunities to follow
hunches and intuitive directions. In this way, while the interview can take any shape—
depending on the direction of the conversation—a researcher can plan ahead for what
will happen in fieldwork settings and bring a level of predictability to data collection
activities.
• Structured open-ended interview protocols value interview questions over interview
dynamics that may direct an interviewer’s ability to follow new directions that
emerge during a natural exchange in the field. Similar to a survey or questionnaire in
quantitative research, the level of structure associated with a standardized open-ended
interview guide can maximize efficiency but may leave relatively little conversational
and interactional space for interviewers and interviewees.
Strengths and Limitations. A major benefit of collecting data through individual in-depth
interviews is that they offer the potential to capture a person’s perspective of an event or experi-
ence. Although interviews have inherent strengths, there are various limitations associated with
interviewing. First, not all people are equally cooperative, articulate, and perceptive. Second,
interviews require researcher skill. Third, interviews are not neutral tools of data gathering; they
are the result of the interaction between the interviewer and the interviewee and the context
in which they take place, and as such, this method of data collection has been critiqued for
representing asymmetrical power relations (Brinkmann, 2018; Fontana & Frey, 2013; Rubin &
Rubin, 2012; Seidman, 2019). The researcher as interviewer initiates the interview, determines
the interview topic, poses the questions, critically follows up on the answers, and also chooses
when to terminate the conversation. As Brinkmann (2018) puts it, “It is illusory to think of
the research interview as a dominance-free dialogue between equal partners; the interviewer’s
research project and knowledge interest set the agenda and rule the conversation” (p. 588).
Interviews, of necessity, must be transcribed verbatim; that is “word for word”. It must be
emphasized that transcription is a form of representation and, as such, is not value-free. The
process of transcribing is not just a matter of simply writing down what someone or some people
said or did; transcribing involves making analytic judgments on the part of the researcher about
what to present and how to re-present it and choosing to display or focus on certain specific
features of a piece of talk, action, or interaction. The notion of “re-presentation” implies that
transcripts are not neutral documents but are a rendering of the data on the part of the tran-
scriber. As such, it is incumbent upon qualitative researchers to routinely reflect on the ways
they choose to direct their interviews, and the ways that they interpret and derive meaning
from the statements of others to avoid reducing what we know and how they know it to limited
perspectives and interests (Brinkmann, 2018; Roulston, 2021). As pointed out by Au (2019)
fundamental power imbalances exist in interview mechanics in which a researcher typically
holds the authority to represent the voices of their participants. This author explains the strate-
gies used to transform the dialogical mechanics of an interview into a conversational structure
through a culturally sensitive approach through maintaining cultural integrity, and in so doing,
transforming the positionality of the researcher.
Points of Consideration. Additional considerations must be taken with socially distanced

interviews, such as those conducted through writing as well as those conducted by way of syn-
chronous technologies such as Zoom (Gray et al., 2020). With written interviews there are
limited opportunities for follow up or clarifying questions (Handy & Ross, 2005). The prolifera-
tion of new video conferencing tools offers unique data generation opportunities for qualitative
researchers, providing researchers with a cost-effective and convenient alternative to in-person
interviews, including the ability to reach diverse and geographically dispersed populations.
While video conferencing software allows the participant and interviewer to hear and see each
other, they do not occupy the same physical space resulting in missed opportunities for the
researcher to observe the participant’s physical space and respond to body language and emo-
tional cues. Additionally, while it is convenient for the participant to choose their own space,
they may experience distractions or lack of privacy which could impact the interview itself.
While the uses and advantages of face-to-face interviewing are well documented, utilizing video
conferencing as a method of data generation has not been well examined (Gray et al., 2020).
Remember, however, the same ethical considerations and researcher responsibilities as in the
case of face-to-face interviews still apply. With any form of qualitative research, the investigator
needs to consider the appropriateness of the research strategies. For example, similar to consider-
ing the physical space and audio and video recording devices required for in-person interviews,
researchers utilizing video conferencing software must consider possible barriers to access and/or
technical difficulties that research participants may encounter, and also determine if and to what
extent they possess the appropriate skills to conduct interviews on a virtual platform. As Paulus
and Lester (2021) state: “To critically appraise each new tool being considered when designing
a study and to remain reflexive in understanding how we and our digital tools and spaces are
co-constituted in our research practices” (p. 341).
Students who are conducting qualitative interviews often struggle with developing their
interview protocol. This difficulty sometimes comes as a surprise because they often have a pre-
conception that writing questions is “easy.” They typically do not understand that the interview
questions will provide the data that will answer the research questions, need to be aligned with
the literature, and be written in a way that will result in large amounts of detailed data. Often,
their first attempts result in questions that will likely yield one or two sentence responses which
is not nearly enough data to provide insight into their research questions. Because interviews
are, in most cases, the primary method of data collection, it is useful at this point to explain
how interview questions are developed. To carry out the purpose of your study, all the research
questions must be satisfied. Therefore, designing the appropriate interview questions is critical.
Essentially, interview questions are based directly on your study’s research questions.
To ensure that the interview questions are directly tied to the research questions, type out
in bold font each of your research questions, and then underneath each, brainstorm three or
four questions that will get at that research question. When you have done this for each of
your research questions, proceed to list appropriate interview questions. To do a preliminary
test of your interview questions, think about all probable responses you might get from each
interview question and reframe the questions until you are satisfied they will engender the
kind of responses that refer directly to the research questions. Your protocol should also be
refined through a field test such as an expert panel reviewing the questions to check for clarity;
omit biased wording; uncover any unforeseen limitations, confusion, or ambiguity; and ensure
alignment with the study’s problem, purpose, and research questions. Constructing a matrix
that lists the research questions along the horizontal axis and the interview questions down the
vertical axis can further indicate the extent to which your interview questions have achieved
the necessary coverage of your research questions. Table 8.6, Template for Research Questions/
Interview Questions Matrix, is an illustration of this approach. This type of matrix, which allows
a visual overview of the required coverage of the research questions via the interview schedule,
in conjunction with pilot interviews, can help you further refine your interview questions. A
similar table can be created for focus group questions. A similar table can be created to reflect
open ended survey questions and focus group questions. A sample of a completed interview
protocol based on research questions is presented as Appendix N, Sample Matrix Research
Questions-/Interview Questions.
TABLE 8.6 ■ Template for Research Questions/Interview Questions Matrix
Research Questions
Interview Questions 1: 2: 3: 4:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Focus Groups
Focus groups, or group interviews, are facilitated group discussions and possess elements of
both participant observation and individual interviews while also maintaining their own
uniqueness as a distinctive research method (Barbour, 2018; Liamputtong, 2011). It is typically
recommended that the size of the group include between 6 and 12 participants. In this way, the
group is small enough for all participants to talk and share their thoughts, and yet large enough
to allow for diverse perspectives. Participants are usually selected because of shared social or
cultural experience or shared concerns related to the study’s focus. A focus group is essentially
a group discussion focused on a single theme (Kreuger & Casey, 2015; Morgan, 2019; Stewart
& Shamdasani, 2015). Fundamental to the design of a focus group study is group composition
and the degree of homogeneity or heterogeneity the researcher wants represented by the group
participants (Morgan, 2019). There are many questions the researcher needs to contemplate,
such as the extent of similarity or dissimilarity in participants’ demographic characteristics, as
well as in their experiences and involvement with the subject matter. As discussed by Morgan
(2019), one key feature in creating a comfortable atmosphere for a group discussion is under-
standing which categories of participants typically feel free to interact together. For example, in
certain societies, mixing factors such as gender, age, religion, social status, as well as status and
hierarchy issues require special attention and could be uncomfortable or inappropriate regard-
less of the topic. This is an area where the researcher could benefit from the advice from a key
informant or local advisory board (Morgan, 2019).
Whatever the make-up of the group, as research has become increasingly globalized, respect
for diversity and striving for inclusion, equity, and appreciation of differences is central. The idea
of “culturally responsive” focus groups is indeed paramount, and the skill in addressing group
dynamics as well as the empathy of the researcher and the ability to build trust and maintain a
safe environment for all participants become critical considerations (Hall, 2020). Beyond such
general cultural sensitivity, there are also practical issues about how someone from one culture
should contact a stranger and invite their participation. Although standard Western procedures
often involve relatively anonymous recruitment from relative strangers, these assumptions may
not work in other settings (Morgan, 2019). The researcher may need to invest time becoming a
known quantity in the local community, a form of recruitment that Jarrett (1993) described as
“touched by human hands”.
Strengths and Limitations. One strength of focus groups is that this method is socially ori-
ented, studying participants in an atmosphere that is often more natural and relaxed than a
one-to-one interview. As with other types of interviews, the format allows the facilitator the flex-
ibility to explore often-unanticipated issues as they arise in the discussion. As such, the strengths
of focus groups come from the insights that arise during the interaction among the participants.
These discussions can clarify not just what participants think but why they think the way they
do. As they share and compare their experiences and outlooks, participants are naturally inter-
ested in the way that they are either similar to or different from each other. This dynamic is
especially valuable for the researcher because it not only shows the extent of consensus and
diversity within the group but also provides information about the sources of those similarities
and differences (Morgan, 2019).
The unique advantage of the group discussion method is clearly the participant interact
ion and what it adds to (goes beyond) what might be learned from a series of individual inter-
views. Moreover, as participants exchange opinions, they consider their own views in relation to
others’—which may encourage them to refine their thoughts. In this way the group interaction
offers the researcher insight into how people think about the topic(s) being studied and on what
basis opinions may change. The goal, overall, is to create a candid conversation that addresses,
in depth, the selected topic. The underlying assumption of focus groups is that, within a permis-
sive atmosphere that fosters a range of opinions, a more complete and revealing understanding
of the issues will be obtained. Focus groups are planned and structured but are also flexible
tools (Liamputtong, 2011). Kreuger and Casey (2015) list various uses of focus groups: (a) elicit
a range of feelings, opinions, and ideas; (b) understand differences in perspectives; (c) uncover
and provide insight into specific factors that influence opinions; and (d) seek ideas that emerge
from the group. Similar to Table 8.6, you may consider creating a chart to lay out the ques-
tions that you ask your focus group participants, illustrating how these questions align with the
study’s research questions. Appendix O, Sample Matrix Research Questions/Interview Themes/
Focus Group Questions, is a useful cross-referencing tool that can be used to map research ques-
tions and interview questions, illustrating how the themes that emerge from interview findings
can then provide material that can be directly applied to a focus group for additional probing
and exploration.
It is important to realize that the interactive and dynamic aspect of the focus group discus-
sion method is its greatest potential strength as well as its greatest potential liability. One way
to consider the weaknesses of focus groups is to compare this to other qualitative data col-
lection methods. Starting with participant observation, focus groups lack the spontaneity of
venturing into the field to encounter people interacting within their own authentic settings. By
comparison, the discussions in focus groups occur in a researcher-centered environment where
the conversation occurs due to the researcher’s initiative, rather than spontaneously. Individual
interviewing is the other major qualitative method of data collection that sheds light on the
strengths and weaknesses of focus groups. While a distinct advantage of focus groups is that
they illustrate participants’ thoughts and feelings within a social context, these may tend to lack
the depth of individual interviews, during which it is possible to hear one person speak about
the research topic for an hour or more. Given the time constraints that apply to any kind of
interviewing, focus groups inevitably generate less detailed information about each person than
an individual interview.
Furthermore, it must be acknowledged that focus groups, while serving a useful function,
are not without other disadvantages, including issues of power dynamics (some views held by
a minority of participants could be minimized or dismissed) or groupthink (there might be a
tendency for participants to agree with others and reflect the collective views of group mem-
bers). One of the most important factors is the caliber and depth of the discussion; specifically,
the extent to which all participants have a fair chance of voicing their input. This is critical
because the success of the group discussion method hinges on generating an authentic discus-
sion where everyone present participates in a dialogue with the other group members and, to a
lesser degree, with the researcher. An important aspect of the interaction effect is the influence
the moderator has on group dynamics. In addition to the many factors associated with inter-
viewer bias and training in the in-depth interviewing method, there is also the issue of how the
moderator manages the group interaction and how this management affects the direction of the
outcomes. Additional logistical difficulties could arise from the need to manage conversation
while attempting to extract data, requiring strong facilitation skills (Fontana & Frey, 2013;
Morgan, 2019). Although a professional moderator can often identify the more introverted or
shy participants in a group and use rapport-building techniques to encourage their candidness,
these attempts are not always successful and the research outcomes may reflect more agreement
on an issue than is actually warranted.
Additional advantages and disadvantages can be raised regarding the use of traditional and
online focus groups. In comparison to traditional face-to-face focus groups, online methods
considered here share one basic advantage: participants can be situated within different geo-
graphical locations. One of the key limitations of face-to-face focus groups is that the moderator
and the participants must all meet in the same place. Aside from situations where participants
may have mobility limitations or are widely dispersed, this also creates challenges with regard
to recruiting rare target populations because there may not be sufficient potential participants
present in any one geographical area. In contrast, the participants in an online group can be
located anywhere in the world that offers an internet connection. That said, there are also some
significant disadvantages that apply across online methods. The most obvious is that each of
the participants will need to have access to and familiarity with the technology being used, and
if not they are disadvantaged by what is referred to as “the digital divide.” Another limitation,
in comparison to face-to-face groups, is related to interaction. Nonverbal interaction and body
language are less apparent in online focus groups and more challenging to observe, which makes
interaction more difficult to coordinate.
Points of Consideration. With the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, many researchers are
scrambling to find ways to re-design their in-person focus group research. Increasingly, research-
ers are moving from in-person discussions to an online mode that allows for some semblance of
in-person groups by way of face-to-face and real-time interaction, that is., synchronous video
conferencing. For some (if not, most) of these researchers, the online face-to-face mode is a new
experience and, as such, researchers are oftentimes uncertain on how to proceed, facing two
key challenges: (1) the online service or platform they should use and (2) best practices when
conducting online synchronous group discussions for research purposes. With respect to the
online service or platform, the researcher needs to weigh the scope of the study (e.g., type of
participant) as well as the depth and breadth of the discussion. While synchronous technologies
such as those provided by Zoom, Webex, GoToMeeting, or Microsoft Teams may offer the video
interface, the researcher needs to think about what they may or may not be giving up in terms
of the quality and depth of the discussion as well as ethical and safety issues, and think about
strategies and techniques to avoid this. As in the case of using individual interviews as a data col-
lection method, the same ethical considerations and researcher responsibilities as in the case of
face-to-face focus groups still apply. An additional limitation (or, at least, a real challenge) to the
focus group method involves the issue of guaranteeing confidentiality to the participants. There
are many people involved in a focus group study, all of whom will be privy to the research subject
matter as well as the comments made by individual members of the group. It is the researcher’s
responsibility, therefore, to address ethical concerns by proactively giving direct attention to
questions such as the following:
• Where and for how long will participants’ comments and uploaded material (e.g.,
images and videos) reside in “data storage”?
• What are the security measures that are in place and who will have access to the
research data (i.e., participants’ comments and uploaded material)?
• Who, other than the moderator, will be observing the discussion in the virtual back
room?
• How much of a participant’s identity is actually known by the moderator, the
observers, and the other participants?
• Will the other participants keep participants’ comments confidential, that is, not share
comments made in the discussion with anyone outside the group?
• Will participants be identified with their comments either internally (i.e., via the final
report or presentation) or externally (e.g., via text snippets in an online blog or posting
a participant’s uploaded video on social media sites)?
• What recourse does a participant have if any security or identity violation occurs?
Finally, Morgan (2019) raises some important considerations to take into account with
regard to cross-cultural aspects of data analysis. The ability to record the discussion is often a
taken-for-granted aspect of focus groups, but it will not be acceptable in every context. When
recording is not possible, the most likely alternative is to use note takers. Once again, language
issues can arise, as it would be desirable to have bilingual note takers. Alternatively, a bilingual
member of the research team can take responsibility for training note takers and monitoring
the data they produce. When recording is possible, translation is almost certain to be an issue
for transcription. In this case, the preference is to transcribe the groups in their native language
prior to translation into the researcher’s language. It will also be beneficial if the translators are
either part of the research team or receive training from them, as this would ensure that they
understand the research topic and goal.
Observation
Observation, or participant observation, is a central and fundamental method in qualitative
inquiry and is used to discover and explain complex interactions in natural social settings. In
the early stages of qualitative research, the emphasis is on discovery. The researcher may enter
the setting with broad areas of interest but without predetermined categories or strict observa-
tional checklists. Through this type of open-ended entry, the researcher is potentially able to
discover recurring patterns of behavior, interactions, and relationships. After these patterns are
identified and described through early analysis of field notes, checklists might become more
appropriate and context-sensitive. Focused observation may then be used at later stages of the
study—for example, to see whether analytic themes explain behavior and relationships over a
period of time or in a variety of settings.
Strengths and Limitations. The term participant observation, as its name suggests, explains
the researcher as both a participant and an observer through immersion in the setting in order
to experience reality as the research participants do. As explained by Creswell and Poth (2018),
The types of challenges experienced during observations will closely relate to the role of
the inquirer in observation, such as whether the researcher assumes a participant, non-
participant, or middle-ground position. There are challenges as well with the mechan-
ics of observing, such as remembering to take field notes, recording quotes accurately
for inclusion in field notes, determining the best timing for moving from a nonpartici-
pant to a participant (if this role change is desired), keeping from being overwhelmed at
the site with information, and learning how to funnel the observations from the broad
picture to a narrower one in time. (p. 173)
This method of collecting data raises the issue of “positionality”—that is, the researcher’s rela-
tionship with participants, the nature of that involvement, how much of the study’s purpose will
be revealed to participants, and how ethical dilemmas will be managed.
Points of Consideration. Observation differs from interviews or focus groups in that the
researcher obtains a firsthand account of the phenomenon of interest rather than relying on
someone else’s interpretation or perspective. There are texts that describe what and how to
observe, the interdependent relationship between the observer and the observed, how to record
observations in the form of field notes, and how to analyze and interpret observation data. As
with interviews, to avoid bias, it is incumbent upon qualitative researchers to routinely reflect
on the ways they choose to select what will be observed, the criteria used for observing, the
ways they direct their observations and record these, and the ways that they interpret and derive
meaning from observing others. Transparency with regard to all of these is critical to establishing
credible findings.
Critical Incident Questionnaire

Critical incident reports are a data collection method first formulated by Flanagan (1954), use-
ful because qualitative research methodology emphasizes process and is based on a descriptive
and inductive approach to data collection. Brookfield (1990) introduced the critical incident
questionnaire as a qualitative tool in his work as an educator, whereby on a single page, it seeks
to capture the critical moments, experiences, or “vivid happenings” that occur in a learning
episode for the purpose of informing the instructor or facilitator about how the learning experi-
ence is proceeding. Brookfield (1990, 1991) noted that critical incidents are moments of signifi-
cance as recorded by the actual participant themselves. This self-report enables the researcher
to gain a deeper understanding of the phenomenon under review through the participant’s own
description, emotion, and representation by specifically focusing on the “high” and low points
related to the experience or phenomenon.
Strengths and Limitations. Brookfield (1990) explains how critical incident questionnaires
can produce insightful primary source data due to the reflective nature of the exercise itself.
Moreover, critical incidents also empower the participant to share their most embedded and
prevalent assumptions about a topic. As recommended by Brookfield (1990), critical incident
questionnaires include both positive and negative events for a more well-rounded gathering of
data. Moreover, recalling positive events or interactions can often tend to elicit more honest and
thoughtful responses for more difficult and challenging situations.
The critical incident method may be employed in a variety of ways such as observation or
recall through in-depth descriptive interviews. Rather than focusing on opinions of what is
considered critical, this method places the analysis on the context of the event. For instance, in
interview participants may be asked to reflect on and identify a specific incident they perceive
to be critical in influencing the final outcome. Qualitative researchers typically select critical
incident instruments with the intention of corroborating interview data and, further, to allow
the uncovering of perceptions that might not have been revealed through interviews. Of par-
ticular importance is that written critical incident reports probe assumptions, allowing time for
reflection.
Points of Consideration. Although there is support in the literature for the use of the critical
incident as an effective technique for enhancing data collection, researchers should be mindful
of Brookfield’s (1991, 2005) repeated caution that critical incidents cannot be the sole technique
for collecting data. Critical incidents are too abbreviated to provide the rich descriptions that
can be obtained in interviews and observations. A further concern regarding the use of critical
incident reports has to do with the accuracy of data because this technique relies solely on the
respondents’ retrospective recall. A related concern is that, although reporting information that
respondents perceive is important, the researcher may fail to report salient incremental data and
the information, as such, may be incomplete.
Document Review
Another primary source of qualitative data is document review. Documents provide a major
source of data. The term document is broadly defined to cover a variety of written records, visual
images, artifacts, and even archival data. Although some documents may be developed at the
researcher’s request, most are produced independently of the research study and thus offer a
valuable resource for confirming insights gained through other methods of data collection.
Elicited documents involve research participants in producing the data. Material such as ques-
tionnaires, diaries, logs, journals, personal accounts, letters, pictures, and photographs can all
generate elicited texts. Extant documents contrast with elicited materials in that the researcher
does not affect or influence their construction. Among extant materials are public records, pol-
icy reports, mass media images, charts, and diagrams. Researchers often supplement observa-
tion and interviewing with gathering and analyzing documents. As with other methodological
decisions, the decision to conduct document review should be linked to the study’s research
design and will indicate the need for seeking corroboration of the meaning of the documents
through other data collection methods. There are many useful texts that cover this method
of data collection, including the various kinds of documents, their use in qualitative research,
ethical issues involved, and the strengths and limitations associated with documents as sources
of data.
Strengths and Limitations. The analysis of documents is potentially very rich in portraying
the values and beliefs of participants in the setting. To understand an organization, a setting, or a
group, you will find a range of useful data sources such as minutes of meetings, logs, announce-
ments, formal policy statements, letters, and so on. Archival data—documents recording offi-
cial events—are the routinely gathered records of a society, community, or organization. These
may further supplement other qualitative methods in rich ways. As Charmaz (2015) states,
“Documents enter research in multiple ways that reflect contemporary worlds … People create
documents for specific purposes and they do so within social, economic, historical, cultural, and
situational contexts” (pp. 45–46). While the analysis of documents is potentially rich in portray-
ing the values and beliefs of participants in the setting, documentary materials cannot be con-
sidered neutral or transparent reflections of organizational or social life. Care must be taken to
assess the less conscious shaping of what is represented in written reports, as there is bound to be
some social filtering, possibly because these are produced by interested parties to suit their own
views and preconceptions; dictated by particular administrative needs; influenced by currently
dominant models, theories, or interpretations among scholars; and so on. It is worth remember-
ing that a source purporting to represent generally held views or an “objective assessment” of a
situation often expresses the views of a minority or of the dominant interest group.
Points of Consideration. Historical documents can be combined with memoirs and even
interviews. Historical research traditions articulate procedures to enhance the credibility of
statements about the past, to establish relationships, and to determine possible cause-and-effect
relationships. Many research studies have a historical base or context; so systematic historical
analysis enhances the credibility of a study. Remember, however, interpretations of historical data
are especially vulnerable to reconstruction through the researcher’s positionality. As Marshall
et al. (2022) point out, “Historical documents are not ahistorical. They were produced within
specific social contexts by specific raced, classed, gendered individuals” (p. 182). Moreover, the
ethical issues in relying on documents and artifacts also draw attention to how publicly avail-
able these materials are. Using public materials might seem harmless, but the researcher should
nonetheless seriously consider how using them might harm the organization or individuals
(even though not specifically identified or intended). Would analysis and writing about these
materials denigrate those who produced them? In what ways? Moreover, while being creative,
searching beyond documents typically kept in libraries and archives, your attention to those
very documents could generate renewed and wider attention to matters that had been “closed
out” or laid to rest.
It is important, therefore, that qualitative researchers pay careful attention to the collection
and analysis of documentary realities (Boreus & Bergstrom, 2017; Charmaz, 2015; Prior, 2017).
It is also important to recognize that while the writers of documents bring to bear their knowl-
edge, often tacit, into developing documents, readers too bring to bear their own conventional
understanding in terms of making sense of and interpreting such documents. Moreover, readers
do not all share the same culture, and so do not all bring to bear the same cultural knowledge. A
caveat in using documents in qualitative research is that analysis needs to focus on how organi-
zational realities are (re)produced through textual conventions. As such, qualitative researchers
should be concerned with situating documents in context and connecting these to a broader
narrative, including the political, cultural, and social infrastructure that contain and also exist
outside of the text. Analysis of documents is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 9 of this
book.
Surveys
In the past, survey researchers had a choice of mail, telephone, and personal interviews for
conducting their studies. Technological advances have increased the options for the con-
duct of survey research, including email, web-based surveys, video-based surveys, mobile
texting, social media, or even a combination of these methods. Surveying a research sample
using applications such as SurveyMonkey or Qualtrics is also now commonplace. The method
selected depends on the purpose of the survey, the nature of the data to be collected, cost
factors, and the size and characteristics of the research sample. Surveys, while typically a
quantitative data collection method, can be used as an adjunct to many of the methods
described previously. When used in qualitative research, surveys will typically include mostly
open-ended items as opposed to Likert scales and other quantitative components. If the latter
are included, they are usually used only minimally as numerical values are not the focus of
qualitative research.
Strengths and Limitations. An advantage of survey methodology is that it is relatively unob-

trusive and relatively easily administered and managed (Fink, 2013; Fowler, 2014). It must be
acknowledged, however, that surveys alone can be of limited value for examining complex social
relationships or intricate patterns of interaction. In keeping with the qualitative research tradi-
tion, surveys should include mostly open-ended questions that seek to tap into personal experi-
ences and shed light on participants’ perceptions. However, open-ended questions also present
disadvantages in that respondents typically have expectations of moving through surveys fairly
quickly, and this may be an obstacle in terms of survey completion. A further limitation is that,
in most cases, ensuring that someone is actually able to complete a questionnaire requires them
to be literate. The fact that most surveys are standardized instruments that is administered to the
entire sample also means that you have to make decisions about vocabulary to ensure that all
questions will be understood by everyone, which can be a significant challenge when the sample
is highly diverse. Further, the data that are obtained from surveys are limited to what the respon-
dent places on the paper or indicates on a computer screen, at which point you can no longer ask
the respondent to clarify or further embellish upon their response, and there are no nonverbal
or contextual cues to assist you in interpreting what the respondent has stated. Recruitment is
another potential limiting issue with surveys. Generally speaking, the more lengthy the survey,
the less likely people are to participate, and among those who do begin, the more likely they are
to abandon the survey prior to completion.
The advantages of using online surveys include convenient access to samples; reduced costs;
faster responses; more interactive or tailored formats; quick troubleshooting; automated data
collection, scoring, and reporting; and access to larger samples. Response rates can sometimes
be enhanced by using multiple modes of contact, combining mail, email, and web-based deliv-
ery systems. A key advantage of gathering data online is that your sample can quite literally
be global, notwithstanding the constraints of equitable access to the internet and hardware.
Online opportunities also provide access to those who may be uncomfortable with or unwilling
to engage in face-to-face interactions. Use of such applications do however present challenges
and questions, and these must be taken into consideration: Are data collected from a discus-
sion blog as rich as, for example, in-person interviews or focus groups? What cues are missing
when the data are gathered without actually seeing, sensing, or interacting face-to-face with the
participants? What intuitive inferences are lost? How do you justify a sample that is made up of
only people who are computer literate, are comfortable with the medium, and have computer
access? What about the “voices” of those who are excluded because they may not be literate or
have access? Furthermore, how can you protect the anonymity of your sources if you collect data
online? Despite these challenges, computer-mediated data gathering increasingly offers an alter-
native to face-to-face surveys and is most appropriate for gathering data when social distancing
regulations are in place or when a researcher simply seeks to reach a large group of people in an
efficient and manageable manner.
Points of Consideration. During the design phase, the researcher should begin to articulate
the specific purpose of the survey, consider the types of information needed, and evaluate design
options. While a survey may indeed seem to be easily created, especially with tools such as Survey
Monkey or Qualtrics, making sure that every question is meaningful and understood by everyone
who participates is a significant challenge. The difficulty comes from the fact that when we cre-
ate a questionnaire, we often do it based on our own understanding, where the words we use
have certain meanings for us and where what we are trying to find out seems somewhat obvious.
However, it is critical to realize that others may have a very different understanding and way of
understanding the phenomenon that we are seeking to explore.
Note that the words “survey,” “questionnaire,” and survey questionnaire are used inter-
changeably in the literature to refer to a fairly structured set of questions or other items that are
finalized ahead of time and can be either self-administered or delivered by a researcher whose
role is typically to stay focused on the questions and to keep interaction to a minimum. The
specific questions can be of many different types that will range from highly structured to more
open-ended, but a general characteristic is that all respondents will receive exactly the same set
of questions worded in exactly the same way. An objective of such research typically will be for
data analysis to involve any of a variety of statistical techniques ranging from simple descrip-
tive information regarding the distribution of responses (e.g., percentage breakdowns for each
item, as you often see when opinion polls are published) to more complex statistical techniques
designed to explore the data to explain variations in responding or to compare the responses of
different groups. As this suggests, surveys are typically considered more of a quantitative tech-
nique. When used in qualitative research, you will need to include predominantly open-ended
questions, and using surveys generally serves the purpose of an additional or supplementary
method of data collection. For example, open-ended questions are helpful if you are interested
in hearing respondents’ opinions in their own words. Open-ended questions are also particu-
larly useful in exploratory research where you may not yet know what range of responses can be
anticipated. In exploratory and pilot research, the responses to open-ended questions can then
be used to refine and develop structured questions that can be used in subsequent interviews or
focus groups.
Collecting Data Online

In the previous edition of this book, I addressed the internet as a separate part of research, or
indeed everyday life, as it had become an increasingly integrated part of daily experience. Four
years later, this is even more the case and is reflected in the shift in language from “the Internet”
to “digital media” or “social media.” Digital technologies in today’s world have become integral
to our lives, and we use digital platforms to obtain information, share and disseminate informa-
tion, and communicate. In addition, these platforms are rapidly becoming a part of academic
and professional settings, where scholars and professional practitioners use digital tools for a
variety of purposes, including collaboration, accessing community contexts, and conducting
research. Digital tools can now be used in every aspect of the research process including plan-
ning, collaboration, data generation and analysis, and dissemination of research findings out-
side of academia. Indeed, one of the most significant impacts of the development of digital
media is the extent to which it enables researchers to publicize widely or make contact with
wider audiences and stakeholder groups (including practitioners and policy makers), thereby
extending the networks of those associated with their project and publicizing research find-
ings and the outcomes. The internet is often chosen as a method of collecting information
because of the ease with which researchers can gain access to individuals and groups, download
texts or media, capture conversations, observe individual and group behaviors, or interact with
participants in the field. Moreover, since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020,
doing research using online platforms and tools is increasingly prevalent, especially with social
distancing becoming an imperative.
The ongoing proliferation of online research conducted over the past decade has raised sig-
nificant concerns regarding ethics and engagement. The use of digital technologies in research
settings has the potential to increase participation and engagement when processes are imple-
mented purposefully, but this is not without limitations (Fielding, 2019; Franzke et al., 2020;
Gelinas et al., 2017; Golder et al., 2017; Lobe et al., 2020). Important ethical issues include the
rationale for the selection of participants (including sampling criteria and procedures); veri-
fication of participant identity and other relevant criteria; selection of methods; permissions
needed; ensuring informed consent and verifying consent (in the case of elicited or enacted
approaches); choosing, finding, and creating conducive meeting spaces; respect for the research
site; safeguarding of data; and protection of participants’ identities. Conducting research online
is certainly a convenient and accessible way to interact with research participants who may be
broadly dispersed. However, there are certain concerns that need to be considered when gather-
ing data this way. One concern addresses where the data reside and how the researcher accesses
it. Another concern pertains to the relationship of the researcher to the participants and to the
data. Following are some of the key challenges and issues to consider when engaging in online
research, most notably, issues pertaining to access, privacy, and confidentiality:
Access. Online platforms can potentiality be a rich venue for generating new forms of access,
but at the same time producing, sustaining, and even exacerbating inherent exclusionary prac-
tices. A significant issue associated with the use of digital technologies is that of access and the
actual ability of stakeholders to participate in research studies. Using digital media requires
access to technology including wifi and appropriate software. An important issue to consider in
using digital technologies is the demographics of the research participants, as their familiarity
with and use of digital tools can significantly affect their ability and willingness to participate in
the research. As such it becomes necessary that researchers provide training or information ses-
sions to participants regarding how to access and use digital tools so that they can actively engage
in the process. A focus on the “digital divide” and the realities of inequitable access reveals the
significant need for researchers to remain vigilant, aware, and reflexive in understanding the
complexities that are always at work with technology adoption.
Privacy and Confidentiality. Especially important in conducting research online is the con-
cept of privacy, which can be generally defined as individuals’ ability to control the terms by
which their personal information is collected and used. Also challenging is guaranteeing ano-
nymity. In most cases, the data that researchers can access and use are publicly available, but
given the complexity of various social media platforms and their sometimes complex privacy
settings, people who post in these forums may not always be aware that they are posting publicly.
When designing studies that involve the use of online data, researchers should be cautious in
assuming “implied consent” as opposed to informed consent. This raises ethical questions about
using data from social media platforms as well as instances in which researchers use social media
as part of their recruitment or research method to reach and communicate with participants.
Indeed, the pandemic and its aftermath, and the resulting demands for physical distancing,
has pushed researchers to think more deeply and critically about what it means to do qualita-
tive research not just in terms of using digital tools, but also how to engage in digital spaces and
online communities and think critically about the methodological and ethical implications of
engaging with these tools and online spaces. (Paulus & Lester, 2021). The broader implications
for qualitative researchers are still unfolding, but digital tools and spaces will most certainly be
an integral aspect of how qualitative research is conducted in the years ahead.
Qualitative Secondary Research

The internet is a burgeoning field site for qualitative research, serving as an umbrella for mul-
tiple and multimodal digital technologies, capacities, uses, and social spaces, including social
media, social networking sites, and discussion forums. We are currently witnessing what
Roulston and deMarrais (2021) refer to as the “archival turn,” with archived records and mate-
rial culture (including manuscripts, documents, audio- and video-recordings, and visual and
material culture) providing a wealth of resources for qualitative researchers seeking to conduct
research in the social sciences. The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic indeed exacerbated the
need for access to archival data as social distancing precluded the use of in-person data collec-
tion, and subsequently this phenomenon, and the inherent value and use of archival data, has
tended to increase. The selection of technology tools and settings for collecting data online has
greatly expanded the kinds of communication possible with participants and the types of data
collected, whether text, verbal or visual, synchronous or asynchronous.
Given the unique characteristics of the online environment and communication, different
ways are needed to classify the types of data collected. Salmons (2017) describes three types of
online data collection:
• Elicited: The researcher elicits consenting participants’ responses and has direct
interaction with participants who consent to participate. Data collection can occur
either synchronously or asynchronously.
• Enacted: Approaches for generating data through some kind of online activity that
engages the researcher and participants in the generation of data. As with elicited data
collection, the researcher interacts directly with consenting participants.
• Extant: Much online communication involves posting text, images, or other materials
on websites, blogs, social networking sites, or various communications applications.
Collecting this kind of data involves adapting traditional qualitative data collection
tools, and data collection can occur synchronously or asynchronously. The difference
is that the researcher usually has no direct contact with users unless the study entails
consent or permissions.
Qualitative data collection is typically characterized by the method used, including

interviews, observations, and document or archival analysis. Qualitative secondary research
is a systematic approach to using extant data that has already been created or generated
and which exists as archival data. As defined by Largan and Morris (2019), “Qualitative
secondary research is a systematic approach to the use of existing data to provide ways of
understanding that may be additional to or different from the data’s original purpose.” (p.
14). Whereas primary research involves collecting data based on first-hand engagement with
participants, in qualitative secondary research a researcher uses archival data that are avail-
able in many forms and can be accessed from a multitude of sources, mostly via the internet.
Typically, the researcher will be asking a new question(s) and/or having a new research pur-
pose and new research questions, and/or applying a new theoretical framework and method
of analysis.
As explained by Largan and Morris (2019) and Hughes and Tarrant (2020), the benefits of
conducting secondary research include the following:
• It is possible to gain in-depth perspectives through an exploration of historical

data, with a focus on a specific individual or a specific event that is social, political,
economic, or cultural. Approaching data in this way means the researcher can
experience “new for old” understandings as the existing data can be reviewed using
new or revised questions, thereby enabling comparative understanding. This can offer
the advantage of hindsight, as old ways of thinking are exposed to the new.
• This approach enables working with complexity across projects by making use of
diverse data as the secondary analyst seeks to engage with data created in different ways
and for different purposes. Researchers can bring data into meaningful comparison, by
cross-project mapping of the content to enhance their understanding of the data and
enable comparison along the dimensions of interest and relevance, thereby addressing
research questions in a more holistic way by adopting a multidimensional research
approach
• Secondary research offers researchers a chance to test ideas and theories which have
been created through empirical research, thereby providing a means of verifying,
refuting, or refining the findings of primary studies. Using data in this way means
that researchers can re-interpret findings and possibly reveal new insights and hidden
or unexpected relationships. Approaching research in this way has the potential to
generate new knowledge as the researcher is essentially exploring existing research from
a new perspective.
• Factors such as time and cost are common reasons to undertake qualitative secondary
research. Access to existing data can speed up the research process as some of the most
time-consuming steps of a typical research project such as data collection have been
eliminated. One of the main benefits of qualitative secondary research is flexibility as
the researcher is not constrained by geographic location, and also has increased access
to a vast amount of data from a range of devices.
• Finally, a researcher who seeks to study a sensitive topic may find that qualitative
secondary research is the most appropriate approach in which this methodology creates
some form of distance from the research participants. For these reasons, the researcher
may be able to gain unobtrusive access to sensitive situations without having direct
contact with the research participants. However, and very importantly, there is still a
strong ethical duty placed on any researcher to ensure confidentiality, privacy, and the
right for those who offered their data not to be exposed to any harm.
A critique of qualitative secondary research is related to the trustworthiness of the data,

that is, can it be considered credible, dependable, confirmable, and transferable. A significant
emphasis is placed on the responsibility of the qualitative secondary researcher, therefore, to
understand and determine the “who,” “what,” “when,” “where,” “how,” and “why” of data pro-
duction. Understanding the quality of the data by having a deep knowledge of the context of its
production is essential, and so employing a critical approach will necessitate asking questions to
determine the viability of the data:
• Authenticity: Is the evidence (data) genuine and authentic?

• Credibility: Is the evidence (data) accurate?
• Representativeness: Is the evidence (data) typical or atypical of its kind?
• Meaning: Is the evidence (data) clear and comprehensible?
Please be aware that qualitative secondary research involves the same level of critical and
analytical engagement and reflexivity as is expected with all forms of primary research.
DATA ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS
Having presented the methods that you have used to collect your data, you are now ready to
go on and explain how these data have been recorded and managed, as well as your strategies
for data analysis. In this section of the methodology chapter, you report on how you managed,
organized, and analyzed your data in preparation to write up and present your findings (pre-
sented in detail in Chapter 9 of this book) and then how you went on to analyze and interpret
your findings (presented in detail in Chapter 10 of this book). Thus, it is important to note that
this section of your methodology chapter can be written only after you have written up the find-
ings and analysis chapters of your dissertation.
It is critical to remember that your methods of analysis must align with your chosen
research design (tradition or genre). The various qualitative traditions gather and analyze data
differently. For example, case study will use interview data to provide thick description in order
to develop themes and categories. Ethnographers will use interview data to develop a deeper
understanding of cultural nuances. Narrative inquiry uses the strategy of textual analysis to
develop “stories” from the interview data. Phenomenological research makes use of “significant
statements” in the narrative, the generation of meaning units, and the development of an essence
description. Grounded theory researchers approach interviews for the theoretical usefulness of
the data, seeking to analyze the meaning that the data convey, and thereby develop theoretical
categories. Narrative inquiry approaches document review for the purpose of textual analysis
within context, whereas grounded theory approaches document for its potential for theorizing.
As such, there is no one-size-fits-all when it comes to qualitative data analysis and its outcomes.
Your study’s analysis must be of necessity, therefore, be grounded in and aligned with the meth-
odology that you have selected and should respect disciplinary expectations.
Conducting a thorough qualitative analysis involves the researcher asking deeper questions
and going beyond description of the data to form a meaningful story. Qualitative thematic
analysis is a structured, step-by-step process that is designed for flexibility and ease of adop-
tion, yet there are issues that can prevent a successful thematic analysis. The first is absence of
conducting any actual analysis and engaging in a presentation of the themes without digging
into the data by way of coding to produce an analytic narrative. Without thorough engagement
in data analysis, the findings cannot present an argument to support the research questions.
Weakly documented analysis can also occur if the data do not clearly support the identified
themes or if there is too much overlap between the themes so that a clear story cannot be ade-
quately developed. To ensure that analysis has indeed been thoroughly conducted, it is essential
that each step in the analytic process—including both coding and theme development—be
clearly and accurately documented and explained.
One of the most common shortfalls in presenting qualitative research (and hence one of the
most common critiques of published qualitative research methodology) is indeed what has been
referred to as the “black box approach to data analysis” (Guest et al., 2012; St. Pierre & Jackson,
2014), that is, inadequate description of analytic procedures and reasoning. Oftentimes,
researchers simply state that they conducted thematic analysis in the belief that this consti-
tutes sufficient information. Appropriate methods of data analysis depend on the research pur-
pose and nature of data collected, but certain fundamental steps must be taken to constitute
a comprehensive and trustworthy (credible and dependable) account of the analytic process.
Describing decisions taken for arriving at certain judgments during data analysis—that is, an
“audit trail” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Miles et al., 2019)—enhances
transparency and is an indication of sound and rigorous methodological practice. This would
include details such as how codes were developed and applied to the data, code definitions (and
any changes and/or redefinitions that might have occurred in the process), methods used to
address coding reliability, methods of assessing intercoder agreement (in cases where multiple
coders are involved), and descriptions of theme development, and thematic definitions. If quali-
tative data software was used, the name and version of the program should be provided along
with the reporting functions used in the analysis.
Presenting audit trail items as appendixes in your dissertation demonstrates to examiners
and readers that the analytic process has been systematic and rigorous. Of course, the inclusion
of these substantiating items should not be used as a substitute for a thorough description of
your analytic decisions and process. Your research journal entries are another key element of
your audit trail—albeit one that might not necessarily need to be shared, but is useful for your
own use for purposes of reflection and critical thinking. The search for disconfirming evidence,
or negative cases, is always a valuable strategy for assessing the credibility of qualitative research
claims, and no disconfirming evidence should ever be discarded. Addressing any disconfirming
evidence or negative cases indicates your thoroughness and transparency as a researcher and
indeed this information is evidence of the multiple layers you seek to uncover in your findings.
As a further indication of credibility, where possible, researchers should document feedback
on their interpretation of data from research participants (by conducting member checks) and
from professional colleagues (through peer review).
The process of data analysis begins with setting in place a plan to manage the large volume
of data you collected and reducing it in a meaningful way. You complete this process to iden-
tify significant patterns and construct a framework for communicating the essence of what the
data revealed given the purpose of your study. Here your theoretical or conceptual framework
becomes the centerpiece in managing the data because the categories that constitute your frame-
work become the repositories of your data. Thus, as you look at your raw data, categorize them
within the construct of your theoretical or conceptual framework and assign initial codes to rel-
evant quotes. This iterative process of open coding leads to the ongoing refinement of what will
become your final coding scheme or coding legend. Generally, for purposes of transparency, it
is advisable to include this as an appendix. Appendix P, Sample Coding Schemes, is an illustra-
tion of some examples of completed coding schemes (sometimes referred to as coding legends).
If you have made use of a software analysis program, your code book can be exported as a word
document and included in your dissertation’s appendix. In addition to presenting your final
coding scheme (or code book), it is useful to explain how and in what ways your scheme initially
emerged and developed over time, thereby contributing to an audit trail. Appendix Q, Sample
Coding Scheme Development Charts, offers such an illustration. Appendix R, Sample Segments of
Coded Interview Transcripts, offers an idea of application of a coding scheme, and how one may
go about assigning codes to the interview transcript.
Qualitative data analysis software (QDAS) can be useful in both managing and analyzing
your data. Various software programs enable the researcher to store, categorize, retrieve, and
compare data (see Appendix S, Qualitative Data Analysis Software Resources). Many research-
ers still prefer to manage and analyze their data manually—to see visual displays of the data as
they move through the analysis process. These researchers also are concerned with what they
perceive as a limitation related to mechanical handling of data, and so they may feel more com-
fortable using flip charts, tables, charts, and matrices. The method you select to manage and
analyze your data is a matter of personal preference and depends on what you are most comfort-
able with, and/or institutional requirements.
Whether you use QDAS or adopt a manual analytic approach, the development of
visuals (tables or figures) can be useful in helping you organize your thinking in preparation for
writing. Aside from helping you develop your own thinking, visuals also are useful for display-
ing your data so your readers can better understand them. Various types of charts can be con-
structed, and you can indeed be creative in devising these charts. For presenting and analyzing
findings, three charts have shown to be particularly effective: data summary tables, the analysis
outline tool, and consistency charts.
• Data summary tables, discussed in greater detail in Chapter 9 of this book (Analyzing
Data and Reporting Findings) can help you in preparing to present the findings from
the data. These tables are used for recording the number and types of participant
responses, tracking the frequency of participant responses against the categories on
your conceptual framework, and formulating overall finding statements with respect
to each of your research questions. Sample Data Summary Tables are presented as
Appendix T.
• To further help in the analysis and interpretation of findings, it is recommended that
you use the interpretation outline tool, discussed in more detail in Chapter 10 of this
book (Meta-synthesis: Analyzing and Interpreting Findings). This tool prompts you to
probe beneath the surface of your findings to uncover the deeper meanings that lie
beneath them.
• Consistency charts, discussed further in Chapter 11 of this book (Drawing Trustworthy
Conclusions and Presenting Actionable Recommendations), help align your thinking with
respect to how each finding can generate suitable conclusions and recommendations.
Because qualitative research is, by its very nature, flexible and fluid, and because there
are no strict guidelines and standards for qualitative analysis, every qualitative researcher will
approach the analytic process somewhat differently. Therefore, it is necessary to (a) provide a
detailed description of how you went about analyzing your data, (b) refer to the matrices that
you used to display your data, and (c) identify the coding processes that you used to convert
the raw data into themes for analysis. Your description should include specific details about
how you managed the large amount of data. Include information about the computer software,
sticky notes, index cards, flip charts, or other processes that you used. Substantive and transpar-
ent detail helps the reader clearly understand how and in what ways you reduced or transformed
your data, and contributes to the study’s trustworthiness.
As a last point in this section, it is important that researchers understand what is meant
by synthesis of the data. Whereas analysis splits data apart, synthesis is the process of pulling
everything together: (a) how the research questions are answered by the findings, (b) how the
findings from interviews are supported from all other data collection methods, (c) how findings
relate to the literature, and (d) how findings relate to the researcher’s initial assumptions about
the study. This process is certainly not linear; rather, you describe your findings, interpret and
attach meaning to them, and remain focused on synthesizing throughout your discussion.
ADDRESSING TRUSTWORTHINESS
As outlined in great detail in Chapter 4 of this book, trustworthiness in qualitative research

includes four criteria: credibility, confirmability, dependability, and transferability. These four
criteria, in unison, provide a consistent reference point for researchers when addressing poten-
tial limitations. Additionally, consistency with regard to trustworthiness criteria could also help
address arguments about rigor, which has been an ongoing critique of qualitative research. If
conducted correctly and appropriately, threats to trustworthiness can be mitigated, and maybe
even eliminated, so that the study is not undermined.
In your dissertation’s methodology chapter, therefore, you will need to describe and clarify
for the reader how you have accounted and meaningfully addressed all four criteria of trustwor-
thiness regarding your own study. As the researcher, you are expected to display sensibility and
sensitivity vis-a-vis your role as the “research instrument.” Begin this section by discussing what
trustworthiness in qualitative research entails, using references from the literature to support
your statements. Then proceed to discuss the strategies that you have employed to enhance
the rigor of your own study, including all four trustworthiness criteria. Table 8.7, Overview
of Trustworthiness Criteria, offers a cursory look at the expected trustworthiness criteria for
qualitative research and the associated strategies to address each criterion. You will notice that
some of the strategies can address more than one criterion, thereby serving multiple functions in
addressing trustworthiness. This chart can be used as a cheat sheet to guide you as you develop
this trustworthiness section of the methodology chapter.
TABLE 8.7 ■ Overview of Trustworthiness Criteria
Comparable Quantitative
Qualitative Terminology Terminology Research Strategies
Credibility Internal validity • Journaling/reflexivity
• Prolonged field engagement
• Thick description
• Triangulation (methods, data,

theory)
• Seeking negative instances
• Member checks
• Peer review (especially with data

analysis)
Confirmability Objectivity • Audit trail
• Triangulation (methods, data)
• Journaling/reflexivity
Dependability Reliability • Triangulation (methods, data,

theory)
• Audit trail
• Peer review
Transferability External validity • Purposeful sampling
• Thick description
• Depth of information
Credibility
Credibility refers to whether the research participants’ perceptions match up with the research-
er’s portrayal of them. In other words, has the researcher accurately represented what the par-
ticipants think, feel, and do? The criterion of credibility addresses the researcher’s ability to take
into account and explain all the complexities that present themselves in a study and to address
the patterns, themes, and issues that might not be easily or simply understood. Evidence of sev-
eral strategies can support the credibility of your study:
a. Clarify any biases that you, as the researcher, bring to the study. This self-reflection
creates an open and honest attitude that will resonate well with readers. You should
continually monitor your own subjective perspectives and biases by recording reflective
field notes or keeping a journal throughout the research process.
b. Discuss how you engaged in repeated and substantial engagement in the field.
Prolonged involvement facilitates a more in-depth understanding of the phenomenon
under study, conveying detail about the site and the participants, thereby lending
credibility to your account.
c. Ensure that your dissertation contains the necessary detail so that readers can
adequately understand the research process. Presenting “thick description” is necessary
in this regard.
d. Check on whether your interpretation of the processes and interactions in the setting
is indeed realistic. Typically, qualitative researchers collect multiple sources of data.
The information provided by these different sources should be compared through
triangulation to corroborate the researcher’s conclusions.
e. Triangulate by using multiple methods to corroborate the evidence that you have
obtained via different means.
f. Present any and all negative instances or discrepant findings. Searching for variation
in the understanding of a phenomenon entails seeking instances that might
disconfirm or challenge the researcher’s expectations or emergent findings. Because
real life is composed of different perspectives that do not always coalesce, discussing
contrary information adds to the credibility of your account. So, don’t discard or
ignore these!
g. To ensure that the researcher’s own biases do not influence how participants’
perspectives are portrayed and to determine the accuracy of the findings, make use
of “member checks,” which entails sending the transcribed interviews or summaries
of the researcher’s conclusions to participants for their review. Note that member
checks are done on a case-by-case basis. This strategy involves a fair amount of
complexity, and so you should refer to the qualitative research literature for additional
information.
h. Use “peer review” to enhance the accuracy of your account. This process involves
asking colleagues or “thought partners” to review your field notes and data and then
ask you questions that will help you examine your assumptions and/or consider
alternative ways of looking at the data.
Confirmability
Confirmability is concerned with establishing that the researcher’s findings and interpretations
are clearly derived from the data, requiring the researcher to demonstrate how conclusions have
been reached. The implication is that the findings should be shown to be the result of the research
rather than an outcome of the biases and subjectivity of the researcher. A goal of confirmability is
to acknowledge and explore the ways that our biases and prejudices impact our interpretations of
data, and to address those to the fullest extent possible through reflexivity, dialogic engagement,
and reflective discourse. Because the qualitative researcher is the primary instrument, you must
be conscious of challenging yourself and also be open to be challenged by others in systematic
and ongoing ways with regard to all aspects of the research design and throughout all stages of
the research process. To achieve this end, and to remain as transparent as possible, you will need
to identify and uncover the trail of decisions made throughout the research process.
a. Although qualitative researchers realize the futility of attempting to achieve objectivity,

they must nevertheless illustrate how their data can be traced back to its origins. This
means that reasons must be provided for all methodological, theoretical, and analytic
choices throughout the entire study so that readers can understand how and why
decisions were made. As with dependability, the audit trail as well as triangulation
strategies are used to demonstrate confirmability.
b. Ongoing critical reflection and reflexivity by way of journaling and memo also offers
the reader an opportunity to assess the trustworthiness of the study’s findings.
Dependability
To achieve dependability, the researcher must ensure that the research process is clearly docu-
mented, logical, and traceable. Dependability refers to the stability and consistency of data
over time. In addition, the implication is that data are dependable in the sense that they are
providing a direct response to your study’s research questions. Dependability implies whether
and to what extent one can adequately track all the processes and procedures used to collect
and interpret the data, and there are various ways to address and support the dependability of
your study:
a. Your discussion should include triangulation and sequencing of methods and present
a well-articulated and transparent rationale for these choices. This will confirm for
the reader that you have created an appropriate and viable research design and data
collection plan given your research questions.
b. Including detailed and thorough explanations of how the data were collected and
analyzed, as well as maintaining a clear record of field notes and transcripts, provides
what is known as an “audit trail” (Lincoln & Guba, 2000). Although it is not possible
to include all of your data in the findings chapter, many qualitative researchers make
it known that their data are available for review by other researchers. As such, all field
notes and transcripts should be preserved for this purpose.
c. Ask colleagues to code several interview transcripts, thereby establishing inter-rater
reliability. Peer review, the process of checking on the consistency between raters,
reduces the potential bias of a single researcher collecting and analyzing the data.
Transferability
In quantitative research, generalization rests upon statistical representativeness: that is, the
extent to which the study’s results can be related to the broader population. In qualitative
research, it is possible to make connections across studies to establish the applicability of the
research. The goal of qualitative research is therefore not to produce “truths” that can be gener-
alized to other people or settings but rather to develop descriptive context-relevant findings that
can be applicable to broader contexts while still maintaining their content-specific richness.
Although qualitative researchers do not expect their findings to be generalizable to all other
settings, it is likely that the lessons learned in one setting might be useful to others. Remember,
transferability does not concern whether the study includes a representative sample. Rather, it
is about how well the study has made it possible for readers to decide whether similar processes
will be at work in their own settings and communities by understanding in depth how they
occur at the research site. Purposeful sampling and thick description (Geertz, 1973) connote a
depth of contextual detail that allows readers to understand the contextual factors, participants,
and experiences that you have included in your study.
Thus, transferability refers to the fit or match between the research context and other contexts
as judged not by the researcher but by the readers of the study. Researchers often erroneously state
that their study has “achieved transferability”; however, this cannot be guaranteed as the reader
will be the one to make that determination or assessment based on their own context or setting. As
such, it is important to realize that unlike the other three trustworthiness criteria (credibility, con-
firmability, and dependability) transferability cannot be guaranteed by the researcher. However,
transferability can be demonstrated by providing explicit details regarding the participants and the
research context so that readers can make decisions for themselves as to whether the study’s find-
ings will apply to their own context. As a criterion of trustworthiness, transferability can be estab-
lished by a researcher by carefully considering the following specific factors so that the reader of the
research can make a determination as to if and how this study’s findings could be usefully applied:
a. Outlining the purposeful sampling strategy used in the study provides an idea of the
participants, their experiences, and the context of your study, thereby allowing readers
to form their own opinions about the quality of the research, the meaning of the
findings, and the authenticity and relevance of the researcher’s interpretations.
b. The depth and richness of the researcher’s descriptions included in the study give the
study an element of shared or vicarious experience. Thick description (Geertz, 1973)
is an important aspect in enhancing the complexity of the research by thoroughly
describing the study’s setting, research participants, and related experiences so as to
produce findings and interpretations that will allow readers to make contextualized
meaning. Description thereby becomes the vehicle for communicating a holistic and
understandable picture of the setting, the research participants, and related experiences
and interaction.
c. The amount of detailed information that the researcher provides regarding the context,
background, data, and findings also offers an element of shared experience so that
readers can make comparisons with other similar contexts based on as much information
as possible. This level of detail allows readers to transfer aspects of a study’s design and
findings by taking into consideration and acknowledging different contextual factors
instead of simply attempting to replicate the research design and the study’s findings.
Table 8.7, Overview of Trustworthiness Criteria offered a cursory look at the four trustwor-
thiness criteria for qualitative research and the associated strategies to address each criterion.
That chart can be used as a cheat sheet to guide you as you conduct your research and write up
your study. Table 8.8, Trustworthiness Criteria: Defined and Applied, is an example of one way,
for purposes of transparency, to present the actual ways in which you addressed the four trust-
worthiness criteria in your own study. Here you are clearly outlining the definition and applica-
tion of each criterion, that is, the specific strategies that you used.
As you can see, this section of the chapter therefore addresses this central question: How do
we know that the qualitative study is believable, accurate, and plausible? To satisfy this ques-
tion, one must provide evidence that you clearly understand the criteria of trustworthiness in
qualitative research, and also clearly describe the approach you adopted to address each of these
four criteria. You need to discuss the criteria for evaluating the trustworthiness of qualitative
research and to indicate to the reader that you have a clear understanding of the implications
thereof vis-à-vis your own study. Appendix C, Sample Trustworthiness Statements, provides an
idea of the expectations inherent in rigorous doctoral research.
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
As researchers, we are morally bound to conduct our research in a manner that minimizes any
potential harm to those involved in the study. As discussed in Chapter 4 of this book, we should
be as concerned with producing an ethical research design as we are an intellectually coherent
TABLE 8.8 ■ Trustworthiness Criteria: Defined and Applied
Credibility Defined Credibility Applied
Credibility addresses the researcher’s ability to provide Credibility was addressed in this study in
an accurate representation of participants’ contributions the following ways:
to the study (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019). According to
1. Triangulation of multiple data sets
Bloomberg and Volpe (2019), and credibility relates to
how the findings of a study are relevant to those who 2. Member checks
participated in the study and accurately reflect the 3. Add
participants’ perspectives.
Confirmability Defined Confirmability Defined
Confirmability ensures that the study’s analysis and Confirmability was addressed in this study
findings are not based on misinterpretation or researcher in the following ways:
bias (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019; Frey, 2018).
1. Add
2. Add
3. Add
Dependability Defined Dependability Applied
Achieving dependability relies on providing clear and Dependability was addressed in this study
accurate information that illustrates both data collection in the following ways:
and data analysis processes (Bloomberg & Volpe,
1. Add
2019). Dependability focuses on the consistency within
the study’s findings and can be established using a 2. Add
dependability audit, which is also referred to as an audit 3. Add
trail (Frey, 2018).
Transferability Defined Transferability Applied
Transferability focuses on the way a study can be applied Transferability was addressed in this study
or transferred to other environments (Frey, 2018). in the following ways:
Transferability is facilitated by providing sufficient and rich
1. Add
information so that reader can determine the applicability
of the study’s findings and conclusions vis-à-vis their own 2. Add
contexts or settings (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019). 3. Add
and compelling one. Colleges, universities, and other institutions that conduct research each
have an IRB whose members review research proposals to assess ethical issues. Although all
studies must be approved by your institution’s IRB committee, there are some unique ethi-
cal considerations surrounding qualitative research because of its emergent and flexible design.
Ethical issues can indeed arise in all phases of the research process: data collection, data analy-
sis and interpretation, and dissemination of the research findings. For the most part, issues of
ethics focus on establishing safeguards that will protect the rights of participants and include
informed consent, protecting participants from harm, and ensuring confidentiality and ano-
nymity. As a qualitative researcher, you need to remain attentive throughout your study to the
researcher–participant relationship, which is determined by roles, status, and cultural norms.
In particular, the ethics and politics involved in research across social and cultural boundar-
ies need to be heeded and negotiated to ensure ethical research practices and avoid perpetuating
marginalization, neocolonial representations, and Western biases (Sultana, 2007). These con-
cerns are particularly critical as research becomes increasingly globalized (Franzke et al., 2020;
Lobe et al., 2020; Paulus & Lester, 2021). In Chapter 4 we covered some of the key ethical issues
facing researchers, especially the challenges that arose as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic
and its aftermath. Please refer to that chapter to review issues regarding access and inclusion as
a result of the digital divide which the pandemic has exacerbated. When conducting research
with vulnerable populations make sure that you are addressing all three ethical principles of
the Belmont Report. It is important to note that there are specific ethical considerations with
respect to particular vulnerable populations and concerns from an ethical perspective can
include historically marginalized or otherwise underrepresented or underserved groups, and
groups that are minoritized or mistreated. Some individuals or groups who are vulnerable may
become the focus of study merely for ease or convenience of access or because risks of harm
or burdens to them are minimized. Be sure that you carefully consider the characteristics of
the specific population to be studied in addition to specific situational factors. Determine any
potential vulnerabilities, and if so whether there is adequate justification to include these per-
sons in the research, and what additional protections may be required. Moreover, regarding
the latter consideration, researchers must also consider the risk of harm to individual research
participants and populations if they are excluded from participation.
As discussed in this book's Chapter 4, with the significant changes in the ways that research
is conducted since the pandemic, there is an ongoing need to focus on how to minimize exclu-
sion and carry out ethical research. This includes ensuring access (because vulnerable popula-
tions may lack the capabilities to participate in a study), addressing digital literacy (in cases where
technical ability is needed to participate in a study), redesigning sampling and selection strate-
gies, ensuring informed consent, and the appropriate use of secondary or archival data, all of
which creates a climate of ethical research. As pointed out by Gelinas et al. (2017) the same
ethical standards regarding collecting data in person apply to collecting data online or through
social media sites.
Some additional clarification of the terms privacy, anonymity, and confidentiality are
warranted:
Privacy
Privacy refers to controlling other peoples’ access to information about research participants.
There are two aspects to this concept: First, the freedom to identify the time and/or cir-
cumstances under which information is shared or withheld from others. Second, the right
to decline receiving information that they do not want. Respecting the privacy of research
participants is at the heart of the conduct of ethical research. Researchers attempt to ensure
the privacy of research participants by collecting anonymous information and ensuring that
the information collected is kept confidential. You may be wondering about the difference
between anonymity and confidentiality, and how each of these relates to the concept of
privacy.
Anonymity
Anonymity implies that no personal identifiers can be linked to the participants’ responses. In
other words, personal identifiers are not collected at all. Therefore, it is not possible to know
whether an individual participated or did not participate in the study. Ensuring anonymity of
information collected from research participants means:
• The study does not include any identifying information of individual participants (e.g.,
name, address, e-mail address, phone numbers, etc.).
• The study cannot in any way link individual responses with participants’ identities
(e.g., name, age, date of birth, etc.).
True anonymity means that the identity of research participants is not known to the researcher.
However, this is usually not the case. To ensure that individuals will not be identified by read-
ers, however, pseudonyms (fictitious names) or codes must be assigned instead of participants’
actual names. The site must also be protected and referred to by a pseudonym.
Confidentiality
A researcher maintaining confidentiality means that the researcher knows the identity of the
participants or can link personal identifiers to the data. However, the researcher will need to
implement mechanisms so that outsiders cannot link the personal identifiers to the participants’
responses. Confidentiality is an agreement with the researcher about what can be done with the
information obtained about a research participant. This is specified in the informed consent
document. When data are collected and held confidentially, only the researcher can identify
the participants, and participants’ identities are not revealed to anybody else. The ethical duty
of confidentiality includes obligations to protect information from unauthorized access, use,
disclosure, modification, loss, or theft. What can researchers do to mitigate the risk that confi-
dentiality may be compromised?
• All data and research materials should be accessible only to the researcher and other
approved members of the research team.
• Consent forms should not be attached to any interview transcripts or field notes.
• Findings must be written up in a manner so that readers cannot identify participants’
identity. This is particularly important if research is conducted in a small geographic
region or in a setting where the identity of the participants could be easily discerned.
• Pseudonyms, unique identifying numbers, or codes must always be used both for
research participants and the research site/s.
• Organizations, agencies, and institutions from which participants are recruited
or where data are collected must not be disclosed. It is advisable to discuss with
participating organizations, agencies, and institutions if they want the name of
their organization stated in the research report. The researcher may decide to have
this included in the site permission document from the organization outlining the
agreement.
• All research materials must be destroyed after seven years (i.e., paper documents must
be shredded, and all electronic files must be permanently deleted).
Fulfilling the ethical duty of confidentiality is essential to building and maintaining the trust
relationship between researcher and participant and contributes to the overall integrity and
trustworthiness of the study.
In the ethics section of your methodology chapter, you will need to explain how and in what
ways you have considered the ethical issues that might arise vis-à-vis your own study, that you
are sensitive to these issues, and that you have taken the necessary steps to address these issues.
Appendix D, Sample Ethical Assurance Statements, provides an idea of the expectations inherent
in rigorous doctoral research. In most instances, you will be talking in generalities; the potential
issues that could arise apply to any qualitative research study and are usually not specific to your
own. Because protection of human subjects is such an important issue in social science research,
the main point is that you acknowledge and convey to the reader that you have considered and
taken heed of the ethical principles as outlined in the National Commission’s Belmont Report
(1979). Remember, informed consent is central to research ethics. It is the principle that seeks
to ensure that all human subjects retain autonomy and the ability to judge for themselves what
risks are worth taking for the purpose of furthering scientific knowledge. In this regard, it is
important that you include in your dissertation’s appendix a copy of the consent form that you
used in your study. In this regard, please check with your institution regarding any required
templates or forms.
Addressing Researcher Positionality

Positionality refers to what researchers know and believe about the world around them and is
shaped by their experiences in social and political contexts. A researcher’s positionality shapes
their interpretations, understandings, and beliefs about their research as well as other’s research.
Researcher positionality plays out in our interactions and relationships with participants, espe-
cially given that the researcher and the research participants frequently hold unequal positions
of power and privilege. We all bring who we are into our research work, so who we are and what
roles we assume in our study translate into issues of identity, power, and conflict that emerge in
the context of data collection and analysis. As discussed in great detail in this book’s Chapter 4,
positionality refers to how differences in social position and power shape identities and access
in society. Keep in mind that you are complex, so your intersectionality—that is, the intersec-
tions of your identities—comes into play, and those identities are fluid. Further, others see you
through their own interpretations, so how you are perceived also comes into play in fine-tuning
yourself as the catalyst for the research.
Since description, understanding, interpretation, and communication are the primary goals
of qualitative research, the researcher is the primary instrument for data collection and data
analysis. Indeed, the strongest influence on the research process, including participant reactiv-
ity as well as the study’s outcomes, starts and ends with the researcher. As a researcher, it is thus
imperative to consider the ways in which your race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender
identity, socioeconomic class, disability status or other cultural factors can—and in fact do—
impact the instructor/learner dynamic, the research setting, and how you “show up” and relate
to and communicate with your study participants. A further aspect of a researcher stance that
needs to be determined by the individual researcher is the likelihood that some personal experi-
ence has drawn you to explore the topic of interest. These perspectives can be powerful to share
with both readers and research participants and clearly help orient the study within a deeper and
more meaningful context.
Accounting for your own “position”, which may have influenced your study’s findings,
includes acknowledging biases in sampling and ongoing critical reflection of methods to ensure
sufficient depth and relevance of data collection; demonstrating clarity in terms of thought
processes during data analysis and subsequent interpretations; meticulous record keeping and
maintaining a clear decision trail to ensure that interpretations are consistent and transparent;
constant seeking out similarities and differences to ensure that different perspectives are repre-
sented; and engaging in dialogue with other researchers to reduce any underlying bias. Through
critical memo writing and journaling, qualitative researchers ask if and in what way(s) their
positionality impacts on the data they collect and how they view and interpret the data, thereby
enabling them to be reflexive about their positionalities and the related impact on the research
process. Both data collection and data analysis are ongoing and reflective in practice. Consider
creating a memo folder to actively chronicle your data collection process. Memoing will allow
you to track all the decisions you make throughout the process and ensure that you are able to
fully articulate the study’s complexities and the rationale behind each of the decisions impact-
ing the study. Furthermore, memoing will allow you to capture your reflections and thinking
about the analysis and synthesis of your study’s data. Given the very personal nature of data
collection and analysis, the use of memos and/or journaling will provide a space to capture the
ways in which you understand and experience your identity and positionality that may impact
the study, thereby providing rich material when you come to craft your positionality statement.
Ultimately, recognizing, acknowledging, and articulating your own positionality and relations
of power with research participants will indeed be a critical step in enhancing the credibility of
your study.
Ravitch and Mittenfelner Carl (2020) outline the four key pillars of qualitative research as
criticality, collaboration, rigor, and reflexivity. Many researchers have noted the importance of
positionality statements—including the reflexivity that such statements engender—and their
prevalent place in qualitative inquiry (Currand Randall, 2020, Hampton et al., 2019; Holmes,
2020; Marshall et al., 2022; Sultana, 2007). Beyond self-reflection through journaling and/
or memos, you should also develop a comprehensive statement of your own positionality as it
pertains to your research. Ethical reflexivity refers to the researcher’s awareness of their relation-
ship to the research. It is a process determining their positionality in their research, of looking
inward to critically analyze their effect on the research, the impact of their interactions with the
participants and examining any biases, values, past experiences, background, and social and
economic status that may shape the researcher’s interpretations during the study.
Holmes (2020) identified four considerations for researchers in identifying and developing
positionality statements. First, locating themselves about the subject; that is, acknowledging
personal positions that have the potential to influence the research. Second, locating themselves
about the participants; that is, researchers individually considering how they view themselves,
as well as how others view them, while at the same time acknowledging that as individuals they
may not be fully aware of how they and others have constructed their identities, and recognizing
that it may not be possible to do this without considered in-depth thought and critical analysis.
Third, locating themselves about the research context and process, that is, acknowledging that
research will necessarily be influenced by themselves and by the research context. The fourth
component is that exploring and clarifying one’s positionality takes time. Novice research-
ers, especially, should recognize that exploring their positionality and writing an authentic and
meaningful positionality statement is an integral piece of credible research, and thus developing
this statement takes time through deep engagement in critical reflexivity.
Open and transparent disclosure and articulation of positionality serves to explain how and
in what ways the researcher believes they have influenced their research. In turn, the reader should
then be able to make an informed judgment as to the researcher’s influence on the research pro-
cess and to what extent the research can be considered trustworthy. To ensure rigor and transpar-
ency, it is therefore highly recommended that in your methodology chapter you describe how and
in what ways you negotiated your roles as a researcher/writer at the research site as you engaged
with the data and with your research participants. Appendix E, Sample Positionality Statements,
provides an idea of the expectations inherent in rigorous doctoral research.
LIMITATIONS AND DELIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

Confusion sometimes exists around the terms limitations and delimitations, and this issue
deserves some clarification:
Limitations
Limitations of a study are some potential challenges and shortcomings that are inherent in
the research and over which the researcher has little or no control and authority to manage or
overcome. These limitations could be related to the study’s methodology or the sampling tech-
niques, instrumentations, and/or data collection methods. Limitations of a study can impact or
influence the interpretation of the study’s findings. These are the limiting constraints regarding
transferability, applications to practice, and/or utility of findings that are the result of the ways
in which you chose to design the study. Essentially, limitations of the study expose the condi-
tions that may weaken the study (Rossman & Rallis, 2017). Note that qualitative researchers
do not address limitations in the same sense as quantitative research accounts do. Quantitative
research limitations may focus on population representation, sampling, or control issues, all of
which are typically addressed differently in qualitative research. Quantitative research accounts
will not address limitations to the research paradigm. A common error made by many novice
qualitative researchers when required to write limitations is addressing limitations regarding the
paradigm itself. As Lahman (2022) explains,
Grappling with bias, instead of trying to control bias, is actually a hallmark and strength
of qualitative research. Since a quantitative researcher would not state that the limita-
tions of the study included that it lacked context and depth, collected surface data on
a large sample, or isolated the researcher’s voice and context in an objective fashion, a
qualitative researcher should not state the essence of the qualitative paradigm as a limi-
tation to the research. (p. 130)
Following are some points to carefully consider:
• Every study, no matter how well it is designed and conducted, has certain inherent
limitations. Rather than stating that there are not any, be sure to always acknowledge
your study’s limitations, even if these are minimal. It is far better for you to identify
and acknowledge your study’s limitations than to have them pointed out because you
appear to have ignored them.
• Some limitations are related to the common critiques of qualitative research
methodology in general, some of which are inherent in your study’s research design.
Careful thought must be given to ways of accounting for these limitations and to ways
of minimizing their impact. Unique features of qualitative research methodology
present some potential limitations in its usage.
• Because analysis ultimately rests with the thinking and choices of the researcher,
qualitative studies in general are limited by researcher subjectivity. Therefore, an
overriding concern is that of researcher bias, framing as it does assumptions, interests,
perceptions, and needs.
• A related limitation could be that interviewees may have had difficulty adjusting to the
researchers taking on the role of interviewers, a phenomenon referred to by Maxwell
(2013) as participant reactivity. If any of the participants know the researcher, they
may try overly hard to cooperate by offering the kinds of responses they perceive
the researcher is seeking. Alternatively, because of familiarity with the researcher,
participants might tend to be guarded and therefore less candid in their responses.
• Acknowledgment of your study’s limitations provides you with an opportunity to
demonstrate that you have thought critically about the research problem, understood
the relevant literature, and correctly assessed the methods chosen for studying the
problem. A key objective of the qualitative research process is not only to discover new
knowledge but also to confront assumptions and explore the unknown.
• Claiming limitations is a subjective process because you must evaluate the impact
of those limitations. Don’t just list key weaknesses and the magnitude of a study’s
limitations. Limitations require a critical, overall appraisal and interpretation of their
impact. You should answer the question: Do these problems with errors, methods,
trustworthiness, and so on eventually matter, and if so, to what extent?
• Recognizing the limitations of the study also means that you are expected to explain
what measures you took to address these. Keep in mind that acknowledgment of your
study's limitations is also an opportunity to make suggestions for further research
whereby these limitations may be minimized or mitigated.
In this section of your methodology chapter you are expected to explain any and all poten-
tial limitations and your means of addressing and guarding against these limitations. Regardless
of how carefully you plan a study, there are always some limitations, and you need to explicitly
acknowledge these. This section describes the problems inherent in qualitative research and
how you can control for these limitations to the extent possible. In most instances, you can
control for limitations by acknowledging them. Limitations arise from, among other things,
restricted sample size, sample selection, reliance on certain techniques for gathering data,
and issues of researcher bias and participant reactivity. Discussing your study’s limitations is
intended to show the reader that you understand that no research project is without limitations
and that you have anticipated and given some thought to the shortcomings of your research.
Stating the limitations also reminds the reader that your study is situated within a specific con-
text, and the reader can make decisions about its usefulness for other settings; that is, the poten-
tial for transferability.
Delimitations
Delimitations refer to the initial choices made about the broader and overall design of your study
and should not be confused with documenting the limitations of your study that were discov-
ered after the research has been completed. Delimitations are the indicators of how a researcher
intentionally and purposively limits a study through scope and participation. These delimitations
are the characteristics that define and clarify the methodological and conceptual boundaries of
your research. Unlike limitations which flow from implicit characteristics of design and meth-
ods, delimitations arise from specific and intentional choices made by the researcher to ensure
the study’s purpose is indeed achievable, feasible, and attainable. The delimitations are a way
to indicate to the reader how you narrowed the scope of your study. As the researcher, you
control the delimitations, and you should make this clear by stating the conscious exclusionary
and inclusionary decisions you made about how to investigate the research problem. In other
words, not only should you tell the reader what it is you are studying and why, but you must also
acknowledge why you rejected alternative approaches that could have been used. The point is
not to document every possible delimiting factor but to make your reasoning as explicit as pos-
sible by highlighting why obvious issues related to the research problem were not addressed.
Examples of some typical delimitating choices would include:
• Choice of research problem and purpose

• The research questions that you have chosen to address
• The various elements and features of the phenomenon being studied

• The time period of your study
• Location of the study
• The target population selected (the pool from which you draw your research sample)
• Sampling method and the research sample that was selected
• Methods of data collection
• Methods of data analysis
• The researcher’s theoretical perspectives
• Any relevant alternative theoretical or conceptual frameworks that could have been
adopted but were not, for specific reasons.
You will need to review each of these research decisions. Not only do you need to clearly
establish what you intend to accomplish in your research, but you should also include a dec-
laration of what the study does not intend to cover. Do not view delimitating statements as
admitting to an inherent failing or shortcoming in your research. Delimitations are an accepted
element of academic writing intended to keep the reader focused on the research problem by
explicitly defining the conceptual boundaries and scope of your study. Acknowledging delimi-
tations addresses any critical questions in the reader’s mind of “Why did the researcher not
examine this?”
METHODOLOGY CHAPTER SUMMARY
The purpose of a final culminating summary of your methodology chapter is to tie together the
many components that you have presented in this chapter, including research sample, infor-
mation needed to conduct the study, research design, data collection methods, data analysis
methods, ethical considerations, issues of trustworthiness, and the limitations and delimita-
tions of the study. Provide a short summary overview, making sure to cover all the sections of
this chapter, highlighting all the important points. Keep the discussion concise and precise. As
with all chapter summaries, be sure not to add any new details or information that has not been
addressed in this chapter.
Reflexivity is an active and ongoing process of examining oneself as a researcher and how one’s
assumptions and preconceptions affect our research decisions (May & Perry, 2014, 2017).
Reflexivity is the process of becoming self-aware of one’s potential and real biases. Importantly,
reflexivity can help prepare researchers for many “ethically important moments” that will arise
throughout the research process. The reflexive questions that follow can serve as prompts for
journaling throughout the dissertation process, and in this case for the methodology chapter of
your dissertation, in which you are presenting your study’s methodology, including all its criti-
cal components.
REFLEXIVE QUESTIONS
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Sample Selection
1. Was my recruitment process systematic and ethical, and were all necessary permissions
obtained?
2. Since qualitative research employs purposeful sampling, what did I consider important
in setting my site selection criteria and sampling strategy, including sample size and unit
of analysis? Why?
3. Was there anything in my sampling process that I may have failed to consider given the
specific research site and research participants?
4. How much diversity was needed to represent the variations known to exist within the
population? Have I addressed this adequately?
5. What and who are being included or excluded from my study? Why? On what basis?
6. Were ethical recruitment procedures used, and appropriate permissions received?
7. How did I or should I classify people for the purpose of the study? On what basis? Why?
Data Collection and Data Analysis
1. Did I take the necessary steps to address cultural integrity with regard to my research
participants?
2. What is my perspective regarding “researcher-generated data” and “co-constructed
data” as opposed to collection of data? Have I given this sufficient thought?
3. What assumptions underlie the selection of my data collection instruments and the ways
in which I implement these?
4. Am I aware of how and in what ways I may have impacted participant reactivity?
5. Have I collected relevant background information about people, processes, and settings
to understand and portray the full range of experiences in the study?
6. What kinds of comparisons can I make between data? How do these comparisons gener-
ate and inform my interpretation of the findings?
7. Have I engaged sufficiently in reflection regarding data collection and analysis?
Trustworthiness
A. Credibility (Believability)
1. Am I imposing my own biases, assumptions, and/or prejudices on this study? If so, how
and in what ways?
2. What reflective and reflexive strategies am I employing (if at all) to check my biases,
assumptions, and/or prejudices?
3. Does my research design allow for collecting rich data that will be provided by multiple
data sources?
4. How do my site selection criteria and sampling strategy contribute to an authentic and
genuine rendering of the context and setting, as well as participants’ experiences?
5. What do the data reveal, and to what extent (if at all) am I allowing the data to “speak for
themselves”? In other words, how am I shaping and informing this study by way of my own
assumptions and biases?
6. What steps am I taking to remain open to new possibilities and alternative explanations?
If I am not taking them, why?
7. How will I analyze, interpret, and make sense of my data so that my own assumptions and
biases are at least acknowledged, and hopefully challenged?
8. Am I aware of issues relating to power, privilege, and positionality with regard to all
aspects of my study? Have I addressed these issues sufficiently and/or appropriately? If
so, in what ways have such issues been acknowledged and/or addressed?
B. Confirmability (Ability to corroborate)
1. Would somebody else interpret the data in a similar way? If not, what might be other
alternative explanations?
2. Would somebody else arrive at similar conclusions? If not, what might be some other
conclusions to consider?
3. Have I sufficiently challenged my thinking and assumptions regarding my overall
research design to acknowledge any limitations and critiques and to know what other
methodological possibilities could be considered?
4. Whom can I engage with in the research process itself to challenge my thinking and
assumptions? Have I considered this? Why or why not?
5. At what points throughout the study should I seek out colleagues or “thought partners” to
explore issues related to my power and positionality as the researcher, uncover assump-
tions, and examine omissions? Have I considered this? Why or why not?
C. Dependability (Consistency)
1. What was the basis for choosing my data collection methods? Why do I think these are the
most appropriate methods to answer each of my research questions?
2. Have I designed a rigorous study? How so? In what ways, if any, could my research design
be improved?
3. What might be some of the weaknesses regarding the research design? Are there any
potential design flaws? How can I address these weaknesses, flaws, or concerns?
4. What might be some of the weaknesses regarding site selection and my sampling
procedures?
5. What might be some of the weaknesses regarding my data collection tools and process?
How can I address these weaknesses or concerns?
6. What might be some of the weaknesses regarding my analytic process? How can I
address these weaknesses or concerns?
D. Transferability (Applicability)
1. Am I sufficiently describing the contextual elements that ground and shape my study so
that readers can use this to develop a deep understanding of the study’s context, includ-
ing the site/setting as well as all research participants?
2. Is there sufficient thick description to authentically convey the meaning of the findings?
3. Do I make sense of and interpret my findings in ways that are authentic, genuine, and
contextually embedded?
4. Have I made the contextual relevance sufficiently clear both in my analysis and interpretation,
and included all relevant uniquenesses, exceptions, idiosyncrasies, outliers, and oddities?
5. Have I made the contextual relevance sufficiently clear so that my study’s conclusions
and recommendations are context-specific and also have possible and relevant applica-
bility across contexts?
Ethics
1. Is there a moral basis for conducting research on this topic?

2. Who will benefit from research on this topic?
3. Am I aware of any potential or evident conflicts of interests?
4. Will the distribution of burdens and benefits to the participants be fair?
5. Have I addressed all three ethical principles of the Belmont Report: respect, beneficence,
and justice?
Positionality
1. Where and how do I occupy positions of privilege or marginality in relation to my topic and
my research participants?
2. How might my participants perceive me?
3. Which identity or identities do I share (or not share) with my participants?
4. How do the common and different identities affect the way in which participants might
interact with a researcher?
5. How might the interactions influence the information that participants are willing and/or
are able to share?
6. How is my positionality and/or life experiences related to my topic?
7. What assumptions do I hold about my topic?
8. Why did I choose to pursue the research problem addressed by your study?
9. To what extent do personal identities and my own positionality lead me as the researcher
to explore specific issues?
10. Could my personal motivations, assumptions, and biases lead me to draw specific
conclusions?
Additionally, carefully consider the power dynamics involved and whether you are conduct-
ing research with or on vulnerable populations:
• Is there a power differential between me and the research participants?

• Is the consent process conducive to true voluntariness?
• Are there excessive motivating factors including economic issues?
• Are there potential problematic communication issues?
• Is the recruitment process fair and equitable?
Writing the methodology chapter of your dissertation requires time, mind work, and a great
deal of reflection about the nature of your inquiry and the ways that you have chosen to set
up and conduct the study. You most certainly want to present well-reasoned research that will
illustrate the integrity of your study. Be sure to give careful thought to how you present the dis-
cussion, and, as always, remember to work from an outline. Your headings and subheadings in
this chapter are contingent on your particular university’s requirements. How well you present
this chapter, the logic and flow of the discussion, and the comprehensiveness of your material,
all illustrate to the reader that you have carefully designed and produced a study based on the
principles of qualitative research.
As emphasized throughout this book, writing a dissertation is not a linear process. Rather,
it is an iterative and recursive one that requires much back and forth, reminder notes to yourself,
and memos to change, revise, and update what you have already written. This is one of those
chapters that must remain flexible and open to change right up to the very end. Frustration is
inevitable, but don’t despair! This is all part of managing and organizing the complexities inher-
ent in the process of research and writing.
Introduction ✓ Have you stated the research problem and purpose?
✓ Does the introduction describe the general organization of the chapter?
Research Sample ✓ Do you provide a comprehensive description of your research sample and
the target population from which it was drawn?
✓ Do you discuss and explain the research site (organization/program/

institution)?
✓ Do you discuss in detail your purposeful sampling strategy, citing

appropriate literature?
✓ Are the criteria for sampling selection stated and explained?
✓ Are the details and characteristics pertaining to the sample adequately

discussed?
✓ Have you discussed issues of access and consent?


ID:c0008-p79139
Information Needed ✓ Is the information that is needed to conduct the study clearly and
specifically outlined? (This should include demographic, perceptual, and
contextual information.)
✓ Are you clear how and from whom the necessary information was
obtained?
✓ Do you provide a logical connection between the type of information
needed and the methods you selected to obtain that information?
Research Methodology ✓ Do you describe qualitative research, citing appropriate literature?

and Design
✓ Do you offer a convincing argument for choosing qualitative research?
✓ Do you provide a convincing argument for the qualitative design (tradition

or genre) that you have chosen?
✓ Have you cited appropriate methodological literature?
✓ Are all your methodological steps reported in sufficient detail so that the
study could be replicated?
✓ Do you include explanation of any field tests or pilot studies, including

administration and description of findings (if appropriate)?
✓ Do you include a timeline? If so, have you described in chronological order

each step taken in conducting the study?
Data Collection ✓ Are the data collection methods sufficiently described? The description
of each instrument should relate to the function of the instrument in the
study and what the instrument is intended to measure.
✓ Do you demonstrate cultural integrity with regard to data collection

methods?
✓ If you are using archival data, as in the case of qualitative secondary

research, do you address all methodological and ethical requirements?
✓ Do you provide a rationale for the selection of instruments used?
✓ Have you provided a comprehensive literature review of the data

collection methods used and included details regarding the strengths and
limitations of each method?
✓ If an instrument was developed for this study, have you described

procedures involved in its development, validation, and administration?
✓ Do you describe how, when, where, and by whom data were collected?
✓ Are the data collection methods congruent with the problem being
investigated and the specific qualitative design employed?
✓ Has triangulation of data collection methods been achieved?
✓ Have you gained detailed descriptions of a range of participants’

perspectives?
(Continued)

ID:c0008-p79139
Data Analysis and ✓ Do you report on how you have managed and organized your data?
Interpretation
✓ Do you report in detail on how you coded and analyzed your data in order
to report on the study’s findings?
✓ If used, do you state the specific qualitative data analysis software

(QDAS)?
✓ Do you report in detail on how you analyzed and interpreted your findings?
✓ Are your methods of data analysis congruent with the principles of

qualitative research?
✓ Did you seek out alternative perspectives by engaging with others in your
research process?
✓ Are all themes and patterns in the data adequately described?
✓ Are all charts and/or figures that you have included comprehensive and
relevant?
Issues of ✓ Do you articulate the criteria for evaluating trustworthiness in qualitative

Trustworthiness research, citing appropriate literature?
✓ Is all the terminology you include appropriate for qualitative research?
✓ Do you discuss how you have addressed issues of credibility and the
various strategies you have employed?
✓ Do you discuss how you have addressed issues of dependability and the
strategies you have employed?
✓ Do you discuss how you have addressed issues of confirmability and the
strategies you have employed?
✓ Do you explain the issue of transferability in relation to your study so that

the findings can potentially apply in other similar contexts or settings?
Ethical Considerations ✓ Do you discuss all relevant ethical issues, including informed consent and
protection of privacy (anonymity and confidentiality)?
✓ Do you explain how you have addressed all ethical principles as outlined in
the Belmont Report: respect, beneficence, and justice?
✓ Do you include how you have satisfied IRB requirements and ethical
standards?
Researcher ✓ Do you explain how and in what ways your position and/or social identity
Positionality may impact the research process and/or the research participants?
✓ Is it clear that you have maintained a reflexive stance throughout the

research and writing process?

ID:c0008-p79139
Limitations and ✓ Did you give careful thought to ways of accounting for limitations and
Delimitations delimitations and to ways of minimizing potential impact?
✓ Do you clearly delineate all limitations pertaining to your study and your
means to address these?
✓ Do you articulate all appropriate and relevant delimitations pertaining to

your study?
Summary ✓ Does your culminating summary integrate all the elements presented in
this chapter?
✓ Do you include all key points as outlined in this chapter?
✓ Is your summary comprehensive and focused?
Addressing Alignment ✓ Are your research methods aligned with your research methodology
(qualitative research)?
✓ Are your research methods aligned with your chosen qualitative research
design (tradition or genre)?
Grammar and Writing ✓ Are headings and subheadings used effectively to structure and present
Mechanics the discussion?
✓ Does the discussion in each section flow logically?
✓ Are transitions from one section of the chapter to another clear and
logical? Have you made use of effective segues?
✓ Are all tables, figures, and appendixes used effectively and appropriately?
✓ Do all tables and figures follow the format specified by your required style
manual?
✓ Does the title of each table and/or figure indicate exactly (clearly and
concisely) what the table or figure is intended to represent?
✓ Is the writing throughout clear and readable? Refer to “Guidelines for

Academic Writing” in Chapter 2.
Following are some recommended resources that you might consider perusing regarding devel-
oping your methodology chapter and all its many key components.
Acocella, I., & Cataldi, S. (2021). Using Focus Groups: Theory, methodology, practice, SAGE.
The focus group is an essential tool in the researcher’s toolbox. Designed to study social repre-
sentations, the focus group is a technique that takes advantage of group interactions to gather
information. This book addresses all aspects of this qualitative method including prepara-
tion strategies, advantages and disadvantages, and key ethical challenges regarding use and
application.
Au, A. (2019). Thinking about cross-cultural differences in qualitative interviewing: Practices for
more responsive and trusting Encounters. The Qualitative Report, 24(1), 58–77.
This author explains the strategies used to transform the dialogical mechanics of an interview
into a conversational structure through a culturally sensitive approach, and in so doing, trans-
forming the positionality of the researcher. Such an approach enhances qualitative research
practice by generating practical recommendations for “humanizing the researcher” to disman-
tle power imbalances and social distance, and consciously transform the interview into a more
conversational form.
Billups, F. D. (2020). Qualitative data collection tools: Design, development, and applications, SAGE.
This is a practical text for doctoral students learning research by providing a “how-to”
approach to qualitative methodology. Researchers are typically expected to create their own
qualitative tools, and the templates in this book offer a starting point for conducting original
qualitative research. Each method of data collection is briefly described, and suggestions are
offered for using and adapting the qualitative instrument templates within the text. Templates
include interview protocols, focus group moderator guides, content analysis tools, document
analysis tools, reflective questionnaires, diary and journal logs, and observational rubrics.
Brinkman, S., & Kvale, S. (2018). Doing Interviews, (2nd ed.). SAGE.
This is a concise introduction to the richness and scope of interviewing in social science
research, teaching the craft of interview research. The book incorporates discussion of the
wide variety of methods in interview-based research, and offers guidance on conducting and
transcribing, analyzing and ethically reporting findings from interview data. The text includes
useful discussion of more recent developments in qualitative interviewing, including narrative,
discursive, and conversational analyses.
Hall, J. N. (2020). Focus Groups: Culturally Responsive Approaches for Qualitative Inquiry and Program
Evaluation, Myers Education Press.
This book offers an in-depth look at how culturally responsive focus groups are developed and
implemented within the context of qualitative inquiry broadly. The book showcases various
forms of focus groups and how they can be responsive to specific communities across different
disciplines. The author considers ethical issues around the use of culturally responsive focus
groups, while providing guidance on analyzing and interpreting your data and establishing the
credibility of your study.
Jacob, S. A., & Furgerson, S. P. (2012). Writing interview protocols and conducting interviews: Tips
for students new to the field of qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 17(42), 1–10. https://nsu
works.nova.edu/tqr/vol17/iss42/3.
This article offers practical suggestions for students new to qualitative research for both writ-
ing interview protocol that elicit useful data and for conducting the interview. As these authors
point out, a good protocol itself does not ensure that you will have a successful interview. In
addition to making sure that the procedural part of doing an interview works, it is also impera-
tive to make good connections with the people you interview. This article is useful for students
who plan to conduct qualitative interviews. Even though it is dated, the information provided
here is still relevant.
Largan, C., & Morris, T. (2019). Qualitative Secondary Research: A step by step guide, SAGE.
This is a practical guide to finding, managing and analyzing qualitative secondary data. The text
includes an introduction to the theory of secondary research and lays out the advantages and
limitations of conducting QSA. The authors offer step-by-step advice on how to use qualitative
secondary data at each stage of the research process, and include practical, ethical tools.
Lobe, B., Morgan, D., & Hoffman, K. A. (2020). Qualitative Data Collection in an Era of Social
Distancing. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1–8. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/p
df/10.1177/1609406920937875.
These authors responded to the COVID-19 pandemic and the restrictions that accompany it
with a review of approaches, tools, and implications of doing qualitative research with a social
disruption such as the pandemic. The stated goal of the article is “to assist researchers who
want to move from in person to video-based online interviewing”. The article completed a thor-
ough review of the currently most widely used synchronous tools, and considered the video and
audio, recording requirements, and HIPAA compliance.
Marshall, C., Rossman, G. B., & Blanco, G. L. (2022). Designing qualitative research, (7th ed.). SAGE.
This text addresses the complexity and flexibility of qualitative research and offers compre-
hensive instruction regarding how to design a data collection strategy by thoughtfully combin-
ing methods so that they build on and complement one another. Included is a sharp focus on
social media and other digital applications in conducting qualitative research as we face chal-
lenges posed by the intellectual, ethical, political, and technological advances.
Morgan, D. L. (2019). Basic and advanced focus groups, SAGE.
This volume contains not only an updated basic introduction to focus groups but also an investi-
gation of more advanced topics including selecting participants and group composition, work-
ing with heterogeneous group composition, conducting repeated groups, writing questions for
focus groups, and strategies for moderating discussion.
Rossman, G. B., & Rallis, S. F. (2017). An introduction to qualitative research: Learning in the field, (4th
ed.). SAGE.
The authors creatively integrate the scientific and artistic dimensions of qualitative research,
explaining how the research process unfolds from planning and design, through fieldwork and
data gathering, to the presentation of findings, analysis, and interpretation. The underlying
theme cutting across all the chapters is that research is a process of learning and that the util-
ity of research requires clarity of purpose with a clear focus on maintaining ethical standards
to ensure trustworthiness.
Roulston, K., & deMarrais, K. (2021). Exploring the archives: A beginners guide for qualitative
researchers, Myers Educational Press.
This book addresses what has become known as the “archival turn,” in which the use of archi-
val materials and artifacts in contemporary research has increased dramatically. The book
offers clear guidance on using different types of archives, developing topics for research within
the archives, assessing materials available, how to work with archivists and curators, docu-
menting the research process, and writing up an archival study.
Seidman, I. (2019). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and
the social sciences, (5th ed.). Teachers College Press.
This classic text provides a step-by-step introduction to the research process using in-depth
interviewing and places those steps within the context of significant issues in qualitative
research. While the text centers on a phenomenological approach to in-depth interviewing, it
is suitable for doctoral candidates who think that in-depth interviewing might be an appropriate
method of data collection, even if they are not choosing a phenomenological design.
com/bloomberg-qualitative-5e. The companion website offers materials related to some of the
issues discussed in Chapter 8, including resources that address sampling strategies, online data
collection methods, social media data collection, and transcription applications.
• Appendix C: Sample Trustworthiness Statements

• Appendix D: Sample Ethical Assurance Statements
• Appendix E: Sample Positionality Statements
• Appendix K: Template for Document Summary Form
• Appendix L: Template for Participant Summary Form
• Appendix M: Sample Research Methodology Flowchart
• Appendix N: Sample Matrix Research Questions/Interview Questions
• Appendix O: Sample Matrix Research Questions/Interview Themes/Focus Group Questions
• Appendix P: Sample Coding Schemes
• Appendix Q: Sample Coding Scheme Development Charts
• Appendix R: Sample Segment of Coded Interview Transcript
• Appendix S: Qualitative Analysis Software Resources
• Appendix T: Sample Data Summary Tables
9 ANALYZING DATA AND
REPORTING FINDINGS
• Provide a conceptualization of the process of qualitative data analysis including the

use of an analytic framework.
• Identify the specific strategies involved in analyzing qualitative data.
• Explain how to organize, reduce, and prepare raw data through coding and
categorization.
• Explore the complexities of thematic analysis including higher-order thematic
development so as to convey the essence, relevance, and deeper meaning of the
study’s findings.
• Explain how to formulate clear and precise findings statements based on analysis of
the data.
• Emphasize and reiterate the significance of alignment among research design
(tradition or genre) and data analysis.
• Emphasize and reiterate the significance of clarity and transparency of the analytic
process in order to produce trustworthy findings.
• Describe how to report and present findings in a clear, comprehensive, and
systematic manner so that these findings clearly and directly address the research
problem and provide a response to each of the study’s research questions.
OVERVIEW
The goal of qualitative research is to provide detailed and rich descriptions related to experi-
ences associate with the research phenomenon. In contrast, the goal of quantitative research is
to produce statistically reliable and generalizable information about the research phenomenon.
325
Quantitative researchers will therefore make use of descriptive and inferential statistics, and
the interpretation of data occurs through either retaining or rejecting the null hypothesis.
Qualitative data analysis strives to make sense and meaning of large amounts of narrative infor-
mation by reducing it to manageable chunks so that it can be interpreted. The qualitative ana-
lytic approach involves uncovering patterns or themes in the data, identifying any relationships
among these patterns or themes, and then developing thick rich descriptions. While there is no
formula to apply or one single process to follow, as in quantitative research, there are guidelines,
standards, and principles that must be applied to qualitative data analysis, and adhering to these
is necessary to ensure the trustworthiness of the research.
Analysis is both an exciting and a challenging aspect of the qualitative research process,
requiring a degree of systematic searching and creativity. Although there are stages dedicated
to formal analysis, analysis is an inherent and ongoing part of the research and writing process.
Analysis does not begin when the researchers have finished collecting their data, but is inte-
grated within the entire process of qualitative research, and therefore a qualitative researcher
should always be alert to the implications of their choices at each and every stage of the research
process. As Maxwell (2018) explains,
Because of the inductive character of qualitative research, and its particularistic focus,
data analysis is not a “stage” that occurs in a sequential order with theorizing, research
design, data collection, and writing up results. Data analysis should begin as soon as any
data are collected and should be continued as long as any significant questions remain
about the meaning and implications of the data. Although the relative emphasis on the
different aspects of the research process varies over time, they are not chronologically
separated components of a linear series. (p. 1336)
Similarly, Ravitch and Mittenfelner Carl (2020) describe the iterative and recursive analytic
process as a “foundational concept [that] involves understanding that data analysis begins from
the moment the first piece of data is collected. Furthermore, it requires understanding that each
subsequent analytic process informs and builds on the others in ways that can help you see the
layers and complexities in your data and ultimately critically inform and ground your findings”
(p. 241).
Once you have collected your data by way of the various data collection methods (and com-
binations thereof) that you have chosen to use, your next step is to manage, organize, and make
sense of all the separate pieces of accumulated information. Qualitative data include excerpts
from documentation, interview transcripts, survey comments, focus group transcripts, critical
incident forms, and field notes from observations. In addition, you may have collected some
quantitative data by way of survey methodology, yielding numbers, frequencies, and percent-
ages. All of these data are called raw data because they are as yet untouched by you. Your task is
to transform them into something meaningful by analyzing them and making inferences from
these discrete pieces of information.
Many students become overwhelmed at this point of the dissertation process, having
completed or still being immersed in data collection and faced with mounds and mounds of
“stuff” and unsure about what needs to be done first. Frequently, the comment is that they are
Chapter 9 • Analyzing Data and Reporting Findings 327
overloaded with data and drowning. Many students have some notion of what they must do
but are uncertain about how to really go about doing it. A common problem facing qualitative
researchers is the lack of agreed-on approaches for analyzing qualitative material. Although
there is some information regarding how and why to use qualitative research methodologies,
there is considerably less information on the actual “nuts and bolts” of what to do with the data
after the research has been conducted.
Although most research courses and textbooks describe the basic structure of research, few
move the student into the areas of data organization and analysis. Much is made of the pro-
cess of coding—assigning an alphanumeric system to segments of transcripts. Less attention is
paid, however, to application—that is, how to use coded material. Typically, the results are that
students come up with excellent ideas for research, conduct solid literature reviews, produce
what sound like viable research designs, and even collect massive amounts of data. The problem
arises, however, at this point: What do you do with the collected data? This chapter provides the
“what” as well as the “how” regarding transforming raw data into meaningful findings.
When you reach this point in the research process, it is essential to keep an open mind,
remembering that qualitative research is all about discovery. You need to look carefully at all
of your data, seeking to uncover important insights regarding the phenomenon that you are
researching. These are your “findings.” The procedures you use to accomplish this need to be
well thought out, explicitly documented, and directly connected to your research questions.
Subsequently, in the following chapter, “Qualitative Meta-Synthesis: Analyzing and Interpreting
Findings,” you will learn more about how to synthesize all your data sources and insights,
thereby creating an interpretation that is holistic and integrated.
There is often some confusion around the idea of data analysis in qualitative research and
what this actually entails. Qualitative data analysis is the process of bringing order, structure,
and meaning to the masses of data collected. Broadly speaking, qualitative data analysis is the
researcher’s attempt to summarize all the collected data in a dependable and accurate manner.
This process is based on induction: The researcher starts with a large set of data and seeks to
progressively narrow this into smaller important groups of key data. There are no predefined
variables to focus analysis as in quantitative research. Qualitative data analysis requires the
researcher to be patient and reflective in a process that strives to make sense of multiple data
sources. The analytic procedure falls essentially into the following sequential phases: organizing
the data, coding the data, generating categories, and identifying themes and patterns.
A note on transparency is warranted here. As discussed in Chapter 8, in your dissertation
it is imperative to avoid what has been referred to as the “black box approach to data analysis”
(Guest et al., 2012; St. Pierre & Jackson, 2014); that is, inadequate description of analytic proce-
dures and reasoning. Oftentimes, researchers simply state that they conducted thematic analy-
sis, without a clear rationale for their methodological decisions, in the belief that this constitutes
sufficient information. Certain fundamental steps must be taken to constitute a comprehensive
and trustworthy (credible and dependable) account of the analytic process, and this involves
making explicit all decisions and choices for arriving at certain judgments during data analysis,
as well as a thorough description of all steps taken and methods used in your analysis. In this
way you establish an “audit trail” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Miles
et al., 2019), which enhances transparency and is an indication of sound and rigorous method-
ological practice. The specific analytic approach should be clearly explained, and the researcher
should be positioned as active in the research process; that is, making very clear that themes do
not just “emerge.” Central to the coding process is ensuring that coding procedures are defined,
rigorous, and consistently applied in order to conform with the trustworthiness standards asso-
ciated with qualitative research (Williams & Moser, 2019). Transparency of the analysis means
that the reader is able to follow the researcher’s reasoning, and is provided the necessary infor-
mation for accepting their interpretations, or challenging them. The repeatability of an analysis
means that the process of analysis and interpretation have been presented so clearly that another
researcher applying them would reach similar conclusions. While the process of data analysis
and interpretation of findings can never be fully formalized, and this is not the goal of qualita-
tive research, it is above all a question of working step by step so that the process in its entirety
can be made as visible and transparent as possible to both the researcher and the reader.
A helpful tool for recording ideas generated during data analysis is memoing (writing
memos). Analytic memos are reflective notes that researchers write to themselves about what
they are learning from their data. These memos can include notes about anything, including
thoughts on emerging concepts, themes, and patterns found in the data; the need for possible
further data collection; a comparison that needs to be made within or across the data; and the
ways in which researcher bias may be problematic. Memos are at times speculative, and at other
times more focused and conclusive. Analytic memoing is an important strategy to use during
a research project to record insights gained from reflecting on the data and emergent findings.
Because qualitative data analysis is an interpretative process, it is important that you keep track
of your ideas. Recording your insights and “hunches” as they occur means that you will not have
to rely on your memory further on in the research process when you embark on interpretation,
conclusions, and the final write-up.
The findings and analysis chapters are typically the lengthiest and most developed chapters
of your dissertation, because here you are reporting on study’s findings. These final chapter are
where your entire study comes to life so be very methodical into developing both chapters fully
and carefully. An outline or framework becomes particularly useful in appropriately structuring
these chapters. Please be aware that although Chapter 5 of the dissertation deals with analysis
and interpretation (that is, “meta-synthesis”), it should become evident to you that the process
of analysis begins occurring in Chapter 4 by way of organizing and transforming raw data into
what are called the “research findings.” Essentially, Chapter 4 of the dissertation involves the
analysis of data to produce findings. The following chapter, Chapter 5, involves the analysis,
interpretation, and synthesis of those findings. Both chapters involve analytic decisions. Note
that in some universities and programs the two chapters, Chapter 4 and Chapter 5, are required
to be combined into one chapter that addresses both data analysis and presentation of findings.
Whether you present this as one or two chapters, together (the presentation of findings and the
analysis and interpretation of those findings) your discussion should convince a reader that
you—as the researcher—are sufficiently knowledgeable about the interlocking and complex
analytic processes that constitute qualitative research.
ORGANIZING AND PREPARING DATA FOR ANALYSIS
Data Management Strategies

The data generated by qualitative methods are voluminous, and the sheer quantity of raw
data can indeed be quite daunting. If data are to be thoroughly analyzed, they must be well
organized. Understanding the ways in which the data can be organized and managed is hence
important. As mentioned in Part I, attention to detail in managing data is important at every
stage of the research process. This notion becomes all too clear when it is time to write up the
research. Once you are sure that your data are well organized, the analysis can begin in earnest.
Transcribe your interviews as soon as possible, and assign identification codes to each tran-
script. Bear in mind that you must know your data intimately. Although extremely tedious,
transcribing your interviews yourself is one way of immersing yourself in your data and becom-
ing more familiar with it. Remember that doing your own transcriptions, or at least checking
them by listening to the tapes as you read them, can be quite different from just working off
transcriptions done by somebody else.
Although extremely time consuming, it is imperative that interviews be transcribed ver-
batim. The exact words of participants must be recorded, along with any aspects of nonverbal
communication, such as pauses, laughter, or interruptions. These nonverbal nuances are usually
noted within parentheses as they occur. If you are having your transcriptions done by a profes-
sional transcriber, you need to make these instructions clear. Also, if computerized data analysis
tools are going to be used, the data might have to be converted into a format that is compatible
with the software program to be used.
Make sure all your information is complete and legible. Write dates on all transcriptions
and field notes. Label all notes according to type (observers’ notes, memos, transcriptions, etc.).
Be sure to make copies of all your material, and from an early stage, find a way to securely store
the data in well-labeled computer files so that you know where to locate the different pieces of
information. It is prudent—and indeed highly advisable—to back up all your data, putting one
master copy away someplace for safekeeping. As mentioned in Part I, it is essential to sort and
order your data for easy retrieval. Safely storing the data also ensures that you are honoring the
confidentiality of participants—an essential ethical consideration.
If you have collected any quantitative material, you need to summarize the data to illustrate
patterns. In a qualitative study, quantitative findings are secondary and are used to supplement
and/or augment the primary qualitative findings. We recommend that you “chunk” your data
and prepare the quantitative component at the outset prior to embarking on qualitative data
analysis. While you analyze quantitative and qualitative data separately and in different ways,
as you see later in this chapter, in qualitative research, reporting the findings means that data
from all sources are seamlessly woven to provide an overall integrated and holistic presentation.
Deductive, Inductive, and Abductive Analysis

Qualitative data analysis encompasses the processes that are needed to make sense and meaning
of the data. Let us interject at this point to offer a very brief outline of three quite general forms
of qualitative analysis. The well-known models of reasoning, commonly referred to as deduc-

tion, induction, and abduction, illustrate the basic “thinking” behind analysis in general, and
have their roots particularly in grounded theory. Understanding these models thus allows us to
make decisions regarding how you will go about using your data.
First, deduction is a theory-driven analysis and can be considered a “top down” approach.
Deductive reasoning starts with theories, models, or laws and infers statements from cer-
tain premises, defined by these theories, models, or laws (Jarvinen & Mik-Meyer, 2020). In
grounded theory, deduction points to the most appropriate avenue for further investigation and
subsequently constitutes a relevant theory. The idea is that theory determines data, in the sense
that hypotheses and assumptions are articulated within the background or context of theory,
which is then tested in confrontation with the so-called empirical world—that is, raw data. The
metaphor for this approach is a “framework” or paradigm. Qualitative researchers often talk
about having a theoretical framework or conceptual framework to guide the entire study from
conceptualization through data analysis.
Second, induction is data-driven analysis and can be considered a “bottom up” approach.
The implication is that one can generalize and make inferences from a number of instances in
which something “holds true”. Inductive reasoning begins with the study of a range of indi-
vidual cases and extrapolates patterns and meanings from them to form a conceptual category
(Jarvinen & Mik-Meyer, 2020). The idea is that data lead to theory, and in pure form, an induc-
tive approach builds on the idea that data can more or less speak for themselves and may offer
us a truly grounded theory. The metaphor driving this model is the metaphor of “collecting,”
whereby researchers collect data to form a bouquet that is informative about something more
general than any single flower is capable of (Brinkman, 2014). The inductive approach involves
the reduction of information that has been collected by organizing it with the help of a coding
scheme into significant patterns and themes. The critique of this approach is that the point of
research is not to develop general theories but to understand particulars.
In sum, a researcher who adopts a deductive or “theory-driven” approach will produce
codes relative to a pre-specified conceptual framework or codebook. In this case, the analy-
sis would tend to be “analyst-driven,” predicated on the theoretically informed interpretation
of the researcher. Conversely, a researcher who adopts an inductive or “data-driven” approach
may wish to produce codes that are solely reflective of the content of the data, free from
any pre-conceived theory or conceptual framework. In this case, data are not coded to fit a
pre-existing coding frame, but instead “open-coded” in order to best represent meaning as com-
municated by the research participants. Data analyzed and coded deductively can often provide
a less rich description of the overall dataset, instead focusing on providing a detailed analysis
of a particular aspect of the dataset interpreted through a particular theoretical or conceptual
lens. Deductive analysis has typically been associated with positivistic/essentialist approaches,
whereas inductive analysis tends to be aligned with constructivist approaches. It is important to
note that coding and analysis rarely fall neatly into one of these approaches and, more often than
not, a researcher will use a combination of both approaches. It is arguably not possible to con-
duct an exclusively deductive analysis, as an appreciation for the relationship between different
items of information in the data is necessary in order to identify recurring commonalities with
regard to a pre-specified theory or conceptual framework. In the same vein, it is arguably not
possible to conduct an exclusively inductive analysis, as the researcher would require some form
of criteria to identify whether or not a piece of information may be conducive to addressing the
research question(s), and therefore worth coding. Bingham and Witkowski (2020) outline how
deductive and inductive analysis practices together can serve to strengthen qualitative analysis.
These authors explain how deductive practices can be used to: (1) sort data into organizational
categories; (2) organize data into categories to maintain alignment with research questions; and
(3) apply theoretical or conceptual frameworks. Inductive practices can be used to: (1) make
meaning from the data; (2) develop codes, themes, and findings; (3) identify representative data
to support findings; and (4) explain findings using theory and literature.
A third approach is abductive analysis. This approach is motivated by the notion that a
theory is needed for explanatory purposes, specifically with regard to what is surprising or not
routinely expected. Brinkmann (2014) views this analytic approach as an alternative to the
“inductive collector” and the “deductive framer.” He introduces the image of the abductive
tool-user: the bricoleur or craftsperson. As he explains, unlike induction and deduction, both of
which address the relationship between data and theory, abduction is seen as a form of reason-
ing that is concerned with the relationship between situation and inquiry. Abductive reasoning
can come into play when the researcher has an insight or makes an assumption that a connec-
tion exists in an incomplete or seemingly unrelated set of data. As Brinkmann (2014) explains,
“It [analysis] occurs in situations of breakdown, surprise, bewilderment, and wonder” (p. 722).
Abduction is thus a form of reasoning used in situations of uncertainty when we seek an under-
standing or explanation of why something happens. The goal of the abductive process is not to
arrive at fixed or universal knowledge through the collection of data. Rather, the goal is to be
able to act in a specific situation. Hence, this approach has its roots in the Pragmatism of Charles
S. Peirce, who made the claim that “Abduction … is motivated by the feeling that a theory is
needed to explain the surprising facts” (Pierce, 1901/1992, p. 106). Inquiry is thus seen as the
process of trying to understand a situation by sense-making. The result of sense-making (which
may be a concept or a theory) is then tested to see whether the situation is resolved. According
to the abductive model, then, we engage in research, inquiry, and analysis for purposes of living,
and theories and methods are some of the tools used in the process.
In essence, data analysis includes a variety of structured processes for looking across your
dataset to identify patterns and construct analytic themes (reflects important concepts in the
data), and then turn these themes into what ultimately become your findings. The findings will
ultimately provide answers or responses to your study’s research questions.
Deciding on an Analytic Approach

It must be pointed out at the outset that different qualitative research traditions or genres pro-
mote specific strategies for data analysis. To achieve methodological congruence, and to ensure
that all key elements throughout your dissertation are aligned, appropriate methods of data
analysis should be informed by and contingent upon your chosen research design (qualitative
tradition or genre). The analytic strategy is typically described as part of the research design. As
such, it should be grounded in and aligned with the design that you have selected and should
respect disciplinary expectations. This was explained in greater detail in Chapter 5 of this book,
“Achieving Alignment Throughout Your Dissertation.”
Data analysis in the different qualitative traditions is similar, but there are some fundamen-
tal and unique differences:
Grounded theory is systematic in its approach: Categories of information are generated
(open coding), one of the categories is selected and positioned within a theoretical model (axial
coding), and a story is explicated from the interconnection of the categories (selective coding).
Key proponents of “constructivist grounded theory,” Charmaz (2008) and Charmaz et al.
(2018) outlined a process of initial or open coding in which the analyst begins to work through
the dataset, adding codes in a line-by-line fashion. Charmaz suggested that researchers use
gerunds—noun forms of verbs—in order to make processes explicit, “make connections
between codes,” and “keep analyses active and emergent” (2008, p. 164). Focused or selective
coding is a process whereby analysts examine and refine the codes through a process of locat-
ing those that are most significant, or appear more prominently in the data, before developing
tentative explanations concerning the codes (Charmaz, 2008). Coding and categorizing involve
the constant comparison method that continues throughout the study. As the name implies,
this method involves systematically comparing sections of text and noting similarities and dif-
ferences between these sections. Through the emergence of major categories, theory can evolve.
The researcher integrates categories into a theoretical framework that specifies causes, condi-
tions, and consequences of the studied process. The researcher integrates categories into a theo-
retical framework that specifies causes, conditions, and consequences of the studied process.
Moustakas (1994), a transcendental phenomenologist, described beginning the process of phe-
nomenological reduction by identifying “meaning statements” relevant to the object of analysis.
This process differs from coding in that interview transcripts are reduced by eliminating repetitive
statements and data that are irrelevant to the study of a particular lived experience in order to iden-
tify the essential meaning elements in the text. This enables the researcher to focus on interviewees’
statements that reflect the “horizons” of meaning relevant to the phenomenon. Meaning statements
are then clustered into themes and used to develop textural and structural descriptions of the expe-
rience (Moustakas, 1994). van Manen, a hermeneutic phenomenologist, outlined three approaches
to isolate thematic aspects of a phenomenon: (1) the wholistic or sententious approach; (2) the selec-
tive or highlighting approach; and (3) the detailed or line-by-line approach (1990, pp. 92–93). In
the first approach, the analyst reads the whole text, asks, “What sententious phrase may capture the
fundamental meaning or main significance of the text as a whole?” (p. 93); and then writes a phrase
to express this meaning. In the selective approach, the analyst asks, What statement(s) or phrase(s)
seem particularly essential or revealing about the phenomenon or experience being described? (p.
93). The third approach, similar to the approach described by Moustakas, involves the analyst in a
line-by-line reading of the data, asking, “What does this sentence or sentence cluster reveal about
the phenomenon or experience being described?” (p. 93). As analysts work through datasets, they
begin writing linguistic transformations to capture the themes (p. 94).
Case study and ethnographic research involve a detailed description of the setting or indi-
viduals, followed by analysis of the data for themes, patterns, or issues (Stake, 1995; Wolcott,
1994). Phenomenological research makes use of significant statements, the generation of mean-
ing units, and the development of an “essence” description (Moustakas, 1994). Researchers who
use this approach are reluctant to describe specific analytic techniques, fearing that these might
be seen as rules and become inflexible (Hycner, 1985). As such, the focus is on attitude and the
response to the phenomenon under study. The aim is to achieve an analytic description of the
phenomena not affected by prior assumptions. The goal of ethnographic analysis is to specifi-
cally make sense of particular cultures, including the language or “folk terms” that members of
the culture routinely use, and to generate findings that will provide descriptions, analyses, and
interpretations of how members experience and understand their world. Anthropologist James
Spradley (1979) defined ethnographic analysis as “a search for the parts of a culture, the rela-
tionships among the parts, and their relationships to the whole” (p. 142).
THEMATIC ANALYSIS
While there are a range of approaches to qualitative analysis, they all share a common focus on
extracting and illustrating the underlying essence, patterns, or themes. As described by Jarvinen and
Mik-Meyer (2020), “qualitative analyses are conducted in many different ways. However, across dif-
ferent analytical traditions, one will usually find the following elements: data reduction, categoriza-
tion of data, narrowing down of data and organization, and presentation of data” (p. 9). Whatever
tradition or genre one adopts, perhaps the most fundamental underlying operation in the analysis of
qualitative data is the iterative and recursive process of discovering significant sets or groups of per-
sons, issues, and experiences and the properties that characterize them. To begin, qualitative analysis
involves a process of data reduction that occurs through applying codes to the data (e.g., as described
in constant comparative analysis) or elimination of repetitive or irrelevant data (e.g., as described in
phenomenological reduction) in order to define conceptual categories. Codes are developed through
the researcher’s systematic engagement with their data and are the “building blocks” for themes.
Categorization of data occurs by thorough sorting and classification of the codes or data into thematic
groupings or “clusters of meaning.” Thus, themes are produced by organizing codes around a relative
core commonality, or “central organizing concept” that the researcher interprets from the data. Here,
the researcher engages in the act of reorganizing the data into thematic representations of findings
through a series of assertions and interpretations; these themes are supported by evidence from the
dataset in the form of excerpts from interviews that link the researcher’s assertions to what was said
by research participants in the research contexts. Reorganization includes data condensation or some
other kind of analytical winnowing or narrowing down.
As you move through the analytic process, you will be constantly reviewing and refining
your labeling practices and noticing how ideas combine, relate, and diverge. You will move
toward focusing more on specific issues, and you will be discarding ideas that are no longer cen-
tral. You will also be drilling down to explore the detail and dimensions of key issues. Engaging
in rounds of data collection and periodic analysis can enable you to explore, check, and refine
your emerging ideas. Journaling and memoing over the life of the study will help you critically
reflect on and develop your analytic thinking. Remember, analysis is a process of seeking out
alternative perspectives, and one way of accomplishing this is to be engaged with other people
in your research process. Along with journaling and the reflexivity that engenders, dialogic
engagement through peer review with professional colleagues is an important aspect of the
overall research process and specifically when it comes to data analysis. While this kind of col-
laboration is highly encouraged throughout all stages of the research process, its role in promot-
ing a more authentic data analysis process cannot be emphasized enough.
Qualitative data analysis is a time-consuming process that evolves as the researcher navigates the
different phases of the process, and this is to be expected! As you move through the iterative analytic
process, this can lead to new interpretations of the data, which may in turn require further itera-
tions of earlier phases. It should be pointed out that Braun and Clarke (2006) outlined a somewhat
simplified six-phase stepwise approach to thematic analysis of qualitative data. All too often students
use this model in a simplistic manner, without really understanding the depth of qualitative analysis
nor using the six-phase process as a set of guidelines, rather than rules, that should be applied in a flex-
ible manner to fit the study’s data and the research questions. In the intervening years, there has been
misunderstanding and misapplication of this approach to thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2019,
2020, 2021), and these authors have since published an account describing how they have clarified
and revised some of the ways they phrased or conceptualized thematic analysis, and the elements of,
and processes around, a method they now refer to as reflexive thematic analysis, with a pronounced
emphasis on the reflexivity required of researchers which is especially critical when engaging in the
process of qualitative data analysis. These authors propose that researchers be thoughtful in their
approach to analysis and understand that there are multiple approaches to doing thematic analysis.
Braun and Clarke (2020) point out that many of the common problems are underpinned by an
assumption of homogeneity in thematic analysis, and they outline guidelines in the form of critical
questions to promote high-quality standards in thematic analysis research, and more deliberative
and reflexive engagement with thematic analysis and interpretation as a highly recursive and iterative
practice, rather than a rigid “method.” Additionally, they point out that researchers need to engage
in careful conceptual and design thinking to produce research based on thematic analysis that can
demonstrate methodological integrity (Braun & Clarke, 2021). The non-linear nature of qualitative
data analysis is explained also by Lester et al. (2020) who state:
Qualitative data analysis is generally described as a nonlinear, iterative process. Thus, it
is common for researchers not to list out a stepwise analytic process. We suggest, how-
ever, that it is quite useful to think about the process in relation to phases—which are
certainly often overlapping. These phases can be pursued in a systematic way, while also
recognizing that qualitative analysis is fundamentally flexible and even a bit messy. The
value of structuring data analysis in phases is that it creates a transparent process for both
the qualitative researcher and (ultimately) the reader of a given research report. (p. 98)
Essentially, thematic analysis seeks to capture analytic approaches that fully embrace
qualitative research values as well as the subjectivity that the researcher brings to the process.
Analysis, which can be inductive or deductive, is a situated interpretative reflexive process.
Coding is open and organic, with no use of any specific predefined coding framework. Themes
should be the final “outcome” of data coding and iterative theme development. As qualitative
researchers, we are interested in the language of the participants or texts. When transcribing
interviews, however, it is recommended that you make notations of body language, long pauses,
and other communicative body language actions and gestures, as these, aside from the partici-
pants’ actual words, are telling too. We work with the data (mostly words) to identify units of
information that contribute to themes or patterns—the study’s findings. This process generates
an enormous amount of text. To make the data more readily accessible and understandable, the
vast array of words, sentences, and paragraphs has to be reduced to what is of most importance
and interest and then transformed to draw out key themes and patterns. Although there are
some specific and unique analytic distinctions among the numerous qualitative designs (tradi-
tions or genres), data analysis is somewhat of a stepwise—but highly iterative and recursive—
process. Ultimately, you will be expected to be able to describe in detail your analytic approach
and show that you are able to demonstrate how you got from your data to your conclusions. This
is necessary to enhance both the credibility and the dependability of your study.
A SYSTEMATIC PROCEDURE FOR DATA ANALYSIS
Although what is offered here is a stepwise procedure to prepare and analyze the data, bear in
mind that this does not imply in any way that the interrelationship among these steps is neces-
sarily linear. Each phase in this multistage process leads logically to the next, yet you will most
likely cycle through the phases more than once, looping back and revisiting earlier phases in an
ongoing effort to narrow and make sense of the data. The steps that you take will overlap one
another as you continue to collect data. As you reflect on your data, the initial ordered sequence
most likely will lose its structure and become more flexible.
Data analysis is typically an iterative and recursive—yet integrated—process. Rather than an
isolated moment, analysis is integrated with and occurs throughout the research process, involv-
ing much deliberation and critical thinking. Researchers may find that more than one style of
thinking is needed at different stages of the analysis—that is, at the analytic strategy planning
stage, the coding stage, and the interpreting and meaning-making stages. As with the research
design, every choice that is made influences the findings that are generated, but determining
those choices in advance of the study is not entirely realistic. Discoveries may also emerge that
take the analysis process in a new or unexpected direction. It should be noted that while the qual-
itative researcher moves through distinct phases, analysis involves a deeply reflexive component.
A question that is often asked is when analysis actually starts. For some studies, it is important
to begin after collecting all of the data and analyze these data all together. In other cases, the
researcher may prefer to look at all the data and find common or contrasting themes. For other
studies, the analysis process may occur in stages that are interspersed with data collection. Each
of the qualitative traditions or genres has specific ways of addressing data collection and analysis.
Just how long the analytic process lasts is difficult to predict. This depends largely on the
nature of the study, the amount of data collected, and the analytic and synthesizing abilities of
the researcher. The process can be repetitious, tedious, and time consuming. However, there is
no substitute for fully immersing yourself in your data. Take the time to read and reread. Really
live with your data. Getting to know intimately what you have collected, and struggling with
the nuances, subtleties, caveats, and contradictions, is an integral part of the process, and a very
worthwhile one. Keep an open mind, and be prepared for the unexpected. Remain patient.
Accept that the process in its entirety will take some time, and be aware of not making prema-
ture judgments. Figure 9.1, Road Map for the Process of Qualitative Data Analysis: An Outline,
includes the iterative steps of the analytic process. Following the figure is a more detailed discus-
sion of the key activities involved in the process.
FIGURE 9.1 ■ Road Map for the Process of Qualitative Data Analysis: An Outline
Review and Explore Data

Step I Identify “Big Ideas”
Re-Read and Examine Data

Step II Code Data
Place Coded Data in Categories
Memo/Journal Data Summary Inter-Rater

Tables Reliability
Revise Coding Scheme

Add, Eliminate, and/or
Collapse Codes
Report Findings
Step III 1. Formulate Findings Statements Chapter 4 Data
2. Provide Participant Quotations
3. Summarize Key Findings
Information
Interpret Findings
Analyze and Synthesize Findings
Step IV Chapter 5 Knowledge
by Linking to Experience,
Insight, and Literature
Source: This figure first appeared in Bloomberg, L. D. (2007b). Understanding qualitative inquiry: Content and pro-
cess (Part I). Unpublished manuscript.
Review and Explore the Data

Once you have taken the practical steps of organizing and sorting through the different types of
data, and becoming familiar with the scope and substance of what data were collected, you will
need to examine each specific piece of information. Building on insights and hunches gained
during data collection, you will now attempt to make sense of the data as a whole. To achieve
this goal, begin by carefully reading over all the data provided by the various data collection
sources. Read the transcriptions of your interviews, critical incidents, and/or focus groups. If
you have used document review, read over your documentation too. What you are really doing
is reading to get some feel for the “story line,” including the major and minor stories that are
being told within the data. This initial reading of all the data is done to gain an overall sense of
the whole before you break these into their constituent parts.
It is important that you get a good feel for your data—an experience that usually generates
emergent insights. In reading over the data, try to make sense of what people are saying. Also try
to integrate what different people are saying. The more familiar you are with the details of your
data, the better you will be able to present them and the better your analysis of them will be. In
this first go-around, read through each transcript and try to identify the “big ideas.” Although
the big ideas are likely to become altered or refined, they provide an initial framework for the
development of the study’s findings.
Qualitative analysis usually results in the identification of recurring patterns, which are
essentially themes that cut through the data. Saldana (2021) defines a theme as “an extended
phrase or sentence that identifies what a unit of data is about and/or what it means” (emphasis in
original, p. 199). Some themes may have been deductively determined based on the research
problem, purpose, research questions, and the relevant literature surrounding the topic. Other
themes should be inductively determined regardless of what you were seeking or assumed about
the research problem. Note that sometimes the word theme is used interchangeably with the
word category (Saldana, 2021). As Ryan and Bernard (2003) explain, you know you have found
a theme when you can answer the question “What is this expression an example of?” (p. 87).
Repetition is the most common theme recognition technique and is based on the premise that
if a concept reoccurs throughout and/or across transcripts, it is likely a theme (Ryan & Bernard,
2003). Data analysis demands a heightened awareness of the data and an open mind to recur-
ring and common threads, some of which may be subtle (Guest et al., 2012).
The underlying purpose of this initial read is to really immerse yourself in your data and gain a
sense of their possibilities. As you read, make notes of or highlight relevant words and phrases that
you think capture important aspects of the data. Remember that these should bear some relation-
ship to the research questions and should not simply be some random words that seem to occur
with regular frequency. Ask yourself: “What is this about? What seems to be emerging?” Check
these ideas against the categories and descriptors of your conceptual framework. Missing data and
similarities and differences about a topic area are also important to look for as you examine your text
(Bernard et al., 2017). While we have already discussed this in greater detail in this book’s Chapter 7
(“Developing and Presenting Your Literature Review”), we will return for a moment with a brief
reminder of how the theoretical or conceptual framework functions with regard to data analysis
and the role that this framework plays in terms of organization and presentation of findings.
Create Your Analytic Framework

Remember, as discussed in detail in Chapter 7 of this book, the theoretical or conceptual frame-
work informs the reader of the study’s substantive focus and purpose. In developing the theoret-
ical framework, the researcher should be able to say, “Here’s how I am positioning my research
problem within an established arena of ideas, and here’s why it matters.” By not grounding your
study within an explicit conceptual or theoretical frame, your study takes on “so what?” qual-
ity. Moreover, as discussed, the framework not only provides the boundaries or scaffolding for
your study; it also serves to guide data analysis and the interpretation of study’s findings. So, you
now have some form of theoretical or conceptual framework, and you may be thinking “what’s
next?”
Where students often go off track, though, is not using these concepts or theory to do the
work in analysis. The theoretical or conceptual framework ends up standing alone, and some
form of thematic description of the data is made, with a rather thin version of analysis. Analysis
is, in essence, an act of deeper sense-making, requiring you to move beyond a common sense,
everyday understanding of the world, and of your data(the level of the descriptive)toward the
level of the analytical (and critical). Analysis means connecting the specific (your study and
its data) with the general (the broader phenomenon, theory, concept, way of looking at the
world) that can help to explain how the specific fits in with, challenges, or exemplifies “the gen-
eral.” If you do not make this connection, all you may end up with is a set of data that describes
a tiny piece of the world, but with little or no relevance to previous research and the broader base
of knowledge that exists. The theory or concepts you choose, and the data you generate, are
informed by your research purpose. Analysis requires moving beyond description to say some-
thing useful about what your data mean in relation to the general phenomenon you are connect-
ing with, and that informs your research problem. Thus, you need to work—iteratively and in
incremental stages—to connect your data to the conceptual or theoretical framework, and to
make sense of the data in relation to the relevant concepts or theory, so that your study can make
a contribution that speaks both to those within your research space, and those beyond it who
can draw useful conclusions and lessons. This process is akin to spinning the golden thread that
can sew your dissertation together. The golden thread is, for want of a better phrase, the central
argument that pulls through your entire dissertation, and creates coherence across the literature
review, research problem and purpose, research questions, methodology, analysis of data, and
finally the conclusions you are able to draw based on the study’s findings.
At this time, revisit your already developed theoretical or conceptual framework to begin
transforming it into what will become your analytic framework. Study your framework care-
fully to re-familiarize yourself with its multiple interconnected components (theoretical or con-
ceptual constructs), and embark on the path of creating your analytic framework, guided by the
instructions regarding developing categories and descriptors for each category.
Developing Categories. Give careful thought to developing conceptual categories that are
based on and directly tied to your study’s research questions. To be comprehensive, you need to
make sure there is at least one category that relates to each research question. These categories
form the backbone of your study. As you will see, they become the repository for presenting
your findings. They also translate into analytic categories later on in your study, and so become
an essential analytic tool. Developing categories includes looking for themes, clusters of themes,
and relationships among themes by determining similarities and differences. This stage also
includes a close review of any outliers or unusual cases that will need to be highlighted and
explained and that may lead to questions for future research.
Developing Descriptors for Each Category. Under each category, you lay out the categories’
descriptors. These descriptors reflect what you have learned from the reviewed literature, data
from your pilot studies, and your own educated guesses or hunches based on your own experi-
ences and knowledge about how people might respond to each of your research questions. Not
all of your descriptors will be useful, and you will certainly refine these as the study proceeds.
The conceptual or theoretical framework remains flexible and emergent. Based on the data you
collect, some of the descriptors may remain intact, others may be deleted, or new ones may be
added. Each category and descriptor will be assigned a code that maps participants’ responses
to the research questions, forming categories and subcategories. In the findings chapter of the
dissertation, the categories and descriptors become the headings and subheadings for organiza-
tion and presentation of findings. The conceptual framework is included in the dissertation’s
appendix. Here the title changes to “Coding Scheme,” as you assign symbols (codes) to each
main category and each of the respective descriptors. In this way your conceptual or theoretical
framework transforms to become your analytic framework.
As you read through your transcripts, in addition to highlighting parts of the text and
underlining sections and issues that seem important and relevant, you should also be jotting
down in the margins any ideas, thoughts, reflections, and comments that come to mind. This
process will provide you with a record of your initial sense of the data. Later, when you are
deeper into the analytic process, you may find that some of these early impressions are useful
and hold up throughout.
If your study includes document review, a useful tool to help collate and organize all the
information that you are able to glean from documents is a document summary form. With
regard to interviews, critical incidents, and focus groups, after reading each transcript carefully,
make summary notes for each participant. Summarizing data in this way is important because
it creates a profile of each document and/or each individual research participant. Moreover,
much of what occurs in later analytical steps requires reducing the data to units. Reduction
of data requires a researcher to think about smaller bits of data, and this step runs the risk of
missing the forest for the trees. Templates for the document summary form and the participant
summary form are included as Appendixes K and L respectively. Figure 9.2, Steps in the Coding
Process, illustrates the cyclical coding process. As you can see from this visual, several inter-
related steps are involved in coding data: reading through the many pages of text to get a sense
of the whole and make some initial notes of what you “see”; identifying and dividing the text
into segments of information; labeling the segments of information by bracketing the segment
and assigning descriptive codes; reducing the code list by grouping codes and seeking out and
eliminating codes that are overlapping or redundant; and finally collapsing the code list into
categories that will ultimately become your themes. Overall your goal is to create a manageable
list of codes that can then translate into a smaller number of meaningful categories.
FIGURE 9.2 ■ Steps in the Coding Process
1 3
Take time to
thoughtfully sort Thematic analysis
through the data to ensures an authentic,
∑ Read and carefully review develop codes, using a ∑ Carefully review your list meaningful, and
raw data structured approach. of codes credible narrative that
∑ Journal and make notes of This can be completed ∑ Condense and reduce the researcher seeks
initial assumptions manually or by using your codes as needed to tell regarding the
∑ Digging into the data will computer software. ∑ Create a workable coding study's findings.
ultimately produce a rich scheme
analytic narrative, which ∑ Note the iterations of
is the end-goal. ∑ Organize the data into your coding scheme ∑ Categories become potential
relevant groups or themes and sub-themes.
categories ∑ Themes establish meaningful
This phase is critical ∑ The labels or names you connections across the data.
Your initial coding
because you need to assign to these ∑ Determine and document themes
scheme is a starting
become very familiar groups/categories as “research findings”.
point. This scheme will
with the data in order become your “codes” ∑ Findings are informed by emergent
be revised and
to effectively and themes and are directly tied to the
developed as you
thoroughly execute study's research questions

condense, collapse, and
coding and analysis. reduce the list of codes.
2 4
Please be reminded that although this outline is provided in a step-wise fashion, the process
of data analysis is not linear, but rather iterative and recursive; and as such, oftentimes somewhat
messy. Along with the metaphor of a “road map” that is used throughout this book, you are
provided with a clear direction, but unexpected twists and turns can sometimes occur, causing
you to alter course, until you finally reach your destination. Such is the nature of qualitative
research! Be prepared to enter this process and set off on the analytic journey with an open
mind, following the path that your data present to you as it unfolds and emerges, all the while
developing new insights and understanding along the way.
Reread and Code the Data

The first major task in the analytic process is to consider the “big ideas” or themes. Saldana
(2021) refers to this process as “theming the data.” Brinkmann and Kvale (2015) call this same
process “thematizing” (p. 105). Following this step, the second step is to dissect and classify the
data and place sections of material into categories. Although it is important initially to become
familiar with your data, you do not want to drown in it. Thus, an important step is to reduce
all that you have collected to a manageable database, grouping it in useful ways. This step is
essentially what Seidman (2019) and Guest et al. (2012) refer to as a winnowing process. Often,
you will notice many more potential themes than you actually end up elaborating in a given
analysis. Just because something is noticeable does not mean that it is meaningful or note-
worthy in terms of your study’s analysis. On an initial reading of the text, often certain ideas,
phrases, or expressions catch a coder’s attention, but these may not be relevant to the analysis at
hand. Conversely, the relevance of some themes is not immediately apparent during the analytic
process. A good rule of thumb, therefore, is to err on the side of caution. If you are unsure of
the significance of a potential theme as you read through your data, flag it for later attention.
(All qualitative software analysis programs provide options for doing this.) It is important to
recognize that not everybody will perceive exactly the same themes in the same way. Breadth
and depth of knowledge and experience with the research setting and topic will influence what
a reader perceives. As such, systematic procedures are needed for finding, defining, and coding
themes. From your large stacks of papers that contain your raw data, you have to find ways to
distill the information into smaller sets of notes that characterize your total data. To do this, you
need to develop a systematic and manageable system of classification (i.e., a coding scheme).
In essence, analytic objectives keep you focused on the task at hand, and this should help you
prioritize which themes to develop in the analysis. This is one of the key functions of the theo-
retical or conceptual framework.
The reduction process includes questioning the data, identifying and noting common pat-
terns in the data, creating codes that describe your data patterns, and assigning these coded
pieces of information to the categories of your theoretical or conceptual framework. Your frame-
work is the centerpiece in managing and reducing the data, as it evolves to become a workable
analytic framework. The categories that make up your framework become the repositories of
your data. In effect, you turn this framework into a coding scheme (or coding legend) by assign-
ing codes to each category and each subcategory (or descriptor). That coding scheme should be
included in your dissertation’s appendix (see Appendix P, Sample Coding Schemes), along with
any indication of the ways in which your codes may have developed over time. (See Appendix Q,
Sample Coding Scheme Development Charts.) Remember, if you made use of a software analysis
program, your code book can be exported as a word document and included in your disserta-
tion’s appendix as a way of maintaining an audit trail and thereby ensuring transparency and
rigor. Let’s dig a little deeper to explore the qualitative analytic process.
What Is Coding?
Much is made about coding as a fundamental skill for qualitative analysis. Although there is
really nothing very mysterious about it, the literature on data analysis and coding in particu-
lar is voluminous, and the vast amount of information can certainly be overwhelming. There
are some cutting-edge texts that offer comprehensive and authoritative accounts of coding and
the different options and variations available to the qualitative researcher. For a more in-depth
account of the practical strategies associated with qualitative data analysis, the following texts
are highly recommended: Bazeley (2021), Kuckartz (2014), and Saldana (2021).
The consensus within the literature on data analysis seems to be that coding is a process
for reducing the data. Creswell and Poth (2018) regard coding as an act of “winnowing,”
while Miles at al., (2019) consider it as “data condensation.” Coding is essentially a system of
classification—the process of noting what is of interest or significance, identifying different
segments of the data, and labeling them to organize the information contained in the data.
Coffey and Atkinson (1996) explain coding as “a mixture of data [summation] and data compli-
cation . . . breaking the data apart in analytically relevant ways in order to lead toward further
questions about the data” (pp. 29–31). Saldana (2021) captures it well, providing a succinct
definition of a “code”:
A code in qualitative inquiry is most often a word or short phrase that symbolically
assigns a summative, salient, essence-capturing, and/or evocative attribute for a por-
tion of language-based or visual data . . . In qualitative data analysis, a code is a
researcher-generated construct that symbolizes and thus attributes interpreted mean-
ing to each individual datum for later purposes of pattern detection, categorization,
theory-building, and other analytic processes. Just as a title represents and captures a
book, film, or poem’s primary content and essence, so does a code represent and capture
a datum’s primary content and essence. (p. 6)
Elliott (2018) offers a useful explanation for the need for coding, stating,
The need for coding is simple: Text data are dense data, and it takes a long time to
go through them and make sense of them. Coding is a way of doing this, of essen-
tially indexing or mapping data, to provide an overview of disparate data that allows the
researcher to make sense of them in relation to their research questions. Most simply, it
can be a way of tagging data that are relevant to a particular point. (p. 2851)
Richards (2020) adds a new angle about the term “coding,” pointing out that in common
use, coding refers to data reduction, either by a system of symbols or numbers. While quantita-
tive coding reduces data, qualitative coding is about data retention. Similarly, Bazeley (2021)
views coding not as a mechanistic data reduction process but rather one designed to stimulate
and facilitate analysis by providing a means of access to evidence, for querying data, and for
testing assumptions and conclusions. The goal of qualitative research is to learn from the data
and to keep revisiting data extracts until you see and understand emergent patterns and expla-
nations. In the same vein, Saldana (2021) refutes the critique that coding in qualitative research
is reductionist, explaining that coding approaches the analytic act as one that assigns rich sym-
bolic meanings through discovering and capturing the essence in the data (including the par-
ticipant’s voice, emotions, motivations, values, attitudes, beliefs, judgments, conflicts, cultures,
identities, life course patterns, processes, etc.) and that these are not reductionist outcomes but
multidimensional facets of the research participants and their experiences. Viewed in this way,
the purpose of coding is not just to label all parts of your documents about a topic but rather to
bring them together so they can be reviewed and your thinking about the topic developed.
Coding allows you to return to the data you want to inspect, interrogate, revisit, and inter-
pret. Bear in mind that coding is a cyclical act (Saldana, 2021). It is important to understand that
rarely is the first cycle of coding perfect. You will be revising codes and adding new codes as they
emerge. Subsequent cycles of recoding further filters, focuses, and highlights the salient features
of your data, providing the potential for generating and expanding on categories, themes, and
concepts and for grasping meaning and/or building theory. Remember, the development of an
original theory is not always a necessary outcome for qualitative inquiry. However, it is preexist-
ing theories that drive the entire research process—hence, the centrality of the theoretical or
conceptual framework throughout the research endeavor. Indeed, the integral role played by the
conceptual framework is something we try to emphasize throughout this book.
Coding qualitative data is thus a useful and important way to understand, manage, sort,
and bring structure to a mass of unstructured data. Ironically, coding can itself become a large
and unstructured system, and without appropriate structure and management, poor coding
choices may hinder qualitative analysis. Many students attempting coding for the first time
struggle with defining codes, having too many overlapping codes, or having difficulty with
how to draw their codes together to create themes/categories. Managing a coding framework
is essentially an analytic process in itself, and coding works best when the process is well docu-
mented. Keeping records of what codes mean, why they were created, as well as annotations,
analytic memos, or journal entries that describe why data are being coded in a certain way are
essential elements of well-managed qualitative analysis.
For purposes of clarification, a word about codes as opposed to categories is warranted. The
broad distinction between codes and categories is drawn at the level of these two levels of cod-
ing. Also referred to as themes in the literature, categories are broad units of information that
consist of several codes aggregated to form a common idea (Creswell & Poth, 2018). In qualita-
tive software programs (QDAS) the word “node” is frequently used to connote the same kind of
grouping that we might call a category (Richards, 2020). Codes are labels that assign symbolic
meaning to the descriptive or inferential information compiled during a study (Miles et al.,
2019). In this sense a category is a code, but of a higher order. Thus, we have codes at a primary
level which are formed from reviewing the raw data, and categories or themes at a secondary
level, which are formed from analysis of codes themselves, rather than of data.
Coding Versus Content Analysis

Codes are, in effect, a type of shorthand—the names or identifiers that you attach to chunks
or segments of data that you consider relevant to your study. As such, you can use any system
that works for you, be it alphanumeric or some form of symbol. Some people find it useful to
use highlighting pens to color-code their data. Whatever system you choose to use, as you read
your material, the codes that you assign signal what you think is going on in a piece of data.
Remember, coding is more than counting. Thus the significance or “keyness” of a code is not
necessarily dependent on quantifiable measures (in other words frequency is not the issue), but
in terms of whether it captures something important in relation to the overall research question.
A brief word here about content analysis is warranted to establish the differences between
this method and qualitative data analysis. Traditional content analysis is widely cited in the
social sciences and media studies as an objective systematic statistical method. Content analysis
is also a qualitative research method utilized in document or archival research and is used to
determine the presence of certain words or concepts within texts or sets of texts (Cozby & Bates,
2012; Leedy & Ormrod, 2013). Qualitative content analysis is sometimes referred to as textual
analysis because nothing is counted or measured (Boreus & Bergstrom, 2017). A key component
of content analysis is the coding of the material to be investigated, and this can be approached
inductively or deductively (Finfgeld-Connett, 2014). If approached inductively, the researcher
begins the research with a brief list of themes and identifies more as the coding and research pro-
cess occurs. In the deductive approach, the researcher begins with a list of themes, and codes the
material according to the predetermined list (although the researcher does typically allow for
adaptability if the material suggests other themes). Regardless of the approach, the researcher
must create a coding scheme that places the content of the text into systematic categories that
can be related back to the research questions (Cozby & Bates, 2012; Finfgeld-Connett, 2014).
To begin, the text is coded (i.e., broken down) into manageable categories on a variety
of levels—word, word sense, phrase, sentence, or theme—and then examined using one of
content analysis’ basic methods: conceptual analysis or relational analysis. Conceptual analy-
sis establishes the existence and frequency of concepts most often represented by words or
phrases in a text. Relational analysis goes one step further by examining the relationships
among concepts in a text. Content analysis helps to construct research questions by defining
the categories to be applied, defining and developing the coding process, and analyzing the
results of the coding process (Cozby & Bates, 2012). Content analysis allows closeness to the
text, which can alternate between specific categories and relationships, and also statistically
analyzes the coded form of the text. While content analysis offers researchers a systematic
analytic method for producing categories, this method is inherently reductive, particularly
when dealing with complex texts, in that it tends often to simply consist of word counts
and often disregards the context within which the text was produced. A major limitation of
content analysis vis-à-vis qualitative research is the tendency to exclude implicit meanings
from coding operations, as the method tends to focus on manifest content, breaking visual
messages into elements solely by way of presence, absence, or frequency. Hence, qualitative
content analysis may not work well as a single method of inquiry but may be an effective addi-
tion to a well-designed triangulation strategy.
Both content analysis and thematic analysis share the same aim of analytically examining
narrative materials by breaking the text into relatively small units of content and then describ-
ing these units. Content analysis uses a descriptive approach in both coding of the data and its
interpretation of quantitative counts of the codes. Conversely, thematic analysis provides a qual-
itative, detailed, and nuanced account of the data. Despite similarities between the approaches,
including cutting across data and searching for patterns and themes, the main difference lies in
the quantification of data in content analysis by measuring the frequency of different categories
and themes (Vaismoradi et al., 2013). In content analysis studies, therefore, counting the number
of times a particular set of codes occurs is an important measure in assessing the frequency of items
or phenomena. However, in the qualitative coding process, frequency of occurrence is not nec-
essarily an indicator of significance. It is important to point out that counting can risk the possi-
bility of overlooking the significant instances that are seen just once or infrequently in a dataset.
Saldaña (2021) warns of the possibility that the “unique” code or indeed one that appears infre-
quently in a dataset may be the key to unlocking the analysis, but with the caveat that same
number of just one, two, or three instances of a code may also suggest something unimportant,
inconsequential, and unrelated to your study’s research questions and purpose. As such, it is the
task of the researcher to thoughtfully determine which one of these possibilities is at work, and
also to provide some explanation. As Saldana (2021) describes it, the coding process asks you
not to count but rather to ponder, scrutinize, speculate, organize, categorize, connect, integrate,
synthesize, conceptualize, and abstract. Coding well requires that you reflect deeply on the
meanings of every piece of data. And coding well requires that you read and reread as you code
and recode. Coding well leads to total immersion in your data, thereby becoming familiar with
its nuances and subtleties. Coding is a first step to really rethinking your data. As such, coding
should be regarded as having a purpose rather than being an end in itself.
Some of the many purposes of qualitative coding include the following:
• Stimulate deeper thinking about the data you have collected

• Reflect on what the coded segments tell you about the category and its underlying
meanings
• Enable you to organize and group similarly coded data into categories or themes based
on shared characteristics or features
• Ask questions about how the category relates to other ideas that develop from the data
• Create further finer categories from discovering different dimensions in the data
gathered in the first round of coding
• Search for blends or combinations of categories and compare different categories
• Note how categories that are consolidated in various ways begin to transcend the
“reality” of the data and progress toward the thematic, conceptual, and/or theoretical
levels
• Compare and contrast how different researchers interpret data in different ways
Beginning the Coding Process

As you read your material, reference segments or units of text by highlighting or bracketing
them. These segments can be single words, phrases, sentences, or even whole paragraphs. Codes
can be written in the margins or alongside the appropriate segments of text. Refer to Appendix
R, Sample Segments of Coded Interview Transcripts. As with all aspects of the research process,
precision is key. It is of the utmost importance to know who said what. Therefore, do not forget
to include participant identification with each unit of information. In addition, label each pas-
sage with a notation system that will designate its position in the original transcript. Later, when
considering an excerpt taken from its original context, you may want to check the accuracy of
the text, perhaps going back to the audiotape. Specific labeling of each excerpt allows for such
retracing.
At this point in the reading, marking, and labeling process, it is important to keep labels
tentative. As you read and mark units or sections from the material, one way is to begin to label
them using terms based on the actual language of the participants—known in the language
of grounded theory as an in vivo term. This process is called open coding, a grounded theory
concept where the descriptors emerge from the data, and is essentially the same as what Patton
(2015) refers to as inductive analysis. While using in vivo labels, note whether there is something
in the data that might fit one of the descriptors of your conceptual framework. The procedure of
using predetermined coding categories and seeking to fit the data into such categories is against
the spirit of pure grounded theory. Although we can make use of some concepts from grounded
theory, please note that the approach that is adopted in this book is not a pure grounded theory
approach.
If you use predetermined categories, you run the risk of analyzing data by coding text units
according to what you expect to find. Your conceptual framework must remain flexible and
open to change throughout the entire analytic process. Remember, the reason you have spent
so much time and energy talking to participants is to find out what their experience is and to
endeavor to understand it from their perspective. In the process of working with excerpts and
seeking connections among them, be aware that not all of your data will fit your predetermined
categories. Rather than trying to force data into categories, you will most likely have to cre-
ate some new, emergent descriptors and/or collapse and/or eliminate some of them. As you go
along, you will see that some categories may contain clusters of coded data that merit further
refinement into subcategories. You will see too that some coded excerpts might fit under more
than one category. For now, place them wherever seems most appropriate. Instead, you might
choose to place the same excerpt of text under more than one category. When making tentative
placements, make notes. Later on you will proceed to sort coded text more specifically. At this
stage of the process, you, as the researcher, are exercising judgment as to what you think is sig-
nificant in each interview transcript. Some passages stand out because they are striking to you
in some way. Others stand out because they are contradictory and seem inconsistent with your
conceptual framework. Although it may be tempting to put those aside, you should exercise
caution and not submit to researcher bias. In this regard, you must not only be vigilant in seek-
ing material that supports your own opinions, but also remain open to the “unexpected”.
Engage in Peer Review

Remember, the process of analysis, overall, is both deductive and inductive. The initial catego-
ries of your conceptual or theoretical framework are deductively obtained from the literature.
From your own experience and the data emerged, you began to see themes, and in this way, cod-
ing occurs inductively. As you go about coding the data, you will come to realize, too, that any
given segment of data might be viewed differently by two different researchers or even coded
using more than one label by another researcher. As such, there is no single “correct” way to
organize and analyze the data. Moreover, rarely will anyone get coding “right” the first time.
Therefore, it is necessary that you read, reread, and re-examine all of your data to make sure
that you have not missed something or coded something in a way that is inappropriate given the
experience of participants. At this point, interrater reliability through a process of peer review is
also required. Have a colleague review your work to see whether your codes are appropriate and
relevant to your research questions. Alternatively, have a colleague code some of the same tran-
scripts that you have been working on to check for consistency. Compare and discuss similari-
ties and differences. There are many reasons that different researchers would view and interpret
the data in different ways, including researcher bias, personal interests, style, and interpretive
focus. As Saldana (2021) stresses, intercoding agreement is not about trying to be objective but
rather about achieving similar results between two or more people.
Assigning symbolic meanings (i.e., a code) to qualitative data is a subjective act. And natu-
rally, since each of us perceives the social world differently, we analyze it differently and there-
fore code it differently. As such, you would not expect consistency of qualitative coding between
colleagues, and so inconsistency is not a cause for concern (Richards, 2020). Indeed, exploring
reasons for inconsistency is a worthwhile exercise, as important insights can and often do emerge
from the different ways in which people look at the same set of data. Moreover, as Guest et al.
(2012) put it, “Recoding is not a sign you have done things wrong, it is simply part of doing
things well” (p. 76). And remember, because coding is a cyclical act, recoding usually occurs
with a more insightful perspective. Any discrepancies that result from the independent review
by your colleagues must be discussed and reconciled. Such discrepancies may result in addi-
tional exploration of the data which could result in refining subsequent analysis (Creswell &
Poth, 2018).
Prepare to Record Findings

As you read, sort, and code, two other processes should be occurring simultaneously: (a) prepar-
ing data summary charts and (b) writing memos and/or journaling. The first thing you need to
do is fill out data summary tables—one for each research question. These tables are tools that
help you compile what participants have said about each of the categories in the conceptual
framework and record how many participants’ comments fall under the same categories. These
tables are a way to summarize participant data. They provide a way to highlight the evidence to
support what the researcher says she or he has found. In the absence of such a summary, iden-
tification of pervasive themes and findings is up to either the discretion of the researcher or the
interpretation of the reader.
To accurately report and analyze the findings of your research, you have to be rigorous
about recording participant responses. Toward this end, get in the habit of filling out data sum-
mary tables as you code. Perform the two activities in tandem so that no information is lost. It
is useful to array your tables as outlined in Table 9.1, Template for Data Summary Table. These
tables are essentially matrices in which the participants (under pseudonyms) are listed down the
vertical axis, with the descriptors (the different aspects of each category) being listed along the
horizontal axis. These descriptors should be listed exactly as they appear under each category
of your conceptual framework. How each participant responds to each of the descriptors on the
horizontal axis is then checked off, and tallies (raw frequencies as well as percentages) are noted
at the bottom of each column. A data summary table should be developed in this same format
for each category of your theoretical or conceptual framework. In this way, you have a consistent
record of findings regarding all your participants’ responses across all of your categories. The
categories are directly tied to your research questions. Samples of Data Summary Tables are pre-
sented as Appendix T.
Although qualitative research is not about quantifying data, and although the intent is not
to reduce the data to numeric representations (as in the case of quantitative research), tallies
and frequencies in qualitative research are acceptable and are essentially a supplement to the
narrative. Data summary tables are working tools that create a record of who said what and how
many times a particular response occurs. As such, these tables are an essential precursor to inter-
pretation, where you will need to look closely at both individual participants and the overall
group of participants—that is, cross-case analysis.
As you read through your data, different ideas come into your mind. These ideas
might be the basis for interpretations or even conclusions and recommendations later on.
Therefore, you need to record all of these thoughts so that you do not lose them. You might
consider keeping a journal and/or some system of memo as to what is going on with the data.
Memoing, a concept originally referred to by Strauss (1987), involves recording and writing
notes about certain occurrences or sentences that seem of vital interest. Memos can trigger
thinking processes and, as Strauss explains, are the written versions of an internal dialogue
going on during the research. By recording what you think is going on, you can capture
new descriptors as they emerge through your reading and coding, which descriptors seem to
overlap, and which descriptors are not appearing, thus needing to be eliminated. In this way,
your notes serve to inform your coding scheme and become the basis for a coding scheme
development chart (see Appendix Q, Sample Coding Scheme Development Charts). The notes
that you jot down, either in the form of memos or as part of a research journal, also can serve
to form the basis of your interpretation of the findings, which is addressed in Chapter 10 of
this book. Charts are useful working tools that help guide and clarify your thinking and, as
such, can be included in the appendix of your dissertation. These charts also form part of
your audit trail—a necessary element for establishing your study’s dependability; that is, the
extent to which a reader can adequately track all the processes and procedures used to col-
lect and interpret the data based on the researcher’s account; thereby enhancing the study’s
overall trustworthiness.
TABLE 9.1 ■ Template for Data Summary Table
Descriptor 1 Descriptor 2 Descriptor 3 Descriptor 4 Descriptor 5 Descriptor 6 Descriptor 7
Pseudonym 1
Pseudonym 2
Chapter 9
Pseudonym 3
•
Pseudonym 4
Pseudonym 5
Pseudonym 6
N=X #=x% #=x% #=x% #=x% #=x% #=x% #=x%

Analyzing Data and Reporting Findings
349
Data Saturation
Data saturation is the most commonly employed concept for estimating sample sizes in quali-
tative research. Across academic disciplines, the answer to this question has usually revolved
around reaching saturation (Guest et al., 2020). The concept of saturation was first introduced
into the field of qualitative research as “theoretical saturation” by Glaser and Strauss in The
Discovery of Grounded Theory (1967), where they defined the term as the point at which “no
additional data are being found whereby the [researcher] can develop properties of the cate-
gory” (p. 61). Their definition was specifically intended for the practice of building and test-
ing theoretical models using qualitative data and refers to the point at which the theoretical
model being developed stabilizes. While the concept of saturation has its roots in grounded
theory, many qualitative researchers, however, do not typically use the specific grounded theory
method, but rather a more general inductive thematic analysis, as discussed in this chapter.
Over time, the broader term “data saturation” has become increasingly adopted, to reflect a
wider application of the term and concept. In this broader sense, saturation is often described as
the point in data collection and analysis when new incoming data produces limited or no new or
useful information to address the research questions. The concept has gained momentum over
the years, becoming one of the key issues amongst researchers focusing on how to enhance rigor
in qualitative research as well as how to improve quality and credibility (Fusch & Ness, 2015;
Hennink et al., 2017; Hennink & Kaiser, 2019; Sim et al., 2018).
Saturation is considered a fundamental guideline to inform sample size determination in
qualitative research designs (Guest et al., 2020), a juncture at which “information power” is
attained (Malterud et al., 2016) and the phase of data analysis where no additional codes (code
saturation) and themes and or further insights(meaning saturation) are emerging from the data
(Hennink et al., 2017). Qualitative researchers often find themselves in conundrum regarding
how to address questions such as, what is saturation? How and when does one accomplish it?
Is it a phase, a rule, a measure or a standard? How does reaching it or not reaching it affect the
research? While controversy surrounds its definition, application, and underlying principles,
what is evident is the complexity in clearly delineating the different forms of saturation, their
interconnectedness and underlying assumptions, the lack of clear methodological guidelines
regarding the application of the concept when sampling, collecting data and analyzing it, and
the intricacy in measuring it (Sebele-Mpofu, 2020). Despite its complexity, saturation plays a
fundamental role in boosting research quality, and is an important consideration in sampling
and data analysis. In essence, an adequate sample must be selected to accomplish coding, the-
matic analysis, and credible interpretation.
Saturation is a key aspect in qualitative research where samples cannot be estimated with
certainty. Yet, while this body of work has advanced the evidence base for sample size estimation
in qualitative research during the design phase of a study, prior to data collection, there is no
simple and reliable way to determine the adequacy of sample sizes during and/or after data col-
lection. Hennink et al. (2017) compared two approaches to assessing data saturation: code satu-
ration and meaning saturation. These authors examined sample sizes needed to reach saturation
in each approach, what saturation meant, and how to assess saturation. As they explain, code
saturation may indicate when researchers have “heard it all,” but meaning saturation is needed
to “understand it all.” Based on this premise, these authors developed parameters that influence
saturation to estimate sample sizes in qualitative studies and thereby document the grounds
on which saturation was achieved. Similarly, using the principle of saturation as a foundation,
Guest et al. (2020) describe a simple-to-apply method for assessing and reporting on saturation
in the context of inductive thematic analyses. Following a review of the empirical research on
data saturation and sample size estimation in qualitative research, these authors propose an
alternative way to evaluate saturation, proposing an approach that includes three distinct ele-
ments in its calculation and assessment: base size, run length, and new information threshold.
Base size: When assessing saturation, incoming information is weighed against the infor-
mation already obtained. It is known that if we use all of the data collection events as our base
size, we can reach saturation by default as there are no more data to consider. Also, most novel
information in a qualitative dataset is generated early in the process, with a relatively sharp
decline in new information occurring after just a small number of data collection/analysis
events (Guest et al., 2020). For this reason, saturation should be assessed after conducting inter-
views with the sample you have originally created, and the results of this initial assessment can
then determine whether or not more interviews are needed.
Run length: A run can be defined as a set of consecutive interviews. The run length is the
number of interviews within which we look for, and calculate, new information. The number of
new themes found in the run defines the numerator in the saturation ratio.
New information threshold: This final element addresses what level of paucity of new
information should we accept as indicative of saturation. Guest et al. (2020) propose that fur-
nishing researchers with options—rather than a prescriptive threshold—is a more realistic,
transparent, and accurate practice. They propose two levels of new information that represent
the proportion of new information as acceptable evidence that saturation has been reached at a
given point in data collection: ≤5% new information and no (0%) new information. The lower
the new information threshold—and therefore the more conservative the allowance for recog-
nizing new information—the more interviews will be needed to achieve saturation.
In qualitative analysis, there is no hard-and-fast answer to the question of what propor-
tion of your dataset needs to display evidence of the theme for it to be considered a theme.
Determining a theme is based on researcher choice and judgment. As such, part of the flexibility
of thematic analysis is that it allows the researcher to determine themes (and prevalence) in a
number of ways. What is important is that you are consistent in how you do this within any par-
ticular analysis, and that you make your process (and your thinking) explicit.
Sort and Categorize Quotations

Once you have coded your material, you are ready to copy and paste or cut out and place the
quotes in their appropriate analytic categories (i.e., your themes). In categorizing material, some
people prefer pasting quotes to index cards and stacking these in piles. Others prefer cutting out
quotes and placing these in envelopes or folders marked with the category name, or using flip
charts—either actual or electronic—because these are visual. Whatever system you choose,
make sure that, before you begin cutting (literally or figuratively), you have copied or scanned
your original data and that these are securely stored.
If you decide to use the method of flip charts or folders, you will need to create a separate
chart for each category. On each chart, list the category name and underneath that the catego-
ry’s descriptors. Bear in mind that the categories of your conceptual framework are the superor-
dinate headings that provide the organization for the units of data. The descriptors within each
category become the subordinate headings. Actual flip charts can be pasted to your walls, and
the quotes can be pasted to these. “Electronic flip charts” are essentially a computerized version,
whereby the charts are Word documents or Excel spreadsheets on your computer, and quotes
from your transcripts are copied and pasted electronically. This method is efficient and might
be less cumbersome than using actual charts. Whichever mode you choose to use—be it actual
or electronic—is a matter of personal preference. In either case, what is useful about the chart
approach is that it enables you to visualize your data, live with it, and carefully think about it.
As you paste quotations in the appropriate categories, look for any units of information
that do not fit any of your existing descriptors. Keep these in a pile marked “Miscellaneous.”
Once you have finished going through all of your transcripts, revisit these and see where they
should fit, or alternatively, create a new place for them under emergent descriptors. When you
identify passages that are important but you are unsure of which category in which they should
fall, write a memo about those passages. In writing about them, their properties might become
clearer, leading you to discover what it is you find important in them both individually and rela-
tively. This step becomes important for interpretation.
Once all the units of information have been placed under categories, review the descriptors
for any overlap. Sometimes descriptors have similar characteristics or properties; that is, they
really mean one and the same thing. Splitting two descriptors is sometimes arbitrary, and they
can be better collapsed into one. At other times, a descriptor may be too broad or too nuanced
and would make more sense if it were subdivided into more than one.
Reread your miscellaneous units of information and reconsider them in the light of the
newly revised categories. First, if any can be appropriately placed under any of the new descrip-
tors, do so. Second, it is possible that some units of information are still simply not relevant, and
in these cases, discard them. Third, some units provide relevant information that contributes
to understanding of the research problem but still do not fit with any of the existing categories.
These information units do not warrant being discarded. Rather, they might become themes of
their own. In this way, to accommodate your findings, it is imperative that your coding scheme
and conceptual framework remain flexible throughout.
Searching for Negative or Discrepant Cases

As pointed out previously, you must be vigilant in seeking not only material that supports your
own opinions, but also remain open to the “unexpected”. The search for disconfirming evi-
dence, or negative cases, is considered a valuable strategy for assessing the credibility of qual-
itative research claims (Antin et al., 2015). Typically, a search for disconfirming evidence is
conducted throughout the process of analysis and is associated with other systematic strate-
gies that are designed to reduce threats to the study’s credibility. The search for disconfirming
evidence, or negative cases, is a process whereby the researcher searches through the data for
evidence that is consistent with or disconfirms emergent findings, including codes and themes.
Exceptions will occur!
As you look over your transcripts, field notes, or text, you will be focusing not only on what
these tell you about the phenomenon but also how these compare with what you already know.
Exceptions exist when you find yourself asking: Where does that go? In the early stage of analy-
sis, finding exceptions that make you change your ideas or labeling practices is routine. Each
new line or page of text can make you question your ideas, and something new often emerges,
which means you have to generate a new code—or perhaps even a new theme—thereby expand-
ing your thinking. You often find something that could potentially fit into multiple codes or
themes. Over time, as you immerse yourself in your data, and as you have reviewed all options,
these exceptions become less apparent. Remember, when you do happen to notice something
that stands out, and that does not fit with what has gone before, this can become vital for your
argument, as it can either make you rethink your ideas or illuminate and strengthen your think-
ing. At these later stages, where the issue does not fit with your current understanding of the
phenomenon, exceptions take three forms and are referred to as negative or deviant cases. All of
these lead to having to check or refine your ideas and assumptions:
• Those that, despite being different, actually support your findings and illustrate the
“rule,” thereby becoming an “exception to the rule.”
• Those that, through their difference, mean that you will need to reflect on, re-evaluate,
and possibly refine your ideas.
• Those that are different for very specific, idiosyncratic, or contingent reasons that do
not support your findings, which may lead to re-evaluating or refining your ideas.
As such, use your exceptions as part of the story you are telling. Do not throw these away as these
add to the study’s credibility! Also, in terms of addressing the trustworthiness of you study—
both credibility and dependability—be sure to clearly and accurately explain your analytic
process!
TEXT, DISCOURSE, AND VISUAL ANALYSIS
Analyzing Text and Discourse

A significant amount of qualitative fieldwork takes place in literate societies—in organi-
zational and educational settings in which documents are written, read, stored, and cir-
culated. In addition to keeping records, organizations also produce documents that are
concerned with their self-presentation, including written, electronic and digital resources,
and visual materials. Recognizing that organizations in contemporary society are major
producers of documentary materials, it is important that qualitative researchers pay close
(and critical) attention to the various forms and functions (both implicit and explicit) of
such documents.
Documentary reality does not just consist of descriptions of the social world that can be
used directly as evidence about it. Nor can one assume that documentary accounts are accurate
portrayals but rather that they create different realities and actively construct the very organi-
zations they purport to describe. As such, documents cannot and should not be seen as neutral
or transparent reflections of organizational or occupational life. Analysis therefore needs to
focus on how organizational realities are (re)produced through textual conventions (Atkinson
& Coffey, 2011; Prior, 2017). It is important to recognize that while the writers of documents
bring to bear their knowledge—often tacit—into developing documents, readers too bring to
bear their own conventional understanding in making sense of and interpreting such docu-
ments. Moreover, readers do not all share the same culture or cultural competence and therefore
do not all bring to bear the same cultural knowledge. Atkinson and Coffey (2011) focus on
significant issues of authorship and readership (actual or implied) and introduce the concept of
intertextuality—that is, the relationships among texts where documents reflect and refer, often
implicitly, to other documents, often with hierarchical implications. Indeed, as these authors
state, “A dense network of cross referencing, and shared textual formats, can create a powerful
version of social reality” (p. 90). These authors introduce a useful and critical analytic perspec-
tive that examines how documents can be treated as systems of signs and modes of representa-
tion, including the form and function of textual materials, the distinctive uses of language and
rhetorical features that may be displayed (i.e., how the text works to persuade readers), implied
claims of authorship, relationships between texts, and the conventions of qualitative research.
Based on the seminal work of Glaser and Strauss (1967), Prior (2017) outlines four distinct
approaches to the study of documentation: focusing on the document as resource, focusing
on the document as topic, studying documents in use, and studying documents in action. In
all four approaches, analysis occurs not only by content but by use and function as well. The
focus is on how documents are produced, consumed, or used, and how they circulate within
schemes of social action. Historically, in the social sciences there has been an emphasis on con-
ceptualizing documents as inert objects that need to be studied only for their content. Analysis
of documents in qualitative research therefore extends beyond a systematic content analysis by
examining the data for recurrent instances to extend a deeper understanding of “networks of
influence” and the “interconnection of actants” (Prior, 2017). This is accomplished by situating
and connecting the document to a broader narrative, including the political, cultural, and social
infrastructure that contain and also exist outside of the text. Indeed, texts exist on different
levels (organizational, institutional, community, society), or in different dimensions, and can
be more or less abstract. Analysis provides insight into something larger or more general, and
such generalization can take place only if specific micro-level texts are related to accumulated or
macro-level and recurrent themes, which often take the form of taken-for-granted assumptions
about how the world looks and works.
Boreus and Bergstrom (2017) offer a thorough overview of the key analytical approaches
and tools for analyzing text and discourse (dialogue or conversation). Similar to Atkinson and
Coffey (2011) and Prior (2017), the view of these authors is that texts, in one way or another,
relate to groups of people and mirror conscious and unconscious ideas. As such, texts reproduce,
strengthen, or challenge power relationships in groups, organizations, communities, and societ-
ies. As such, conceptualizing and locating power becomes the key focus of analysis. Boreus and
Bergstrom (2017) address issues including positionality, subject positions, antagonism, chains
of equivalence, cultural hegemony, gender power, methods of exclusion and inclusion, ideology,
values, and analysis of change. As these authors explain,
Common to concepts of discourse used in the social sciences is that they refer to some
kind of social practice as regards language use or the use of other sign systems in partic-
ular social contexts . . . Discourses are wholly or partly made up of language use as part
of wider social practices . . . Texts are concrete manifestations of discourses. (pp. 6–7)
To analyze something, therefore, is to scrutinize its components (specifically the power in
discourse and the power behind discourse). Thinking about how sources have come into being
leads to questions related to assessing the use of documentary sources as research data. There are
a number of factors to take into consideration:
1. What choices has the researcher made regarding their use of the sources, and on
what basis were these choices made?
Sometimes, the amount of source material potentially relevant to a particular
issue is great, and some selectivity is necessary. Selectivity also depends on the aims
and parameters of the research. But with documents, as with any other source, how
the selection is made is crucial. It cannot be assumed that to consult just the available
documentary sources provides fair coverage. Questions should be asked about whether
and to what extent the researcher adopted any principles or criteria to ensure fair and
representative coverage of the issues to be investigated. A question could also be asked
of the researcher’s conscious or unconscious selection among the sources available.
2. To what extent has the researcher taken account of any “altering” or selection of
the information presented in the sources?
Care must be taken to assess the less conscious shaping of what is represented
in written documents and texts. Whatever form these sources take, there is bound
to be some social filtering, possibly because they are produced by interested parties
to suit their own views and preconceptions, dictated by particular administrative
needs and arrangements, and influenced by currently dominant models, theories, or
interpretations among scholars. It is worth remembering that a source purporting to
represent generally held views or an “objective assessment” of a situation often expresses
only the views of a minority or of the dominant interest group. Bias or selectivity need
not be deliberate or ill motivated to be pervasive in sources. When a researcher is using
documentary sources to gather information, she or he should be aware of these possible
distorting effects and take these into account. In addition, with statistical sources,
questions should be asked about the assumptions according to which the statistics were
collected and presented, how the data were derived, and how (and why) these records
are defined and used.
3. What is the relevance of the context of the source?
The particular points described or emphasized in the source will need to be
interpreted in light of the social, political, and historical context in which the source
emerged—that is, all the background factors that influence how both the author
and the intended audience would understand the words in the context in which
they were originally said or written. Taken out of context, this original meaning
may be misunderstood or misconstrued. Similarly, the context in which particular
administrative records were compiled or the constraints under which the compilers
acted are all part of the background that a critical researcher will need to consider.
4. Finally, in assessing the relevance and value of the sources, has the researcher
reached a reasonable interpretation of the meaning of the sources?
Irrespective of all the care we take in considering the background and analyzing
the contents, sources are not transparent purveyors of clear-cut and objective “truth.”
Interpretation is always inherent, not only by those constructing the documents but
also by those intended and unintended audiences who consult these documents. A
document may be perceived in one way by one reader and in another way by others.
Interpretations will inevitably vary between different interested parties, historical
periods, and cultures. Moreover, there is always the possibility that a document may be
an excellent source if interpreted as evidence for one purpose but could be misleading
to interpret as evidence for a different purpose.
There are various analytic and interpretational methods with regard to text and discourse
including content analysis, argument analysis, discursive psychology, qualitative analysis of
ideas and ideological content (ideology critique), narrative analysis, metaphor analysis, critical
linguistics, semiotics, discourse analysis, and multimodal discourse analysis. It is beyond the
scope of this book to provide an in-depth overview of each of these specific analytic approaches.
The reader is referred to Boreus and Bergstrom (2017) and Bischoping and Gazso (2016) for
further details. It is important to realize that different tools perform somewhat different func-
tions, and so it is therefore important to know how to use different tools and to choose the
appropriate ones for the task at hand. There is no “one best method.” What works best depends
on the skills of the individual researcher and the research questions guiding a given study. Tools
should of necessity be aligned with research problem, research purpose, and, of course, qualita-
tive research design (tradition or genre).
Analyzing Visual Data

Visual imagery ranges from archival photography and documentary film to fine art, advertis-
ing, video, television, comics, cartoons, websites, maps, diagrams, and social media, including
Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. An important aspect of analyzing visual material as “visual
culture” is the attention paid to audiences and viewing publics. This raises issues regarding the
significance of ethical practice, including the practical aspects of using critical visual methods,
cultural representation, dissemination, circulation, and accessibility of research through visual
techniques.
Rose (2016) argues for the power relations inherent in and articulated through visual images,
and points out four sites at which “meaning is made” and whereby an image becomes culturally
meaningful: the site of production, the site of the image itself, the site of its circulation, and the
site of its audiencing. Rose (2016) outlines numerous critical questions that a researcher should
be asking in terms of analyzing an image, including:
Questions about the production of an image:
• Where, when, and why was the image made?

• Who made it?
• What was the social identity of the maker?
• What were the relations between the maker, the owner, and the subject?
• Does the form of the image reconstitute those identities and relations?
Questions about the image itself:
• What is being shown?

• Where is the viewer’s eye drawn to, and why?
• What do the different components of the image signify?
• Whose knowledge is being deployed?
• Whose knowledge is being excluded from this representation?
• Is this a contradictory image?
Questions about the circulation of an image:
• In what forms does this image circulate?

• In what forms is it materialized in different places?
• How is its circulation organized and controlled?
• Who controls its circulation?
Questions about audiencing:
• Who was the original audience(s) for this image?

• Where and how would the image have been displayed originally?
• How is it redisplayed?
• Who are the more recent audiences for this text?
• Where is the spectator positioned in relation to the components of the image?
• What relation does this produce between the image and its viewers?
• Have the technologies used to display it affected the audience’s interpretation of this
image?
• Is more than one interpretation of the image possible?
• How do different audiences interpret this image?
Critical visual methodology concentrates on closely examining the effects of visual images,
and is concerned with making an argument for both representation and nonrepresentation within
visual data. All social science inquiry ultimately aims to advance our knowledge of the cultures,
structures, and processes that constitute, and are constituted by, human social behavior. Critical
visual methodology is in essence concerned with the social effects of the visual materials it is study-
ing. As Emmison (2017) points out, the focus in analyzing visual images is not so much on the dis-
covery of cultural meanings by the academic analysis but rather the ways in which ordinary actors
use or make sense of visual information and incorporate this into their everyday routines and lives.
The idea is that the visual is a realm of data, and what is significant is how the information con-
tained in visual imagery is brought to bear upon social and cultural interpretation and application.
What is important is that the researcher acknowledges the differentiated effect of both an image’s
way of “seeing” and one’s own (Rose, 2016). Theoretical debates about how to interpret images
influence choice of methods used. Researchers interested in pursuing a critical visual methodolog-
ical approach would select a specific method such as content analysis, cultural analytics, semiology
(sometimes referred to as social semiotics—that is, research with advertising and signs), psycho-
analysis, discourse analysis, audience studies, and digital methods. For further details pertaining
to these methods, their associated coding and interpretive strategies, as well as research ethics
related to visual methods (anonymity, confidentiality, copyright issues, consent, and morals),
readers are referred to Rose (2016). This text provides a comprehensive outline regarding research
with visual materials and the use of images to disseminate research findings and includes clear and
in-depth explanations, numerous useful exercises, and references for additional reading.
USING QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS SOFTWARE
As you can see, the approach used in this book for data analysis is a manual one. The process
of data analysis, as it is conducted traditionally, is explained in such a way as to intentionally
highlight the thinking and the mechanics involved. While qualitative data analysis software, typi-
cally referred to by the acronym “QDAS,” has become more prevalent over the last few years,
you need to be aware that although various different types of software programs for qualitative
research are available, the principles of the analytic process are the same whether one is doing
it manually or with the assistance of software. Appendix S, Qualitative Data Analysis Software
Resources (QDAS), presents a brief overview of the most frequently used and currently available
qualitative data analysis software resources.
Students often ask whether they should make use of software for their data analysis.
Software can indeed be of great assistance in classifying, sorting, filing, storing, and reconfig-
uring data. Software can make it easier to develop complex stratified sets of codes, arranged
around nodes, in different layers. It will also operationalize the use of codes to identify data
that are relevant to any given question (e.g., in interviews or focus groups), as the software will
automatically pull together all the data that have been assigned a particular code. The pro-
grams currently available are useful in mechanically organizing data and performing a number
of additional analytic operations. With the use of these QDAS programs, for instance, you
can create shorthand versions of themes or categories. After you sort your data, how many
times a theme has been placed in a given category can be done automatically, and some pro-
grams can also make broader connections among the categories to develop higher-order con-
ceptual structures. Another useful feature is concept mapping, which enables researchers to
visualize relationships among codes and themes using a visual model. With the numerous
creative visual representation tools, data visualizations are possible through charts and graphs
to better understand the data and to communicate outcomes to readers. Moreover, software
can facilitate collaboration between researchers, allowing easy storage and time-saving access
to large amounts of data. In addition, as mentioned previously, qualitative analysis software
provides various options for tagging text for later review. Included in software programs are
functions whereby footnotes, comments, and highlights from different readings of a particular
document can be merged into a master document, as well as techniques for tagging generic
“unique” codes to apply to segments of text that might be of importance with regard to fitting
with the bigger analytic picture.
Software analytical packages are essentially tools that can make the numerous tasks of the
analytic process efficient in many ways, and the software is certainly useful in assembling and
locating information. However, be aware that there are various limitations and caveats involved
with this analytic method that you should be aware of (Maxwell, 2018; Miles et al., 2019). As
Maxwell (2018) puts it,
Unlike quantitative analysis programs, which actually carry out the chosen statistical
procedures, qualitative software simply automates some of the actions involved in the
analysis; every decision about what categories to use in coding the data, and selecting
which segments to code, must still be made by the researcher. (p. 1338)
Even though the software applications for qualitative analysis do not automatically analyze
qualitative data, they do allow you to display data and assigned codes in multiple arrangements
for categorization that can be extremely helpful to foster analytic thinking for emergent pat-
terns within the data. Software cannot, however, interpret the emotional tone that is often criti-
cal to understanding the findings and therefore neglects to take into account the contextual
basis of information. In searching out and producing every coded item each time these appear,
the software tends to produce data—mostly in the form of discrete words and phrases—in the
absence of their surrounding context. In so doing, although precise and concise, some of the
richness of the data can become lost in the process. Moreover, with so many instances of discrete
items, this method can produce a data glut, which can be overwhelming to the researcher. A
further caveat regarding the use of computer-aided analysis is that, although books for learning
the programs are widely available, for many students qualitative software programs may require
time and skill to learn and employ effectively.
As many authors point out, it is impractical to prescribe which software program is “best.”
In addition, what worked for somebody else might not work for you or your particular study.
It is advisable to select a relevant QDAS that aligns with the specific data analysis protocol you
plan to use within your qualitative research study. Moreover, in doctoral research, it is expected
that the choice of data analysis method and software are well aligned with the specific qualita-
tive research design and the study’s research problem. In addition, and as is the case for all com-
puter software, backup is essential to ensure secure and proper storage for your qualitative data
as your data are irreplaceable once you have closed data collection. Following is a heuristic set of
questions to ask yourself when making decisions about using QDAS:
• Is the tool worth the trouble taken to learn it?

• Will the tool enhance my analysis?
• Why am I choosing to use this tool as opposed to conducting manual analysis?
By remaining reflective and open-minded you will be able to make informed decisions about
the appropriate use of qualitative research software. The method you select to manage and ana-
lyze your data is ultimately a matter of personal preference and depends on what you are most
comfortable with and/or institutional requirements. Therefore, I do not advocate one way over
another. Be aware of the options available, and be careful that the method you choose to adopt
helps (by bringing value) rather than hinders your analysis efforts. It would be wise to explore sev-
eral of the available programs to make an informed decision. If you are choosing software as an
analytic tool, it is also important that you differentiate between programs that manage data and
programs that actually perform data analysis. The former allows the researcher to store, index,
sort, and retrieve data, whereas the latter actually does content analysis. Information regard-
ing the features, functions, and capabilities of the software is included in each of the program
websites. Two resources might also be useful in this regard: Friese (2019) provides a step-by-step
guide to using Atlas.ti, featuring methodological and technical support, practical exercises, and
a companion website with online tutorials. Similarly, Jackson and Bazeley (2019) offer a useful
introduction to planning and conducting qualitative data analysis with NVivo. This text is a
mix of practical instruction, methodology, and real-world examples, illustrating how NVivo can
accommodate analysis across a wide range of research questions, data types, and methodologies.
PRESENTING RESEARCH FINDINGS
Overview
It is always important to remember that your study’s findings must address the research prob-
lem and must of necessity provide a response to each of the research questions. Don’t lose sight
of this, as that is the essential purpose of the study to begin with! You, the researcher, are the
storyteller. Your goal is to tell a story that should be vivid and interesting while also accurate
and credible. You also want to ensure the potential transferability of your study’s findings to
other similar settings and contexts, and you do so by way of incorporating thick description,
a term coined by Geertz (1973). Fusch and Ness (2015) differentiate between rich and thick
data in terms of quality and quantity. Thick data are a lot of data; rich data means the data are
multi-layered, intricate, detailed, and nuanced. One can have a lot of thick data that are not
rich; and conversely, one can have rich data but not a lot of it. The goal is to achieve both!
In your dissertation, the events, the people, and their words and actions are made explicit so
that readers can experience the situation as real in a similar way to the researcher and experience
the world of the participants. It must be remembered that the reader cannot always see the hard
work that has gone into the development of the story or the complexity of strategies and proce-
dures that produced it. Don’t lose sight of the fact that this chapter is the fruit of the dissertation,
where all your hard work and that of the participants comes to bear. This also means that the
chapter often tends to be much too long. The point of this chapter is not to write such a lengthy
piece that no one will finish reading it. Instead, after conducting careful analysis, first highlight
the data directly addressing the research questions first. Then, if warranted, a portrayal of data
relevant yet unanticipated by the research questions may be discussed. Novice researchers in
particular should keep in mind that the triangulation of data can result in sometimes contradic-
tory and inconsistent findings; however, it is up to the researcher to make sense of all the study’s
findings, and to demonstrate the richness of the information gleaned from the data.
Incorporating Tables and Figures

Readers of dissertations are drawn to, and appreciate, graphic displays of information. As in
any previous chapters where you may have chosen to include tables, charts, matrices, and fig-
ures to graphically present information or data, in qualitative research generally, these help not
only serve as visual graphics to portray information, and organize and analyze data effectively,
but also increase transparency of the research process itself (Cloutier & Ravasi, 2021). There
are essentially three main uses of tables in qualitative research; organizing, analyzing, and dis-
playing, and including different types of tables are a useful addition to the researcher’s meth-
ods toolkit. Tables are practical for organizing and keeping track of qualitative data; efficient
for sorting data in a way that facilitates comparisons and the noticing of patterns; and effective
at presenting findings in a clear and convincing way. The examples presented in this book are
not meant to illustrate a set of rules for how tables should be created, but should be viewed
rather as a blank canvas that researchers can populate appropriately with the examples serving
as guidance regarding the wide range of ways in which graphic displays can be used creatively
throughout the various stages of any qualitative research process.
Additionally, despite their versatility and various uses, remember that tables are not meant
to be seen as stand-alone entities; they need to be referenced, narrated, and explained. Tables
offer an opportunity to include, in a concise way, important information that might otherwise
unnecessarily lengthen a paper, but that can be usefully referenced from the narrative discussion,
where the information is explained more extensively. Tables, charts, and figures should therefore
be thought of as augmenting and adding value to the narrative discussion, and as such it is impor-
tant that including these visuals is thoughtfully applied. The graphics follow their related textual
discussion and are referred to by number. If you choose to use displays of any sort, make sure that
they are appropriately included and do not unnecessarily disrupt the flow of the text.
Integrating Participant Voice

Qualitative analysis is a creative and ongoing process that requires thoughtful judgments about
what is significant and meaningful in the data. Your study is only as good as the data you have
to analyze and the care that you take in analyzing the data. What you have done up until now
is transform your raw data into some format that will facilitate your analysis. Through coding,
you have reduced your data and created groupings and subgroupings of information. Reducing
is the first step toward presenting your data. Having reduced your data, you now have to shape
these into a form in which they can be shared or displayed (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Miles
et al., 2019). What you share and display are essentially the multiple perspectives supported by
the different quotations that your research yields in direct response to the study’s research ques-
tions. The goal is to provide rich descriptions, often referred to as “thick description” (Denzin,
2001; Geertz, 1973)—an essential aspect of qualitative research. Exemplary studies indeed
make readers feel as if they are living the experiences described. This is the real power of qualita-
tive research!
Verbatim quotations play an important role in grounding complex analyses in the partici-
pants’ own accounts. There are a number of issues, however, in relation to how quotations are
used, how participants are represented, and whether they are consulted both regarding how
they are represented as well as their views about analytic interpretations. O’Reilly and Kiyimba
(2015) argue that writing up findings is not a neutral process. As such, decisions are tied to the
subjectivity and positionality of the researcher. As Glesne (2006) states, “Writing is a political
act” (p. 191). Thinking critically about writing your findings, and the ways in which you will
be representing the site or setting and the research participants, involves asking key questions
such as: For whom do I speak? With what voice? And toward what end? It is indeed an ethical
responsibility to examine our roles as researchers and to challenge our biases, assumptions, and
epistemologies. The final qualitative report, no matter what shape it takes, should reflect these
examinations.
As a general rule, the findings that you present in this chapter of your dissertation should
be represented without speculation—that is, free from researcher bias to the extent possible. The
presentation of findings also is extremely important. Your presentation will hopefully lead your
readers to understand your findings as clearly as you do. Therefore, the way you set up and struc-
ture this chapter must be neat and precise. Moreover, if your findings chapter is well organized,
the analysis chapter that follows, where you move forward and interpret your findings, will be
much more easily accomplished. By way of mapping, for example, you can make your analysis and
findings more transparent, thereby strengthening the trustworthiness of your study. Table 9.2,
Mapping Interview and/or Focus Group Questions with Research Questions, would serve to illus-
trate the alignment of interview and focus group items with each research question. Create a
similar table that accurately reflects your own study.
In qualitative research, interviewing is usually the major source of the data needed for
understanding the phenomenon under study. The findings of qualitative research are typically
reported in a narrative manner. Reports of qualitative studies usually include extensive samples
of quotations from participants. These quotations provide the detail and substantiate the story
that you are telling. By using the participants’ own words, the researcher aims to build the
TABLE 9.2 ■ Mapping Interview and/or Focus Group Questions with Research
Questions
Research Question Aligned Interview Questions Aligned Focus Group Questions
RQ1. (state the question) Provide interview question Provide focus group question
numbers (eg., Q1; Q4; Q7) numbers (e.g., Q6; Q5)
RQ2.
RQ3.
RQ4.
reader’s confidence that the reality of the participants and the situation studied is accurately
represented. In a qualitative study, quantitative findings, if there are any, are secondary and are
used to supplement and/or augment the qualitative findings. The quantitative material should
therefore be seamlessly woven into the discussion, either in narrative form (where you would
state explicitly how the quantitative results either support or refute the qualitative findings) or
in graphic form (tables and charts can be used to augment the discussion by way of clear visual
depictions).
Be aware that findings are often written up in different ways depending on the research
tradition or genre adopted. If you have used a pure approach, we suggest that you consult with
your advisor and the relevant literature regarding appropriate and distinctive forms of presenta-
tion. The narrative can be presented by way of several different formats, and various authors
have offered suggestions as to how qualitative research findings might be presented (Guest et al.,
2012; Rubin & Rubin, 2012; Seidman, 2019). One way to present your findings is to develop
and craft participant profiles or vignettes of individual participants and to group these into
categories. Miles and Huberman (1994) and Miles et al. (2019) describe a vignette as “a concrete
focused story” (p. 83). Van Maanen (1988, 1995, 2006) recommends presenting ethnographic
research through different styles of “tales” as a way of presenting truthful cultural portraits. Yet
another approach to presentation—one that is often used in case study research—is to mark
individual passages or excerpts from the transcripts and group these in thematically connected
categories. The latter is the more conventional and commonly used way of presenting qualita-
tive findings. Because it is a flexible format that fits a wide range of topics, this presentational
approach is described in some detail as follows:
Presentation of Findings as Quotation Categories

Begin with an introductory paragraph or two in which you restate the purpose of your study
(if required) and tell the reader how the chapter will be organized. Provide the reader with an
outline that illustrates the way in which you will go about discussing your findings. This outline
enables the reader to create a mental map of your presentation and then find that information
as he or she peruses your text. If you have used computer software to aid your data analysis, you
need to identify the program that you used and the steps you undertook in its use. You will tell
the reader what your intention was in choosing the software and what it accomplished.
If you have a bounded case study—that is, if your research takes place at a particular site
or location, or if it is tied to a particular institution, organization, or program—you need to
offer the reader a detailed description of the physical setting. In some cases, where appropri-
ate, an entire chapter is devoted to describing the setting. In others, a section of several pages
in the findings chapter is set aside for this; usually, this precedes a presentation of the themed
participant responses classified by way of coded categories. In some instances, the identity of the
research setting is required to remain anonymous. In the interest of confidentiality, you need to
account for anonymity by assigning the research setting a pseudonym.
Description of the setting is drawn primarily from the review of available documents.
Documents can be of a public or private nature and can include descriptive and/or evaluative
information pertaining to the research context. A review of the available documents provides
descriptions and factual evidence regarding the context and its culture, and it also uncovers
environmental factors and issues that may impact participants’ perceptions about this context.
Following a review of each document, you should summarize the relevant findings and record
these systematically. A template for a document summary form is included as Appendix K. An
examination of all the summaries of all your documents will provide the information you need
to write this section of your findings chapter.
Description of the setting should incorporate all the important aspects of the context and
environment in which the study takes place, including such things as descriptions of the orga-
nizational structure, background and history, mission, vision, policies and procedures, culture
and environment, and the population from which the research sample was drawn. In describing
the setting, be sure to clarify what is unique about it, as well as what characteristics of the set-
ting are compelling and/or unusual. Thus, discussion of the setting serves to situate your study
within a context. In addition, in your analysis, data revealed from the document review can be
used to confirm or disconfirm data collected by other methods.
The most common means of organizing a findings chapter, and the approach that we use
in this book, is through a discussion of the research questions one by one and the evidence you
have from the data about how they might be answered. As you prepare to present your findings,
remember that you should have at least one finding per research question. Because you are seek-
ing to shed light on your problem, no research question should be left unanswered. All research
questions must be answered. Formulating strong comprehensive finding statements requires
that you study your data summary tables. Look at what each participant says in terms of each of
the aspects of each finding, and ask yourself: What do I see here? What do I now understand is
the answer to each research question?
An overwhelming question facing any researcher embarking on the write-up of the research
report is “Where do I begin to tell my story?” Data are complex, particularly thematic data
that involve crosscutting and hierarchical themes. Adding multiple sites and/or populations
increases this complexity exponentially. Complexity can be represented in many ways, each
potentially as valid and informative as the next. The first step in presenting findings, therefore,
is what Guest et al. (2012) refer to as “finding your anchor.” In other words, what will you lead
your story with? What is the primary finding or set of findings you wish to highlight in your
findings section? What are your most significant or robust data as they relate to your research
problem and purpose? Once you have established this anchor or meta-theme, the rest of your
findings should follow logically.
To plan and lay out the discussion that should follow each of your findings statements, it is
suggested that you develop an outline or concept map, which is in essence your “findings road
map.” This tool can be creatively constructed from your theoretical or conceptual framework
in conjunction with your data summary tables. The overall intent is not to quantify qualitative
data; tallies and frequencies are essentially a supplement to the narrative. What is important to
report is the concentration of individual responses and the concentration of responses across
individuals. The headings and subheadings of your findings road map provide the organiza-
tional structure for the discussion. In constructing your road map, keep in mind that nobody
will want to read pages and pages of findings. The tension is this: When reporting findings, the
idea is to be concise. Yet the idea is also not to split hairs too finely. Therefore, look for any head-
ings that overlap or coincide and which can therefore be collapsed.
In qualitative research, you as the researcher are telling the story of what you have learned
from your research participants. As such, participants’ quotes are used to illustrate the points
that you are making. In other words, you are telling the story of your research as you see it; as
you make your points, you are giving “clues” to the reader about what people said. It is impor-
tant to mention this because those clues or lead-in sentences are the very points that you are
making. You cannot leave it to the reader to decide what the point is; you have to tell the reader
the gist of what the research participant is saying that supports the points in your story. If you
took the quotes out of your findings chapter, however, one would still have to be able to see the
story. Remember that, although the quotes are your support and your evidence, if you had to
remove all your quotes, your clues should be able to stand alone and “tell the story.” Therefore,
make sure that all of your lead-in sentences are, in each case, specific. Your careful choice of
words will reflect your clear understanding of your findings. If you mislead the reader or cause
readers to do the work themselves, you jeopardize your study, introducing the possibility of it
being misinterpreted or worse still, rejected.
With short quotes (those that are no longer than a sentence or two), lead in with the par-
ticipant’s name (pseudonym) and be sure that the quoted material is placed within quotation
marks. With longer quotes (those that are 40 words or more), use block indentation rather than
quotation marks, and place the participant’s name at the end of the quote. Always be sure to
refer to the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA), currently in
its seventh edition, with regard to correct format and style. Then if you have two strong quotes,
indent each with respective names at the end of the quotes. Two strong quotes can and should
be presented one after the other with no sentence in between. Your lead-in sentence makes your
point, and it represents what some of the participants said. In effect, therefore, the two (or three)
quotes that you use are representative of what has been said by some others as well. In reporting
the findings, what you should be doing is not reporting what every individual said, but rather
reporting how various individuals, even though they are expressing it in a slightly different way,
are making the same point.
Following are some further useful pointers in planning your discussion:
• Under each findings statement, report your findings from the highest to the lowest
frequency. That is, talk first about those aspects of the findings that are most
prominent, and continue to report on findings in descending order.
• Make sure that percentages and words that you use match (100% would translate
to “all,” 95% would be an “overwhelming majority,” 75% would be a majority, 30%
would be some, 10% would be a few, etc.).
• Be selective in your choice of quotes, and do not overuse quotes, as that makes the
manuscript read like one long transcript. Remember, the function of quotes is not
to illustrate the perceptions or experiences of just one single individual or of every
individual. Rather, they should be representative of a group of people who share the
same sentiment. That is, quotes are intended essentially to demonstrate and give
examples of patterns that have emerged in the data. Aim for richness and precision, and
use only the strongest quotes that clearly show evidence of the points you are trying to
make.
• Make sure that all the quotes you use are focused on the point you are trying to make.
Quotes should clearly illustrate the concept, idea, or issue being discussed. Be concise.
Get to “the meat of the quote”—the essence that refers to and supports the point you
are making—by eliminating redundancy, wordiness, and repetition. Use ellipses
( . . . ) to connect supportive phrases that you want to use. Tell the reader only that
which she or he needs to know—only that which is directly related to the points you
are making. Although there is usually a lot of interesting information, and although
much of it might be tempting to include, be sure to include only that which is relevant
in terms of providing answers to your research questions.
• Begin looking for and flagging “good” (relevant and rich) quotes as soon as you start
reviewing your data. Be sure to tag these quotes so that you can easily find them when
it comes to writing up your findings chapter. Focusing so intently on what participants
are saying has an added advantage, as this allows you to become fully immersed in the
data, affording you rich insights and awareness.
• Keep in mind that quotations never stand on their own but are linked to the context
in which they occur and the claim that the researcher wishes to make. This way, the
quotations provide evidence for their assertions. As such, great care should be taken not
to take quotes out of context, as this can mislead or misinform the reader about their
authenticity and meaning.
• Exercise skill in dissecting quotes in the right places. Be careful not to change or distort
the quote in any way, but rather to pick out those phrases that highlight or stress the
main points you are making.
• Always use participants’ words verbatim, including errors of speech and repetition.
Irrelevant sentences and comments can be removed, and this is indicated by ellipses
within the quotation.
• Indicate laughter, coughing, pauses, facial expressions, or any other gestures or
emotions by way of including these instances within parentheses when these occur
within the quote. Use italics where a word or phrase is emphasized.
• If you make the determination that adding an explanatory word and/or phrase will
assist the reader in better understanding the quote, use square brackets. The same
applies for localized colloquial expressions with which readers may be unfamiliar.
• Provide a label for each quote that indicates which type of participant is speaking.
The label is provided in parentheses following the quote and can indicate participant
identity by way of age, sex, occupation, and/or participant pseudonym. Be sure never
to use actual names or include any identifying information about the research site or
participants in your report.
• Do not repeat the same quotes.
• Try not to over- or underquote any one individual. That is, make sure there is fair
representation among participants. It should not appear that your findings are based
on information from only a few sources, but rather that the findings represent the full
range of participants.
• A note regarding the use and choice of pseudonyms: When possible, allow participants
to choose their own pseudonym. In this way you are demonstrating respect for their
individual voices. Avoid changing the ethnic and cultural associations of the names
you reassign. Again, this is a demonstration of respect and integrity. Use actual
names as pseudonyms; do not use numbers or letters for names. When necessary,
honor participants’ requests to use their real authentic name in place of a pseudonym.
Remember, some participants will want their voices heard, and this is increasingly
becoming acceptable practice in the field of qualitative research. In these cases, it is
imperative that you obtain signed consent for the use of participants’ real names.
When you reach the end of the presentation of your findings, which is usually extremely
detailed, you owe it to the readers to tie the whole chapter together, reminding them of what
they have learned in the preceding pages. Write a concluding paragraph, in which you briefly
explain what you have found. Explain in summary form what the chapter has identified, and
prepare the reader for the chapters to follow by offering some foreshadowing as to the intent and
content of the final two chapters of your dissertation.
Thematic Presentation of Findings

While the standard form of presenting quotes in qualitative research is to weave them into your
narrative, this is not the only form. Quotes can also be presented according to themes, and you
may be asking right now what counts as a theme? A theme captures something important about
the data in relation to the research question, and represents some level of patterned response or
meaning within the data. A good way to begin is to make sure that the reader has a clear idea
of how, for each of your study’s research questions, you developed themes from your codes.
Toward this end, you might consider presenting a series of charts that illustrate these connec-
tions between your research questions and your study’s themes, and how the themes were cre-
ated from the codes. Remember, clearer and more transparent explanations regarding all aspects
and steps of the research process will contribute significantly to the rigor and trustworthiness
of your study. Table 9.3, Coding and Theme Development (Option A), and Table 9.4, Coding and
Theme Development (Option B), are two different types of illustrations. To be comprehensive
in your presentation, you would systematically include a chart similar to either one of these to
illustrate your own study’s research questions and associated themes and codes.
Table 9.5, Coded Transcript Summary Chart, is a template for a summary of coded tran-
scripts, and this could accompany a coding and theme development chart to illustrate the rel-
evant coded quotations that you have selected. Appendix U includes Sample Coded Transcript
Summary Charts. The overall goal of qualitative analysis is to convey the story line of your
research in an engaging, meaningful, and credible manner. The challenge throughout data col-
lection and analysis is to reduce the volume of information, identify significant patterns or cat-
egories, and construct a meaningful and workable framework for communicating the data.
As you can see, there are a number of different ways to visually present the data in chart
form. One way of presenting categories of findings on a macro-level is to crystallize the nar-
rative by way of themes. As can be seen in Table 9.6, Template for Thematic Chart, one way is
to provide the reader with (a) an overview description of each emergent theme (phenomenon
or issue) with keywords derived from a factor or other type of analysis; (b) an outline of find-
ings that contribute to the theme; (c) a comparative summary of the range of key points made
by individual participants or groups of participants supported by brief, direct quotations; and
TABLE 9.3 ■ Coding and Theme Development (Option A)
Research Question*
(State the research question)
Theme 1: Theme 2: Theme 3:

(State the theme) (State the theme) (State the theme)
Codes: Codes: Codes:
1. 1. 1.
2. 2. 2.
3. 3. 3.
4. 4. 4.
List codes as needed List codes as needed List codes as needed
*
Present a similar table for each research question.
TABLE 9.4 ■ Coding and Theme Development (Option B)
RQ1:
Themes Selected Coding Categories
1.
2.
3.
4.
Notes: Here add ideas, reflections, and points to consider
RQ2:
1.
2.
3.
4.
RQ3:
Themes Selective Coding Categories
1.
2.
3.
4.
*List additional research questions, themes, and codes as needed. Reflection sections are a useful way to capture
ideas and thoughts as you proceed through the coding process. Here you can capture some valuable insights!
(d) an action step—that is, key associated questions for further discussion and consideration.
A separate chart should be compiled for each of the themes that emanates from your findings.
Appendix V includes Sample Thematic Charts.
Similarly, Table 9.7, Overview of Research Questions and Emergent Themes, is another way of
depicting and illustrating how the study’s emergent themes are related to each of the research
question, a summary description of each theme, the theme’s frequency, and the research partici-
pants whose quotations contributed to each theme. This is a useful at-a-glance overview table
that can be included in your introduction to the study’s findings.
TABLE 9.5 ■ Coded Transcript Summary Chart
Research Question I Research Question II Researcher Question

*Participants Codes Codes III Codes
Themes List themes here List themes here List themes here
Participant #1 List relevant verbatim List relevant verbatim List relevant verbatim
quotations quotations quotations
Participant #2
Participant #3
Participant #4
*Include all research participants
TABLE 9.6 ■ Template for Thematic Chart
Theme A (List each theme separately)
Name the theme
List keywords that describe the theme. These words can be gleaned from supporting quotations and
from the literature.
Overview
Explain and describe the theme or phenomenon.
Findings/Outcomes
List studies’ findings that contribute to and are evidence of your stated theme.
Participant Perspectives
To ensure that you are providing a representative sampling of research participants’ perspectives, you
will need to support your theme by including a comprehensive range of views that explain and illustrate
the theme. To do this, select a broad variety of relevant and illustrative verbatim quotations.
Moving From Findings to Action
List key questions that will stimulate further discussion and critical reflection. These questions serve as
a springboard into analysis and interpretation for the next chapter. Questions should be open ended so
as to elicit deep responses. In addition to “What?” and “How?” ask: Why? Why not? What if? What if not?
What else? How else? In what way(s)?
Source: This table first appeared in Bloomberg, L. D. (2011). Understanding qualitative inquiry: Content and process (Part
III). Unpublished manuscript.
Alternatively the table can be split into smaller sections to reflect each research question
separately, and these sections can then be included along with the narrative discussion of each of
the findings. Students also often use tables like this as “working tables” as they are conducting
their analysis, and include these in the appendix to their dissertation.
TABLE 9.7 ■ Overview of Research Questions and Emergent Themes
Research Summary Research

Question Theme Description Frequency Participants
RQ 1 Example: 1. Example: Example: Example: Example:
How do higher Honoring individual Participants described 23 P3; P5: P6; P8;
education autonomy the ways in which P9; P11; P13;
leaders describe students exhibit P16
their perception motivation and ongoing
of student persistence by having
engagement? choices
2. Centering on Participants 19 P1; P3; P5; P6;

student voice in consistently mentioned P7; P9; P10;
decision-making the importance of P12; P13; P15
including students’
ideas regarding all
types of study decisions
3. Ongoing Participants described 17 P1; P2; P6; P7;

motivation to the ways in which P9; P10; P12;
succeed students demonstrated P13
persistence and grit
throughout their
studies
RQ 2 1.
2.
3.
4.
RQ 3 1.
2.
Elevating Your Themes

The analytical approach that predominates in the field of qualitative research—thematic data
analysis—constitutes the focus of this chapter. In essence, thematic analysis implies that the
data were subjected to qualitative analysis for commonly recurring themes. Thematic analysis
involves noting relationships, similarities, and differences in the data, and is a method for iden-
tifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns (themes) within data. Thematic analysis, at the same
time, organizes and describes your dataset in rich detail. Remember, because we are working
with textual data we are looking for a recurrent commonality in what people are sharing, which
forms a pattern (or theme). Themes capture something important about the data in relation
to the research questions and represent a higher level of patterned response or meaning within
the data. Through a process of eliminating redundancies you reduce your relatively long list
of codes to a manageable amount of meaningful themes. You may be asking, “What exactly
counts as a theme?” Themes are essentially groups of similar codes that are aggregated together
to form a major or overarching idea or concept that emerges from the data, and that is described
by a word or short phrase. In reducing your code list, there are several types of emergent themes:
• Elementary themes: those that are relatively regular or ordinary, and which you would
expect to find
• Unexpected or unintended themes: those you had not expected to surface in your
study
• Major and minor themes: the prevalent and primary ideas or concepts, and those that
may be considered secondary
• Miscellaneous themes: those that are outliers and therefore difficult to classify or
assign as they either do not fit or they overlap with other themes. The tendency is to
overlook or discard these, yet don’t!
As explained previously, you will reach a point at which your themes are fully developed and
no new themes are emerging. Here, saturation has been achieved because you have identified
your themes and no new information or details can add to the existing themes. Throughout the
process of thematic analysis there are a number of choices that are made, which for purposes of
transparency, need to be explicitly stated and explained and discussed.
Layering and Interconnecting Themes

Many qualitative studies will stop at reporting descriptive themes. Just “reporting” minimizes
researcher insight and lessens the study’s rigor. This can be overcome by taking the additional
step to layer and interconnect your themes to discover and illuminate broader patterns in the
data; thereby elevating the themes and their associated findings. Conducting an analytical nar-
rative involves the researcher asking deeper questions of the data to find and interpret mean-
ings, causes, assumptions, and outcomes that go beyond mere description of the data to form
a “meaningful story.” As mentioned previously in this chapter, codes are developed through
the researcher’s systematic engagement with their data, and become the “building blocks” for
themes. Descriptive themes, in turn, become the building blocks for broader patterns. This is an
opportunity to creatively play with your themes, and so enhance and extend the depth of your
overall analysis.
• Layering builds on the idea of presenting major and minor themes, but organizes the
themes into more sophisticated and complex layers. This “second-order” abstraction
allows you to represent the data by using interconnected levels of themes, thereby
achieving a multilayered qualitative analysis. Minor themes can be subsumed within
major themes, and major themes can be subsumed within even broader themes. In
this way, your entire analytical approach becomes increasingly complex as you work
upward from a narrow level toward broader and broader levels of abstraction.
• A second analytic technique involves integrating themes by interconnecting them. This
is an opportunity for a researcher to connect themes in a meaningful way to illustrate
a phenomenon of interest or relevance such as changes over time, emergent trends or
developments, or display a chronology or sequence of events. Again, as with layering,
this technique extends the complexity of the data to capture and convey its essence,
relevance, or deeper meaning.
Both of these strategies contribute to your achieving a broader “meta-synthesis” of the study’s
findings, as indicated by the title of the following chapter in this book.
The reflexive questions that follow can serve as prompts for journaling throughout the disser-
tation process, and in this case, for the data analysis and findings chapter of your dissertation,
in which, based on analysis of raw data, you are now writing up and presenting your study’s
findings.
The issue of the “Other” in research representation has a long history and legacy, and ques-
tions around voice, language, and participant portrayal are a source of ongoing discussion.
There are many aspects to consider when formally writing up qualitative research in order to
authentically represent research participants, their contexts, their diversity, and aspects of their
experiences, with the goal of producing an authentic, respectful, and ethical representation of
individuals, groups, and communities.
REFLEXIVE QUESTIONS
ANALYZING DATA AND REPORTING FINDINGS
1. What am I hoping to convey with my findings? What shapes my research agenda or

purpose?
2. Who is the audience I am writing for? Why did I choose this audience?
3. How does my intended audience shape my decisions regarding structure and write-up of
the research findings?
4. Are there other potential audiences that could benefit from my findings? Who are these
other audiences? How and in what ways might they benefit from this study?
5. How might I structure my writing to fit the needs of other audiences?
6. Do I explain my analytic process very clearly and transparently Remember, themes do not
just “emerge”; these are intentionally “created”!
7. How do I, as the researcher and author, represent myself in the research process? Why?
8. Has my representation of the site/setting, research participants, and participants’
experiences accurately, ethically, and with integrity portrayed the experiences of those
involved in this research?
9. Whose voice(s) will be privileged in this study, and whose voice(s) may be silenced? Why?
10. How do I express participants’ voices? What informs my choices?
11. What choices do I make about how I portray the participants and their experiences? Why?
12. How will these choices influence the way(s) I include (or exclude) data?
13. Have I provided sufficient information for readers to understand the contextual factors at
play, and therefore better understand the findings of my study “in context”?
14. How do I structure the discussion so that data are meaningfully contextualized and do not
appear “out of context”?
15. In writing up my study’s findings, have I fully respected participants (without judgment)
and attempted to the best of my ability to do justice to their experiences?
16. Is there a possibility that readers could identify participants? What are the risks to confi-
dentiality? How and in what ways can I address these concerns to ensure that all ethical
principles are upheld?
17. If my research participants were reading my study, how would they feel? Would my find-
ings and the way I have represented the site/setting and the participants themselves
resonate with them?
18. Will my writing be accessible to the participants? Why or why not?
19. Do participants have a say in how they are represented? Should they? Why or why not?
20. In what ways could I collaborate with research participants by including them in some of
the choices pertaining to voice and/or language? What might be possible challenges or
benefits to this?
21. Have I carefully attended to participants’ language, culture, contexts, and perspectives?
Have I taken into account that these may be different from my own?
22. Am I clear about the role of socio-political realities (historical and current), and how
these realities impact the study’s findings and the way that I report these?
23. How, if at all, do I address power asymmetries, including the researcher–participant
relationship, and any possible negative implications?
24. Have I engaged in dialogue and collaboration with colleagues or “thought partners”
regarding the ways I have presented the study’s findings, including researcher identity,
power differentials, and positionality? If not, why? If so, how have I responded to ques-
tions or concerns? Am I receptive to critical feedback?
Qualitative data analysis is an attempt to summarize the data collected from multiple
data sources in a dependable and accurate manner. When analyzing qualitative data, you
need to challenge yourself to explore every possible angle to find patterns and relationships
among the data. The amount of data that need to be transcribed, organized, and reduced
can indeed be overwhelming. This chapter explains how to go about organizing and pre-
paring the data for analysis and includes discussion around data reduction and data dis-
play. Organizing, preparing, and presenting the findings of your research is, as described in
this chapter, a somewhat objective exercise; the researcher is, in this instance, a reporter of
information.
Although the mechanics of data analysis vary greatly and are undertaken differently depend-
ing on genre and theoretical framework, some general guidelines can be useful. Although the
guidelines we provide describe the analytic process as if it were a series of separate sequential
steps, it must be remembered that qualitative data analysis is an interactive and recursive pro-
cess rather than a linear one. The steps are repeated several times until the researcher feels that
there has been sufficient immersion in the data, that sufficient information has been extracted
from the data, and that the research questions have been adequately addressed. It is impor-
tant to recognize that in qualitative research, data collection and data analysis are intimately
interconnected processes. Having said that, our view is that for purposes of a dissertation,
although it might seem a little contrived, it is most effective to present the findings (an objec-
tive exercise) and the analysis of those findings (a subjective exercise) as two separate chapters.
(Note that some universities may require that these chapters are combined, thereby producing a
five-chapter dissertation.)
Qualitative research is typically reported in a narrative manner. Although the overall
intent is not to quantify qualitative data, tallies and frequencies in qualitative research are
essentially a supplement to the narrative. Essentially, you are forming a record of frequently
occurring phenomena or patterns of behavior. Once you have established patterns, these
need to be explained. You have to consult the literature and consider your pattern find-
ings in light of previous research and existing theory. Do your findings confirm similar
research? Do they contradict previous studies? How can you explain these differences or
similarities? As you begin to consider answers to these sorts of questions and provide con-
vincing explanations, you are interpreting and synthesizing. This is the stuff of this book's
Chapter 10.

Introduction ✓ Do you have a clear introduction that includes your purpose statement (if
required)?
✓ Does your introduction inform the reader as to how the chapter is organized?
✓ Are your data analysis steps clearly identified, so that the entire process of
analysis is explicit, clear, and transparent?
✓ Is it evident how you have managed and organized your data for analysis?
✓ Is your coding process adequately described?
(Continued)

Presentation of ✓ Are your findings statements clearly and precisely stated?
Findings
✓ Do the study’s findings clearly and directly address the research problem?
✓ Are the findings presented in relation to and as a response to the research

questions?
✓ Are the findings presented in a logical sequence?

✓ Are the findings clearly organized and easy to follow?
✓ Are the findings directly responsive to the problem raised by the study? That is,
do the findings provide an answer to the research questions?
✓ Do the data presented in support of the findings (interview and/or focus group
quotations, incidents from field notes, material from documents, etc.) provide
adequate and convincing evidence for the findings?
✓ Is this chapter free from interpretation? That is, are your findings reported
accurately and objectively?
✓ Are there appropriate lead-in sentences and clues?
✓ Have you selected the strongest and most appropriate quotations to support
your point(s)?
✓ Have you trimmed your quotations, eliminating all unnecessary wording?
✓ If you have made use of a road map, is this clear and precise?
✓ Do the headings of your road map correspond with the headings in your
narrative?
Summary ✓ Do you include a culminating summary of key findings?
✓ Does your summary paragraph offer some logical link to the next chapter?
Addressing ✓ Are your analytic methods aligned with your research design (qualitative
Alignment tradition or genre)?
Grammar ✓ Did you fill in frequency charts as you were coding so that no information was
and Writing missed?
Mechanics
✓ If tables and figures are used, are these well organized, self-explanatory, and
easy to understand?
✓ Are the data presented in each table described in the text that either follows or
precedes it?
✓ Have you tightened up your writing, looking for how to make short, crisp
sentences?
✓ Have you refined and revised your initial drafts of this chapter to produce a
polished final version?
✓ Have you checked for institutional and/or program-related differences

regarding the content and structure of this chapter?
✓ Have you checked for institutional and/or program-related differences

regarding the appropriate use of qualitative language and terminology?
✓ Is the writing throughout clear and readable? Refer to “Guidelines for Academic
Writing” in this book's Chapter 4.
Following are some recommended resources that you might consider perusing regarding the
qualitative data analysis process and the reporting of your study’s findings.
Bazeley, P. (2020). Qualitative data analysis: Practical strategies. (2nd ed.). SAGE.
Balancing theoretical foundations with practical strategies, this book develops an approach
to qualitative analysis that is both systematic and insightful, by demonstrating the importance
of tying analysis into every aspect of research, and providing step-by-step guidance on how to
embed analysis from start to finish.
Bernard, H. R., Wutich, A., & Ryan, G. W. (2017). Analyzing qualitative data: Systematic approaches.
(2nd ed.). SAGE.
This book explains a range of analytic approaches and the necessary analytic reasoning,
instructions, and clear and easy-to-follow steps to begin this work. As the authors point out,
most qualitative data are written texts, but increasingly, qualitative data include still and mov-
ing images, and sound recordings of dialogues or narratives.
Boreus, K., & Bergstrom, G. (Eds.). (2017). Analyzing text and discourse: Eight approaches for the
social sciences. SAGE.
This book provides a thorough overview of the key analytical approaches and tools for analyzing
text and discourse and makes use of real-world examples and case studies to illustrate meth-
ods in action. These methods and tools include content analysis, argument analysis, qualitative
analysis of ideas and ideological content, narrative analysis, metaphor analysis, critical lin-
guistics, and discourse analysis.
Byrne, D. (2021). A worked example of Braun and Clarke’s approach to reflexive thematic analysis.
Qual Quant, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01182-y.
Although Braun and Clarke are widely published on the topic of reflexive thematic analysis, and
have made (and continue to make) an extremely valuable contribution to the discourse regard-
ing qualitative analysis, some confusion still persists in the literature regarding the appro-
priate implementation of this approach. To this end, this paper provides instruction in how to
address thematic analysis by providing a detailed step-by-step guide to Braun and Clarke’s
six-phase process, and including numerous examples of the implementation of each phase
based on the author’s own research.
Friese, S. (2019). Qualitative data analysis with Atlas TI , (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Now updated to cover latest versions and featuring instructions for both Mac and Windows
users, this book is still the go-to source of support for getting to grips with qualitative data
analysis using ATLAS.ti.
Guest, G., Namey, E., & Chen, M. (2020). A simple method to assess and report thematic satura-
tion in qualitative research. h. PLoS ONE, 15(5), e0232076. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.
0232076.
The term “data saturation” is often described as the point in data collection and analysis when
new incoming data produces little or no new information to address the study’s research
questions. These authors describe a method for assessing and reporting on saturation in the
context of inductive thematic analyses. Following a review of the empirical research on data
saturation and sample size estimation in qualitative research, they propose an alternative way
to evaluate saturation that overcomes the shortcomings and challenges associated with some
existing methods.
Hennink, M. M., Kaiser, B. N., & Marconi, V. (2017). Code saturation versus meaning saturation: How
many interviews are enough? Qualitative Health Research, 27(4), 591–608. https://doi.org/10.1177/10
49732316665344.
This study compared two approaches to assessing saturation: code saturation and meaning
saturation. The authors examined sample sizes needed to reach saturation in each approach,
what saturation meant, and how to assess saturation. Examining 25 in-depth interviews, they
found that code saturation was reached at nine interviews, whereby the range of thematic
issues was identified. However, 16 to 24 interviews were needed to reach meaning saturation to
developed a richly textured understanding of the issues. Thus, code saturation indicates when
researchers have “heard it all,” but meaning saturation is needed to “understand it all.” These
authors used their findings to develop parameters that influence saturation, which may be used
to estimate sample sizes in qualitative studies and thereby document the grounds on which sat-
uration was achieved.
Hughs, K., & Tarrant, A. (2019). Qualitative secondary analysis, SAGE.
A comprehensive guide to conducting qualitative secondary analysis (QSA). This book’s chap-
ters are written by leading scholars and researchers who have developed innovative theo-
ries and methods of qualitative secondary analysis (QSA). This text provides a comprehensive
introduction to the range of epistemological, ethical and pragmatic aspects of QSA, including
debates on qualitative data re-use, key methodological challenges of QSA, and practical tools
and strategies that researchers can apply in their own practice.
Jackson, K., & Bazeley, P. (2019). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo, (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Engaging and accessible, this book offers students a complete guide to using NVivo for qualita-
tive data analysis. Drawing on their wealth of expertise, the authors offer detailed, practical
advice that relates to students’ own experience and research projects.
Jarvinen, M., & Mik-Meyer, N. (2020). Qualitative analysis: Eight approaches for the social sciences.
SAGE.
Introducing eight analytical approaches that are key to successful social science research, this
book helps to better understand theory and apply it to qualitative analysis. This text provides a
balance between theory and analytical method, using real-world examples to illustrate how to
conduct your own analysis using the approach.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2019). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook,
(4th ed.). SAGE.
This is the authoritative text for analyzing and displaying qualitative research data. The
fourth edition maintains the analytic rigor of previous editions while showcasing a variety of
new visual display models for qualitative inquiry. This is an excellent update to the original
text m(1994), which has long been central to understanding and teaching qualitative research
design. Several of the data display strategies from previous editions are presented in reenvi-
sioned and reorganized formats to enhance reader accessibility and comprehension.
Richards, L. (2020). Handling qualitative data: A practical guide, (4th ed.). SAGE.
The author provides practical guidance on how to handle, reflect on, and make sense of rich
data, while at the same time showing how a consideration of methods and their philosophical
underpinnings informs how to most appropriately address and handle data. The book includes
detailed sections that cover processes of sorting, coding, documenting, and exploring quali-
tative data; illustrating how to view a study holistically and write up findings, to make justifi-
able claims. This updated edition provides clear guidance on the steps involved in collecting
and managing primary & secondary data while equipping you with a toolkit that they can apply
to data in any context.
Rose, G. (2016). Visual methodologies: An introduction to researching with visual materials, (4th ed.).
SAGE.
This is an excellent resource for those working with visual materials, providing a clear theo-
retical and methodological framework. Theoretical clarity regarding visual culture and power
relations is seamlessly woven into the discussion and evaluation of a wide range of research
methods. The book offers practical guidance on how to approach, think about, and interpret
“visual culture,” ranging from archival photography and documentary film to fine art, advertis-
ing, video, television, websites, and social media.
Saldana, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers, (4th ed.). SAGE.
This book demystifies the qualitative coding process with a comprehensive assessment of
different coding types, examples, and exercises. Included are a range of coding options with
advantages and disadvantages to help researchers in selecting the most appropriate approach
for their research study. The author offers a repertoire of multiple coding approaches ranging
in complexity from fundamental to advanced levels, covering the full range of qualitative data
collection methods. The text demonstrates practical application within a variety of qualitative
traditions or approaches.
com/bloomberg-qualitative-5e. The companion website offers materials related to issues dis-
cussed in Chapter 9, including resources that address data sets and qualitative software usage.
• Appendix K: Template for Document Summary Form

• Appendix L: Template for Participant Summary Form
• Appendix P: Sample Coding Schemes
• Appendix Q: Sample Coding Scheme Development Charts
• Appendix R: Sample Segment of Coded Interview Transcripts
• Appendix S: Qualitative Data Analysis Software Resources
• Appendix T: Sample Data Summary Tables
• Appendix U: Sample Coded Transcript Summary Chart
• Appendix V: Sample Thematic Charts
10 QUALITATIVE META-SYNTHESIS
Analyzing and Interpreting Findings
• Explain the concept of qualitative analysis.

• Review the process of analyzing and interpreting the findings of your research with a
clear focus on the distinction between analysis and interpretation.
• Clarify the concept of synthesis as an ongoing process.
• Describe how to go about presenting a final meta-synthesis by integrating your
study’s findings with literature, research, and practice.
• Emphasize and reiterate the significance of alignment among research design
(tradition or genre), analysis, and presentation of findings.
• Emphasize and reiterate how data analysis and representation are guided by the ways
in which trustworthiness criteria are addressed.
• Highlight the concepts of ethicality, transparency, and criticality with regard to
writing and reporting qualitative findings.
• Ensure the authentic, ethical, and culturally sensitive representation of research
participants, their contexts, and aspects of their experiences.
OVERVIEW
Qualitative research begins with questions, and its ultimate purpose is learning. To inform
the questions, the researcher collects data. Data are like building blocks that, when grouped
into patterns, become information, which in turn, when applied or used, becomes knowledge
(Rossman & Rallis, 2017). The challenge of qualitative analysis lies in making sense of large
amounts of data—reducing raw data, identifying what is significant, and constructing a frame-
work for communicating the essence of what the data reveal. This was the task of Chapter 9,
“Analyzing Data and Reporting Findings.” The challenge now becomes one of digging into the
381
382 Part II • Content and Process
findings to develop some understanding of what lies beneath them—that is, what information
we now have and what this really means. Analysis, in this sense, is about deconstructing the
findings. As explained in the previous chapter, conducting a qualitative analysis involves the
researcher asking deeper questions of the data to find and interpret meanings, causes, assump-
tions, and outcomes that go beyond mere description of the data to form a “meaningful story.”
Note that some universities and programs adopt an approach that combines this chapter and the
previous one, resulting in a five-chapter dissertation format. As such, analysis of data, report-
ing findings, and analyzing and interpreting those findings are sometimes presented in the
same chapter, which is congruent with the organic, systemic, and holistic nature of qualitative
research.
Your goal in conducting a qualitative analysis is to figure out the deeper meaning of what
you have found, and that analysis began when you assigned codes to chunks of raw data. Now
that you have a well-laid-out set of findings, you go to a second level. You scrutinize what you
have found in the hope of discovering what it means, or, more precisely, what meaning you can
make of it. You are seeking ways to understand what you have found by comparing your find-
ings both within and across groups and by comparing your study’s findings with those of other
studies. This final step of analyzing qualitative data involves your interpretation of the findings.
(Note that some doctoral programs may refer to this as “evaluation of findings.”) Interpretation
is the process of making deeper sense of what is going on in data, why that might be significant,
and what the implications might be. This is the act of “making meaning” of the data. Moreover,
since interpretation goes beyond the data, the challenge is that it must be defensible. To be
defensible, interpretation needs to be grounded in the dataset, but also located within a specific
context. Not to do so will produce a limited analysis and will also reduce the reader’s ability to
consider and evaluate the transferability of your research findings, and the extent of applicabil-
ity of your analysis to their own context.
REVISITING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF RIGOR AND ETHICS
Interpretation includes how you, as the researcher, understand, explain, and represent research
participants and their experiences and how you then describe the experience of others in
ways that reflect both process and insight. Subjectivity is inherent in all aspects of qualitative
research, and qualitative research does not strive for objectivity. What qualitative researchers
do is strive for conscious and intentional tracking of their subjectivities (assumptions, biases,
stereotypes, and prejudices) that are at play in the research process and account for these to the
extent possible. The goal is to make subjectivities as transparent and open as possible. As such,
there is a strong need for an ethical and critical approach to data analysis and interpretation that
fully respects the site or setting and seeks to do justice to participants’ lived experiences. Because
these ideas are vital to rigorous research, we will be circling back to the importance of transpar-
ency and criticality throughout this chapter. As Ravitch and Mittenfelner Carl (2020) explain,
Your subjectivity can be harnessed as a vibrant part of the analytic process since it
is embedded in all layers and phases of the interpretive processes that constitute the
Chapter 10 • Qualitative Meta-Synthesis: Analyzing and Interpreting Findings 383
various aspects of qualitative research, from the development of a topic and research
questions through data collection, to the final writing up of your study, and surely
throughout the iterative cycle of data analysis. Understanding the relationship of broad
interpretive processes to specific analytic procedures, and the role of subjectivity across
these domains is an important part of an approach to qualitative data analysis that is
based on intentionality and criticality of thought and process. (p. 237)
In qualitative research, we are open to different ways of seeing the world. We make assump-
tions about how things work. We strive to be open to the reality of others and understand dif-
ferent realities. We must listen before we can understand. Analysis of the findings begins with
careful listening to what others have to say. Begin by asking yourself: “Given what I have found,
what does this mean? What does this tell me about the phenomenon under study? What is really
going on here?” In asking these questions, you are working back and forth between the findings
of your research and your own perspectives and understandings to make sense and meaning.
Meaning can come from looking at differences and similarities and from inquiring into and
interpreting causes, consequences, and relationships.
By now, in reading previous chapters of this book, you are becoming more familiar with the
concept of trustworthiness in qualitative research, and hopefully you have developed a greater
appreciation of its significance vis-à-vis qualitative research. Although there are numerous pro-
cedures that qualitative researchers can employ to address the various tenets of trustworthiness,
there are essentially three widely used strategies: researcher reflection, triangulation, and par-
ticipant confirmation or verification (also known as member checks, member validation, and
respondent validation).
• Accounting for personal biases which may have influenced findings includes
reflecting on and acknowledging biases in sampling and ongoing critical reflection of
methods to ensure sufficient depth and relevance of data collection; demonstrating
clarity in terms of thought processes during data analysis and subsequent
interpretations; meticulous record- keeping and maintaining a clear decision trail
to ensure that interpretations are consistent and transparent; constant seeking out
similarities and differences to ensure that different perspectives are represented;
engaging in dialogue with other researchers to reduce research bias; and ongoing
reflection through journaling.
• Triangulation in qualitative research relates to trustworthiness because it is
concerned with using multiple indicators throughout a research study to convey
the dependability, credibility, and likely transferability of the study. The underlying
philosophy of triangulation is to use multiple strategies to hopefully cancel out the
weaknesses of any one particular method.
• Seeking participant confirmation or verification is the systematic process of
engaging the research participants with the data, findings, and/or analysis of the
study, both to ascertain if researchers accurately reflected their lived experiences and
to garner new data that may facilitate richer insights, a fuller understanding of context
and how it mediates experiences and events, and deeper analysis. Engaging with
participants can occur at any point in a research process it is one critical way to account
for and make explicit any data that do not coincide with emergent themes. Remember,
the systematic search for disconfirming evidence (what some refer to as “outliers”)
together with any contradictions that may arise through “checking in” with research
participants also enhances the trustworthiness of a study.
As stated by Frey (2018),

Although there are myriad strategies available to a researcher seeking trustworthiness,
it is vital to understand and respond to the unique audiences and disciplinary expecta-
tions that also exert influence on how the quality of research is judged. Consequently,
while the criteria for seeking trustworthiness remain flexible, serious attention and con-
cern should be given in the research design, implementation, and articulation phases
of a research project to weave in strategies that address the credibility, transferability,
dependability, and confirmability of a study (p. 1730).
THINKING ABOUT YOUR ANALYSIS
Data analysis in qualitative research remains somewhat mysterious to many students, and the
problem lies in the fact that there are few agreed-on canons for qualitative analysis in the sense
of shared ground rules. There are no formulas for determining the significance of findings or for
interpreting them, and there are no ways of perfectly replicating a researcher’s analytical think-
ing. In this chapter, we purport to offer not a recipe but rather a guideline for navigating the
analytical process. Applying guidelines requires judgment, sensibility, and creativity. Because
each study is unique, each analytical approach used is unique as well. As Patton (2015) puts it,
Qualitative analysis transforms data into findings. No formula exists for that trans-
formation. Guidance, yes, but no recipe. . . . In this complex and multifaceted ana-
lytical integration of disciplined science, creative artistry, skilled crafting, rigorous
sense-making, and personal reflexivity, we mold interviews, observations, documents,
and fieldnotes into findings. . . . In short, no absolute rules exist except perhaps this: Do
your very best with your full intellect to fairly represent the data and communicate what
the data reveal given the purpose of the study. (pp. 521–522)
Remember, the human factor is the great strength of qualitative inquiry. But this can also
be a fundamental weakness. There may be clear delineated frameworks for analyzing qualitative
data, as discussed in Chapter 9 of this book. However, as Patton (2015) emphasizes, guidelines,
exemplars, and procedural suggestions are not rules. Each qualitative study is unique, so the
analytical approach taken by the researcher will be unique. As such, because qualitative research
depends on the skills, training, capabilities, and insights of the researcher, analysis and interpre-
tation ultimately depend on the analytical intellect and style of each individual analyst.
It must be stressed, and by now you must certainly be aware from reading the previous
chapter, that analyzing and interpreting are highly intuitive processes, which are certainly not
mechanical or technical. The processes entailed in qualitative data analysis and synthesis are
ongoing, involving continual reflection about the study’s findings and asking deep analytical
questions. Qualitative researchers often, of necessity, learn by doing. As such, there is no clear
and accepted single set of conventions for the analysis and interpretation of qualitative data.
Indeed, many qualitative researchers would resist this were it to come about, viewing the enter-
prise as more an art than a science. Therefore, the term instructions for this chapter might be
somewhat misleading. Reducing the data and presenting findings can be explained in a stepwise
and somewhat mechanical fashion. Analysis, synthesis, and interpretation of qualitative data,
in contrast, is a far more nebulous endeavor—hence, the paucity of published literature on how
to actually do it. Rather than instructions, what we provide in this chapter are essentially guide-
lines for how to think about analysis and principles to use in selecting appropriate procedures
that will organically unfold and become revealed as you become immersed in your own study.
Please be aware, too, that the guidelines and principles that are provided in this book are
generic, and can be applicable across a broad range of qualitative genres or traditions. However,
analytical approaches are linked to particular forms of data collection and are underpinned
by specific conceptual and philosophical traditions and their inherent grounding assumptions.
Methodological congruence implies that there are analytic distinctions among traditions or
genres. Each tradition is sensitive to particular analytic methods and strategies; as such, each
tradition demands that the researcher think about data analysis and representation in a particu-
lar way. In essence, the product of each tradition provides a perspective on reality that is specific
to that tradition. For more details and nuances regarding analysis for pure qualitative traditions
such as phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, narrative inquiry, action research, and
others, we suggest that you seek the relevant available literature related to your specific tradition
and also consult with your advisor or dissertation chairperson.
The previous chapter of this book included discussion around how to present the findings
of your research by organizing data from various sources into categories to produce a readable
narrative. The purpose of this chapter is to provide interpretative insights into these findings.
This point in the process is where you shift from being an “objective” reporter to becoming an
informed and insightful commentator or storyteller. No one has been closer to the focus of the
study, its data, and its progress than you have. You have done the interviewing, studied the tran-
scripts, and read the related literature. You have lived with and wrestled with the data. You now
have an opportunity to communicate to others what you think your findings mean and integrate
your findings with literature, research, and practice. This process requires a good deal of careful
thinking and critical reflection.
As pointed out in the previous chapter, many qualitative studies will stop at reporting
descriptive themes. Just “reporting” minimizes researcher insight and lessens the study’s rigor.
This can be overcome by taking the additional step to layer and interconnect your themes to dis-
cover and illuminate broader patterns in the data, thereby elevating the themes and their associ-
ated findings. This is an opportunity to creatively “play” with your themes, and so enhance and
extend the depth of your overall analysis. In presenting your study’s findings, your goal is to cre-
ate a “meta-synthesis,” that is, deconstructing your findings to tap into the underlying deeper
meanings inherent in the findings. This brings into play how you, as the researcher, understand,
explain, and represent your research participants and their experiences and how you describe
their experiences in ways that reflect both process and insight.
Taking time to reflect on your findings and what these might possibly mean requires
some serious “mind work”, so do not try and rush this phase. Spend a few days away from your
research, giving careful thought to the findings, trying to put them in perspective in order to
gain some deeper insights. To begin facilitating the kind of thinking process required, we have
developed what we call an interpretation outline tool—a mechanism that enables you to con-
sider the findings in a deeper way than you have had to do up until now, to “peel back” all the
possible reasons regarding how else a finding can be explained, thereby fleshing out the mean-
ings that underlie each finding. Findings should not be taken at face value.
Essentially, this simple but effective tool prompts and prods you to question each of your
findings (and all the various aspects of each finding) by asking “Why?” and “Why not?” over
and again, allowing you to brainstorm and exhaust all the possibilities that might explain that
finding. In effect, those explanations become the basis of your interpretations. This tool propels
you to develop and strengthen your critical thinking and reflection on all the issues surrounding
your findings. This is essentially “problem posing”—an inductive questioning process rooted in
the works of Lindeman, Dewey, and Piaget, who were advocates of an experiential and dialogi-
cal education. Freire (1968/1970) and Mezirow (1981, 1991) used problem-posing dialogue as a
means to develop critical inquiry and understanding of experience.
Figure 10.1, Interpretation Outline Tool provides some idea of how to go about preparing
for the interpretation of your study’s findings. For a completed version, refer to Appendix W,
Sample Interpretation Outline Tool. It is recommended that a completed version of an interpreta-
tion outline be included in your dissertation’s appendix to illustrate the logical development and
overview of your interpretive thought processes.
PLANNING FOR THE ANALYSIS OF YOUR FINDINGS
In thinking about the analysis, you might ask yourself what this chapter is really all about and
what it should constitute. How does one go about seeking the deeper meanings behind the
findings? How does one get started? What is really involved? As the author, I asked myself
FIGURE 10.1 ■ Interpretation Outline Tool
STEP 1:
State Analytic Category 1: This category directly relates to your research
questions. Describe the corresponding findings.
Ask “Why?” and “Why not?”
Think critically. Brainstorm all possible reasons. Continue to probe “Why?” and
“Why not?”
Ask: What is happening, and why it is happening? How else can this be explained?
What assumptions am I making? What blind spots might I have overlooked? What
alternative interpretations or explanations might exist for what I see in the data?
Look (a) within findings, (b) across findings, and (c) across cases/ individuals.
State all linkages that can be made to the relevant literature.
Ask also: How does my positionality and my identity (social, cultural, political,
psychological, institutional) influence the research process? How can I address
this? What trustworthiness issues are emerging? How can I address challenges
to credibility and validity?
STEP 2:
State Analytic Category 2: This category directly relates to your research questions.
Describe the corresponding findings.
Ask “Why?” and “Why not?”
Think critically. Brainstorm all possible reasons. Continue to probe “Why?” and
“Why not?”
Ask: What is happening, and why it is happening? How else can this
be explained?
What assumptions am I making? What blind spots might I have
overlooked? What alternative interpretations or explanations might exist for
what I see in the data?
Look (a) within findings, (b) across findings, and (c) across cases/individuals.
State all linkages that can be made to the relevant literature.
Ask also: How does my positionality and my identity (social, cultural, political,
psychological, institutional) influence the research process? How can I address
this? What trustworthiness issues are emerging? How can I address challenges
to credibility and validity?
Instruction: Continue in the same manner for each analytic category, exhausting all
possible interpretations. In fact, the structured questions in this tool can be asked
throughout the research process. In essence, they are a means of checking in with your
conceptual framework throughout the process of data collection and analysis of findings.
Source: An initial version of this figure first appeared in Bloomberg, L. D. (2007b). Understanding qualitative
inquiry: Content and process (Part I). Unpublished manuscript. This revised version appears in Bloomberg, L. D.
(2011). Understanding qualitative research: Content and process (Part III). Unpublished manuscript.
these questions as I set about writing this chapter. I sought the answers by way of structuring
our discussion according to three interrelated activities: (a) seeking significant patterns among
the findings, (b) making use of description and interpretation, and (c) providing some sort of
synthesis or integration.
Think carefully about the analytic logic that informs the story you wish to tell. Questions
you need to ask yourself include: “What are the key concepts I have used in this study? How
do my findings shed light on these concepts and on my broader topic of inquiry? How do the
study’s findings shed light on the original research problem as set out in the introduction to the
dissertation and on related literature and/or theory?” You need to decide the type of story you
wish to tell as well as the structure of the chapter. Remember that keeping your findings in con-
text and thinking holistically are among the cardinal principles of qualitative analysis.
EXAMINING THEMES AND PATTERNS
Analysis is essentially about searching for and closely examining themes (and sub-themes), and
then patterns within and across themes; that is, the trends that you see emerging from among
your findings. Note that qualitative analysis allows for discussion of major themes and also sub-
themes, and the latter are often extremely significant, so these should not be overlooked. After
having spent many hours interviewing (and/or observing) people and contexts, you are likely to
come away with some possible explanations of how and why people are saying what they are say-
ing. Having immersed yourself in your data and lived with them for an extended period of time,
you have most likely reflected on emergent patterns and themes that run through your findings.
You also have probably made some assumptions about the significance of certain outcomes,
consequences, interconnections, and interrelationships that you see appearing.
Bear in mind that analytical approaches are linked to particular forms of data collection and
are underpinned by specific conceptual and philosophical traditions. Each tradition provides a
perspective on reality that is specific to that tradition. In this regard, data analysis strategies
for case study research include analyzing data through description of the case or cases, includ-
ing themes and cross-case themes, and making use of analytic categories to establish themes
or patterns. Ethnography involves analyzing data through description of the culture-sharing
group and the themes that emerge about that group. The goal is essentially the analysis and
interpretation of cultural themes and patterned regularities. Grounded theory data analysis
strategies involve open coding, axial coding, and selective coding, thereby generating theory.
In a phenomenological study, the researcher analyzes data for significant statements grouped
into “meaning units,” with the goal of producing an exhaustive description of the phenom-
enon by developing themes of meanings. Narrative research strategies analyze data for stories,
“re-storying” stories, and developing themes, often employing a chronological dimension to the
study.
A few words on significance are necessary at this point. Quantitative researchers utilize
statistical tests of significance to research the frequency of responses. Typically, these tests of
significance are reported with preestablished levels of confidence. Data are numerically ana-
lyzed by determining means, modes, medians, rank orderings, and percentages. In qualitative
research, we do not seek statistical significance that characterizes quantitative research. In qual-
itative research, what we mean by significance is that something is important, meaningful, or
potentially useful given what we are trying to find out. Qualitative findings are judged by their
substantive significance (Patton, 2015). As Patton explains, in determining substantive signifi-
cance, the qualitative analyst must address certain issues, including the following:
• How solid and consistent are your findings?

• To what extent and in what ways do your findings increase understanding of the
phenomenon under study?
• To what extent are your findings consistent with the existing body of knowledge? That
is, do they support or confirm what is already known about the phenomenon? Do they
refute what is already known? If so, how, and in what ways? Do they break new ground
in discovering or illuminating something?
• To what extent are the findings useful in terms of contributing to building theory,
informing policy, or informing practice?
You need to establish some system for representing participants’ perspectives on the most
significant events or activities by describing the procedures that you have adopted in analyzing
your findings. Patterns, as we have come to see them, include both quantitative and qualitative
elements. At this point in the process, your data summary tables and participant demographic
matrix (discussed in Chapters 8 and 9 of this book) become useful for analysis. In the findings
chapter, the purpose of the data summary tables was merely to report numbers and percentages
of responses. In the analysis chapter, the data summary tables become useful vis-à-vis the signif-
icance of your findings. In the analysis of qualitative data, we are interested in the concentration
of responses across individuals. Although not really a finding in itself, having a large number of
data in a particular area or under a particular descriptor or criterion does suggest where to look
for patterns.
Readers will need to understand different degrees of significance of your various findings.
In this regard, you need to be specific when patterns are clear and strongly supported by the data
or when patterns are merely suggestive. Ultimately, readers arrive at their own decisions based
on the evidence that you have provided, but your opinions and speculations hold weight and
are of interest to the reader because you have obviously struggled with the data and know them
more intimately than anybody else.
Looking for emergent patterns among your themes can be considered a first round of analy-
sis. As discussed in Chapter 9 of this book, you are highly encouraged to take the next step
toward “elevating your themes”, by layering and interconnecting themes. This becomes impor-
tant as you will want also to look not just at the findings in isolation, but more closely across your
study’s findings as well as across the multiple dimensions of each finding. In this way you begin
to connect how the findings either “speak to each other” or “stand apart,” thereby contributing
to a broader meta-synthesis, as indicated by the title of this chapter. This second round of search-
ing for patterns will typically generate new insights and usually uncovers patterns that may not
immediately have been obvious or apparent in the initial round of analysis. Creating cross-case
classification matrices is an exercise in logic. This involves moving back and forth between
your findings and crossing one dimension (or sub-set) with another in search of what might be
meaningful or significant. Beyond identifying themes and patterns, you now build additional
layers of complexity by interconnecting your themes or patterns into a story line. Matrixes can
certainly push linkages. In creating matrixes, however, be careful not to manipulate the data in
any way or force the data to make cross-classification fit.
Finding themes, subthemes, and patterns is one result of analysis, whereas finding and
closely examining ambiguities and inconsistencies is another. You certainly want to determine
how useful the findings are in illuminating the research questions being explored and how cen-
tral they are to the story that is unfolding about the phenomenon under study. However, you
must also be sure to challenge your own understanding by searching for discrepancies and nega-
tive instances in the patterns. You may want to refer to Chapter 8 of this book where this was
discussed in greater detail. Seek all possible and plausible explanations other than those that are
most apparent. Alternative explanations always exist. As is characteristic of qualitative research,
you must be willing to tolerate some ambiguity. As such, look at issues from all angles to dem-
onstrate the most plausible explanations. This step enables readers to assess the persuasiveness
of your argument.
Once you have established patterns within and across your themes, these need to be
explained. In this regard, you will need to draw on your own experience and intuition. In addi-
tion, you have to once again consult the literature and consider your pattern findings in light
of previous research and existing theory. Do your findings confirm similar research? Do your
findings contradict previous studies? How can you explain these differences and/or similarities?
As you begin to consider answers to these types of questions, you begin to describe and interpret
your material.
DESCRIPTION AND INTERPRETATION
As Patton (2015) explains:

Thick, rich description provides the foundation for qualitative analysis and reporting.
Good description takes the reader into the setting being described … Description forms
the bedrock of all qualitative reporting … Interpretation involves explaining the find-
ings … Interpretation, by definition, goes beyond the descriptive data. (pp. 533–534)
The details in the description are your evidence, and your logic; they build your argument.
Therefore, description must necessarily precede interpretation. At the same time, the explana-
tion and linkages revealed in the explanation serve to clarify the description and illuminate the
details. Description is intended to convey the rich complexity of the research. Interpretation
involves attaching significance to what was found—making sense of findings, considering dif-
ferent meanings, extrapolating lessons, making inferences, and offering potential explanations
and conclusions. A qualitative report should provide not only sufficient description to allow
the reader to understand the basis for an interpretation but also meaningful interpretation to
allow the reader to appreciate the description. Remember, because the data are made meaning-
ful through interpretation (a necessary and vital component of qualitative research!), the very
process of meaning-making through interpretive practice and associated researcher reflexiv-
ity becomes key. As stressed throughout this book, it is critical that qualitative researchers be
explicit about their frame of reference, philosophical standpoint, and their investment in the
research (personal, emotional, conceptual, and/or theoretical) because these factors will in one
way or another be used to interpret the study’s findings.
Just as methodological congruence implies that there are clear analytic distinctions among
traditions or genres, demanding that the researcher think about data analysis in a particular way,
so are interpretation and representation strategies specific to each tradition. Case study research
makes use of deep and complex interpretation and presents an in-depth picture of the case
(or cases) using narrative and visual representation (tables, charts, figures, etc.). Ethnographic
research conducts interpretation by attempting to make sense of the findings—how and in
what ways the culture functions or “works”—and like case study, presents narrative and visual
description and representation. A grounded theory study engages a series of coding procedures
in order to develop a story of propositions, with the goal of presenting a visual model or theory.
A phenomenological study develops textural description (“What happened?”) and structural
description (“How was the phenomenon experienced?”), as well as description of the essence of
the experience, with narration of the essence being presented by way of discussion and visual
representation. Narrative inquiry strives to interpret the larger meaning of the story by focusing
on processes, theories, and unique and general features of the story or text. Willig (2014) offers
an excellent overview of interpretation in qualitative research, including the origins of interpre-
tation and approaches to interpretation of the major qualitative traditions or genres.
MOVING BEYOND DESCRIPTION TO INTERPRETATION
An interpretive reading of your data involves constructing a version of what you think the data
mean or represent, or what you think you can infer from the data. This involves making sense
of the data or lessons learned as described by Lincoln and Guba (1985). It means the researcher
stepping back and assigning a deeper meaning to the research phenomenon based on personal
views and comparisons with relevant literature and previous research, indicating how find-
ings of your study either support or contradict the findings of others. In essence, qualitative
research is interpretive research and you will need to make meaning of your study’s findings. To
large extent, interpretation involves taking risks and making educated guesses, which has long
been a critique of qualitative research. However, as Wolcott (1994) argues, the significance of
interpretation in qualitative research is not only because interpretation adds a new dimension
of understanding but because the process of interpretation challenges qualitative researchers’
taken-for-granted assumptions and beliefs about the processes and phenomena they have inves-
tigated—an important aspect of a researcher’s personal and professional development.
Interpretation essentially involves reading through or beyond the findings—that is, mak-
ing sense of the findings. It is about answering the “Why?” and “Why not?” questions around
the findings. Interpretation requires more conceptual and integrative thinking than data analy-
sis alone because it involves identifying and abstracting important understandings from the
detail and complexity of the findings. Interpretation in effect moves the whole analytic process
to a higher level. You (the researcher) arrive at new understandings, finding meaning beyond
the specifics of your data. What you have seen in the field and what you have heard participants
say all come together into an account that has meaning for the participants, for you, and for the
reader. As with qualitative analysis in general, there are no hard-and-fast rules for how to go
about the task of interpreting the meaning of the findings. One way to facilitate the process of
interpretation is to begin by asking the following questions: What is really going on here? What
story is told by these findings? Why is this story important or significant? What can be learned
from these findings?
Lincoln and Guba (1985) capture well the essence of interpretation when they ask: What
were the lessons learned? Lessons learned are in the form of the researcher’s understanding and
insight that they bring to the study based on their personal and/or professional experience, his-
tory, and culture. But it is more than this: It is about the meaning derived from a comparison
of the findings of your study with information gleaned from the related literature and previous
research. Making connections between your study’s findings and the relevant literature pro-
vides you with a way to share with colleagues the existing knowledge base on a research problem
and acknowledge the unique contribution your study has made to understanding the phenom-
enon studied.
Searching the literature to see whether it corresponds, contradicts, and/or deepens your
interpretations thus constitutes a second layer of interpretation. Interpretation, therefore, is not
just a conglomeration of personal ideas. It is the subtle combination of your ideas in tandem
with what has already been reported in the literature. The findings of your study will either
confirm what is already known about the subject area surrounding your research problem or
diverge from it. Therefore, it is imperative that you relate your analysis to the available literature
on the subject.
Your integrity and credibility as a researcher are given credence by your inclusion of all
information, even that which challenges your inferences and assumptions. You are building
an argument about what you have learned in the field—an argument that is more compel-
ling than other alternatives. As you put forward your interpretations, you should not forget to
challenge the patterns that seem so apparent. Qualitative research is not about uncovering any
single interpretive truth. Alternative understandings always exist; to demonstrate the soundness
of your interpretation and your commitment to reflexivity, you should be sure to search for,
identify, and describe a variety of plausible or rival explanations, thereby challenging your own
assumptions, preconceived ideas, and potential biases.
Remembering that the human factor is both the greatest strength and the fundamental
weakness of qualitative inquiry and analysis, the researcher must recognize the subjective
nature of the claims made regarding the meaning of the data. One barrier to credible interpreta-
tion stems from the suspicion that the analysis has been shaped according to the predispositions,
assumptions, and biases of the researcher. Whether this happens unconsciously or inadvertently
is not the issue. Rather, the issue is that you counter such a suspicion in the mind of the reader
by reporting that you have engaged in a systematic search for alternative patterns and themes,
and rival or competing explanations and interpretations. This means thinking carefully, and
with an open mind, about other logical possibilities and then seeing whether those possibilities
can be supported by the findings and the literature. Failure to find strong supporting evidence
for contrary explanations helps increase readers’ confidence in the interpretations that you have
generated.
As you guide the reader through your discussion, you attempt to create a compelling argu-
ment for interpreting your data in a specific way. Your reader should have some sense that your
interpretations represent an exhaustive search for meaning from all your findings. Your expla-
nations of the meaning drawn from the data should be multidimensional. The reader should get
the sense that you have looked at your findings from different angles, that you have taken into
account all the information relevant to the analysis, that you have identified and discussed the
most important themes, and that your argument is systematically constructed. In the disserta-
tion defense, you must be prepared to clarify your interpretations and support your thinking
while remaining open to and being willing to consider alternative perspectives.
Your effort to uncover themes and then patterns of themes among your findings, as well as
provide a variety of interpretations, involves both creativity and critical thinking. You need to
make creative but also careful and thoughtful judgments about what you see as significant and
meaningful. In this regard, you rely on your own experience, knowledge, and skills. However,
analysis need not be a solitary endeavor—indeed it should not be. Although you are certainly
the closest person to your study, discussion, dialogue, and debate with critical colleagues and
advisors will certainly be helpful as you look at the findings from a variety of angles and vantage
points. Analysis is all about learning what emerges from the findings of your research, and shar-
ing perspectives through dialogue lies at the heart of all meaningful learning.
SYNTHESIS
Qualitative research involves the move from a holistic perspective to individual parts (analysis)
and then back to a holistic look at the data (synthesis). Whereas the findings chapter splits apart
and separates out pieces and chunks of data to tell the “story of the research,” the analysis chap-
ter is an attempt to reconstruct a holistic understanding of your study. Analysis is intended to
ultimately depict an integrated picture. What should emerge from your discussion is a layered
synthesis. Synthesis is the process of pulling everything together—that is, (a) how the research
questions are answered by the findings, (b) to what extent the findings emanating from your
data collection methods can be interpreted in the same way, (c) how your findings relate to the
literature, and (d) how the findings relate to the researcher’s prior assumptions about the study.
Synthesis is not, however, a linear process.
As you move toward interpretations about causes, consequences, connections, and relation-
ships, you must be careful to avoid the simplistic linear thinking that characterizes quantitative
analysis, which deals with variables that are mechanically linked out of context. Qualitative
analysis is about portraying a holistic picture of the phenomenon under study to understand
the nature of the phenomenon—which is usually extremely complex—within a given specific
context. As such, synthesis becomes key.
Synthesis is ongoing throughout the analytical process and is about combining the individ-
ual units of analysis into a more integrated whole. You need to account for all the major dimen-
sions that you have studied. From your intimate familiarity with your data, you create a cohesive
whole from the isolated bits and pieces. You also need to lead your reader to focus on the larger
issues—the broader context. Analysis is ultimately about capturing the meaning or essence of
the phenomenon and expressing it so that it fits into a larger picture. One problem that tends
to occur is that we become so immersed in a highly specific research topic that we are unable to
step back and think about more general and fundamental disciplinary frameworks. Give your
research a broader perspective by thinking about how what you have discovered may relate to
issues that are broader than your original research topic. Narrowly defined research problems
are related to broader social issues. As Coffey and Atkinson (1996) propose:
Qualitative data, analyzed with close attention to detail, understood in terms of their
internal patterns and forms, should be used to develop theoretical ideas about social
processes and cultural forms that have relevance beyond these data themselves. (p. 63)
As has been emphasized throughout, there is no one “right” way to analyze your findings.
You will be judged not on your analysis per se but rather on your synthesis—that is, the way in
which you have organized your discussion around major themes, issues, or topics and the ways
in which you have woven these together. What is of importance is the logic and coherence of
your argument, how effectively you have tied your argument to the literature and prior research,
and your ability to sweep your discussion into some broad and relevant discourse.
A final word on analysis: Qualitative analysis and interpretation are both an art and a sci-
ence, and herein lies the tension. Qualitative inquiry draws on a critical as well as a creative
attitude. The scientific part demands a systematic, rigorous, and disciplined approach and an
intellectually critical perspective. The artistic dimension invites exploration, discovery, insight,
innovation, and creativity to generate new possibilities and new ideas. The technical, proce-
dural, and scientific side of analysis is easier to present and teach. Creativity is more difficult to
distil and describe. Remember that each analysis is a unique expression of the researcher’s skill
and creativity. Each analysis is also a reflection of your reflexivity as a researcher and a statement
of your openness to having your assumptions and propositions challenged. As you approach
the analysis of your findings, remain aware of and open to new and unexpected possibilities. Be
prepared to tolerate ambiguity and critique. Have faith and trust in yourself as a thinker. Spend
much time brainstorming, revisiting earlier assumptions, and engaging in critical reflection.
Also take the time to dialogue with others—both in depth and critically.
PRESENTING YOUR META-SYNTHESIS
Overview
In qualitative research, the emphasis is on understanding a phenomenon or experience. You are
not seeking to determine any single causal explanation, to predict, or to generalize. Your aim is
to tell a richly detailed story that takes into account and respects a context, and that connects
participants, events, processes, activities, and experiences to larger issues or phenomena. As the
researcher, it is your responsibility to explain in great detail what you have found—what you
have discovered from your data, the sense you make of it, and what new insights you now have
about the phenomenon under discussion. In this chapter, you serve as a guide to your readers,
helping them to understand the findings of your study based on your intensive and careful
analysis. The chapter is essentially a well-thought-out conversation that integrates your findings
with literature, research, and practice.
Just as there is no one correct way to analyze findings, there is no one correct way to orga-
nize this chapter. The structure varies depending on your methodology, the findings, and your
advisor’s preferences. Structure also depends on your research tradition or genre as mentioned
previously, with the product of each tradition remaining specific and relevant to that tradition.
With the process being a highly intuitive one, and with the real learning taking place in the
doing, what we offer is a set of guidelines regarding microstructure of your chapter—that is, a
chapter that is well organized, well written, and well argued. These guidelines regarding a way
to proceed are based on some strategies that have worked for us in our own research. The hope
is that these guidelines are useful to you in stimulating further thinking and ideas of how you
might go about presenting this chapter of your dissertation.
A Set of Guidelines
Begin with a brief introductory paragraph that includes your research purpose statement as
you have identified it in your introductory Chapter 1, as well as a preview of how the chapter
is organized so that the reader knows what to expect. Include a summary of the major find-
ings and some explanation of how you have gone about analyzing and synthesizing your data.
Exemplary dissertations typically provide sufficient information that enables the reader to envi-
sion all the steps that the researcher undertook in preparing and organizing the data. By provid-
ing a window into your procedures for analyzing the data, you assure the reader of your attempt
to provide an impartial analysis. Moreover, you allow others who might want to follow the same
procedures to do so, thereby establishing an audit trail, which contributes to the trustworthi-
ness of your study. When professional colleagues are able to follow your line of reasoning, they
have a more solid basis for determining the credibility of your study.
To offer this explicit documentation of your analytical procedures, both in the dissertation
and at the dissertation defense, you have to make careful and detailed notes of all the steps you
have gone through in the process of analysis, including even the ones that subsequently turned
out to be dead ends or unsuccessful. Your explanation of all the decisions and choices that you
made along the way conveys a sense of care about how you conducted your research and will
promote the credibility of your interpretations.
Once you have introduced your reader to the chapter and given some indication of how the
chapter is organized, you need to pull apart all the areas and discuss each one separately. Always
remember to make one point at a time and fully flesh it out before moving on to the next point.
This rule applies to all writing, especially to writing your analysis. Discuss each point that you
make from different perspectives, but stay on target. Avoid redundancy or repetition. Some
material might need to be cut, placed in other sections, or saved until later. It is crucial that the
reader be able to follow the logic of your argument and grasp what it is that you are trying to
communicate. Do not distract the reader by too many arguments and/or ideas at once. Applying
too many concepts at once can make your analysis confusing. Achieving a high-level product
requires careful thinking on your part; therefore, revisions and redrafting are to be expected.
Analysis is a multilayered approach. When writing this chapter, keep in mind various key
aspects:
• Establish the story line based on your findings. Based on that story, what do you think
may really be going on? Think deeper as you go through all of the following levels:
Level 1 means looking at each individual finding (i.e., going finding by finding). Ask
yourself what each finding means. What are all the possible explanations for what is
being said by your participants?
Level 2 means looking across your findings. Ask yourself how the findings are related
or interconnected, and in what ways. To what extent do the findings impact each other?
Level 3 means looking across cases (i.e., cross-case analysis). Remember, each person
is a “case.” Here we look for similarities and differences among participants. You
can address these issues by way of your interpretation outline tool (see Figure 10.1,
Interpretation Outline Tool).
• Structure your discussion by using headings. For example, you may choose to use
your research questions or the analytic categories of your theoretical or conceptual
framework. Think carefully of how you can most logically set up your discussion.
• When discussing your findings, carefully choose your words. Use qualifiers such as
seems, appears, possible, probable, likely, unlikely, and so on. In your discussion, you
offer ideas, suggest explanations, and/or identify reasons; you do not state facts. You
speculate, and therefore you cannot come across as definitive, rigid, or dogmatic.
• In the course of the discussion, identify any qualifications and/or limitations of factors
with respect to your findings. Make sure to mention that you have done extensive
cross-case analysis, which enables readers to follow your interpretation and judge
whether it is plausible. It also enables you to review your own thinking and perhaps
find weaknesses or limitations within your discussion, which will then have to be
addressed and revised.
• Remember that analysis is not just a list of findings. In your discussion, you need to
weave together the findings from the various data collection methods that you have
used. You do this to demonstrate that each method you have used contributes similarly
to the same analysis.
• Take responsibility for convincing your readers of the accuracy of your analysis by
providing sufficient descriptive information for them to make independent judgments.
Be sure to discuss the findings of your study with respect to the literature and prior
research. The intent is that the inferences you are making from your findings, in
combination with what the literature says, will make a compelling argument. Overall,
it is important for the reader to know the ways in which your study contributes to
the current knowledge base. What are the differences between your study and the
findings of previous studies? How do your findings compare with what the literature
says? Do your findings help clarify contradictions in the literature? Do your findings
go beyond the literature, breaking new ground? Are there any surprises? Surprises are
the unanticipated outcomes of your study that may in some way contradict current
thinking in meaningful and significant ways.
• Aside from including the relevant literature citations, also be sure to weave into your
discussion direct participant quotations. The more support you can provide for your
discussion, the more likely your readers will be to concur with your analysis.
Your interpretations; that is, your speculation as to what the findings really mean should be
clear, logical, relevant, and credible:
• Clear interpretations are easy to follow. If the reader has difficulty following your
train of thought, you run the risk of losing the reader. Information must be presented
systematically, and sufficient details must be provided to enable the reader to
understand the issues as presented. Information that is presented in tables should
always be preceded by the narrative that describes the table.
• Readers will consider your interpretation to be logical if you have presented your
discussion in a systematic and thoughtful way. Based on your own understanding of
your findings, you should decide which issues need to be addressed first and how the
remainder of the discussion will flow naturally from those issues (your interpretation
outline tool is your sketch of the order in which you will discuss your findings). Your
presentation should lead your readers to understand your findings as clearly as you do.
• Your interpretation must be relevant; that is, it must be directly related to the research
problem, purpose, and research questions that have guided your research. It also must
relate to the literature and/or theoretical base within which your study is situated. Make
sure to keep your interpretation tight and focused. Whereas your findings chapter
includes a multitude of elements, you now need to focus only on the most important and
relevant issues, and highlight and address the most prominent findings of your research.
Determining the major issues may be viewed as a judgment call on your part. However,
you are the person most familiar with your data, and thus you are in a position to help the
reader recognize and accept your focus. A good idea is to run your ideas by others, thereby
remaining open to different understandings and acknowledging different perspectives.
• Establishing credibility in qualitative research means that you have engaged in the
systematic search for rival or competing explanations and interpretations. Think
carefully about other logical possibilities and see whether those can be supported by the
findings and the literature. In doing this, you should not be focused on attempting to
disprove alternatives. You are not looking for clear-cut “yes” or “no” answers. Rather,
you are searching for the best fit. As such, seek support for alternative ways of seeing
things. Also keep track of and report alternative classification systems, patterns/
themes, and explanations that you have considered during your analysis, which
demonstrates intellectual integrity and lends credibility to your study.
Allow yourself the critical distance necessary to see whether all the parts of your argument
are in place. This may require periodic “stepping back” from your research for a time and/
or engaging in critical discussion with colleagues or advisors and/or journaling. In thinking
carefully about what meaning may lie behind the findings—that is, what is really driving your
findings—researchers frequently create visual displays—figures and tables. These displays
organize the findings diagrammatically and illustrate the relationships among identified topics,
categories, and patterns. Visuals are useful for demonstrating linkages and connections as well
as differences within each case, across cases, and across categories, as well as by demographics or
other dimensions. The information enables the reader to clearly see and understand issues and
concepts discussed in the narrative. In addition to augmenting your discussion, constructing
diagrams or charts can help you with your analytical thinking. Displays often help you “see”
some aspect of your findings in new ways. Through displays, you might notice emergent trends,
discover new connections or relationships, or even recognize the significance, or lack thereof, of
certain pieces of information.
The Analytic Category Development Tool, presented as Figure 10.2 is a visual that offers some
idea of how analytic categories can be explained and presented. The tool, a type of flow diagram,
traces the logical flow and development of a study’s analytic categories from research questions
through findings and outcomes/consequences (the source of the research problem). You need to
be mindful in determining the correlation between research questions, findings, and analytic
categories, remembering that these are not always simple and linear. For an idea of what a com-
pleted version may look like, refer to Appendix X, Sample Analytic Category Development Tool. It
is recommended that a completed version of the tool be included in your dissertation’s appendix
to illustrate to your readers an overview of the development and emergence of the analytic cat-
egories pertaining to your study.
FIGURE 10.2 ■ Analytic Category Development Tool
Outcome/Consequence
Research Question Finding Statement (Source of Research Problem) Analytic Category
1. Finding 1: Category 1
Source: This tool appears in Bloomberg, L. D. (2010). Understanding qualitative research: Content and process (Part
II). Unpublished manuscript.
If you choose to include visuals (tables, figures, charts, matrixes etc.), give careful thought
to the most logical place to insert them so as not to interrupt the flow of the discussion. If the
diagrams are working tools, they are typically included as appendices. There are different ways
of constructing diagrams, charts, and graphs in the analysis of qualitative data. In this regard,
Miles et al. (2019) offer excellent suggestions. Make sure that all information presented in tables
is consistent with information presented in the narrative.
Finally, you will need to tie together the various threads of the discussion. As such, there
should be a strong culminating paragraph that provides a concluding summary of the whole
chapter. This summary should include the key points made, as well as some form of reflec-
tion on the analytic process. You also might choose now to revisit your initial assumptions
(stated in your introductory first chapter) and comment on these in light of your findings. The
researcher-as-instrument is an inquirer, a writer, an analyst, and an interpreter. We have to leave
open the possibility that other researchers might have told a different story given the same set
of data. What we learn from our research, how we understand what we find, and how we report
it is but one view. Some acknowledgment that there are multiple ways of interpreting data will
serve to show that you fully understand the subjective nature of qualitative research. Such an
acknowledgment further enhances your study’s credibility in the eye of the reader.
There are many subtleties involved in the kind of detailed analysis that is required for a qual-
itative dissertation. As such, it is unlikely that you will achieve a well-argued, reader-friendly
analysis chapter in one go. Writing this chapter takes many hours of thinking and rethinking,
and much tightening up is involved to ensure the logic, depth, and breadth of your argument.
Based on your advisor’s feedback, you usually have to write and rewrite drafts of this chapter,
revising and/or expanding sections of it accordingly. In most cases, this step may occur more
frequently than you anticipated as you work toward organizing the sections into a cohesive and
powerful chapter that explains your findings. If your interpretation is thoughtful, logical, artic-
ulate, insightful, and reasonable, it is more likely to be compelling to your readers. In addition,
it will provide the opportunity for an informed discussion, making a worthwhile contribution
to your academic discipline.
As discussed at the beginning of this chapter, it is incumbent upon a qualitative researcher
to make their subjectivities as transparent and open as possible. In presenting findings, the key
goal is to avoid (mis)representation and (in)authenticity. As such, there is a strong need for an
ethical and critical approach to data analysis and interpretation that fully respects the site or set-
ting and that does justice to participants’ lived experiences. The concepts of transparency and
criticality are integral to research, writing, and reporting, so we revisit these briefly here again.
TRANSPARENCY IN REPORTING FINDINGS
There are many significant issues to consider when formally writing up qualitative research,
including how to make informed decisions about the purposes and focus of the study; the for-
mat and structure of final reports; your audience/readers; incorporating data; deciding whose
voice is heard, and participant representation and portrayal. The power inherent in qualita-
tive research cannot be ignored, and the representation of research participants, their contexts,
and aspects of their experiences; all calling for respectful, authentic, and ethical representa-
tions of individuals, groups, and communities. The use of verbatim quotes (sometimes referred
to as “verbatims”) from participants is a typical and necessary component to any qualitative
research report. It is by revealing participants’ own language that the researcher helps the reader
to understand the key takeaways by clarifying through illustration the essential points of the
researcher’s interpretations. The idea is not to display an extensive list of what people said but
rather provide quotes that have been carefully selected for being the most descriptive or explana-
tory of the researcher’s conceptual interpretation of the data.
As has been emphasized throughout this book, researcher positionality—and hense
researcher reflexivity—intersects across all of the processes inherent in qualitative research,
including determining analytical strategies, making interpretations, and thinking about rep-
resentation and voice. The centrality of considering ethical issues at each stage of the research
process right from sample selection through data analysis and writing up the study’s findings,
therefore cannot be underscored. As Berger (2015) explains,
As reflexivity is a researcher’s conscious and deliberate effort to be attuned to one’s own
reactions to respondents and to the way in which the research account is constructed,
it helps identify and explicate potential or actual effect of personal, contextual, and
circumstantial aspects on the process and findings of the study and maintain their
awareness of themselves as part of the world they study… Reflexivity helps maintain
the ethics of the relationship between researcher and research by ‘decolonizing’ the dis-
course of the ‘other’ and securing that while interpretation of findings is always done
through the eyes and cultural standards of the researcher, the effects of the latter on the
research process is monitored. (p. 221)
It is indeed an ethical responsibility to examine our roles as qualitative researchers, on an ongo-
ing basis, and to challenge our implicit epistemologies, biases, and assumptions. As has been sug-
gested in previous chapters, it is through structured reflexive practices and dialogic engagement
that you can attempt to more closely examine—and therefore acknowledge—the many complex
implications regarding the role of the qualitative researcher. As Ravitch and Mittenfelner Carl
(2020) put it: “The power inherent in qualitative research becomes even more palpable in some
ways when you begin to write up your research since this is what takes the personal, the political,
and the contextual from your data and transforms it into a message shared with the world” (p.
316). Researcher transparency is essentially what enables a reader to determine whether and to
what extent your interpretation is persuasive, plausible, reasonable, and convincing.
CRITICALITY IN REPORTING FINDINGS
Part of critically approaching qualitative data analysis involves recognizing that qualitative
data analysis begins as soon as the first piece of data is collected and continues throughout the
entire research process. Conceiving of data analysis as iterative and recursive underscores how
all aspects of qualitative research directly impact your study in its entirety, including your views
and assumptions, how you design your study, the literature you choose to review, the data you
collect, how you analyze your data, and then how you communicate your processes and find-
ings to an audience. As pointed out by Macleod et al. (2018) and Mason-Bish (2019), issues of
positionality and power relate not only to the relationship between researcher and the research
participants but also to the subject matter of the research itself. As such, it becomes impor-
tant to acknowledge the delicate balance between positionality and research topic which is very
much shaped by the identity and positionality of everyone involved in the study. As such, key
considerations come into play: How do the participants’ social and cultural identities inform
their unique communication and/or relationship characteristics? How do qualitative research-
ers acknowledge their own social and cultural identities and minimize the distance between
themselves and their research participants? How do researchers best elicit the rich informa-
tion their research participants can share about their storied lives, which in turn will make the
research story rich and representative of their experiences?
Critically and ethically approaching data analysis necessitates that you think about (and
articulate for your readers) how your role in the creation of data impacts the arguments you
ultimately make. It is indeed an act of power to analyze and interpret someone else’s reality
and experience and tell their story. Critically approaching data analysis involves acknowledg-
ing the power to represent others’ experiences and recognizing and addressing power differen-
tials within data analysis as an ethical and methodological concern. As qualitative researchers,
we can never fully mitigate impositional interpretation and interpretive authority (Ravitch &
Mittenfelner Carl, 2020) but we should understand this is a concern and a complex issue to be
addressed with transparency and integrity.
We generally understand critical thinking to be purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which
results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference. A point of agreement in the schol-
arly writing on critical thinking is how difficult it is to do, as it goes against our natural ten-
dency to want to perceive selectively and confirm what we already “know” to be true. Graduate
students are encouraged to pursue integrity over their own biases, persist through challenges,
assess their own thinking fairly, and abandon mistaken reasoning for new and more credible
ways of thinking. These intellectual “virtues” don’t always come easily or naturally. Scholars
writing about critical thinking agree that questions are central to students acquiring critical
thinking skills. Similarly, to develop metacognitive awareness of their reasoning, qualitative
researchers need to ask challenging open-ended questions that demand genuine inquiry, analy-
sis, or assessment, including:
• What is your analysis or interpretation of this data/argument?

• What are your reasons for favoring that analysis or interpretation?
• How well does your analysis or interpretation address the complexities of the data/
argument?
• What might be other analyses or interpretations of the data/argument?
• What are the implications of each analysis or interpretation?
• Let’s look at all the analyses and interpretations and evaluate these. How strong is the
evidence for each one?
• How honestly and impartially are you representing other potential analyses or
interpretations?
• Do you have a vested interest in one analysis or interpretation over another?
Maintaining transparency throughout, and critically confronting and engaging with our
interpretations and the biases that shape them, are a key consideration in presenting qualitative
research findings. Addressing this ethical responsibility requires a reflexive approach to research
that includes developing and maintaining a commitment to openness to critical feedback and
change. The reflexive questions that follow can serve as prompts for journaling throughout the
dissertation process, in which you are analyzing and interpreting your study’s findings, thereby
shedding light and insight on the underlying meaning of the findings with regard to your
own experiences and assumptions, making connections with the literature and prior research.
Moreover, you should be focused on ensuring the authentic, ethical, and culturally sensitive
representation of research participants, their contexts, and aspects of their experiences.
REFLEXIVE QUESTIONS
ANALYZING AND INTERPRETING FINDINGS
1. What assumptions do I bring to this study?

2. What assumptions of mine continue to impact analysis of the study’s findings?
3. How, if at all, have I described the ways in which my biases or assumptions may have
affected my analysis and interpretation of the findings?
4. Did any conflicts of interest impair or impact the way I approached the participants and/
or the data?
5. Have participants provided sufficient information for me to make plausible
interpretations?
6. Do I have sufficient knowledge of participants’ worlds to read their words and really
understand these?
7. Do I provide sufficient social context on which to base my analysis and interpretation?
8. How and in what ways might I be misinterpreting the findings?
9. Have I challenged my interpretations? How might I do so more vigorously?
10. Have I understood and addressed all themes and patterns I see in the data? Might I have
omitted anything?
11. How do I understand my role in the creation of data so that the arguments I make are
credible and authentic?
12. Have I addressed issues of interpretive authority—that is, the power of the researcher to
be the translator and interpreter of the lived experiences and perspectives of others?
Have I made an effort to acknowledge the possibility thereof and, to the extent possible,
challenge and resist its imposition?
13. Is my representation culturally responsive to and respectful of those studied?
14. Was I sufficiently transparent in representing the participants and their experiences?
15. Does the representation allow the audience to potentially become more sensitive to the
participants?
16. Is the research contextually situated, and is the research context authentically
represented?
17. Through addressing my positionality, do I locate myself in the representation of the
research participants and their context?
18. In my analysis and interpretation, have I fully respected participants and attempted to
the best of my ability to do justice to their experiences?
19. If my research participants were reading my study, how would they feel? Would my anal-
ysis and interpretation resonate with them?
20. How did early data analysis inform subsequent data analysis? In what ways, if at all, did
that shape or inform the findings?
21. To what extent do I allow theory to inform (frame and/or challenge) analysis and
interpretation?
22. Have I sought out and engaged with disconfirming evidence to provide alternative per-
spectives, even though these may be surprising, unexpected, or even uncomfortable?
23. In what way(s) did I seek disconfirming evidence? Did I engage sufficiently in this
activity?
24. Have I made any assumptions or generalizations beyond the scope of the data?
25. Am I making interpretive arguments that are grounded in my data, or are these argu-
ments an inferential leap?
26. What is the role of each of the research participants themselves in shaping the research
and challenging my interpretations? Am I providing this opportunity to them? If so, how,
and in what ways? If not, why?
27. Have I engaged in dialogue and collaboration with colleagues or “thought partners”
regarding my data and the potential impact on data interpretation including researcher
identity, power differentials, and positionality? Am I receptive to critical feedback
regarding my interpretations?
28. Have I taken all necessary precautions to respect research participants and the research
site in order to preserve anonymity?
29. Can any harm befall the site/setting and/or research participants at any point, now or in
the future, as a result of my analysis or interpretation?
30. What immediate or future risk might occur by disseminating research material in pub-
lished reports?
As pointed out previously, analysis of data begins to occur before you can present your find-
ings; by coding and sorting, you are in effect analyzing your raw data. Having organized and
prepared mounds of raw data so you could present an accurate and objective account of the
findings of your research (as addressed in Chapter 9), you are now ready to move on to the final
step of the analytic process: to provide an interpretation and synthesis of those findings. Both
in the previous chapter and in this one, we emphasized the distinction between reporting and
presenting findings and interpreting them. These are two distinct processes.
We have covered some difficult ground in this chapter. Qualitative analysis is a complex
task and is therefore not simple to explain. Because the concepts of analysis, interpretation, and
synthesis are difficult to explicitly articulate, thinking about how to compose a chapter describ-
ing these processes is somewhat challenging. Therefore, the suggestions we have made in this
chapter should be viewed more in the nature of guides to possible approaches and combina-
tions of approaches rather than as tight prescriptions. You should also be sure to check with
your advisor regarding specific school or programmatic requirements in this regard.
In the previous chapter, you presented the analysis of your raw data, which were your find-
ings. In this chapter, you presented the analysis, interpretation, and synthesis of your findings.
You moved beyond data to information. In the findings chapter, you stood back and remained
objective, to the extent possible. Your task was to offer an accurate account of the findings. In
the analysis chapter, you moved from the objective to the subjective. Your voice and opinion, in
conjunction with the literature, now take center stage. Findings cannot be taken at face value.
Your aim in writing the analysis chapter is to tell a richly detailed story that takes into account
a specific context that connects participants, processes, activities, and experiences to larger
issues or phenomena. This chapter is essentially a well-thought-out conversation that integrates
your findings with the literature, previous research, and practice.
First, you seek to identify significant themes and patterns of themes. Then you move on
to provide some sense of understanding; that is, you attempt to explain these patterns and
themes—possibly the most creative part of the dissertation. Findings need careful teasing out.
As a researcher, you must ask yourself what you have learned from conducting the research
and studying the findings. What connective threads are there among the experiences of your
study’s participants? How do you understand and explain these connections? What new
insights and understanding do you have as a result of conducting your study? What surprises
have there been? What confirmation of previous instincts and hunches has there been? Are
your findings consistent with the literature? Have they perhaps gone beyond the literature? If
so, how and in what ways? The answers to these questions add another dimension of under-
standing to your findings.
Bear in mind that analytical approaches are linked to particular forms of data collection
and are underpinned by specific conceptual and philosophical traditions. And just as method-
ological congruence implies that there are clear analytic distinctions among qualitative tradi-
tions or genres, demanding that the researcher think about data analysis in a particular way, so
are interpretation and representation strategies specific to each tradition. As such, each tradi-
tion provides a perspective on reality that is specific to that tradition, and so the way you go
about developing themes and presenting interpretations is aligned with your chosen qualitative
genre or tradition.
Providing careful step-by-step documentation of your analysis offers other researchers
access to your procedures, thereby addressing the trustworthiness of your study. In this way,
your study can become a model for other studies—a contribution to the research community
and an implicit affirmation of the value of your work. Readers of dissertations also are drawn to
visual representations of information, which typically compare and contrast key findings of the
study. Displaying data visually makes things clear and also can facilitate your seeing findings in
new and striking ways.
The central requirement in qualitative analysis and interpretation is clear and logical think-
ing. You need to examine your findings critically so as to produce credible and meaningful
interpretations. Interpretation of qualitative data precludes reducing the task to any single
defined formula or fixed blueprint. Moreover, we must appreciate that, in dealing with inter-
pretation, we are unavoidably dealing with human subjectivity, and, as such, there are differ-
ences in the ways we make meaning. Be sure to acknowledge that there are multiple ways of
interpreting findings, that you have sought rival explanations, and that your interpretations
are but one perspective. The human as instrument in qualitative inquiry is both its greatest
strength and its greatest weakness. Nowhere does this ring more true than in analysis and
interpretation.

Introduction ✓ Do you have an introductory paragraph that includes a purpose
statement (if required) as well as a brief explanation of how you went
about analyzing and synthesizing the findings?
Presentation of ✓ Does your argument flow logically and coherently?

Analysis
✓ Do you make one point at a time?
✓ Are your interpretations clear, thoughtful, and reasonable?
✓ Are your interpretations relevant to the research problem, purpose, and

research questions?
✓ Are the major themes interrelated to establish patterns that illuminate a

higher level of analysis and abstraction?
✓ Is your analysis positioned and discussed in terms of the related bodies of

literature and previous research?
✓ Have you included relevant participant quotations to support your

argument?
✓ Have you made appropriate use of tables and other displays to augment
and support the discussion?
✓ Have you made sure that all information presented in tables is consistent
with information that is presented in the narrative?
✓ Have you acknowledged that there are multiple ways of interpreting

findings and that you remain open to other interpretive possibilities?
✓ If you have chosen to revisit and reflect upon your initial assumptions
as stated in your opening chapter, do you sufficiently expand on these
assumptions in terms of your study’s findings?
Summary ✓ Do you offer a comprehensive and overview summary that integrates all
key points?
(Continued)

Addressing Alignment ✓ Is the presentation of your findings aligned with your study’s research
design (qualitative tradition or genre)?
Synthesis and ✓ Have you eliminated any needless repetition?

Integration
✓ Have you checked for insufficient detail and areas that are “unfinished”?
✓ Have you checked throughout your discussion for unclear/ambiguous

language?
✓ Have you kept track of and reported on alternative classification systems,

patterns/themes, and explanations that you have considered during your
analysis?
✓ Have you engaged in discussion with critical colleagues throughout the

analysis process to hear and acknowledge different perspectives and
points of view and to be open to a variety of possible interpretations?

Academic Writing” in Chapter 2 of this book.
Following are some recommended resources that you might consider perusing regarding the
qualitative data analysis process and the reporting of your study’s findings.
approaches, (4th ed.). SAGE.
Using the metaphor of architecture, the authors center the discussion on four rhetorical issues
inherent in the rendering of a rigorous qualitative study, regardless of research approach:
reflexivity and representation (the importance of being ethically and politically self-aware and
self-disclosing), audience (whom are we writing for, and are there potentially multiple audi-
ences?), encoding our writing (the importance of the use of language in encoding the narrative),
and using quotations (whereby we bring in, or perhaps distort or even exclude, the voices of
participants). The focus throughout is on ethical considerations and reflexivity.
Eisner, E. W. (1997). The promise and peril of alternative forms of data representation. Educational
Researcher, 26(6), 4–10.
As educational researchers become increasingly interested in the relationship between form
of representation and form of understanding, new representational forms are being used to
convey to readers what has been learned. This article addresses the potential strengths and
weaknesses of alternative forms of data representation.
Garman, N. B., & Piantanida, M. (Eds.). (2018). The authority to imagine: The struggle toward repre-
sentation in dissertation writing, Learning Moments Press.
This text provides insights into the process of crafting interpretive methods of dissertation
inquiry and addresses the challenge of authentically and ethically representing research par-
ticipants. Included in the discussion are relevant theoretical principles and examples from
interpretive dissertations.
Grbich, C. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: An introduction, (2nd ed.). SAGE.

This is a practical guide to qualitative data analysis and its application with regard to the wide
range of different qualitative traditions, including ethnography (autoethnography, ethnodrama,
and cyberethnography); grounded theory; phenomenology (existential and hermeneutic);
content, narrative, conversation, and discourse analysis; visual interpretation; and semiotic
structural and poststructural analyses. The book addresses how to theorize from data, how to
incorporate data from multiple sources to develop a more abstract explanation of findings, and
explores techniques for innovative data presentation, including visual displays, vignettes, and
anecdotes.
Lahman, M. K. E. (2022). Writing and representing qualitative research, SAGE.
This text provides a compelling overview of some innovative representational modes of
qualitative research. The author encourages moving beyond traditional forms of writing and
considering how qualitative research can be represented more esthetically as poems, auto-
ethnographies, and visually. There is an invitation to emerging researchers, calling for the cre-
ation of rigorous research and also to dream new practices into being.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods, (4th ed.). SAGE.
The author addresses analysis, interpretation, and reporting of the findings, explaining the
challenges and complexities involved. Especially useful are the sections dealing with thick
description, case study analyses, theory-based analysis, and interpretation of findings.
Included is an overview of some of the current debates about establishing the trustworthiness
of qualitative analysis.
cal, and methodological, (2nd ed.). SAGE.
The focus is on the many aspects to consider when formally writing up qualitative research,
including how to make informed decisions about the goals, audience(s), purposes, and focus
of the study; the format and structure of final reports, incorporating and representing data;
voice, language, and participant portrayal. Throughout the book, these authors underscore the
power inherent in qualitative research and the need for respectful, authentic, and ethical rep-
resentations of research sites, individuals, and groups.
• Appendix W: Sample Interpretation Outline Tool

• Appendix X: Sample Analytic Category Development Tool
DRAWING TRUSTWORTHY
11 CONCLUSIONS AND
PRESENTING ACTIONABLE
RECOMMENDATIONS
• Learn ways to close out the dissertation by providing a completed picture of the
study, as well as a “path forward” based on the study’s findings.
• Demonstrate how to think about and develop sound conclusions.
• Demonstrate how to think about and develop actionable recommendations.
• Emphasize and reiterate the significance of alignment among the study’s findings,
interpretations, conclusions, and recommendations.
• Offer ideas for a final researcher reflection statement.
OVERVIEW
It is certainly understandable that you are exhausted at this point. But you are almost at the end
of the process, so keep up the energy for just a short while longer! There is cause for celebration!
You are now writing your closing paragraphs! This final chapter of your dissertation is much
more than just a cursory summary of findings. It is your chance to have the last word about your
study, and it should help the reader decide what to make of your work. It also should stimulate
your readers to think more deeply about the findings of your study and the implications thereof.
Please note that some institutions require that the chapter presenting conclusions and recom-
mendations stand alone. In other institutions, conclusions and recommendations are incorpo-
rated into the analysis chapter. As has been emphasized throughout this book, in the interests of
conforming to structural requirements, you are advised to check with your own program and/
or institution.
The culmination of the dissertation should be reflective of the whole and push forward the
outcome of the research one final time. As such, the chapter should include an introduction
paragraph that reminds readers what has occurred during the dissertation research by briefly
reviewing the research problem, restating the research purpose and questions, and highlighting
409
how data were collected. Following that, a brief review of the major findings is provided. While
all of this may seem redundant, recall that readers may only read this chapter in an effort to get
to the specific implications of the study. Moreover, committee members may reread this chapter
as a review prior to the defense.
As you were writing up your findings, you may have started to think about various interpre-
tations and draw tentative conclusions. Remember that interpretation and conclusions in quali-
tative data analysis are always open to revision. In essence, you are building an argument based
on your data and attempting to develop explanations that fit the data—a process of inductive
reasoning. This process is unlike quantitative analysis, where you collect data to test a hypoth-
esis, or deductive reasoning. Let us hearken back for a moment to the beginning of Part II of
this book, which presented Table II.1, Overview of dissertation Content. The simple but useful
matrix in the bottom right corner of Table II.1, reproduced as Table 11.1, If/Then/Therefore/
Thus Matrix, explains the essence of how to think about the conclusions that you will draw
from your findings as well as the actionable recommendations you will be able to make based on
those conclusions.
TABLE 11.1 ■ If/Then/Therefore/Thus Matrix
Findings Through Recommendations:
Findings Interpretations Conclusions Recommendations
“If I find this …” “Then I think this “Therefore I conclude “Thus I recommend that …”
means …” that …”
PRESENTING TRUSTWORTHY CONCLUSIONS
Thinking About Your Conclusions

The Interpretation Outline Tool, presented in the previous chapter (Figure 10.1), was helpful in
stimulating critical thinking and reflection about all the potential deeper meanings behind your
findings. Findings should not be taken at face value, so you probed and dug deeper beneath the
surface of your findings by asking over and again, “Why?” and “Why not?” As such, you were
able to brainstorm a number of possible interpretations that explained your findings, that is, you
developed some ideas of what you thought the findings really meant.
In thinking about how you were going to interpret your findings, you were in effect saying
to yourself, “If I find this … then I think this means …” In generating conclusions, you need to
go back to your findings and interpretations once again and say to yourself, “I found … and I
think this means …”
At this point you are beginning to solidify what your study’s findings mean for others
in the field. Your findings may complement existing studies or present new ideas about the
research problem. What may need to be addressed or changed about how things are being
done? Remember, conclusions stem from and flow directly from your findings. In effect, the
Chapter 11 • Drawing Trustworthy Conclusions and Presenting Actionable Recommendations 411
conclusions are assertions based on your findings and must therefore be warranted by the find-
ings. With respect to each finding, you are asking yourself, “Knowing what I now know, what
conclusion can I draw?” Although your conclusions will be backed up by your findings, do not
confuse conclusions with findings. Conclusions are not a restatement of your research findings;
they represent a higher level of abstraction. Drawing sound and trustworthy conclusions from
your findings pushes you to consider broader and deeper issues and make new connections
among ideas. In effect, by doing this, you are expanding or elaborating on the significance of
your findings.
Conclusions flow directly from your study's findings and must therefore be warranted by
the findings themselves. The conclusions are not just a restatement of the findings but repre-
sent a higher level of abstraction. Just as your conclusions are not the same as findings, neither
are conclusions the same as interpretations. Rather, conclusions are essentially conclusive state-
ments of what you now know, having done this research, that you did not know before. As in the
case of providing interpretations, writing conclusions draws on your ability to be a critical and,
at the same time, creative thinker. In writing up the conclusions, you are in effect evaluating,
analyzing, and synthesizing information.
Remember that your study's research questions, right from the beginning, form the back-
bone of your research. Remember, too, that the findings of your research must provide answers
to these questions. To check your thinking and ensure consistency among the research ques-
tions and all that follows from them, it is recommended that you develop a matrix—what I
refer to as a “consistency chart,” presented as Table 11.2, Consistency of Findings, Interpretations,
Conclusions. This chart tracks the findings through the interpretations to conclusions, making
certain that these components are all aligned. For an idea of what a completed version may look
like, refer to Appendix Y, Sample Consistency Chart of Findings, Interpretations and Conclusions.
Note that each finding relates to its same numbered research question so the research question
is not repeated in the table.
TABLE 11.2 ■ Consistency of Findings, Interpretations, and Conclusions
Findings Interpretations Conclusions
Finding List all possible interpretations in Identify conclusions you draw from your
Statement 1: summary form first finding
Statement 2: summary form second finding
Statement 3: summary form third finding
Statement 4: summary form fourth finding
Statement 5: summary form fifth finding
Source: (Continue in the same manner with all of your findings.)

It is important to bear in mind when thinking about and formulating each of your conclu-
sions that they must be logically tied to one another. That is, there should be some sort of consis-
tency among your conclusions; none of them should be at odds with any of the others. This type
of consistency among your conclusions goes without saying. If your study's research questions
are tied together or interconnected, as they necessarily should be, and because your findings
are the answers to the research questions, then your findings statements also will be intercon-
nected. Hence, your conclusions should logically and meaningfully “fit” with each other and
not contradict each other. Your findings, in effect, tell the initial “story of the research.” Your
interpretations then add another dimension, bringing the story to a deeper level of understand-
ing. Your conclusions become the beginning of a new story. By way of the conclusions, the story
of your research is wrapped up, bringing it to its logical finale.
Writing Your Conclusions

As a general rule of thumb, you should provide at least one conclusion for each finding. However,
the process is not altogether linear. As such, one conclusion can (but does not always) cut across
more than one finding. Each conclusion should be clearly and crisply stated in a few sentences.
Following this notion, you need to expand on and amplify your main idea in a paragraph or two.
The logic of the argument provides support for your conclusion and enhances its trustworthiness.
Because your conclusions must be concise, the discussion should be relevant, organized, and tight.
Avoid repetition and ambiguity. Be sure that what you want to say comes across just as you intend.
PRESENTING ACTIONABLE RECOMMENDATIONS
Thinking About Your Recommendations

Recommendations follow your findings and conclusions. In thinking about conclusions, you
said to yourself, “I found … therefore I know the following to be true …” Recommendations are
the application of those conclusions. In other words, you are now saying to yourself, “Knowing
what I now know to be true, I recommend that …” Therefore, recommendations are the final
stage of a logical thought process. In your recommendations, your research findings now have
a springboard for action. Based on your findings and the implications of those findings, what
specific things can be done to potentially improve policy or practice? What actions can be taken
to make things better? What remains to be studied further or in greater depth? Answering these
questions become the basis for developing recommendations. Your recommendations for others
in the field will provide ways to apply the results of your work. Based on your study’s findings
and implications, the recommendations that you put forth provide examples of practical actions
as well as suggestions for additional research to add to the understanding of the problem you
explored. As a scholar, these are your contributions to your professional field.
In Chapter 1 of your dissertation, your introductory chapter, you discussed the significance
of your study. In that discussion, you mentioned who would be likely to benefit from your study,
what they would learn from it, and what they would gain from this knowledge. That section
in Chapter 1 now becomes the basis for thinking about your recommendations. Be aware that
recommendations must move away from the theoretical to the actionable and doable. In other
words, what are the actions that you would recommend and for whom?
The reasonableness of a recommendation depends on it (a) being logically and clearly
derived from the findings, (b) being both content- and context-specific, and most important, (c)
being practical; that is, it is capable of implementation. Whereas your interpretations and con-
clusions are speculative, and may be the subject of dispute, your recommendations, although a
set of opinions, should be firmly grounded in the findings and must be doable.
Recommendations have implications for policy and practice, as well as for further research.
Based solidly on your findings, think of all the possible ways that people could and should now
do things differently. As a result of your findings, how might practice change? How might
policy change or be improved upon? As a result of your findings, what new ideas can now be
explored and researched further? How might your study be improved on, and how might future
studies in other contexts expand on your study and contribute to the field? In offering practical
recommendations, you can and should make recommendations for your own program or orga-
nization, as well as for others that are similar.
During the study, ideas for building on your research will naturally have occurred to you;
in this section, put forward one or two of these ideas. That said, this is not intended to be an
extensive laundry list of every idea that occurred to you. It is also not intended to be a place to
undermine qualitative methodology, and avoid merely recommending that these issues should
now be studied quantitatively. Choose the ideas that make the best sense to address those areas
of the study that may not have been adequately addressed, or highlight new questions that you
see emerging from your research. With regard to research recommendations, you might think
about implications of your study's limitations and include the appropriate suggestions for fur-
ther research. In this regard, ask yourself, “In light of what I have learned, what more can be
done? What can be done differently now?” Here you might suggest studies designed to replicate
your study in other contexts or settings. You might also suggest next-step studies designed to
investigate another dimension of your study's research problem.
Writing Your Recommendations

Your findings will have implications for both professional practice and further research. You make
recommendations based on your own experiences in conducting the research, as well as in any
other professional capacity. In writing up your recommendations, it is important that you describe
exactly how you envisage each recommendation being implemented. Be specific about identifying
who will be responsible for implementation and who will monitor the ongoing implementation.
In offering recommendations, you are free to make a range of suggestions for the usefulness
of the findings. Although the liberty to make suggestions is appealing, you should restrict your
suggestions to only those that you think will make an important impact and that, to the best of
your knowledge, are doable and actionable. Remember that fewer, stronger, and more-focused
recommendations will make more of an impact than a long list. Figure 11.1, Moving From
Findings to Action, is an illustration how you have moved from analysis of findings, to explore
the implications of those findings, to your interpretation of what the findings really “mean,” and
then toward achieving action through conclusions and recommendations.
FIGURE 11.1 ■ Moving From Findings to Action
Deriving Findings From Data
Analysis of data Coding; Themes; Patterns
Interpreting the Findings
What deeper meaning does the AND How do the findings align with
researcher attach to the findings? literature and previous research?
Moving to Action: Implications
Conclusions: Recommendations:
What do the findings suggest? Practice, Policy, Future Research
Drawing sound and trustworthy conclusions from your findings pushes you to consider
broader issues and make new connections among ideas. By doing this you are, in effect, expand-
ing on the significance of your findings. Recommendations follow the findings and conclu-
sions, and are essentially the application of your proposed conclusions. The recommendations
are the final stage of a logical thought process, providing your research findings a springboard
for action. In effect, your recommendations could create real change in the lives of others!
Developing conclusions and recommendations should be a thoughtful and critically reflective
process, and as with other decisions made along the research journey, requires reflexivity and
insight with regard to your position and positionality as the researcher. Right now is also a good
time to revisit Table 5.2 Actualizing Alignment Flowchart. Use this flowchart as a roadmap and
“cheat sheet” to ensure that you have actually achieved and actualized alignment at each step of
the way indicating that your final product—your completed dissertation—is, in all aspects,
methodologically congruent.
THE QUALITATIVE RESEARCHER’S FINAL REFLECTIONS
Robert E. Stake (1995) writes,

Qualitative case study is highly personal research. Persons studied are studied in depth.
Researchers are encouraged to include their own personal perspectives in the interpreta-
tion… . The quality and utility of the research is not based on its reproducibility, but on
whether or not the meanings generated, by the researcher or the reader, are valued. Thus
a personal valuing of the work is expected. (p. 135)
Having come to the close of your study, you might be asking yourself, “How do I person-
ally value my work? How do I personally value the research experience?” In this final section
of the final chapter of your dissertation, you have an opportunity (but are not always required)
to offer your own thoughts on the experience of conducting the research and writing the dis-
sertation, including issues pertaining to positionality and lessons learned in the field. Here you
can describe how you came to your research. You also can reflect on the research experience
and what it means to you. What are the lessons learned from conducting the study? What were
some of the challenges that you experienced? What did you learn about qualitative research that
you did know when embarking on the study? What insights and inspirations have you derived
from conducting your study? What value might the study bring to your profession and/or your
community? Think about your role as a researcher and what new learning—both personal and
professional—you have had as a result of the qualitative research experience. What might you
do differently in the future? While this is not always required, as a qualitative researcher a final
reflection at the close of the dissertation is often greatly welcomed and appreciated.
The reflexive questions that follow can serve as prompts for journaling throughout the disserta-
tion process, and in your dissertation chapter in which you present your final conclusions and
recommendations.
REFLEXIVE QUESTIONS
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions
1. In what ways and to what extent are my conclusions grounded in my study's findings?
2. In what ways and to what extent are my conclusions grounded in my interpretation of the
data?
3. Is my hope that the research will address or solve a social or cultural issue? Is this issue
of local, national, or international interest? How, and in what ways?
4. Is my goal to contribute to theory? If so, which one(s), and in what way(s)?
Recommendations
1. Is the goal of my recommendations to contribute to the improvement of professional

practice, and/or impact policy, and/or enhance community awareness? Is it some combi-
nation of these?
2. Are my recommendations for further research of practical and/or theoretical significance?
3. What insights, knowledge, or information informs my recommendations?
4. What personal and/or professional agenda am I trying to address or resolve with each of
my recommendations?
5. Is this agenda warranted? Why?
The process of generating solid conclusions and actionable recommendations takes time and
should be carefully thought out. In planning how to articulate and present your conclusions
and recommendations, you should be sure to discuss provisional ideas with advisors and crit-
ical colleagues. Also be sure to complete your own consistency chart because this will help
you focus and maintain the necessary alignment between your research questions—the core
of your research—and the key elements that follow: findings, interpretations, conclusions,
and recommendations. As with other components of the dissertation, you will need to check
with your advisor and/or department about the content and presentation of your study's final
chapter.

Conclusions ✓ Are your conclusions clearly derived from your study's findings?
In other words, is it clear to the reader that your conclusions are
warranted by the findings?
✓ Do you offer at least one conclusion per finding? In other words, even
though conclusions can cut across findings, is each finding tied to at
least one conclusion?
✓ Are all your conclusions logically and clearly explained?
✓ Are you sure that your conclusions are not mere restatements of the
findings?
✓ Are you sure that your conclusions are not “interpretations” but rather
strong conclusive statements?
✓ Are your conclusions consistent? Do they flow logically and

meaningfully from each other and not contradict each other?
✓ Can your conclusions be challenged? If so, play devil's advocate. Can

you think of any flaws or limitations in the way in which you have stated
and explained each conclusion?
Recommendations ✓ Are all of your recommendations justified by the findings?
✓ Are all of your recommendations doable and actionable, or are they

theoretical and esoteric?
✓ Have you discussed applications for practice?
✓ Have you discussed applications for policy?
✓ Have you offered suggestions for further research?
✓ Have you selected strong recommendations for each of the above

sections?
Addressing Alignment ✓ Are your study's findings aligned with your interpretations and
conclusions?
✓ Are your conclusions aligned with your recommendations?


Synthesis, Integration, and ✓ If this is your dissertation's final chapter, have you included a brief but
Closure informative introduction?
✓ If you have included a final reflective piece, does this make a statement
regarding your role as a qualitative researcher and/or your experience
in writing the dissertation?
✓ If you step back and review your chapter, do you think that it offers the
reader a completed picture of your research?
✓ Will your readers be likely to walk away with a good understanding of

the study and with a general feeling of finality and closure?

Academic Writing” in Chapter 2 of this book.
The appendix that is associated with this chapter includes:
• Appendix Y: Sample Consistency Chart of Findings, Interpretations, and Conclusions

III
PART
NEARING
COMPLETION
Chapter 12 Some Final Technical Considerations

Chapter 13 Defense Preparation and Beyond
F inally, you have reached the “almost completion” stage of the dissertation process. We
know how much time and effort you have invested up until now, and for this, you certainly
deserve to give yourself much credit. Indeed, take a moment to reflect on the many varied
activities you have engaged in to reach this point. This work has been no small accomplish-
ment. Part III of this book addresses preparation with regard to the final stages of the dis-
sertation process. Chapter 12 offers guidelines and suggestions regarding alignment of all key
elements that constitute your study, selecting an appropriate title, writing the abstract, assem-
bling your manuscript and making sure that all the necessary components of the dissertation’s
style and format are addressed, and proofreading and editing the manuscript. The chapter
also includes a comprehensive (and extensive!) quality assessment checklist for the entire dis-
sertation, covering all key aspects that require attention. The book’s final chapter, Chapter 13,
addresses preparation for a successful defense and thinking about potential avenues for dis-
semination (publishing and presenting) of your research.
419
12 SOME FINAL TECHNICAL
CONSIDERATIONS
• Provide an overview of the concept of alignment with regard to an entire

dissertation.
• Provide instruction and guidelines with regard to crafting an appropriate
dissertation title.
• Provide instruction and guidelines with regard to devising a dissertation abstract.
• Offer guidelines for proofreading, editing, and comprehensive manuscript assembly.
• Assess or evaluate the quality of a complete dissertation, including writing
mechanics, content, structure, and research ethics.
OVERVIEW
As you near the end of a very long and intensive process, there are a few key elements that still
need to be tackled and addressed. This chapter provides an overview of some practical and tech-
nical tasks to accomplish at this almost-final stage. First, it is imperative that you make certain
that all the elements that constitute your entire document are aligned (a) with your research
questions and (b) with one another. In this regard, you should refer back to Chapter 5 of this
book, which outlines all the necessary components that require alignment. Next, you need to
craft an appropriate and relevant title that captures the essence of your study and that conveys
this in clear and concise terms. You will also need to formulate a tight abstract. In addition, you
will need to proofread once again, and assemble your entire document. Finally!
421
P art III • Nearing Completion
422
REVISITING THE IMPORTANCE OF ALIGNMENT
Part I of this book started out by indicating the elements that would need to be included in a
completed dissertation. Table II.1, Overview of Dissertation Content, provides a visual outline
of an entire dissertation—a prelude to the multiple processes that are described in Chapters 6
through 11. In addition, Figure 6.2, Road Map for Developing the Dissertation’s Foundational
Elements, illustrates the importance of alignment among the first three core critical elements:
problem, purpose, and research questions.
At this juncture, as you reach the final stages of preparing to present your dissertation, it is
crucial that you once again make certain that all the necessary elements that constitute a dis-
sertation are aligned with one another. In this regard, it is important to revisit the chapters of
your dissertation, as if in detective mode, carefully and meticulously checking that the neces-
sary elements are all meaningfully tied together. Check specifically that each element (a) flows
sequentially from the elements prior to it and (b) leads logically to the elements that succeed it.
In particular, make sure of the following:
• Problem statement defines the subject of inquiry

• Specific research problem is situated within a broader context
• Purpose addresses the research problem
• Research questions together shed light on purpose
• Theoretical or conceptual framework is based on the research questions and is situated
within the literature
• Theoretical or conceptual framework is the repository for the findings, serving as an
“analytic framework.”
• Findings, which are objective, are the basis for interpretations, which are subjective
• Findings and interpretations together are the basis for drawing trustworthy
conclusions
• Conclusions are the springboard for actionable/doable recommendations
Ensuring that you have achieved all of these steps means that your study is tight and you
have taken an important step in ensuring methodological integrity. This process is extremely
important for the defense when, among other things, the methodological integrity of your
research is finely scrutinized. Table 12.1, Alignment Flowchart, is, in effect, the final “disserta-
tion picture,” illustrating clearly the alignment that is required among all of the qualitative dis-
sertation's key elements.
TABLE 12.1 ■ Alignment Flowchart
Chapter 4: Chapter 5: Analysis

Chapter 3: Presentation and Interpretation
Chapter 1: Chapter 2: Literature Research of Findings of Findings Chapter 6: Conclusions and
Introduction Review Methodology (OBJECTIVE) (SUBJECTIVE) Recommendations
• Research • Each body of literature • Check that • Findings are • Interpretation is • Each conclusion that is drawn should
problem that is reviewed must be all data answers to about what you be tied to respective findings and
must be tied to and address some collection the research think the findings interpretations
situated aspect of the problem and data questions really mean
• There should be at least one
within a analysis
• Conceptual framework: • Each finding • Final synthesis conclusion per finding
broader methods
Categories emanate must be tied includes findings
context have actually • Conclusions are the springboard for
from research questions; to a research from all data
been done in actionable recommendations
• Purpose descriptors/subcategories question collection
the way that Typically, there are
statement emanate from “hunches” as methods, •
you have • Findings
recommendations for (a) the
Chapter 12
must be well as from the literature integrated with the

described are basis for
•
formulated literature organization or institution, (b) people

• Conceptual framework interpretation
in such a • Be sure to in the particular discipline under
becomes the repository for
way that it eliminate study, and (c) for further research
findings
will shed any
light on the • Based on the findings and unnecessary
problem interpretations, make sure material
that all areas of literature
• Research
reviewed are relevant and
questions
appropriate. Eliminate
must
unnecessary sections, and
address the
add in what might still be
purpose
needed
• “If I find • “Then I think this • “Therefore I • “Thus I

Some Final Technical Considerations
this …” means …” conclude that …” recommend

that …”
423
424
CRAFTING A TITLE
The title of your dissertation should catch the readers’ attention while properly informing them
of the main focus of your study. From the beginning of your research, and certainly from the
initial proposal stage, you will have had some kind of guiding working title. You have most
likely revised and re-revised the title as you proceeded, and as new ideas came to mind. Now, at
the end of the study, you hone that title so that it is crystal clear, meaningful, and appropriately
worded. Most important, it should accurately reflect your work.
A title serves various functions. The first function is to identify the content of your study.
The title is the first contact that your readers have with your research. It generates some antici-
pation of what is to follow and, as such, must communicate a concise, thorough, and unambigu-
ous picture of the content of your dissertation. The second function of a title is for retrieval
purposes. By including the most applicable keywords, you enable another researcher doing a
literature search to locate your study. Therefore, a title becomes an important factor in sharing
research. Your goal is to maximize search-ability and engage your readers from the very begin-
ning. Your title is the first thing anyone who reads your dissertation is going to see, and for
many it will be where they stop reading. Learn how to write a title that helps readers find your
dissertation, draws your audience in, and sets the stage for your research!
In a very brief space, your dissertation title should include a number of key components,
with each component telling the reader something about your research. Whilst there are a wide
range of components that can be used in a dissertation title, you will need to choose only those
that are most appropriate for your research, that is, those components that capture the essence
of your research. A well-crafted title conveys the essence of what is under study and the mode of
inquiry. In composing a title, be sure to include the central phenomenon of your study, as well as
the research approach you have used. The title should describe as accurately as possible the main
elements of your study. Although such accuracy demands the use of specific language, the title
should be clear (i.e., free of obscure technical terms, highly specialized language, acronyms, and
jargon). Mechanically, the title should be concise, to the point, and free of elaborate construc-
tions, alliteration, and other literary devices that detract from the content of the title. Excessive
length should be avoided, too, because that dilutes the impact of the key elements presented.
Generally, a two-part title structure offers you the scope to specify the key elements of your
report: a few words capturing the essence of your study, followed by a colon that introduces a
more specific and descriptive subtitle. One way to begin constructing an effective title is to list
all the elements that seem appropriate for inclusion and then weave them in various ways until
you are satisfied that the wording of the title makes sense and clearly depicts the thrust of the
study. As you do this, make a list of all possible two-part titles. Reverse the order. See which
works best. Try to obtain feedback from advisors and critical colleagues, and revise accordingly.
In qualitative research, the title provides the researcher with a conceptual frame of reference
for continuous reflection. As you immerse yourself in the context of your study, you become
increasingly attuned to the key issues of your research—issues you may have been unaware of
before starting your research. This process may lead you to shift the focus of your study and,
Chapter 12 • Some Final Technical Considerations 425
as a result, to change the title to more accurately reflect the new focus. It is a good idea to keep
notes of how your title evolves, and we suggest that you keep all ideas of titles as memos. If sys-
tematically monitored, your changing title can become a means to track the evolution of your
perspective as a researcher, as well as the ways in which the focus and direction of your study
have shifted over time.
WRITING THE ABSTRACT
You are required to write an abstract—a carefully worded comprehensive summary that pre-
cedes the main body of the dissertation and that informs readers what to expect. The small but
mighty abstract condenses a longer piece of writing while highlighting its major points, con-
cisely describing the content in a very abbreviated form, and includes only the major elements
of the research. The power of the abstract lies in its focused and targeted information. Writing
a good abstract requires that you explain what you did and found in simple and direct language
so readers can decide whether or not to read the longer piece of writing for details. Although it
is the first section of your dissertation, the abstract, by definition, should be written last since it
will summarize the contents of your entire study.
The abstract is the only place where you will be writing in the third person—using terms
like “the author” and “the researcher” instead of “I.” Because the research has already been
conducted, the abstract is generally written in the past tense. An exception—the ethnographic
present—is deliberately chosen to place the reader in the middle of the action that occurred
during the study because in this context, present tense causes these types of written scenes
to be more realistically experienced and life-like. The abstract is typically no more than 250
words. Make sure to embed keywords; words, phrases, or acronyms that describe the most
important aspects of your study. These words are used for indexing in databases and assist
readers find your work during a search. You are writing for a broad academic audience, so it
is important to avoid jargon (overly technical language) and colloquialisms (casual, everyday
language). Write in complete sentences, and do not use citations. Students should consult
their instructor or institution to determine whether to also include a list of keywords. The
function of listing your keywords is to further assist other researchers in locating your work
within multiple databases.
The abstract allows readers to review the contents of a study and, like a title, is used by
abstracting and information services to index and retrieve articles. The information included
in your abstract influences whether readers proceed to look at your total study. In addition,
your abstract is the means through which other researchers, searching for studies on your topic,
will be able to evaluate whether your study is useful to them. Therefore, the abstract offers a
valuable opportunity for your study to inform a wide audience. It is the means with which to
capture potential readers’ interests, thereby expanding your professional opportunities within
the research community. As in the case of the title, focusing on the most significant elements
and using precise wording are key. It is important that you consult with your advisor, and the
426
relevant style manual regarding abstract requirements. This is a useful reference: https://apa-
style.apa.org/instructional-aids/abstract-keywords-guide.pdf
The content of an abstract typically includes the following elements:
• Title of your study

• Research problem
• Qualitative research design (tradition or genre)
• Theoretical or conceptual framework that guided the study
• Data sources that informed your study, including sample and sampling method
• Methods and procedures of data collection and data analysis
• Key findings, conclusions, and recommendations (thereby indicating the implications
and significance of the study and its potential applications)
A well-prepared abstract is indeed essential. Most people will have their first contact with a
dissertation by accessing the abstract as they are conducting a literature search through an elec-
tronic abstract-retrieval system. Readers frequently decide on the basis of the abstract whether
to read the entire study. Once published on ProQuest, the abstract is indexed in PubMed,
Google Scholar, Dissertation Abstracts International, as well as library systems and other popu-
lar databases. Like the title, your abstract influences keyword search results. Readers will use
it to decide whether to read the rest of your dissertation. Other researchers will use it to evalu-
ate your work for inclusion in their own studies. It should be a concise stand-alone piece that
accurately represents your research. While typically dense with information, the abstract must
also be readable, logically organized, and focused. Embedding keywords in your abstract will
enhance the user's ability to find it in various databases. The characteristics of a high-quality
abstract include the following:
• Accurate: Do not include information that does not appear in the dissertation, or
any details that are not directly or specifically relevant. Comparing the abstract with
an outline of your dissertation’s headings is a useful way to verify accuracy. Include
important and relevant keywords for indexing purposes.
• Concise and specific: Each sentence should be maximally informative, especially
the lead sentence. Begin with the most important information (but do not waste
space by repeating the title). Include only the most important concepts, findings, or
implications, and omit any lengthy background information or references to other
literature.
• Non-evaluative: Report objectively on the study rather than evaluate your study. Do
not add to or comment on what is not already in the body of the manuscript.
• Coherent and readable: Write in clear and deliberate language. Make use of concise
but complete sentences. Use active rather than passive voice. Use present tense to
describe the study’s findings. Use past tense to describe specific outcomes.
Writing Tips
• An abstract always begins on a new page, and placement is usually on the second page
of the dissertation. On the first line of the abstract page, center the word “Abstract” (no
bold, formatting, italics, underlining, or quotation marks).
• Beginning with the next line, present the key points of your research. Do not indent.
The text is written as a single paragraph that is double-spaced, with one-inch margins
on all sides.
• Ways to conserve characters include (a) using numerals for all numbers, except those
that begin a sentence (consider recasting a sentence that begins with a number); (b)
abbreviating liberally (e.g., use vs. for versus), although all abbreviations that need to be
explained in the text must also be explained on first use in the abstract; and (c) using
the active voice (but without the personal pronouns I or we).
• Do not include any citations, abbreviations, or acronyms except those noted as
exceptions by the American Psychological Association (APA). Be aware that in APA
style, “United States” should always be spelled out when it is used as a noun or location.
Example: In the United States, 67% reported this experience. United States can be
abbreviated as “U.S.” when it is used as an adjective. Examples: U.S. population and
U.S. Census Bureau.
• Within the specified word limit, try to make your research summary as informative
and comprehensive as possible. To achieve a final solid version, go through various
drafts. Usually, you will start off by writing an extended abstract, and this is followed
by various iterations so that the key elements are expressed as concisely as possible
within the specified word limit.
ASSEMBLING THE MANUSCRIPT
Although format and style is a function of individual taste and institutional and/or departmen-
tal regulations, several general rules can be adopted in design and layout:
1. Pages must be numbered consecutively throughout. Page numbers are usually centered
at the bottom of the page or placed at the top right. Roman numerals (i, ii, iii, iv) are
used for the preliminary pages or front matter (abstract, dedication, acknowledgments,
list of tables and figures, table of contents). Note that the title page is always the first
428
page (i), but it is not numbered. Arabic numbers (1, 2, 3, 4) are used throughout the
rest of the manuscript. Always check with your institution about page numbering
requirements.
2. The entire document, including page numbers and table captions, must be typed in the
same typeface/font and size. Consistency is key! The most common usage is 12-point
type Times New Roman, but APA 7 now permits other fonts too (11-point Georgia;
11-point Calibri; 11-point Arial; 10-point Lucinda-Sans, and 10-point Computer
Modern2).
3. What is new to APA 7 is that there is no running head.
4. A one-inch margin is required for all sides.
5. The body of the dissertation should be double spaced. Single spacing is permitted in
the following text: (a) footnotes, (b) block quotations, (c) tables and figures and their
captions, and (d) bibliography entries (if single-spaced, you must still have double space
between entries).
6. Do not “justify” (square off) on the right margin. This style is for published articles
only.
7. It is customary to use 1-inch margins all round. In some cases, the margin on the left
side may be required to be 1.5 inches for binding purposes.
8. Check the APA Manual for the correct use of headings to delineate the sections and
sub-sections of your chapters. There is a specific format for each of the five levels of
headings in APA Style.
9. Paragraphs are distinguished by indentation. Make sure there are no skipped lines or
extra spaces between paragraphs.
10. The reference list must include all sources that were directly used in writing your
dissertation. Every source that you have cited should be included in the reference
list, and every entry listed in the reference list must appear in the body of the
manuscript. Because it is critical that the reference list is precise and accurate, we
suggest that you carefully check all your citations. There is an exception: Do not
include personal communication on your references page, for example, emails or
interviews, since they are not recoverable. Instead, cite them in-text. (See APA 7th
ed, p. 6.)
11. References should be in alphabetical order and double-spaced.
12. What is new in APA 7 is that we use “et al.” for three or more authors. There is,
however, an exception to “et al.” rule for 3 or more authors: Include as many authors as
needed to distinguish between sources with the same first author(s).
13. What is new to APA 7 is that we no longer include the place of publication for books.
While you are expected to include hyperlinks (as applicable), we no longer use
“retrieved from” or a retrieval date unless the website content updates often by design
(e.g., social media)
14. Footnotes can be used for explanatory purposes where necessary.
15. Figures and tables must be consecutively numbered throughout. Alternatively, you
may make use of combination chapter and figure and/or table number designations
(e.g., Table 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2). The number and caption of the table is placed
above the table and must appear in the same typeface and size as the dissertation
text. The number and caption of a figure is placed below the figure and must appear
in the same typeface and size as the dissertation text. To avoid your dissertation
becoming too unwieldy, and to ensure that it is as reader-friendly as possible, all
tables that are working tools should be included as appendices rather than in the
main body of the text.
16. Appendixes provide information that is pertinent to the study but is either too
lengthy or not important enough to be included in the main body of the text.
This information includes materials especially developed for the study, such
as cover letters, data collection instruments, tables containing raw data, and
tabulated data analysis. Appendixes are lettered, not numbered (Appendix A,
Appendix B, etc.).
17. The key point to remember when you include an appendix is that the information
is nonessential; that is, if it were removed, the study would still be understandable
to the reader. It is appropriate to include appendixes (a) when the incorporation of
material in the body of the work would make it poorly structured or (b) when the
information is too long and detailed to be easily summarized in the body of the
paper. Ensure inclusion of helpful, supporting, or essential material that would
otherwise clutter or break up the narrative flow of the paper or would be distracting
to the reader.
18. The final element to check is the table of contents, which must be clearly and logically
organized. The function of the table of contents is to guide your readers, allowing
them to follow a long and involved story. It should enable them to find their way easily
around the different parts of your dissertation and quickly pinpoint those sections that
they are most interested in reading. Therefore, it is essential that every heading and
subheading that you use appear in the table of contents. Your style manual will indicate
specified differences regarding the levels of subheadings and how these should be
numbered. The list of tables and figures is presented on a separate page. These lists must
include the number and title of each table and figure and the page on which each one
can be located.
430
PROOFREADING AND EDITING
Getting your dissertation ready for submission refers to both the form and the content of the
document. Although some revisions are required following the defense, what you present at the
defense cannot be incomplete in any way nor should it contain any grammatical and/or typo-
graphical errors. Although you anticipate some changes and alterations following the defense,
you should consider your dissertation a polished final version, not a work in progress.
At this point, go back and review Chapters 1 through 3. Make sure all text elements are
necessary and relevant. Check for items that need to be expanded. Also be aware that the lit-
erature review was an important early task. You now need to reread it and ensure that every-
thing in your review is directly relevant to your study. If not, it needs to be eliminated. Equally
important, if a section of literature review is missing, it needs to be added or updated. Check
throughout your document for correct tenses. In the proposal, you used the future tense because
you were writing about what you were intending to do. In the dissertation, you are reporting
on research that you have already completed, so you should change to past tense. Importantly,
check your references! The references provide the information necessary for a reader to locate
and retrieve every source you cite.
All manuscripts will require editing and proofreading, and especially if English is not your
native language, you might need editing assistance in this regard. If you feel that you need assis-
tance with writing, be sure to contact your advisor or institution for additional resources and
guidance. It should be obvious that the expectations for correctness and accuracy in academic
writing are high. If you feel that you are unable to meet these demands at your current level of
writing proficiency, you may need to seek outside assistance. It is quite acceptable to hire an
editor or a proofreader to help meet academic writing expectations. In addition, most universi-
ties have writing centers with writing classes and/or workshops that offer an array of helpful
writing resources. A word of advice: After you complete your final draft, it is often helpful to set
your manuscript aside for several days. Stepping back in this way creates the distance needed to
change roles from “writer” to “reader,” which is a way to approach and review your work with
fresh eyes.
This book, as you are aware, is based on the idea of useful road maps that have been cre-
ated to support and assist you throughout the dissertation process. Toward that end, multiple
resources have been provided throughout the book, as well as in the appendixes. Appendix Z,
Dissertation Manuscript Cheat Sheet, will allow you to thoroughly check your entire dissertation
now, in terms of both structure and content. In Chapter 1 you were also referred to this resource
to check chapters 1–3 that constitute a dissertation proposal. In rereading, and in the interest
of completing a rigorous and ethical qualitative dissertation, you should be critically evaluating
the writing quality, formatting, and alignment of the contents of your work throughout each of
the chapters of your manuscript, as well as trustworthiness and research ethics. In doing so, the
following checklist (albeit extensive) will be useful:
Quality Assessment Checklist for Your Complete Dissertation:

All Together Now!
FRONT Title Page
MATTER
✓ Does the title convey the essence and purpose of the study?
✓ Does the title indicate the research design and research participants?
✓ Does the title include keywords that will promote proper categorization into
databases?
✓ Is this title free of obscure technical terms, highly specialized language, acronyms,
and jargon?
✓ Does this page include author's full name, degree to be conferred, university, and
year?
✓ Are letters all in all capitals?
Copyright Page (optional)
✓ Are author's name and year centered between the margins on the lower half of
page?
✓ Do you include the copyright symbol (©)?
✓ Do you include the statement “All Rights Reserved”?
Abstract
✓ Is this written in third person (active voice)? One exception is the ethnographic
present, which is deliberately chosen to place the reader in the middle of action that
occurred during the study.
✓ Does the first sentence describe the entire study?
✓ Do subsequent sentences expand on that description?
✓ Do you include all necessary material (i.e., problem, purpose, research design, data
sources, methodology, key findings and implications)?
✓ Does this include all keywords in order to promote proper categorization within
databases?
✓ Do you avoid jargon, colloquialisms, and citations?
✓ Do you write in complete sentences?
✓ Is the format correct as per guidelines in your preferred style manual?
✓ Is the word count accurate (no more than 250 words for APA)?
Dedication and Acknowledgments
✓ Is the heading ACKNOWLEDGMENTS capitalized?
✓ Does the heading appear centered between the left and right margins 2.0 inches
from the top?
✓ Does text begin two spaces after the word ACKNOWLEDGMENTS?
✓ If included, is the dedication page separate from the acknowledgments page?
✓ Is the dedication text centered between the left and right and between the top and
bottom margins?
(Continued)
432

All Together Now! (Continued)
Table of Contents
✓ Is the heading TABLE OF CONTENTS centered between the left and right margins,
2.0 inches from the top of the page?
✓ Are all chapters, major sections within chapters, and all back matter listed with
page numbers?
✓ Are all headings and subheadings grammatically consistent (i.e., “Introduction,”
“Review of Literature” not Introduction, Reviewing the Literature)?
✓ Are the headings and subheadings worded exactly the same as those in the text?
✓ Is the entire table of contents correctly formatted as per guidelines in your preferred
style manual?
List of Tables and Figures
✓ Are all tables and figures that appear in the body of the dissertation included?
✓ Are all tables and figures worded exactly as they appear in the body of the
dissertation?
CHAPTER 1 Introduction
✓ Do you provide an overview of scope and focus of the study, why it is significant, how
it was conducted, and how it will contribute to professional knowledge and practice?
Statement of Problem
✓ Is the background to the problem clearly presented?
✓ Is adequate background information presented for a clear understanding of the

problem?
✓ Is the problem clearly and logically articulated?
✓ Does the discussion move from the general to the specific, as in a "funnel"?
✓ Is the research problem situated within the literature? That is, does literature serve
to place the problem in context?
✓ Do you make clear the relationship of your specific problem to previous research?
✓ Is there an appropriate amount of relevant literature cited?
✓ Is the researcher's perspective and relationship to the problem discussed? If so, are
assumptions and biases made explicit?
✓ Is it made known how this research might contribute to the knowledge base and
professional practice?
✓ Is there a logical segue that leads directly to the purpose statement?
✓ Is your writing clear, focused, and readable?
Purpose Statement
✓ Is the research purpose clearly, succinctly, and unambiguously stated?
✓ Is it clear as to how the research purpose will address the research problem?
✓ Is your purpose relevant to your chosen qualitative research design (tradition or

genre)?

Research Questions
✓ Are the research questions clearly focused?
✓ Are research questions open-ended so that they will foster exploration and
discovery as is typical of qualitative research?
✓ Would answers to your research questions shed light on the research problem?
✓ Are all your research questions interconnected; that is, is there a natural and
meaningful relationship among them?
✓ Is there clear alignment among problem, purpose, and research questions?

Research Design and Methodology
✓ Is the overall research design appropriate and feasible for qualitative inquiry?
✓ Are all your research components that you have presented “in sync” or are you
perhaps missing something?
Role of Researcher
✓ Do you inform the reader what you, as the researcher, brings to the study?
✓ Is researcher positionality declared and adequately addressed?
✓ Do you discuss how researcher experience and/or perspectives are related to the
topic and research problem?
Researcher Assumptions
✓ Are researcher assumptions and biases revealed and clearly explained?

Rationale and Significance
✓ Is there a well-thought-out rationale that provides justification for this study?
✓ Is a convincing argument explicitly or implicitly made for the importance or

significance of this research?
✓ Is it clear how this research will contribute to the knowledge base and/or practice
and/or policy?
Definitions of Key Terms

✓ Does the chapter conclude with definitions and/or explanations of key terminology
that might not have a commonly understood meaning?
✓ If you include definitions, have you properly cited all relevant authoritative sources?
CHAPTER 2 Literature Review

✓ Do you have a clear introduction to this chapter that includes your purpose statement
(if required), as well as an explanation of how the chapter will be organized?
✓ Do you describe the methods used to conduct the review, including all databases and
search engines that were used?
✓ Does your review show a clear understanding and critique of each topic and
sub-topic?
✓ Is the review comprehensive? Does it cover the major issues and thinking around
each topic?
(Continued)
434

✓ Have you included historical as well as current and most up-to-date coverage?
✓ Does the path of your discussion flow logically?
✓ Make certain that you have written with authority: Is the review analytical and critical
and not merely summative and descriptive?
✓ Is the review well organized and systematically presented?
✓ Does the order of headings and subheadings seem logical?
✓ Do you make use of transition phrases to link and integrate paragraphs?
✓ Do you include logical segues between sections?
✓ Do you include summary paragraphs at the end of each major section, as well as an
overall summary at the end of the chapter?
✓ Do summary paragraphs highlight and clarify the main points of a section, especially
if it is complex and long?
✓ Have you included too little paraphrasing and too many direct quotations that detract
from the readability of the chapter?
✓ Are all authors who make the same point combined in a citation?
✓ Are all citations included in the reference list?
✓ Have all citations that you have not included been eliminated from the reference list?
✓ Have you checked your recommended style manual for format, punctuation, and
grammar?
Theoretical or Conceptual Framework

✓ Does your framework depict the overall “territory” of your research?
✓ Does your framework provide theoretical clarification of what you have investigated?
✓ Does your framework illuminate the relationships among theoretical variables,

concepts, or constructs?
✓ Does your framework enable a reader to understand what your research seeks to
achieve and how that will be achieved?
✓ Does your framework provide a strong methodological base for development of the
study and for analysis of the findings?
✓ If you have developed a diagrammatic model, is this clearly, accurately, and

meaningfully presented?
✓ If you have developed a diagrammatic model, is this accompanied by comprehensive

descriptive narrative?
✓ If your framework underwent any developments, do you mention and describe its
evolution?
✓ Does your framework add value to the way you and others understand your research?
✓ Does your framework add value to the way others may potentially expand on your
research?
✓ Does your framework enhance the conceptual or theoretical soundness of your

dissertation?

CHAPTER 3 Introduction
✓ Do you restate your research purpose (if required)?
✓ Do you describe the general organization of the chapter?
Research Sample
✓ Do you provide a comprehensive description of your research sample and the target
population from which it was drawn?
✓ Do you discuss and explain the research site (organization/program/institution)?
✓ Do you discuss in detail your purposeful sampling strategy, citing appropriate

literature?
✓ Are the criteria for sampling selection stated and explained?
✓ Are the details and characteristics pertaining to the sample adequately discussed?
✓ Have you discussed issues of access and consent?
Information Needed
✓ Is the information that was needed to conduct the study clearly and specifically
outlined? (This should include demographic, perceptual, and contextual information.)
✓ Are you clear how and from whom the necessary information was obtained?
✓ Do you provide a logical connection between the type of information needed and the
methods you have selected to obtain that information?
Research Methodology
✓ Do you describe qualitative research as your chosen research paradigm, citing
appropriate literature?
✓ Do you offer a convincing argument for choosing qualitative research?
✓ Do you provide a convincing argument for the particular qualitative tradition or
genre that you have chosen?
✓ Do you describe your chosen qualitative research methods including rationale for
suitability regarding addressing the research questions?
✓ Is the study’s methodology and research design both described in sufficient detail so
that the study could be replicated?
✓ Have you explained in chronological order each step taken in conducting the study?
✓ Is there a sequential progression inherent in the methodological process? That is,
is the reader able to see how each stage of the study's design builds on and flows
logically from the stage preceding it?
✓ Have you discussed all decisions made during the course of the study, and if
applicable, have you mentioned any changes or modifications in focus, direction, and
design?
✓ Do you include explanation of any field tests or pilot studies, including administration
and description of findings (if appropriate)?
✓ If you include a timeline, have you described in chronological order each step taken
in conducting the study?
✓ Are all tables and/or figures that you have included comprehensive and relevant?
(Continued)
436

Data Collection Methods
✓ Do you reference all tools, instruments, and procedures that you have used?
✓ Do you provide a rationale for the selection of all instruments used?
✓ Do you discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each method of data collection,
citing appropriate literature?
✓ If an instrument was developed specifically for this study, have you described
procedures involved in its development, validation, and administration?
✓ Do you describe how, when, where, and by whom data were collected?
✓ Are the data collection methods congruent with the problem being explored and the
specific qualitative design used?
✓ Has triangulation of data collection methods been achieved?
Data Analysis and Synthesis
✓ Do you explain the procedures you use for recording, managing, and storing
information?
✓ Are your methods of data analysis, synthesis, and interpretation sufficiently

described and detailed?
✓ Are all charts and/or figures that you have included comprehensive and relevant?
✓ Does your discussion of the key issues pertaining to trustworthiness in qualitative

research show that you have a clear understanding of these issues?
✓ Do you provide a clear and comprehensive overview of each of the four

trustworthiness criteria (credibility, confirmability, dependability, and
transferability)?
✓ Does your discussion illustrate how you have considered, accounted for, and actually
addressed each of these criteria vis-à-vis your own study, thereby attempting to
mitigate any potential threats to trustworthiness?
✓ Have you checked that with regard transferability (unlike the other three criteria)
you make clear that you have taken the necessary steps to ensure this, but mention
that the final determination will be made by the readers themselves (not by you, the
“researcher”)?
Ethical Considerations
✓ Do you explain how you have addressed all relevant ethical principles as outlined in
the Belmont Report: respect, beneficence, and justice?
✓ Are the ethical considerations that you have identified clear and acceptable, and
have you transparently discussed the procedures followed to address them,
including vulnerable populations and potential power dynamics inherent in the
research process?

✓ Did you clearly explain who will benefit from research on this topic?
✓ Are you aware of any potential or evident conflicts of interests?
✓ Did you ensure that the distribution of any burdens and/or benefits to the
participants will be fair and equitable?
✓ Do the assessment of vulnerability raise concerns about the capacity of your

potential participants to give consent?
✓ Do your research plans put in place adequate special protections for vulnerable
participants?
✓ Do you explain how you sought and documented voluntary and informed consent in
ways that were appropriate for the research and participants?
✓ Were your recruitment and sampling processes fair and equitable, with no excessive
motivating factors?
✓ Were the methods of data collection appropriate for both the topic and the
participants?
✓ Did all participants comprehend the research details and their rights as research
participants?
✓ Were there reasonable accommodations provided for people with disabilities?
✓ Did the vulnerabilities of any of the participants require the additional protection of a
research participant advocate?
✓ Do you include how you have satisfied all institutional review board (IRB)
requirements?
Researcher Positionality
✓ Do you declare your positionality and explain how your own power, privilege, or
social identity may have any bearing on the way the study was conducted, as well as
on the research findings and implications?
✓ Do you acknowledge your own social and cultural identity/identities?
✓ Do you explain how you elicited information from your research participants in order
to make the research story rich and representative of their experiences?
Limitations and Delimitations
✓ Do you acknowledge all relevant limitations pertaining to your study?
✓ Do you indicate how you have attempted to address these limitations?
✓ Do you make all delimitations of the study very clear and explicit?
Chapter Summary
✓ Does your culminating summary integrate all the elements presented in this
chapter?
✓ Do you include all key points?
✓ Is your summary comprehensive and focused?
(Continued)
438

CHAPTER 4 Presentation of Findings
✓ Is your introduction clear?
✓ Does your introduction include your purpose statement (if required), as well as
inform the reader as to how the chapter is organized?
✓ Are your data analysis steps clearly identified?
✓ Do you explain clearly how you have managed and organized your data for analysis?
✓ Is your coding process adequately described? Are your findings statements clearly
and precisely stated?
✓ Are the findings presented in relation to the research questions?
✓ Are the findings presented in a logical sequence?
✓ Are the findings clearly organized and easy to follow?
✓ Are the findings directly responsive to the problem raised by the study? That is, do
the findings provide an answer to the research questions?
✓ Do the data presented in support of the findings (interview and/or focus group
quotations, incidents from field notes, material from documents, etc.) provide
adequate and convincing evidence for the findings?
✓ Is this chapter free from interpretation? That is, are your findings reported
accurately and objectively?
✓ Are there appropriate lead-in sentences and clues?
✓ Have you selected the strongest and most appropriate quotations to support your
point(s)?
✓ Have you trimmed your quotations, eliminating all unnecessary wording?
✓ If you have made use of a road map, is this clear and precise?
✓ Do the headings of your road map correspond with the headings in your narrative?
✓ Do you include a summary paragraph that offers a logical link to the next chapter?
✓ Are all tables and figures well organized, self-explanatory, and easy to understand?
✓ Are the data that are presented in each table described in the text that either follows
or precedes it?
✓ Have you tightened up your writing, eliminating any grammar and spelling errors?
CHAPTER 5 Analysis and Synthesis

✓ Does your introductory paragraph include a purpose statement (if required) as well
as explanation of how you went about analyzing and synthesizing the findings?
✓ Does your argument flow logically and coherently?
✓ Do you make one point at a time?
✓ Are your interpretations clear, thoughtful, and reasonable?
✓ Are your interpretations relevant to the research problem, purpose, and research
questions?

✓ Are the major themes integrated and inter-connected to illustrate a higher level of
analysis and abstraction?
✓ Is your analysis discussed in terms of the related bodies of literature and previous
research?
✓ Have you included relevant participant quotations to support your argument, making
sure that these same quotations were not repeated from Chapter 4, your findings
chapter?
✓ Is all information that you have presented in tables consistent with information that
appears in the narrative?
✓ Have you acknowledged that there are multiple ways of interpreting findings and
that you remain open to other interpretive possibilities?
✓ If you have chosen to revisit and reflect upon your initial assumptions as stated in
your opening chapter, do you flesh these out in terms of your study's findings?
✓ Do you offer a final comprehensive overview that integrates all key points?
Representation
✓ Do you address issues of interpretive authority; that is, the power of the researcher
to be the translator and interpreter of the experiences and perspectives of others?
✓ Have you made an effort to acknowledge the possibility thereof and, to the extent
possible, challenge and resist its imposition?
✓ Do you make clear how the representation that you have constructed is culturally
responsive to, and respectful of, your research participants?
✓ Are you sufficiently transparent in representing the participants and their experiences?
✓ Does your report support reflexivity and co-construction on the part of the reader?
✓ Does the representation allow the reader to potentially become more sensitive to the
participants?
✓ Is the research context authentically represented?
✓ In your analysis and interpretation, have you fully respected participants and
attempted to the best of your ability to do justice to their experiences?
✓ If your research participants were to read your study, would your analysis and
interpretation resonate with them? Would they be able to identify with your "story"?
CHAPTER 6 Conclusions and Recommendations

Closure
✓ Do you include a brief but informative introduction?
✓ If you have included a final reflective piece, does this make a statement regarding
your role as a qualitative researcher, your positionality, and/or your experience in
writing the dissertation?
✓ If you step back and review this chapter, do you think that you offer the reader a
completed picture of your research?
✓ Will readers be likely to walk away with a deep understanding of the study's findings,
and with a general feeling of finality and closure?
(Continued)
440

Conclusions
✓ Are your conclusions clearly derived from your study's findings? In other words, is it
clear to the reader that your conclusions are warranted by the findings?
✓ Do you offer at least one conclusion per finding? In other words, even though
conclusions can cut across findings, is each finding tied to at least one
conclusion?
✓ Are your conclusions logical and clearly explained?
✓ Are you sure that your conclusions are not mere restatements of the findings?
✓ Are you sure that your conclusions are not “interpretations” but rather strong
conclusive statements?
✓ Are your conclusions consistent? Do they flow logically from each other and not
contradict each other?
✓ Can your conclusions be challenged? If so, can you think of any flaws or limitations in
the way in which you have stated and explained each conclusion?
Recommendations
✓ Are all of your recommendations justified by the findings?
✓ Are all of your recommendations doable and actionable?
✓ Have you discussed applications for practice?
✓ Have you discussed applications for policy?
✓ Have you offered suggestions for further research?
✓ Have you selected strong recommendations for practice, policy, and further
research?
Appendixes
✓ Are all research instruments included?
✓ Are all other relevant materials included (sample transcripts, sample coding
schemes, summary charts, etc.)?
✓ Is each item that is included also listed in the table of contents?
References
✓ Have you included all works cited in the dissertation?
✓ Are all works cited listed in alphabetical order by author?
✓ Do all references adhere to correct style and format of your chosen publication
manual?
✓ Have you checked spelling of all authors and titles to ensure accuracy?

GRAMMAR ✓ Have you checked that all elements of your dissertation are aligned so that
& WRITING methodological congruence is clearly evident throughout? Refer and RE-REFER to
MECHANICS Chapter 5, “Achieving Alignment Throughout Your Dissertation.”
✓ Does the structure of your complete document comply with institutional and/or
programmatic requirements?
✓ Is your writing throughout scholarly, academic, and non-colloquial?
✓ Is your writing throughout, and the terminology that you use, inclusive; meaning that
it is unbiased, non-exclusionary, non-discriminatory, and non-stereotypical?
✓ Have you checked throughout for unclear and/or ambiguous language?
✓ Have you checked for any incorrect grammar?
✓ Have you checked throughout for any incorrect spelling?
✓ Does the discussion throughout have a logical flow?
✓ Have you used block quotations for any quotations that are 40 words or more?
✓ Are headings and subheadings throughout used effectively in order to structure and
present the discussion?
✓ Do all of your headings comply with the five levels as stipulated in the APA Manual
(7th ed.)?
✓ Do you follow APA 7 requirements for all in-text citations and references? Every
source you cite must appear on the reference page. Reference page must only
include sources cited in the body of the text.
✓ Is your font style and size consistent throughout? APA 7 no longer requires only
12-point Times New Roman. Other fonts are permitted as well.
✓ Is the entire document double-spaced?

✓ Is the entire document numbered correctly in accordance with APA 7 requirements?
✓ Do you follow APA 7 requirements regarding use of figures and tables? Figures and
tables must be left-aligned.
✓ Have you eliminated any needless repetition?
✓ Conversely, have you checked for insufficient detail and areas that are “unfinished”?
✓ Refer and RE-REFER to “Guidelines for Academic Writing” in Chapter 2 of this book.
Also be sure to access this book's companion website to read the many resources
pertaining to APA 7 guidelines and requirements.
Source: The original version of this chart first appeared in Bloomberg, L. D. (2009). The qualitative dissertation: A con-
tent guideline. Unpublished manuscript series.
442
APA-7 Abstracts: Morningside University. https://morningside.libguides.com/APA7/abstracts.

This brief resource covers requirements for the APA-7 abstract.
How to Write a Research Paper Abstract: Guide With Examples. https://research.com/research/
how-to-write-a-research-paper-abstract?dhni=116987.12.0.0.
This piece covers the important criteria for crafting an abstract, including purpose, sections,
formatting, and choice of keywords. As stated: “The abstract is a brief summary of your paper,
but it is one of the most important—if not the most. However, writing one is never easy…The
pithy, straightforward style of the abstract lends itself well to a well-written, well-researched
study”.
to this chapter can be accessed through the book’s companion website at https://edge.sagepub.
com/bloomberg-qualitative-5e. The companion website offers materials related to issues dis-
cussed in Chapter 12, including APA writing style, academic writing requirements, and meth-
odological alignment.
The appendix that is associated with this chapter includes:
• Appendix Z: Dissertation Manuscript Cheat Sheet

13 DEFENSE PREPARATION
AND BEYOND
• Offer guidelines and suggestions regarding pre-defense preparation and meeting

institutional and programmatic requirements.
• Provide possible defense questions to serve as preparatory material for a dissertation
defense. These questions can be of use to both doctoral candidates and doctoral
faculty.
• Offer guidelines and suggestions regarding post-defense preparation, including
publication and research presentation opportunities.
OVERVIEW
Your dissertation manuscript is finally ready! You are almost at the finish line! You’ve completed
hours, months, perhaps even years of research and writing to complete your dissertation. The
only step left on your path to a doctorate degree is the defense of your dissertation. Each uni-
versity approaches the dissertation defense differently, so it is certainly advisable to reach out to
your advisors to gain perspective on what to expect; this way you can prepare yourself well in
advance. Review the feedback you have already received and look for common themes, perspec-
tives, or questions. Consider how you responded to this feedback in the dissertation process
and be prepared to face similar questions again. You will naturally be faced with questions
you were not expecting, and you will be asked to explain yourself in ways you may not have
yet thought of. However, remember that you have devoted an inordinate amount of time and
effort into your dissertation, so remain confident in presenting and defending your research as
you no doubt have developed knowledge and insights regarding the topic area and your specific
research problem. Overall, try to keep your anxiety in check, answer questions confidently, and
remember that the committee is there to support you as you complete this final milestone. Use
your completion as motivation, and use that motivation to stay focused, as you are now in the
home stretch! As a doctoral candidate, you now stand on the cusp of presenting your study to
443
444 Part III • Nearing Completion
the academic community at your institution and beyond. As you head toward this final mile-
stone in the dissertation journey, this chapter provides you with some ideas and suggestions that
will hopefully prepare you and stand you in good stead in terms of both pre- and post-defense
status. Wishing you much success!
PRE-DEFENSE PREPARATION
Submitting Necessary Documentation

In order to remain within required time frames, you should plan ahead accordingly. When you
approach your defense (sometimes referred to as the “dissertation hearing,” “orals,” or “vivas”),
you should generally keep in regular contact with your institution’s registrar and office of doc-
toral studies for their calendar of deadline dates and requirements for submission of all the
necessary documentation. Check dates carefully because your degree may be delayed if you have
not complied with all the necessary submissions. Especially make sure whether you need to file
the “intent to defend” form and do not exceed the required deadline. This form declares that
you and your advisor believe that you can meet all the institutional demands for defense; this
stage usually requires advisor approval.
As you near completion of your dissertation, you also should check that all your required
courses have been completed in accordance with your approved program plan, that all necessary
credits are entered on your transcript, that your proposal is on file, and that all your records are
in proper order. If there are any discrepancies or concerns, you should bring these matters to the
immediate attention of your program administrator and/or dissertation secretary in the office
of doctoral studies. You certainly want no unwelcome surprises at this point.
Addressing and Finalizing Your Committee Structure

As mentioned in Part I of this book, each university has a different system regarding disser-
tation committee structure and the process of preparing for that structure. You need to find
out what system is adopted in your particular institution. A dissertation committee typi-
cally consists of three to six faculty members. In some instances, all committee members
are from within the department of the student’s major. Other times, the committee is mul-
tidisciplinary, with members representing various academic departments. In some cases, a
dissertation committee consists of three core faculty members who guide the development
and completion of the dissertation. In these cases, a final panel is convened, consisting of
the dissertation committee and in some cases an outside reader selected by the graduate
office. This selection of additional committee members usually takes place only when the
manuscript is complete and the defense is imminent.
At some universities, the doctoral committee structure is based on an apprenticeship
model and is used as a vehicle to guide the student from course work through the defense.
In these instances, the dissertation committee is the group of faculty responsible for the
student’s progress right from the beginning, with all those involved contributing to the
development of an acceptable dissertation. The committee functions as a hierarchical
Chapter 13 • Defense Preparation and Beyond 445
organization, with each member of the committee having a different responsibility vis-à-vis
the student’s research. Ideally, the doctoral committee is composed of faculty with different
areas of expertise whose resources the student will be able to tap into during the disserta-
tion process. Sometimes the same committee will stay with the student from the outset,
guiding the apprenticeship. In other cases, this committee will evolve during the course of
conducting research and writing the dissertation as the necessary expertise becomes evi-
dent based on the developing project.
At some universities, the student will be required to work with a chair or sponsor and second
reader, who is usually considered a subject matter expert, from the proposal stage onward; it
is only when the student has almost completed the dissertation that a dissertation committee
needs to be formed. In this instance, you can usually select your committee from among those
in your own and related departments, those whose courses you have taken, and/or those whose
work bears some relation to the focus of your dissertation. Some of these faculty members may
be involved in other programs or schools within your university. In some cases, experts beyond
your university can be chosen. In most instances, faculty has the choice to accept or decline to
serve on a doctoral committee. Bear in mind that because in most instances a faculty member
has the choice to accept or decline to serve on a doctoral committee, you should be prepared for
alternative choices should the need arise. Remember, academic institutions, by their nature, are
highly political arenas. Therefore, selection of the committee requires careful planning, with
an emphasis on maintaining respectful professional relationships at all stages of the dissertation
process.
Once you have filed your intent to defend your dissertation and your dissertation chair has
approved your defense, you should secure the necessary additional committee members. This
process usually includes selecting and assigning additional readers. Each institution has its own
way of going about setting up the defense meeting, and you should always consult with your
institution’s office of doctoral studies with regard to the correct procedures and protocol.
Re-Familiarizing Yourself With Expectations and Requirements

Remember, this is not something you leave till the last minute. Right at the outset you are
advised to become familiar with school and program expectations and requirements, especially
as these relate to the dissertation process. Generally, a complete draft of the dissertation should
be sent to your committee members within the first weeks of the semester in which you intend
your defense to take place. This allows your dissertation chair and committee members suf-
ficient time to review your material and make recommendations, forward to the second reader
for approval and recommendations, and secure any additional readers thereby complying with
the institution’s scheduling procedures regarding the defense committee. You need to make sure
that you have the necessary information regarding all required deadlines by consulting with
your advisors as well as contacting your institution’s office of doctoral studies for guidelines
and rules. It is highly recommended that as a precautionary measure you make backup copies
of your presentation and notes and that you keep these copies handy at the time of the actual
defense. This is especially important if you are presenting your defense online, because com-
puter glitches can (and often do) occur, and you certainly don’t want to be left unprepared.
The purpose of the dissertation defense is twofold: (a) to publicly discuss what you have
researched and what you have discovered in the process and (b) to evaluate the acceptability of
the study as a scholarly piece of research in your area of specialization and to make a collective
decision that will determine the recommendations for revisions. The defense, in effect, moves
your dissertation from the private domain into the arena of public discourse, providing you
with some sense of closure. Actual procedures for conducting the meeting and the formalities
involved are likely to vary, not only among universities but also among departments. Your advi-
sor will most likely outline the proceedings of the defense, as well as explain to you the roles of
the various committee members. As such, although each experience will certainly be unique,
you should be well prepared as to what to expect in the session.
Each institution is concerned with maintaining an implicit academic standard for accept-
able scholarship. You have just completed a rigorous piece of research, so your research appren-
ticeship is ending. The defense marks this transition as you are invited to sit at the table and
talk about your research as a peer with your professors. With your knowledge from your
just-completed research study, you are expected to provide authoritative insight into previously
uncharted or contested issues. Your ideas are as highly valued as your committee members’, and
you have an equal place at that table.
Typically, doctoral candidates are not permitted to schedule the defense if their dissertation
is not regarded as complete and worthy of examination. Your advisor will no doubt have had the
opportunity to review the final document prior to its official distribution to committee mem-
bers and will already have determined that the document meets the necessary academic stan-
dards, thereby qualifying for formal review. Consequently, part of the function of the defense
is a formal induction of the doctoral candidate into a scholarly community—the celebration of
a major scholarly achievement and a symbolic rite of passage to the awarding of the doctorate.
Because it is the culminating aspect of a rigorous, traditional, and long-standing ritual,
we understand that you will likely approach the defense with some sense of anxiety. View the
defense as an opportunity to think about your study more deeply and creatively and to articulate
the implications of your work. Your months of concentrated reading and research have contrib-
uted to unique knowledge on your topic that few possess. Think of the meeting essentially as an
academic conversation among colleagues that involves the exchange of ideas and the sharing of
knowledge—an opportunity to extend your thinking in new directions.
You can certainly prepare to make the defense a positive experience. Therefore, being fully
conversant about all aspects of your study is crucial. The more familiar you are with the details
of your study, including the relevant literature and research, the more you will appear as the
expert. You have lived with your study for an extended length of time and have been totally
immersed in it. The role that the committee can rightfully play is to provide some new lenses
with which to review your work and to offer you some new perspectives.
Usually, at the defense, you are given an opportunity to set the stage by presenting an
overview of your study to the committee. Although you can use your discretion in making
the choice as to what points you want to get across in the time available, you should think
carefully about this task beforehand and be cognizant of the allotted time for your presen-
tation. Rather than just summarize the salient points of your study, you should think of
that part of your research that is most critical, interesting, groundbreaking, unique, and/
or controversial. Committee members have read your study (or at least certain parts of it).
Therefore, they are expecting not to hear from you what they already know but rather to
learn something new. Think about whether there is anything that is deserving of further
discussion. What is it about the content or process that might require additional emphasis,
illustration, explanation, elaboration, and/or clarification? What might committee mem-
bers not know that they might need or want to know more about? Also think about what
predictable concerns or needs that committee members might have regarding your study.
In what ways might the limitations of your study deserve special mention? What broader or
more pressing social issues does your study connect with? Having completed the study and
lived with your findings, are there any ways your work might be revised and/or extended
so that it would make a useful contribution either theoretically and/or practically? When
preparing an oral presentation, it is important to have skills that go beyond reading the
bullet points from your slides to your audience. You will want to develop the ability and
confidence to speak to any audience about the valuable contributions you will deliver to the
field of education in the years to come.
Try to remain as specific and focused as possible, rather than crowding too much detail
into this opening discussion. An interesting, concise, topical, and meaningful researcher pre-
sentation usually lays the ground for the discussion to follow. Maintaining the close attention
of committee members allows you to maintain some degree of control over what will be given
attention in the conversation that ensues. Remember that you have only limited time available
to make your presentation. Note your beginning and ending times. Inform the committee of
what is to come and for how long you intend to speak. This, for them, is a sign of careful plan-
ning and will be appreciated.
In planning your presentation, prepare an outline of what you want to talk about, laid out
in sequence. You also might want to prepare some graphic aids to organize, illustrate, and sup-
port your oral presentation, including flowcharts, diagrams, audiotape segments, or even pho-
tographs or video clips. Visual materials such as PowerPoint can provide focus and heighten
impact. However, in light of the limited time that you have available, if you do decide to use
visuals, be selective and use only what is highly pertinent to your discussion. Be sure that these
are used and not simply displayed. Present your materials, explain their significance, and allow
readers the time to digest these materials and ask questions. Visuals should feel like an integral
and relevant aspect of the conversation rather than an interruption. Although visual materials
can certainly be used effectively, an overreliance on handouts and visuals can be off-putting to
faculty who come to the defense expecting to engage in substantive conversation with the can-
didate and each other.
Typically, the presentation of your study is followed by questions and comments from the
various committee members, which usually generate a discussion of your study that can further
establish your professional credibility. Part of the expertise of being an acknowledged specialist
is the ability to explain your work logically and intelligently. In the days prior to your defense,
read over your dissertation carefully so you can respond authoritatively to the questions asked.
Be able to succinctly summarize your research problem as well as your key findings. Be prepared
to defend your choice of qualitative research tradition or genre, choice of data collection meth-
ods, and sample selection procedures, as well as your methods of data analysis. If there are any
concerns over the quality of the inquiry or the document, these obviously will be a major focus
of deliberation. Be confident that you can provide clear explanations regarding all aspects of
your work and offer a rationale for all your decision-making.
Considering Possible Defense Questions

In the days leading up to your defense, reflect on the value of your dissertation. Recall the rel-
evant literature in your field and bring yourself up to date with the most recent work. Think
carefully about how your study contributes to the current knowledge base. Probe yourself about
how your work relates to the literature, both theoretically and practically. Try to anticipate all
possible questions that the committee members might ask. In this regard, play “devil’s advo-
cate” with yourself and try to identify as many of your study’s strengths and weaknesses as pos-
sible. Following are some of the specific questions that examiners might predictably raise related
to different aspects of your study; including the research process and design; the theoretical
or conceptual framework, data analysis and interpretation, the outcomes of the study and its
impact, and finally dissemination of the study’s findings.
There will be some questions about the research process in general; that is, how you came
to do this study, how you conducted the study, and your experience as a qualitative researcher:
• What motivated you to conduct this study? In other words, what brought you to
explore this particular topic?
• How do you situate yourself within this research? What experiences brought you to
conduct this research?
• In what ways did your course work at the university prepare you for your dissertation
work?
• In planning and conducting this study, which major theorists and/or philosophers
influenced your thinking?
• What are the major strengths and/or limitations of your research design and
methodology?
• What might further strengthen this study?
• What, if any, are the unanticipated outcomes of your study? What surprises have you
come away with?
• What new learning about qualitative research have you come away with as a result of
conducting this study?
• What new learning about yourself have you come away with having conducted this
study? What additional insights has the dissertation experience afforded you?
• What does “design complexity” mean to you?

• What does “design flexibility” mean to you?
• What were the high and/or low points for you in the dissertation experience?
• What was the most challenging aspect of your research?
Remembering that your theoretical or conceptual framework is the means through which
you articulated the significance of your research, your chosen research design, the significance
of your findings, and how your study makes a contribution to knowledge, consider some ques-
tions pertaining to your study’s framework. Such questions might include:
• How did you arrive at your theoretical or conceptual framework?

• What are the key theoretical or conceptual components of your framework?
• What informed your framework? In other words, how did you decide upon the
components that you include in your theoretical or conceptual framework?
• How did the components of your framework assist you in visualizing and explaining
what you intended to explore?
• How and in what ways did you use your framework to design your research and
analyze your findings?
• Were there any other concepts or theories you considered initially but did not include
in your framework? Why not?
There will naturally be some questions about the analysis process that you adopted, and
how interpretations were arrived at. Typically, when a doctoral candidate conducts data analysis
this is the very first time undertaking this intensive exercise:
• How did you gain the skills needed to conduct qualitative data analysis?
• What specific skills are needed?
• What were the challenges involved in qualitative data analysis and how did you address
or overcome these challenges?
• Why did you analyze the data in the way that you did?
• How might you have analyzed your data differently?
• How did you ensure the credibility of your findings and analysis?
• What might be an alternative interpretation of your findings?
• What suggestions regarding data analysis might you offer somebody about to conduct
a qualitative study?
The committee may ask for a researcher positionality statement:
• How did your positionality come into play in your research?

• What did you do, if at all, to mitigate your positionality and/or power vis-a-vis your
research participants?
The committee will naturally be interested in hearing more about the outcomes of the study
and its implications and/or impact:
• What is the most important contribution your study can make to your profession,
community, or society?
• In what ways did you address the four trustworthiness criteria so that you minimized
potential threats to the study’s rigor?
• Can you discuss the potential transferability of your study?
• Will your research change current thinking in the field? If so, how, and in what ways?
• What are the conflicting issues in your field (every field has conflicts, hence, the
research problem), and what contributed most to your understanding of these issues?
• In what ways do you expect that your work will clarify the conflicting issues in your
field?
• What do you see as the main contributions of your research for your discipline?
• What specific aspects of your findings can be applied to practice?
• How would a policy-maker be able to potentially utilize your findings?
• In what ways, if at all, does your study contribute to the existing literature and/or
prior research in the field? In what ways does it extend the literature? Contradict the
literature? Fill gaps in the literature? Clarify contradictions in the literature?
• If you were to redo this study, how might you conduct the study differently? How
might you change your research methodology? Why?
• How could you build on or extend this research in the future?
The committee may also have questions that relates to dissemination of the dissertation
research. When conducting a study, sharing the findings of the study beyond the University
academic community becomes an important consideration. Doctoral Students are highly
encouraged to publish their research and/or present it at an appropriate academic conference:
• How will you be able to communicate your work to other scholars in your field?
• What could you do with your study’s findings, personally or professionally, to make an
authentic and meaningful real-world difference?
• In considering your options regarding publication of your research as a 10–12-page

journal article, what audience/audiences would you seek? Why?
• From the entire dissertation study how would you condense your research into a
publishable journal article? What sections would you choose to focus on? Why?
The discussion during the defense can evolve in many directions and on many levels. It pays
to be prepared for all the prior potential questions, as well as any that your advisor and other
critics might have raised with you over the course of discussions about your research. You are
certainly free to refer as needed to your dissertation as you respond to questions. Be sure that you
understand what is being asked of you before attempting to answer questions. If you are uncer-
tain as to any question that is posed to you, ask that the question be rephrased or restated. Try at
all times to provide clear, logical answers. Present your reasoning carefully. Avoid overlong and
verbose answers that might take you off course. Count on being asked a few questions that you
may not have anticipated. If you do not have an answer to a particular question, acknowledge
that you need more time to think about the issue.
As the defense meeting draws to a close, you may be asked to dismiss yourself, affording the
committee members privacy in their final deliberations regarding your dissertation. Having
heard each other’s perspectives, they collectively assess the extent to which their individual views
are congruent. Depending on the quality of the dissertation, the meeting can conclude with
one of several outcomes. What everybody hopes for, of course, is approval. What everybody
dreads—and which is hardly likely to occur—are substantive revisions that might necessitate
another meeting. Typically, some revisions are necessary, and the committee members arrive at
agreement as to what changes they would recommend. Usually, the dissertation chair or spon-
sor is charged with ensuring that these requests are addressed in the finally approved document.
POST-DEFENSE PREPARATION
Making any Necessary Revisions to Your Manuscript

In some instances, there may be some required revisions to your dissertation following your
defense. This is quite typical, and assists in refining your manuscript. Don’t be dejected by these
revisions, but rather embrace the opportunity for improvement, and understand that this is sim-
ply a part of the rigorous research and writing process. On the basis of the committee members’
discussion, there are likely to be a number of suggestions, additions, and/or corrections. In a few
cases, substantive or major alterations may be required. The most likely outcome, however, is
a pass with the request for minor revisions. These revisions can include some further analyses,
expansions to the literature review, additional methodological details, and additional conclu-
sions and/or recommendations. You might be required to reorder parts or sections of the text,
clarify and/or elaborate some discussion points, and rewrite or omit sections that seem confus-
ing, as well as attend to various technical, grammatical, and/or editorial details.
Generally, a post-defense meeting is held with your dissertation chair or sponsor to discuss
the necessary changes, reconcile any contradictory feedback, and make sure that you understand
what needs to be done. We strongly suggest that, within a few days, with the defense discussion
still fresh in your mind, you make a point of processing all the feedback you received. Be sure
you understand clearly what needs to be changed and how to proceed. Most minor revisions can
usually be completed within a week or two. The sooner you tackle the required revisions, the
sooner you will be able to submit a final copy of the document to your office of doctoral studies
for a final round of proofreading. Allowing sufficient time for possible redrafting is especially
important if you hope to graduate in the same semester in which the dissertation was completed
and defended. Filing the final dissertation means that the approval of any revisions as indicated
by your dissertation chair or sponsor is complete.
Although you have revised and refined your manuscript many times prior to the defense,
following the required revisions, you need to carefully and meticulously edit your manuscript
one final time. The purpose for this final review is to check accuracy regarding content as well
as mechanics and style. There is no substitute for painstaking proofreading. In doing a final
check of your entire manuscript, look for the following requirements:
• Have you addressed all issues that were raised by the committee members?
• Have you added the necessary sections in the most logical places so as not to interrupt
the flow of the discussion?
• Regarding any added material, have you checked with your style manual regarding
mechanics, style, and consistency?
• Are all headings and subheadings formatted in accordance with the guidelines
specified in the style manual?
• If necessary, have you added and/or deleted any citations?
• Have you adjusted your reference list according to all additions and/or deletions of
citations?
• Have you adjusted your abstract according to any changes that were made?
• Have you added your acknowledgments and/or dedication? This appears after the
abstract and is an opportunity to express appreciation to those who have contributed
significantly to the completion of your dissertation.
• Have you checked that your table of contents corresponds with all headings,
subheadings, and pagination? This check is especially important if you have adjusted
your margins for binding purposes.
• Have you checked that all tables and figures are correctly numbered and labeled
throughout?
• Have you reread and edited your manuscript one final time?
• Have you performed a final spell-check on the entire manuscript?
The instructions for preparing final copies of your dissertation can be quite complex,
and these differ from university to university. As such, we recommend that you consult
with your institution’s office of doctoral studies regarding format and style details, as well
as the number of copies of the dissertation and abstract that you are required to submit
and to whom. Generally, you can rely on your advisor to clarify procedures regarding your
university’s protocol for completion of the dissertation process, including final approval
and sign-off.
At this point you should also consider preparing your dissertations for ProQuest publica-
tion. ProQuest is a comprehensive and renowned dissertation resource. At its core is the semi-
nal ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database (PQDT), a repository of 5 million works that
the world’s universities contribute to each year, creating an ever-growing resource of emerging
research. As the official repository of the Library of Congress, ProQuest provides researchers
with search and reference link functionalities that enable international access to dissertations.
ProQuest provides free instructional resources for students to use in a virtual learning envi-
ronment, including modules that provide support tools for writing, community building, and
PQDT Global use. You may access this site for additional guidelines and requirements: https://
about.proquest.com/en/dissertations/
PUBLISHING AND PRESENTING YOUR RESEARCH
The dissertation process comes to a definitive ending when the final approved document is sub-
mitted to your institution and the doctoral degree is awarded. You have undoubtedly devoted
an extensive amount of time and energy to your research. Finally, having reached the end of the
trail, you should feel a well-deserved sense of accomplishment. This is a time to bring closure to
your doctoral program. It is also a time to move forward and celebrate your enhanced knowl-
edge and expertise. Completion of the dissertation is a significant milestone of an ongoing jour-
ney. As is usually the case, as one door closes, another door opens.
At this juncture, you might consider looking beyond the dissertation and contemplating
new projects, particularly those you may have deferred while working on your dissertation.
Think especially of how you can more fully share what you have researched with a broader
audience than the academic community. Following your immersion in your research, you
will certainly want to disseminate your findings to others, enabling others to have access to
cutting-edge information as well as extending your own professional network. Presenting and/
or publishing your findings is a way to contribute to the ongoing knowledge base and work
toward advancing your professional career.
The dissemination of research is fundamental to its credibility and to its capacity to bring
about some change in your community or your profession, or in society at large. Research find-
ings should also always be subject to replication by others. Your study’s findings should there-
fore be brought into the public domain, not merely to facilitate their potential verification but
also to contribute to knowledge in the field and enable other professionals or members of the
public to act on them where appropriate.
Research Publication
Your dissertation does not and should not exist in an “intellectual vacuum.” Nor should it
remain just another book on your shelf! The academic journal is the principal medium for the
dissemination and sharing of research findings to a wider audience. Moreover, in the broader
academic job market, most positions require that candidates have an established or at least
emerging publication track. Indeed, “publish or perish” is the injunction that rings true for
most of us, especially if you aspire to a university career as a teacher and/or researcher.
All of the main subject areas of research in the social sciences, and many areas of minority
interest, have academic journals devoted to them. Journals exist in many different languages
and are increasingly available electronically. It is clearly important that research published in
academic journals is as trustworthy as possible. Toward this end, most academic journal sub-
missions undergo a peer review process. Each of the major journals provides information per-
taining to application and submission details. It is important that you select a journal whose
articles match your research topic and your particular study. Some journals focus on empirical
research, while others publish theoretical or applied articles. Also be aware that journals are
rated in quality based on refereeing systems and how often they are cited by other researchers.
In this regard, you might refer to the Social Science Citation Index and the Arts and Humanities
Citations Index.
Remember that the style of your writing should be sensitive to and reflect the tar-
geted audience; be it academics, practitioners, policy-makers, or laypersons (general public).
Communication should always be designed with your audience in mind. As the researcher, you
will need to be aware of and remain accountable to the demands of the intended publication
outlet and be aware of and remain responsive to your audience(s)—as such, adapting and fram-
ing your text accordingly. The information revolution and its impact on genres and audiences
of qualitative research remains an evolving process. Postmodernism (in its various forms) has
alerted us to the diversity of writing styles and “textual shifts” in the social sciences, engender-
ing different assumptions regarding textual representation. Researchers’ decisions about what
to report, how, and to what audience involve reflexive political choices.
Reworking a lengthy, formal, and often technically intricate dissertation requires a major
rewrite and, hence, often lengthy time commitment. As Wolcott (2009) points out, when
writing a journal article you need to “de-dissertationize” your work. You will have to not only
shorten your piece by avoiding too much detail (most journal articles cap the word count at
around 6,000) but also be clearly focused on one aspect or topic that will make a compelling
argument that will intrigue readers of the journal you have selected. Remember, in the review
process, most articles (if not rejected) are returned—sometimes more than once—with a
request for some degree of revision—sometimes substantial—adding more time to the already
tedious process. You should treat “revise and resubmit” as a golden opportunity to persevere! If
your journal article is published, be sure to use all of the publisher resources available to you.
Share your free e-prints with colleagues. Currently, e-prints are a link to your article, which you
are allowed to share a certain number of times.
Many student researchers grapple with how to transform their fieldwork experience, repre-
sented in the vast amounts of data gathered, into publishable journal articles. Questions such as
the following emerge: What do I want to write about? On which aspects of the data do I need to
focus? How do I construct a compelling argument? How do I reduce what I have to say so that
it fits into a journal-sized article? What did I find most interesting, and how does it link with
relevant theory or concepts? To initiate the process of publishing, you may want to talk to your
dissertation advisor or other established academic colleagues regarding advice on specific jour-
nals and realistic and appropriate publishing opportunities. You might also visit your university
library and peruse all journals pertinent to your field of interest and potential audience(s).
A brief overview of the different types of journals and related elements deserves mention:
Peer-Reviewed Journals: This process is designed to assess the quality and often the origi-
nality of articles for publication. The ultimate purpose is to maintain integrity by filtering
out poor quality articles. From a publisher’s perspective, peer review functions as a filter for
content, directing better quality articles to better quality journals and so creating journal
brands. As such, peer review improves the quality of published papers by motivating authors
to submit good quality work—and helping to improve that work through the peer review
process. Because of the review process, publishing in any peer-reviewed journal will always
entail some degree of delay from submission to acceptance and finally to publication.
Journal Impact Factor: The impact factor (IF) is a measure of the frequency with which
the average article in a journal has been cited in a particular year. It is used to measure the
importance or rank of a journal by calculating the times it's articles are cited. The calculation
is based on a two-year period and involves dividing the number of times articles were cited by
the number of articles that are citable. Higher impact scores indicate a higher-quality journal,
and these are compiled in Journal Citation Reports, an annual publication of the Science and
Scholarly Research Division of the Thomson Reuters Corporation. Because impact factors
mean relatively little on their own, to be more meaningful and helpful it is advisable to view
the journal you are interested in compared to other journals in the same category.
Open Access Journals: Whereas conventional (non-open access) journals cover publishing
costs through subscriptions, site licenses or pay-per-view charges, open-access (OA) journals
are characterized by funding models which do not require the reader to pay to read the
journal's contents. Open access scholarly literature is free of charge and often carries less
restrictive copyright and licensing barriers than traditionally published works, for both the
users and the authors. Open access can be applied to all forms of published research out-
put, including peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed academic journal articles, conference
papers, book chapters, and research reports. While open access is a newer form of schol-
arly publishing, many journals that fall within this category comply with well-established
peer-review processes and maintain high publishing standards. Many open access journals
advertise a much more rapid publication process than traditional journals, as reflected in
their mission statements. Publishing your article in an open access journal means that more
people are likely to see it, simply because more people will be able to access it. As such, your
data will be available to educators and the general public, most of whom do not have access
to expensive journal subscriptions.
Some researchers are reticent to publish in open access journals because they may not be as
well known as some of the larger, more well-established journals in a given field. Indeed, the
most common reason cited by science and humanities/social science authors for deciding not
to publish in an open access journal is related to concerns about the perceived quality of these
publications. It is also important to note that many open access journals are new and have not
yet received their first impact factor (IF). That said, many academics still place importance
on “brand-name” journals because publication in such journals can increase their chances of
being promoted, gaining tenure, and obtaining funding for grant proposals. As such, many
researchers will lean more toward traditional journals that they know and trust. In sum, there-
fore, when choosing between open access and traditional journals, it is important to consider
the journal’s visibility, the cost of publication, the IF (or “prestige”) of the journal, and the speed
of publication.
There are many scams related to academic publishing so you need to be diligent and ensure
that you are publishing with legitimate sources. This means that you consider only indexed
journals that have a broad-based editorial board and a true peer-review process. A legitimate
journal will usually not charge you (although a few do). Many of the invitations you receive
might look like legitimate sources. They will say that they have a peer review process and that
your article will have a doi. They may even say that they are indexed even though they are not.
These commonly referred to as “predatory journals, so be cautious! I encourage every author to
do their due diligence in investigating potential publishing sources so that you are not taken
advantage of, and that your work is recognized by the academic community and regarded for
the quality it deserves.
Submission Guidelines: Carefully review the guidelines for submission that provide the infor-
mation you will need to submit, such as what style manual to use (i.e., the Publication Manual
of the American Psychological Association (APA, 2019) is probably the most popular one for
social and behavioral science research), the maximum number of words permitted, the informa-
tion necessary for the title page, and the proper formatting for tables, figures, and bibliographic
references. Many journals now require electronic submission, and examine the requirements to
submit your manuscript for review.
Make sure to review the overall structure of articles published in the journal. This means
that you need to find two or three published articles in each of the one to three journals you
have selected as possible outlets for your qualitative study and look closely at the organization
and structure of the articles. Look at the types of headings and the flow of topics to determine
the extent to which they are written in a more scientific or literary way. A scientific way would
include the standard headings of introduction, literature, methods, results or findings, and con-
clusions or discussion. A literary way would contain headings or topics that essentially tell a
narrative story. Regardless of which structure prevails, compose your qualitative article to look
identical to what has been published in prior issues of the journal.
Other elements of the content of published articles must be considered, including the overall
length of the manuscript (or word-count); its use of quotations, figures, and tables (how many,
how often); the extent to which some quantitative features are included; and the overall impact
factor (IF), the score that indicates the rating of the journal. The impact factor reflects the aver-
age number of citations to recent articles published in the journal. Higher impact scores indicate
a higher-quality journal, and these are compiled in Journal Citation Reports, an annual pub-
lication of the Science and Scholarly Research Division of the Thomson Reuters Corporation.
Online Publishing
With the burgeoning digital revolution, the Internet has become a major venue for writing, pub-
lishing, and consuming academic research. Social media is broadly understood as Internet-based
applications or collaboration tools that carry consumer-generated content and through which
information can be shared in virtual communities and networks. Material published online
ranges from blogs to open-access journals to traditional books and articles digitalized for the
purposes of online consumption and dissemination. Clark and Sousa (2017) talk about “bring-
ing your work alive to people and communities,” the implication being that researchers have
a responsibility to share findings outside of academia. There are many diverse ways that a
researcher can share the insights from qualitative work with different audiences, including mass
media (the web, newspaper, television, and radio), social media (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram,
and Snapchat), and blogs—all of which offer potential avenues to share research findings with
those outside of academia.
Immediate access to global audiences has transformed the review process as well as the
ways in which audience expectations are addressed (Marvasti, 2017; Mollett et al., 2018). As
Marvasti (2017) points out, “The web collapses the distance between writing and publishing
so that what is typed on a computer keyboard is instantly posted online and thus available to
a global audience” (p. 439). While certainly convenient and time saving, this method of pub-
lishing is not unproblematic. While exceedingly recognized as a legitimate way of disseminat-
ing scholarly research, this approach includes some advantages: It provides greater flexibility
for editing and revising, offers universal access, and includes the possibility of including mul-
timedia content and hypertext capacity (whereby instead of following the text in a linear fash-
ion, readers can move from one part of the text to another by clicking on an image or a word).
That said, online or e-publishing presents new challenges, including lack of thorough review
or peer review, or even no review at all, which could in many instances lead to loose standards
and requirements, and therefore an absence of methodological, theoretical, or conceptual
soundness. A further caveat is that online publishing does not allow for the researcher–author
to be aware of and accountable to the demands of an intended publication outlet and its
consumers. As such, online publishing, in circumventing the rigor that characterizes the tra-
ditional peer review process, is frowned upon by academics in many circles. Consequently,
academic publications that are exclusively available online are often deemed less prestigious
and less credible, especially if the journal has a high acceptance rate and requires a sizeable
fee from its authors. Online publishing is a growing trend, but it certainly challenges the
conventional views of authorship, peer review, legitimacy, and academic integrity. While it
does offer some unique features, if you are considering online publication for your research,
it is certainly worth being aware of the limitations and academic critique associated with this
method of publishing.
Presenting or Showcasing Your Research

In addition to publications, completion of the dissertation provides you with an opportunity to
present your study in other academic settings and research forums, such as graduate seminars,
conferences, and professional associations. A good first step is to present your research to profes-
sional associations or organizations in your field. Research conference formats include formal
presentation of papers; participating in roundtables, panel discussions, or poster sessions; mak-
ing formal addresses; and leading seminar or workshop sessions. Scan professional journals for
“call for papers”—a formal invitation to submit an application to present research.
Higher education professionals increasingly use podcasts as a way to enhance exposure of
their academic research beyond their disciplines to reach a broader public audience. Educators
want their academic research to reach as many people as possible, particularly educational
practitioners. However, research findings are often published in various scholarly journals and
limited to people who subscribe to, look for, or read scholarly research. A podcast is thus an
excellent communication tool to promote your research among a lay audience who normally
would not be exposed to it.
There are also multiple ways to increase usage and citation of publications by using various
forms of social media:
• Consider taking up blogging about your area of research and articles that you have
published—and/or other related documents in your field of research. Don’t forget to
link to these from your blog.
• Academic social networking is increasingly using social communities as a way
of meeting and communicating with others who share similar research interests,
including MyNetReseach, Academia, and ResearchGate, among others. These sites
offer an immediate way to monitor what others are looking at in your field of research
and a way to commission papers around online conversations you think are interesting
or relevant. If you are unable to locate any groups that are talking about your research
interests, you can consider taking the initiative to set one up.
• MethodSpace, sponsored by SAGE, is a recently developed online community for
research methods. On this site, you can connect with other researchers, discuss
methodological issues and controversies, discover and review new resources and
materials, seek relevant conferences and events, and share and discuss research
challenges.
• LinkedIn is a massive interconnected global network of experienced professionals, and
is not used just for career opportunities. When you are creating a profile summary
of your professional expertise and accomplishments, include and highlight your
publications.
• Twitter is a microblogging service that enables its users to send and read messages,
known as tweets. Authors are increasingly promoting their content via Twitter,
which is then picked up by other researchers and practitioners. Twitter allows you to
set up search terms to enable you to monitor what is being discussed in your areas of
interest, and you can then comment on relevant conversations. The more you engage,
the more people will follow you to read your comments and recommendations. In
this way, Twitter is an ideal way to extend your academic reach to new and broader
audiences.
A key benefit to presenting your research after it is complete—in whatever format or venue
that you choose—is that it helps you to summarize the dissertation for possible publication.
Student researchers can also benefit from presenting their research at discipline-related con-
ferences during the course of their research, in that presenting preliminary research while the
study is under construction is a valuable opportunity for feedback and critique from colleagues
and other professionals and/or academics in the field.
The final chapter of your dissertation contains recommendations regarding implications
for action, in which you make concrete and practical suggestions to practitioners in the field
that are directly related to your study’s findings. Often, recommendations are made regarding
creation of specific products such as handbooks, training materials, manuals, and programs.
Taking time to follow up on creating some of these products makes a practical and worthy con-
tribution to the field of practice.
As you go about considering different ways to disseminate your research, there are vari-
ous resources that offer emerging and experienced scholars from all disciplines a comprehen-
sive review of the essential elements needed to craft scholarly papers suitable for submission
to academic journals. Included are discussions regarding the components of different types of
manuscripts, submission and review processes, quality writing skills, suggestions for working
collaboratively with editors and coauthors, dealing with rejection, and tackling the challenges
inherent in rewriting and resubmitting one’s work. In addition, some texts deal with fundamen-
tals of a good review and offer guidance for becoming a manuscript reviewer—an emergent and
often rewarding task when one reaches the postdoctoral phase.
Following are some additional recommended resources that you might consider perusing
regarding publication and presentation of your research.
Allen, M. (2016). Essentials for publishing qualitative research. Left Coast Press.
This text is part of the Qualitative Essentials book series that provides a comprehensive but
succinct overview of topics in qualitative inquiry. This helpful and practical guide offers stu-
dents an understanding of the process of publishing qualitative research. The author offers a
behind-the-scenes look at publishing while providing a pragmatic guide to publishing qualita-
tive work as either journal articles or book chapters.
Mollett, A., Brumley, C., Gilson, C., & Williams, S. (2018). Communicating your research with social
media: A practical guide to using blogs, podcasts, data visualizations, and video. SAGE.
Adopting social media as a vehicle to communicate academic research is not an easy task
and is generally not very well understood. This book explains how to communicate research
through blogs, podcasts, data visualizations, and video. Included is a step-by-step breakdown
of the strategic capabilities of this medium, highlighting the possibilities, as well as the pitfalls,
when promoting one’s research through digital and social channels.
Nygaard, L. (2016). Writing for scholars: A practical guide to making sense and being heard. SAGE.
This book guides you through the process of writing and presenting your research in order to
help you make your voice heard within the academic community. Grounded in real-world advice
rather than abstract best practice, the author demonstrates a number of approaches to writing
in order to help you identify those most suited to your own project.
Silvia, P. J. (2018). How to write a lot: A practical guide to productive academic writing. APA Life Tools.
What holds most writers back is that they simply don't write or don't write often enough to
develop a proficient skill level. In this book, the author explains the key challenges leading to
starting and completing a writing project and some helpful ways to address these challenges.
This book is a useful resource to reflect on what might be holding you back, and then take the
necessary action steps to increase your productivity as a writer.
Wallace, M., & Wray, A. (2016). Critical reading and writing for postgraduates. (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Reading critically and writing using critical techniques are crucial skills for academic work.
In a practical and engaging way, this book provides tools for analyzing texts and structur-
ing critical reviews. Numerous diagrams, exercises, and concept explanations are designed
to enable you to more easily understand and apply the various approaches, and a glossary is
also included to help with understanding of key terms. The current edition includes a com-
panion website that provides additional resources to help apply critical reading and writing
techniques.
Wolcott, H. (2009). Writing up qualitative research. (3rd ed.). SAGE.
This is a valuable classic resource for academic writers at any stage of their careers. Graduate
students will find the discussion of breaking out of the prescribed formulas of the disserta-
tion genre very helpful. New academics will enjoy the advice for keeping writing relevant to the
audience, as well as the chapters on negotiating the publication process. Wolcott offers practi-
cal suggestions for how to proceed with the mechanics of preparing an article or book for publi-
cation using lively examples from his great many years of experience in the field.
Preparing Dissertations for ProQuest Publication. https://about.proquest.com/en/dissertations/
ProQuest is a comprehensive and renowned dissertation resource At its core is the seminal
ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database (PQDT), a repository of 5 million works that the
world’s universities contribute to each year, creating an ever-growing resource of emerging
research. As the official repository of the Library of Congress, ProQuest provides researchers
with search and reference link functionalities that enable international access to dissertations.
ProQuest provides free instructional resources for students to use in a virtual learning envi-
ronment, including modules that provide support tools for writing, community building, and
PQDT Global use.
com/bloomberg-qualitative-5e. The companion website offers materials related to some of the
issues discussed in Chapter 13 including preparing your dissertation for ProQuest publication.
AFTERWORD
A dissertation is an extensive, challenging, and rigorous scholarly endeavor. As such, com-

pleting this work represents the pinnacle of academic achievement. This book traces the
path of the dissertation process from the time your research was the beginning of an idea to its
ultimate successful completion.
The intention is that this book provides the guidance and initiative for careful and system-
atic planning, preparation, and management of what might at first seem to be a nebulous and
seemingly impossible task. Hopefully, with this road map in hand, you are now better equipped
for the challenges ahead and are on your way to graduating with your doctorate. The disserta-
tion journey is about achieving several milestones, one at a time. Once you have made the deci-
sion to complete your dissertation, which is a significant milestone in itself, do not allow one day
to go by without doing something. Certainly you can expect your initial projections to be revised
and re-revised. But keep a positive attitude, actively finding ways to move forward and succeed.
Based on globalizing forces, new theoretical perspectives, increasingly expanding critical
research, enhanced technology, and other socio-cultural changes that continue to impact the
work of social scientists, innovative methods and approaches are emergent and evolving. The
field of qualitative research continues to evolve and transform. Paradigm shifts and deep dia-
logue have become a constant presence within and across the theoretical frameworks that orga-
nize both qualitative inquiry and social and human sciences. The literature clearly reflects an
ongoing need for a critical, interpretive, compassionate, multivoiced, and civic social science
that is directed to praxis and social change and that strives to combat repression and oppres-
sion in our daily lives. It has been gratifying to see that as graduate students continue to engage
in their research, many are forging new pathways that challenge boundaries and build bridges
across traditions and genres, thereby expanding and significantly enhancing the field. It is these
bold efforts that continue to develop qualitative inquiry as a growing, thriving, dynamic, and
ever-evolving multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary endeavor.
As I write this text, the world’s population is experiencing a health pandemic that has
shifted our way of life and the taken-for-granted ways in which we communicate, work, and
conduct research. The pandemic has also had a disproportionate impact on the most vulnerable
communities in society, exacerbating oppression and marginalization. The need to focus more
keenly on trustworthiness criteria and ethical practices has grown out of the recent emergence
of needs and awareness brought about by the pandemic and its aftermath, and the added chal-
lenges facing qualitative researchers as they were forced to navigate new and unchartered waters.
These challenges placed a greater spotlight on the role of the qualitative researcher in relation
to the dissertation research process, with an increased emphasis on power and positionality,
intersectionality, criticality, and reflexivity; all of which means asking ourselves hard questions.
461
462 Completing Your Qualitative Dissertation
Questions such as who we conduct research with, what research we seek to conduct, how we con-
duct our research, where, when, and why we conduct our research, and even who are “we” have
never been more critical for qualitative researchers to consider. The implications of the choices
we make beyond basic methodological decisions are indeed more critical today than ever before.
What is the potential social, cultural, and political impact of our research? Moreover, should we
be content just to report our findings or should we instead be striving to evoke awareness, pro-
voke and invoke action to bring about change through our research, thereby potentially making
an authentic and meaningful real-world difference?
Considering the researcher as the primary instrument of research, the importance of sys-
tematically and methodically addressing social location and positionality, and paying close
attention to context and complexity become critical in working to achieve rigorous and trust-
worthy research. Assessing issues of trustworthiness, and in particular credibility, has increas-
ingly become a clear focus in the evaluation of qualitative research studies. One of the most
fundamental quality criteria for qualitative research is reflexivity; the practice of situating one-
self within the context of the research, showing an awareness of, sensitivity to, and engagement
with the cultural and social embeddedness of methods, theories, and research questions, as well
as reflecting on and critiquing one’s own assumptions and biases based on social identity, power
dynamics, and positionality. Declaring our positionality and exposing how we show up makes
for fully transparent and trustworthy research. This also conveys the message of researcher
humility and vulnerability in the space we share with our research participants, so that as we
write about their stories and experiences we deeply consider the possibilities in which to most
authentically portray the humanity of the “Other”; in this way, our research can indeed become
a vehicle for meaningful social change.
As an adult educator, it is my philosophy that what matters ultimately in life is not only
what one has learned but also what one has taught. My hope is that if this book has given you
some new knowledge, skills, and insight, you will pass what you have learned on to somebody
else who is starting off on the qualitative dissertation process or who might be stuck along the
way and attempting to move forward. And may we all continue to apply what we learn to build
a more compassionate, inclusive, safe, and socially just world, because I know and trust that
learning powers change.
My best wishes for your continued fulfillment and success.
—Linda Dale Bloomberg
REFERENCES
Acocella, I., & Cataldi, S. (2021). Using focus groups: Theory, methodology, practice. SAGE.
Adom, D., Hussein, E. K., & Agyem, J. A. (2018). Theoretical and conceptual framework: Mandatory
ingredients of a quality research. International Journal of Scientific Research, 7(1), 6–9.
Allen, M. (2016). Essentials for publishing qualitative research. Left Coast Press.
Amankwaa, L. (2016). Creating protocols for trustworthiness in qualitative research. Journal of
Cultural Diversity, 23(3), 121–127.
American Psychological Association. (2019). Publication manual of the American Psychological
Association (7th ed.). Author.
American Psychological Association. (2020). Conducting research during the COVID-19 pandemic. htt
ps://www.apa.org/news/apa/2020/03/conducting-research-covid-19
Andrews, M., Squire, C., & Tamboukou, M. (2013). Doing narrative research (2nd ed.). SAGE.
Anfara, V. A., & Mertz, N. T. (Eds.). (2015). Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research (2nd ed.).
SAGE.
Antin, T. M., Constantine, N. A., & Hunt, G. (2015). Conflicting discourses in qualitative research:
The search for divergent data within cases. Sage Research and Evaluation Methods, 27(3), 211–222.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1978/1996). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective.
Addison-Wesley.
Association of Internet Researchers (AoIR). (2019). Internet research ethical guidelines. https://aoir.
org/ethics/
Atkinson, P., & Coffey, A. (2011). Analyzing documentary realities. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative
research (3rd ed., pp. 77–91). SAGE.
Au, A. (2019). Thinking about cross-cultural differences in qualitative interviewing: Practices for
more responsive and trusting encounters. The Qualitative Report, 24(1), 58–77.
Barbour, R. (2018). Doing focus groups (2nd ed.). SAGE.
Bazeley, P. (2018). Integrating analyses for mixed methods research. SAGE.
Bazeley, P. (2021). Qualitative data analysis: Practical strategies (2nd ed.). SAGE.
The Belmont Report. (1979). The national commission for the protection of human subjects of biomedi-
cal and behavioral research. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/
read-the-belmont-report/index.html
Berger, R. (2015). Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative
research. Qualitative Research, 15(2), 219–234.
Bernard, H. R., Wutich, A., & Ryan, G. W. (2017). Analyzing qualitative data: Systematic approaches
(2nd ed.). SAGE.
Bevan, M. T. (2014). A method of phenomenological interviewing. Qualitative Health Research, 24(1),
136–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732313519710
463
Billups, F. D. (2020). Qualitative data collection tools: Design, development, and applications. SAGE.
Bingham, A. J., & Witkowsky, P. (2020). Deductive and inductive approaches for qualitative data
analysis. In C. Vanova, P. Mihas, & J. Saldana (Eds.), Analyzing and interpreting qualitative research
(pp. 133–148). SAGE.
Birks, M., & Mills, J. (2015). Grounded theory: A practical guide (2nd ed.). SAGE.
Bischoping, K., & Gazso, A. (2016). Analyzing talk in the social sciences: Narrative, conversation, and
discourse strategies. SAGE.
Bloomberg, L. D. (2007a). Revisiting research approaches. Unpublished manuscript.
Bloomberg, L. D. (2007b). Understanding qualitative inquiry: Content and process (Part I).
Unpublished manuscript.
Bloomberg, L. D. (2009). The qualitative dissertation: A content guideline. Unpublished manuscript.
Bloomberg, L. D. (2010). Understanding qualitative inquiry: Content and process (Part II). Unpublished
manuscript
Bloomberg, L. D. (2011). Understanding qualitative inquiry: Content and process (Part III). Unpublished
manuscript
Bloomberg, L. D. (2015). Qualitative dissertation evaluation. Unpublished manuscript.
Bloomberg, L. D. (2018). Case study method. In B. B. Frey (Ed.), The Sage encyclopedia of educational
research, measurement, and evaluation (pp. 237–239). SAGE.
Bloomberg, L. D., & Volpe, M. (2019). Completing your qualitative dissertation: A road map from
beginning to end (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Blumer, H. (1969). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Prentice-Hall.
Boote, D. N., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation
literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34(6), 3–15.
Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M., Bizup, J., & FitzGerald, W. T. (2016). The craft of research
(4th ed.). University of Chicago Press.
Boreus, K., & Bergstrom, G. (Eds.). (2017). Analyzing text and discourse: Eight approaches for the
social sciences. SAGE.
Bourke, B. (2014). Positionality: Reflecting on the research process. The Qualitative Report, 19(33),
1–9. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2014.1026
Bourner, T., & Brook, C. (2019). Comparing and contrasting action research and action learning. In
C. A. Mertler (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of action research in education, (pp. 185–205). John Wiley and
Sons.
Bradbury, H., Lewis, R., & Embury, D.C. (2019). Education action research: With and for the next
generation. In C.A. Mertler (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of action research in education. John Wiley and
Sons.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport,
Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2020). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) the-
matic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478088
7.2020.1769238
References 465
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Conceptual and design thinking for thematic analysis. Qualitative
Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000196 Advance online publication
Brinkman, S., & Kvale, S. (2018). Doing interviews (2nd ed.). SAGE.
Brinkmann, S. (2014). Doing without data. Qualitative Inquiry, 20, 720–725.
Brinkmann, S. (2018). The interview. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of
qualitative research (5th ed., pp. 576–599). SAGE.
Brinkmann, S., & Kvale, S. (2015). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interview-
ing (4th ed.). SAGE.
Brookfield, S. D. (1990). Using critical incidents to explore learners’ assumptions. In J. Meizrow
(Ed.), Fostering critical reflection in adulthood (pp. 177–212). Jossey-Bass.
Brookfield, S. D. (1991). Using critical incidents to explore assumptions. In J. Mezirow & Associates
(Eds.), Fostering critical reflection in adulthood, (pp. 177–193). Jossey-Bass.
Brookfield, S. D. (2005). The power of critical theory: Liberating adult learning and teaching.
Jossey-Bass.
Byrne, D. (2021). A worked example of Braun and Clarke’s approach to reflexive thematic analysis.
Quality & Quantity. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01182-y
Cañas, A. J., & Novak, J. D. (2005). A concept map-centered learning environment. Paper presented
at the Symposium at the 11th Biennial Conference of the European Association for Research in
Learning and Instruction (EARLI).
Cannella, G. S., Perez, M. S., & Pasque, P. A. (2015). Critical qualitative inquiry: Foundations and
futures. Routledge.
Capper, C. A. (2018). Organizational theory for equity and diversity: Leading integrated, socially just edu-
cation. Routledge.
Carminati, L. (2018). Generalizability in qualitative research: A tale of two traditions. Qualitative
Health Research, 28(13), 2094–2101.
Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED). (2014). Working principles for the professional
practice doctorate in education.
Casanave, C. P., & Li, Y. (2015). Novices’ struggles with conceptual and theoretical framing in writ-
ing dissertations and papers for publication. Publications, 3(2), 104–119.
Chambliss, D. F., & Schutt, R. K. (2020). Making sense of the social world: Methods of investigation (6th
ed.). SAGE.
Chandler, C. (2014). What is the meaning of impact in relation to research and why does it matter? A view
from inside academia in: Achieving impact in research? SAGE Research Methods.
Charmaz, K. (2008). Grounded theory as an emergent method. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy
(Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 155–170). Guilford Press.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Grounded theory in global perspective: Reviews by international researchers.
Charmaz, K. (2015). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). SAGE.
Charmaz, K. (2016). The power of grounded theory for critical inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 23(1),
34–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800416657105
Charmaz, K. (2020). Grounded theory: Main characteristics. In M. Jarvinen & N. Mik-Meyer (Eds.),
Qualitative analysis: Eight approaches for the social sciences (pp. 195–222). SAGE.
Charmaz, K., Thornberg, R., & Keane, E. (2018). Evolving grounded theory and social justice inquiry.
In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (5th ed., pp. 411–443).
SAGE.
Chase, S. E. (2018). Narrative inquiry: Toward theoretical and methodological maturity. In N. K.
Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (5th ed., pp. 546–560). SAGE.
Chilisa, B. (2019). Indigenous research methodologies (2nd ed.). SAGE.
Clandinin, D. J. (Ed.). (2007). Handbook of narrative inquiry: Mapping a methodology. SAGE.
Clandinin, D. J. (2013). Engaging in narrative inquiry. Left Coast Press.
Clark, A. M., & Sousa, B. J. (2017). The five neglected skills all qualitative researchers need.
International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16, 1–3.
Cloutier, C., & Ravasi, D. (2021). Using tables to enhance trustworthiness in qualitative research.
Strategic Organization, 19(1), 113–133.
Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data: Complementary research strategies.
SAGE.
Collins, C., & Stockton, C. (2018). The central role of theory in qualitative research. International
Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1), 1–10.
Collins, D. R., & Cannella, G. S. (2021). Racisms in qualitative inquiry: Recognitions and challenges.
Qualitative Inquiry, 1–7.
Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry. Educational
Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (2006). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative
research. Jossey-Bass.
Cooper, H. (2017). Research synthesis and meta-analysis. A step-by-step approach (5th ed.). SAGE.
Cooperrider, D. L., Whitney, D., & Stavros, J. M. (2008). The appreciative inquiry handbook: For leaders
of change (2nd ed.). Berrett-Koehler.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for develop-
ing grounded theory (4th ed.). SAGE.
Council of Graduate Schools. (2016). Imagining the dissertation’s many futures. Insights and
Research on Graduate Education, 5(2). https://cgsnet.org/gradedge-march-2016
Council of Graduate Schools Report. (2021). Graduate enrollment and degrees 2010 to 2020,
https://cgsnet.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/CGS_GED20_Report_final_v2-2.pdf
Cozby, P. C., & Bates, S. C. (2012). Methods in behavioral research. McGraw Hill Higher Education.
Creamer, E. G. (2018). An introduction to fully integrated mixed methods research. SAGE.
Creswell, J., & Baez, J. (2021). 30 Essential skills for the qualitative researcher (2nd ed.). SAGE.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (5th ed.). SAGE.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd
ed.). SAGE.
approaches (4th ed.). SAGE.
Currand, M., & Randall, A. K. (2020). Positionality statements. https://iarr.org/documents/Positional
ity%20Statements_Final.pdf
References 467
Daiute, C. (2014). Narrative inquiry. SAGE.

Dean, J., Furness, P., Verrier, D., Lennon, H., Bennett, C., & Spencer, S. (2018). Desert island data:
An investigation into researcher positionality. Qualitative Research, 18(3), 273–289.
Denzin, N. K. (2001). Interpretive interactionism. SAGE.
Denzin, N. K. (2017). Critical qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 23(1), 8–16.
Denzin, N. K., & Giardina, M. D (Eds.). (2016). Qualitative inquiry through a critical lens. Routledge.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2018). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (5th ed.).
SAGE.
Derrington, M. L. (2019). Qualitative longitudinal methods: Researching implementation and change.
Qualitative Research Methods Series, SAGE.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. Macmillan.
Dörfler, V., & Stierand, M. (2021). Bracketing: A phenomenological theory applied through
transpersonal reflexivity. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 34(4), 778–793. https://str
athprints.strath.ac.uk/73593/1/Dorfler_Stierand_JOCM_2020_Bracketing_a_phenomenological
_theory_applied.pdf
Eddles-Hirsch, K. (2015). Phenomenology and educational research. International Journal of
Advanced Research, 3(8), 251–260. http://www.journalijar.com/uploads/287_ijar-6671.pdf
Eisner, E. W. (1997). The promise and peril of alternative forms of data representation. Educational
Eisner, E. W. (2017). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational prac-
tice. Teachers College Press.
Elliott, V. (2018). Thinking about the coding process in qualitative data analysis. The Qualitative
Report, 23(11), 2850–2861. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2018.3560
Emmison, M. (2017). Visual inquiry: Issues and developments. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative
research (4th ed., pp. 297–310). SAGE.
Esposito, J., & Evans-Winters, V. (2021). Introduction to Intersectional Qualitative Research. SAGE.
Farrell, E. (2020). Researching lived experience in education: Misunderstood or missed opportu-
nity? International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1–8.
Fetterman, D. M. (2010). Ethnography: Step by step (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Fielding, N. G. (2019). New data and old dilemmas: Changes and continuities in online social
research. Qualitative Inquiry, 25(8), 761–772. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/
1077800418809130
Finefter-Rosenbluh, I. (2017). Incorporating perspective taking in reflexivity: A method to enhance
insider qualitative research processes. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16, 1–11. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1609406917703539
Finfgeld-Connett, D. (2014). Use of content analysis to conduct knowledge-building and
theory-generating qualitative systematic reviews. Qualitative Research, 14(3), 341–352.
Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide. SAGE.
Finley, S. (2018). Critical arts-based inquiry: Performances of resistance politics. In N. K. Denzin &
Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (5th ed., pp. 561–575). SAGE.
Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 327–358.
Flick, U. (Ed.). (2018). The sage handbook of qualitative data collection. SAGE.
Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (2013). The interview: From neutral stance to political involvement. In N.
K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (4th ed., pp. 115–159).
SAGE.
Fowler, F. J. (2014). Survey research methods (5th ed.). SAGE.
Franzke, A., Bechmann, A., Zimmer, M., & Ess, C. (2020). Internet research: Ethical guidelines 3.0.
Association of Internet Researchers. https://aoir.org/reports/ethics3.pdf
Freire, P. (1968/1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Seabury.
Frey, B. B. (2018). Trustworthiness. In Frey. B. B (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of educational
research, measurement, and evaluation (pp. 1729–1731), SAGE.
Friese, S. (2019). Qualitative data analysis with ATLAS.ti (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Fusch, P. I., & Ness, L. R. (2015). Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. The
Qualitative Report, 20(9), 1408–1416. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol20/iss9/3
Garman, N. B., & Piantanida, M (Eds.). (2018). The authority to imagine: The struggle toward represen-
tation in dissertation writing. Learning Moments Press.
Gearing, R. E. (2004). Bracketing in research: A typology. Qualitative Health Research, 14, 1429–1452.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. Basic Books.
Gelinas, L., Pierce, R., Winkler, S., Cohen, I.G., Fernandez Lynch, H., & Bierer, B. E. (2017). Using
social media as a research recruitment tool: Ethical issues and recommendations. The American
Journal of Bioethics, 17(3), 3–14.
Gentles, S. J., & Vilches, S. L. (2017). Calling for a shared understanding of sampling terminology in
qualitative research. The International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1–7.
Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussion. Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. Aldine Publishing.
Glesne, C. (2006). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (3rd ed.). Pearson.
Golder, S., Ahmed, S., Norman, G., & Booth, A. (2017). Attitudes toward the ethics of research
using social media: A systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 19(6). https://doi.
org/10.2196/jmir.7082
Goodson, P. (2017). Becoming an academic writer: Fifty exercises for paced, productive, and powerful
writing (2nd ed.). SAGE.
Grant, C., & Osanloo, A. (2014). Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical framework
in dissertation research: Creating the blueprint for your “house.”. Administrative Issues Journal:
Connecting Education, Practice and Research, 4(2), 12–26.
Gray, L. M., Wong-Wylie, G., Rempel, G. R., & Cook, K. (2020). Expanding qualitative research inter-
viewing strategies: Zoom video communications. The Qualitative Report, 25(5), 1292–1301. https://ns
uworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol25/iss5/9
Grbich, C. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: An introduction (2nd ed.). SAGE.
Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational
Resources Information Center Annual Review Paper, 29, 75–91.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1982). Epistemological and methodological bases of naturalistic
inquiry. Educational Technology and Research Development, 30(4), 233–252.
References 469
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1998). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin& Y. S.
Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues, (pp. 195–220). SAGE.
Guest, G., MacQueen, K., & Namey, E. E. (2012). Applied thematic analysis. SAGE.
Guest, G., Namey, E., & Chen, M. (2020). A simple method to assess and report thematic saturation
in qualitative research. PloS One 15(5), e0232076. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232076
Guillemin, M., & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics, reflexivity, and “Ethically important moments” in
research. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(2), 261–280. https://doi.org/10.1177800403262360
Hall, J. N. (2020). Focus groups: Culturally responsive approaches for qualitative inquiry and program
evaluation. Myers Education Press.
Hampton, C., Reeping, D., & OzKan, D. (2019). Positionality statements in engineering education
research: A look at the hand that guides the methodological tools. Studies in Engineering Education,
1(2), 126–141. https://seejournal.org/articles/10.21061/see.13/print/
Handy, J., & Ross, K. (2005). Using written accounts in qualitative research. South Pacific Journal of
Psychology, 16, 40–47. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266041688_Using_Written_Acco
unts_in_Qualitative_Research
Hart, C. (2018). Doing a literature review: Releasing the research imagination (2nd ed.). SAGE.
Head, G. (2020). Ethics in educational research: Review boards, ethical issues and researcher
development. European Educational Research Journal, 19(1), 72–83.
Hennink, M. M., & Kaiser, B. N. (2019). Saturation in qualitative research. In P. Atkinson, S.
Delamont, A. Cernat, J. W. Sakshaug, & R. A. Williams (Eds.), Saturation in qualitative research.
SAGE Research Methods Foundations Collection. https://methods.sagepub.com/foundations/
saturation-in-qualitative-research
Hennink, M. M., Kaiser, B. N., & Marconi, V. (2017). Code saturation versus meaning satura-
tion: How many interviews are enough? Qualitative Health Research, 27(4), 591–608. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1049732316665344
Higgins, C. (2016). The promise, pitfalls, and persistent challenge of action research. Ethics &
Education, 11(2), 230.
Holmes, G. D. (2020). Researcher positionality - A consideration of its influence and place in quali-
tative research - A new researcher guide. International Journal of Education, 8(4), 1–10. https://files.e
ric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1268044.pdf
Holton, J. A. (2012). The autonomous creativity of Barney G, Glaser: Early influences in the emer-
gence of classic grounded theory methodology. In V. B. Martin& A. Gynnild (Eds.), Grounded theory:
The philosophy, method, and work of Barney Glaser, (pp. 201–223). Brown Walker Press.
Holton, J. A., & Walsh, I. (2017). Classic grounded theory: Applications with qualitative and quantitative
data. SAGE.
Hooks, B. (1990). Yearning: Race, gender and cultural politics. South End Press.
Hughs, K., & Tarrant, A. (2020). Qualitative secondary analysis. SAGE.
Humphreys, L. (2020). Qualitative sampling and internet research. In E. Hargittai (Ed.), Research
exposed: How empirical social science gets done in the digital age (pp. 78–100). Columbia
University Press.
Husserl, E. (1931). Ideas: General introduction to pure phenomenology (W. R. B. Gibson, Trans.).
Humanities Press. Original work published 1913.
Hycner, R. H. (1985). Some guidelines for the phenomenological analysis of interview data. Human
Studies, 8, 279–303.
Imenda, S. (2014). Is there a conceptual difference between theoretical and conceptual frame-
works? Journal of Social Sciences, 38(2), 185–195.
Inoue, A. B. (2015). Antiracist writing assessment ecologies: teaching and assessing writing for a
socially just future. https://wac.colostate.edu/books/perspectives/inoue/
International Development Research Center (IDRC). (2020). Research ethics practices during
COVID-19. https://www.idrc.ca/en/research-ethics-practices-during-covid-19
Jackson, K., & Bazeley, P. (2019). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Jacob, S. A., & Furgerson, S. P. (2012). Writing interview protocols and conducting interviews: Tips
for students new to the field of qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 17(42), 1–10. https://nsu
works.nova.edu/tqr/vol17/iss42/3
Jacobson, D., & Mustafa, N. (2019). Social identity map: A reflexivity tool for practicing explicit posi-
tionality in critical qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, 1–12. https://
doi.org/10.1177%2F1609406919870075
Jarrett, R. (1993). Focus group interviewing with low-income, minority populations: A research experi-
ence. In D. L. Morgan (Ed.), Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art (pp. 184–201). SAGE.
Jarvinen, M., & Mik-Meyer, N. (2020). Qualitative analysis: Eight approaches for the social sciences.
SAGE.
Jowett, A. (2020). Carrying out qualitative research under lockdown – Practical and ethical considerations.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2020/04/20/carrying-out-qualitative-research-
under-lockdown-practical-and-ethical-considerations/
Kane, M., & Trochim, W. (2006). Concept mapping for planning and evaluation. SAGE.
Kim, J. (2016). Understanding narrative inquiry: The crafting and analysis of stories as research. SAGE.
Kincheloe, J. L., McLaren, P., Steinberg, S. R., & Monzo, L. D. (2018). Critical pedagogy and qualita-
tive research: Advancing the bricolage. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of
qualitative research (5th ed., pp. 235–260). SAGE.
Kivunja, C. (2018). Distinguishing between theory theoretical framework, and conceptual frame-
work: A systematic review of lessons from the field. International Journal of Higher Education, 7(6),
44–53. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1198682.pdf
Korstjens, I., & Moser, A. (2018). Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 4:
Trustworthiness and publishing. European Journal of General Practice, 24, 120–124. https://doi.org/1
0.1080/13814788.2017.1375092
Kovach, M. (2018). Doing indigenous methodologies: A letter to a research class. In N. K. Denzin & Y.
S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (5th ed., pp. 214–234). SAGE.
Krefting, L. M. (1991). Rigor in qualitative research: The assessment of trustworthiness. The
American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45(3), 214–222.
Kreuger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2015). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (5th ed.).
SAGE.
Kuckartz, U. (2014). Qualitative text analysis. SAGE.
Lahman, M. K. E. (2022). Writing and representing qualitative research. SAGE. https://us.sagepub.
com/en-us/nam/writing-and-representing-qualitative-research/book265202
References 471
Lanford, M., Tierney, W. G., & Lincoln, Y. (2019). The art of life history: Novel approaches,
future directions. Qualitative Inquiry, 25(5), 459–463. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/
pdf/10.1177/1077800418817834
Lani, J. (2020). Almost 50% of all doctoral students don’t graduate. Statistics Solutions. https://www.s
tatisticssolutions.com/almost-50-of-all-doctoral-students-dont-graduate/
Largan, C., & Morris, T. (2019). Qualitative secondary research: A step by step guide. SAGE.
Leavy, P. (2017). Research design: Quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, arts-based, and
community-based participatory research approaches. Guilford Publications.
Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2013). Practical research: Planning and design (10th ed.). Pearson.
Lester, J. N., Cho, Y., & Lochmiller, C. (2020). Learning to do qualitative data analy-
sis: A starting point. Human Resource Development Review, 19(1), 94–106. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1534484320903890
Levitt, H.M., Morrill, Z., Collins, K.M., & Rizo, J.L. (2021). The methodological integrity of criti-
cal qualitative research: Principles to support design and research review. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 68(3), 357–370. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cou0000523
Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34–46.
Liamputtong, P. (2011). Focus group methodology: Principles and practice. SAGE.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging con-
fluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 163–
188). SAGE.
Lobe, B., Morgan, D., & Hoffman, K. A. (2020). Qualitative data collection in an era of social dis-
tancing. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1–8. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/
pdf/10.1177/1609406920937875
Loseke, D. R. (2022). Narrative as topic and method in social research. The Qualitative Research
Methods Series. SAGE.
Lynch, M., & Mah, C. (2018). Using internet data sources to achieve qualitative interviewing pur-
poses: A research note. Qualitative Research, 18(6), 741–752.
Ma, V., Dana, N., Adams, A., & Kennedy, B. (2018). Understanding the problem of practice: An
analysis of professional practice EdD dissertations. Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming
Professional Practice, 3. https://doi.org/10.5195/IE.2018.50
Macleod, C. I., Marx, J., Mnyaka, P., & Treharne, G. J. (Eds.). (2018). The Palgrave handbook of ethics in
critical research. Palgrave Macmillan.
Madden, R. (2011). Being ethnographic: A guide to the theory and practice of ethnography. SAGE.
Malterud, K., Siersma, V. K., & Guassora, A. D. (2016). Sample size in qualitative interview stud-
ies: Guided by information power. Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1753–1760. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1049732315617444
Marshall, C., Rossman, G. B., & Blanco, G. L. (2022). Designing qualitative research (7th ed.). SAGE.
Martin, V. B., & Gynnild, A (Eds.). (2012). Grounded theory: The philosophy, method, and work of Barney
Glaser. Brown Walker Press.
Marvasti, A. (2017). Writing qualitative research: Practice, genre, and audience. In D. Silverman
(Ed.), Qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 429–446). SAGE.
Mason, J. (2018). Qualitative researching (3rd ed.). SAGE.

Mason-Bish, H. (2019). The elite delusion: reflexivity, identity and positionality in qualitative
research. Qualitative Research, 19(3), 262–276.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Maxwell, J. A. (2018). Qualitative data analysis. In B. B. Frey (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of educa-
tional research, measurement, and evaluation (pp. 1335–1339). SAGE.
May, T., & Perry, B. (2014). Reflexivity and the practice of qualitative research. In U. Flick (Ed.), The
Sage handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 109–122). SAGE.
May, T., & Perry, B. (2017). Reflexivity: The Essential Guide. SAGE.
McNess, E., Crossley, M., & Lore, A. (Eds.). (2015). Revisiting insider-outsider research in comparative
and international education. Symposium Books.
McNiff, J. (2018). Action research: All you need to know. SAGE.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study application in education. In Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Six common qualitative research designs. In Qualitative
research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). In Jossey-Bass.
Mertler, C. A. (2019). The Wiley handbook of action research in education. John Wiley and Sons.
Mertler, C. A. (2020). Action research: Improving schools and empowering educators (6th ed.). SAGE.
Mertler, C. A. (2022). Introduction to educational research (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Mezirow, J. (1981, Fall). A critical theory of adult education. Adult Education, 31, 3–24.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.).
SAGE.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2019). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook
(4th ed.). SAGE.
Mills, J., & Birks, M (Eds.). (2014). Qualitative methodology: A practical guide. SAGE.
Mitchell, R. (2021). How to overcome the challenges of doing research during Covid-19. Institute of Develop-
ment Studies. https://www.ids.ac.uk/opinions/how-to-overcome-the-challenges-of-doing-research-
during-covid19/
Mollett, A., Brumley, C., Gilson, C., & Williams, S. (2018). Communicating your research with social
media: A practical guide to using blogs, podcasts, data visualizations, and video. SAGE.
Morgan, D. L. (2019). Basic and advanced focus groups. SAGE.
Morgan, D. L., & Ravitch, S. M. (2018). Trustworthiness. In B. Frey (Ed.), The sage encyclopedia of
educational research, measurement, and evaluation, (pp. 1729–1731). SAGE.
Morse, J. M. (2020). The changing face of qualitative inquiry. International Journal of Qualitative
Methods., 19, 1–7. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1609406920909938
Mortari, L. (2015). Reflectivity in research practice: An overview of different perspectives.
International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 14(5), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406915618045
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. SAGE.
References 473
Muylaert, C. J., Sarubbi, V., Gallo, P. R., Neto, M. L., & Reis, A. O. (2014). Narrative interviews: An
important resource in qualitative research / entrevistas narrativas: un recurso importante en la
investigación cualitativa / entrevistas narrativas: um importante recurso em pesquisa qualitativa.
Revista Da Escola de Enfermagem Da USP, 48(spe2), 184–189.
Nathaniel, A. K. (2012). An integrated philosophical framework that fits grounded theory. In V. B.
Martin& A. Gynnild (Eds.), Grounded theory: The philosophy, method, and work of Barney Glaser, (pp.
187–200). BrownWalker Press.
National Commission. (1979). The Belmont Report. (Does this fit here or above under “Belmont
Report”?). https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/index.html
Neuman, W. L. (2000). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (4th ed.). Allyn
& Bacon.
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., & White, D. E. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustwor-
thiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16, 1–13. https://journals.sagepub.com/
doi/full/10.1177/1609406917733847
Nygaard, L. (2016). Writing for scholars: A practical guide to making sense and being heard. SAGE.
Orcutt, J. M., & Dringus, L. P. (2017). Beyond being there: Practices that establish presence, engage
students and influence intellectual curiosity in a structured online learning environment. Online
Learning, 21(3), 15–35. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1154155.pdf
O’Reilly, M., & Kiyimba, N. (2015). Advanced qualitative research: A guide to using theory. SAGE.
O’Toole, J. (2018). Institutional storytelling and personal narratives: reflecting on the value of nar-
rative inquiry. Institutional Educational Studies, 37(2), 175–189.
Palys, T., & Atchison, C. (2020). Research methods in the social and health sciences: Making research
decisions. SAGE.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). SAGE.
Paulus, T. M., & Lester, J. N. (2021). Doing qualitative research in a digital world. SAGE.
Pelto, P. J. (2013). Applied ethnography: Guidelines for field research. Left Coast Press.
Penslar, R. I. (1993). IRB guidebook. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/archive/irb/irb_guidebook.htm, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services Office for Human Research Protections
Peoples, K. (2021). How to write a phenomenological dissertation: A step-by-step guide (Vol. 56).
Qualitative Research Methods, SAGE.
Phillips, D. C., & Burbules, N. C. (2000). Postpositivism and educational research. Rowman &
Littlefield.
Phillips, L., Christensen-Stryno, M., & Frolunde, L. (2021). Thinking with autoethnography in col-
laborative research: A critical, reflexive approach to relational ethics. Qualitative Research, 1–16.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/14687941211033446 (companion wsite ch 4)
Pierce, C. S. (1901/1992). On the logic of drawing history from ancient documents. In N. House & C.
Kloesel (Eds.), The essential pierce: Selected philosophical writing (Vol. 2). Indiana University Press.
Pinnagar, S., & Daynes, J. G. (2007). Locating narrative inquiry historically: Thematics in the turn to
narrative. In D. J. Clandinin (Ed.), Handbook of narrative inquiry (pp. 1–34). SAGE.
Polkinhorne, D. E. (1988). Narrative knowing and human sciences. State University of New York Press.
Prior, L. (2017). Using documents in social research. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research (4th
ed., pp. 171–186). SAGE.
Przybylski, L. (2020). Hybrid ethnography: Online, offline, and in between. Qualitative Research
Methods Series. SAGE.
Rantala, T. (2019). Exploring data production in motion: Fluidity and feminist poststructuralism. Myers
Education Press.
cal, and methodological (2nd ed.). SAGE.
Ravitch, S. M., & Riggan, M. (2017). Reason and rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research (2nd
ed.). SAGE.
Richards, L. (2020). Handling qualitative data: A practical guide (4th ed.). SAGE.
Rose, G. (2016). Visual methodologies: An introduction to researching with visual materials (4th ed.).
SAGE.
Rossman, G. B., & Rallis, S. F. (2017). Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative research (4th
ed.). SAGE.
Roulston, K. (2021). Interviewing: A guide to theory and practice. SAGE.
Roulston, K., & deMarrais, K. (2021). Exploring the archives: A beginner’s guide for qualitative
researchers. Myers Educational Press.
Roulston, K., & Shelton, S. A. (2015). Reconceptualizing bias in teaching qualitative research meth-
ods. Qualitative Inquiry, 21(1), 332–342.
Rowe, W. E. (2014). Positionality. In D. Coghlan & M. Brydon-Miller (Eds.), The SAGE encyclopedia of
action research. SAGE. https://methods-sagepub-com.proxy1.ncu.edu/Reference/encyclopedia-of
-action-research/n254.xml
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Ryan, G., & Bernard, H. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85–109.
Saldaña, J. (2015). Thinking qualitatively: Methods of mind. SAGE.
Saldaña, J. (2018). Researcher, analyze thyself. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1),
1–7.
Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th ed.). SAGE.
Salmons, J. (2017). Doing qualitative research online. SAGE.
Schoepfle, G. M. (2022). Introduction to cognitive ethnography and systematic field work. Qualitative
Research Methods Series. SAGE.
Schram, T. H. (2003). Conceptualizing qualitative inquiry. In Merrill Prentice Hall.
Schwandt, T. A. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.
Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 189–213). SAGE.
Schwandt, T. A. (2016). The Sage dictionary of qualitative inquiry (4th ed.). SAGE.
Schwandt, T. A., & Gates, E. F. (2018). Case study methodology. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),
The Sage handbook of qualitative research (5th ed., pp. 241–258). SAGE.
Sebastian, K. (2019). Distinguishing between the types of grounded theory: Classical, Interpretive,
and constructivist. Journal for Social Thought, 3(1), 1–9.
References 475
Sebele-Mpofu, F. Y. (2020). Saturation controversy in qualitative research: Complexities and under-

lying assumptions. A literature review. Cogent Social Sciences, 6(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/233
11886.2020.1838706
Seidman, I. (2019). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the
social sciences (5th ed.). Teachers College Press.
Silvia, P. J. (2018). How to write a lot: A practical guide to productive academic writing (2nd ed.). APA Life
Tools.
Sim, J., Saunders, B., Waterfield, J., & Kingstone, T. (2018). Can sample size in qualitative research
be determined a priori? International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 21(5), 619–634. https://
doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2018.1454643
Simmons, O. E. (2012). Why classic grounded theory. In V. B. Martin& A. Gynnild (Eds.), Grounded
theory: The philosophy, method, and work of Barney Glaser, (pp. 15–30). BrownWalker.
Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretive phenomenological analysis: Theory, method,
and research. SAGE.
Smith, J., Blevins, B., Werse, N. R., & Talbert, S. (2021). Researcher positionality in the dissertation
in practice. In R. Throne (Ed.), Practice-based and practice-led research for dissertation development
(pp. 43–63). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-6664-0.ch003
Smith, L. T. (2008). Decolonising Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. University of Otago
Press.
Spradley, J. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College.
St. Pierre, E. A. (2021). Post qualitative inquiry, the refusal of method, and the risk of the new.
St. Pierre, E. A., & Jackson, A. (2014). Qualitative data analysis after coding. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(6),
715–719.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. SAGE.
Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook
of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 443–466). SAGE.
Stewart, D., & Mickunas, A. (1990). Exploring phenomenology: A guide to the field and its related litera-
ture. Ohio University Press.
Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. N. (2015). Focus groups: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Stolz, S. A. (2020). Phenomenology and phenomenography in educational research: A critique.
Educational Philosophy & Theory, 52(10), 1077–1096.
Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge University Press.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for develop-
ing grounded theory (2nd ed.). SAGE.
Stringer, E. T., & Aragon, A. O. (2021). Action research (5th ed.). SAGE.
Strunk, W., & White, E. B. (2014). The elements of style (4th ed.). Pearson.
Sultana, F. (2007). Reflexivity, positionality and participatory ethics: Negotiating fieldwork dilem-
mas in international research. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 6(3),
374–385.
Swaminathan, R., & Mulvihill, T. M. (2017). Critical approaches to questions in qualitative research.
Routledge.
Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J. W. (2007). Editorial: The new era of mixed methods. Journal of Mixed
Methods Research, 1, 3–7.
Tatano Beck, C. (2021). Introduction to phenomenology: Focus on methodology. SAGE.
Timonen, V., Foley, G., & Conlon, C. (2018). Challenges when using grounded theory: A pragmatic
introduction to doing GT research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17, 1–10.
Tolich, M., & Tumilty, E. (2020). Practicing ethics and ethics praxis. The Qualitative Report, 25(13),
16–30.
Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human
Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356–367.
Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2005). 42 CFR Parts 50 and 93: Public Health
Service Policies on Research Misconduct; Final Rule.
Vagle, M. D. (2016). Crafting phenomenological research. Routledge.
Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis:
Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & Health Sciences, 15(3),
398–405.
Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography. University of Chicago Press.
Van Maanen, J (Ed.). (1995). Representation in ethnography. SAGE.
Van Maanen, J. (2006). Ethnography then and now. Qualitative Research in Organizations and
Management, 1(1), 13–21.
van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy.
State University of New York Press.
van Manen, M. (2016). Phenomenology of practice. Routledge.
van Rijnsoever, F. J. (2017). (I Can’t Get No) Saturation: A simulation and guidelines for sample sizes
in qualitative research. Plos One, 12(7), e0181689. 10.1371/journal.pone.0181689. https://journals.pl
os.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0181689
Wallace, M., & Wray, A. (2016). Critical reading and writing for postgraduates (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Weaver-Hart, A. (1988). Framing an innocent concept and getting away with it. UCEA Review, 24(2),
11–12.
Wertz, F. J., Charmaz, K., McMullen, L. M., Josselson, R., Anderson, R., & McSpadden, E. (2011).
Five ways of doing qualitative analysis: Phenomenological psychology, grounded theory, discourse analy-
sis, narrative research, and intuitive inquiry. Guilford Press.
Wheeldon, J., & Ahlberg, M. K. (2012). Visualizing social science research: Maps, methods, and mean-
ing. SAGE.
Whiting, R., & Pritchard, K. (2017). Digital ethics. In A. Cunliffe, C. Cassell, & G. Grandy (Eds.), SAGE
handbook of qualitative business and management research methods. SAGE. https://eprints.bbk.ac.u
k/id/eprint/15623/
Williams, M., & Moser, T. (2019). The art of coding and thematic exploration in qualitative research.
International Management Review, 15(1), 45–55.
References 477
Willig, C. (2014). Interpretation and analysis. In U. Flick (Ed.), The Sage handbook of qualitative data
analysis (pp. 136–149). SAGE.
Wolcott, H. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and interpretation. SAGE.
Wolcott, H. (2009). Writing up qualitative research (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Yazan, B. (2015). Three approaches to case study methods in education: Yin, Merriam, and Stake.
The Qualitative Report, 20(2), 134–152.
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE.

AUTHOR INDEX
A Boote, D. N., 206

Booth, A., 133, 294
Acocella, I., 321 Booth, W. C., 200
Adams, A., 185 Boreus, K., 291, 344, 354, 356
Adom, D., 236, 237, 239 Bourke, B., 138, 141
Agyem, J. A., 237, 239 Bourner, T., 101
Ahlberg, M. K., 246 Bradbury, H., 464
Ahmed, S., 294 Braun, V., 334
Allen, M., 459 Brinkman, S., 282, 341
American Psychological Association, 67 Brook, C., 101
Anderson, R., 69, 476 Brookfield, S. D., 79, 289
Andrews, M., 100, 157, 162 Brumley, C., 457
Anfara, V. A., 236, 238, 242 Brydon-Miller, D., 474
Antin, T. M., 352 Burbules, N. C., 77
Aragon, A. O., 101, 105, 169 Byrne, D., 377
Argyris, C., 102
Atchison, C., 269
Atkinson, P., 342, 354, 394 C
Au, A., 282 Cañas, A. J., 246
Cannella, G. S., 79, 106
Capper, C. A., 78, 106, 109, 158
B Carminati, L., 123
Baez, J., 186 Casanave, C. P., 252
Barbour, R., 284 Casey, M. A., 284, 285
Bates, S. C., 344 Cassell, C., 146
Bazeley, P., 70, 342, 360 Cataldi, S., 321
Bechmann, A., 294, 306 Cernat, A., 469
Beile, P., 206 Chambliss, D. F., 192
Bennett, C., 138 Chandler, C., 186
Berger, R., 141, 142, 400 Charmaz, K., 94, 95, 97, 332
Bergstrom, G., 291, 344, 354, 356 Chase, S. E., 98, 99, 100
Bernard, H. R., 337 Chen M., 377
Bierer, B. E., 133, 294 Chilisa, B., 107
Billups, F. D., 321 Cho, Y., 334
Bingham, A. J., 331 Christensen-Stryno, M., 473
Birks, M., 95, 98, 168 Clandinin, D. J., 98, 100, 162
Bischoping, K., 356 Clark, A. M., 457
Bizup, J., 200 Clarke, V., 334
Blanco, G. L., 21, 85, 173 Cloutier, C., 361
Blevins, B., 140 Coffey, A., 342, 354
Bloomberg, L. D., 3 (figure), 74 (figure), 85, 214 Coghlan, D., 474
(table), 224 (table), 231, 336 (figure), Cohen, I. G., 468
387 (figure), 398 (figure) Collins, C., 29, 236
Blumer, H., 94 Collins, D. R., 79, 106
Bondas, T., 345 Collins, K.M., 28, 29, 108
479
Colomb, G. G., 200 Foley, G., 476

Conlon, C., 497 Fontana, A., 282, 286
Connelly, F. M., 98, 100, 162 Fowler, F. J., 291
Constantine, N. A., 352 Franzke, A., 294, 306
Cook, K., 282 Freire, P., 79, 157
Cooper, H., 252 Frey, B. B, 306 (table)
Cooperrider, D. L., 102 Frey, J. H., 282
Corbin, J., 93, 94, 168, 246 Friese, S., 360
Cozby, P. C., 344 Frolunde, L., 473
Creamer, E. G., 70 Furgerson, S. P., 322
Creswell, J. D., 70, 88, 117, 155, 172 Furness, P., 467
Creswell, J. W., 70, 172, 406 Fusch, P. I., 124, 278, 350, 361
Crossley, M., 141
Cunliffe, A., 146
Currand, M., 310
G
Gallo, P. R., 473
Garman, N. B., 406
D Gates, E. F., 84
Daiute, C., 100, 157, 162 Gazso, A., 356
Dana, N., 471 Gearing, R. E. 92
Daynes, J. G., 101 Geertz, C., 75, 87, 124, 304, 361
Delamont, S., 469 Gelinas, L., 133, 294, 307
deMarrais, K., 295 Gentles, S. J., 267 (table)
Dean, J., 138 Giardina, M. D., 81
Denzin, N. K., 79, 80, 81, 141, 158, 362 Gibson, W. J., 469
Derrington, M. L., 84 Gillam, L., 469
Dewey, J., 46 Gilson, C., 459
Dörfler, V., 89 Glaser, B. G., 93, 94, 96, 97
Glesne, C., 362
Goodson, P., 67
E Golder, S., 133, 294
Eisner, E. W., 77 Grandy, G., 146
Elliott, V., 342 Grant, C., 238
Embury, D. C., 464 Gray, L. M., 282, 283
Emmison, M., 358 Grbich, C., 105, 107, 170
Esposito, J., 79, 138, 141 Guassora, A. D., 472
Ess, C., 294 Guba, E. G., 46, 77, 116, 117, 119
Evans-Winters, V., 79, 138 Guest, G., 269, 327, 351
Guillemin, M., 469
Gynnild, A., 111
F
Farrell, E., 111
Fernandez Lynch, H., 468
H
Fetterman, D. M., 166 Hall, J. N., 284
Fielding, N. G., 294 Hampton, C., 310
Finfgeld-Connett, D., 344 Handy, J., 282
Fink, A., 291 Hargittai, E., 469
Finefter-Rosenbluh, I., 467 Hart, C., 228
Finley, S., 108 Head, G., 125
FitzGerald, W. T., 200 Hennink, M. M., 269, 278, 350
Flanagan, J. C., 289 Higgins, C., 104
Flick, U., 111 Hoffman K. A., 322
Flowers, P., 475 Holmes, G. D., 138
Author Index 481
Holton, J. A., 95, 168 Levitt, H.M., 28, 108

Hooks, B., 469 Lewin, K., 103, 270
Huberman, A. M., 238, 246, 362, 363 Lewis, R., 464
Hughs, K., 378 Li, Y., 252, 465
Humphreys, L., 134 Liamputtong, P., 284–285
Hunt, G., 352 Lincoln, Y. S., 14, 46, 77, 79, 81, 116–119, 391–392
Hussein, E. K., 252 Lobe B., 133, 294, 306
Husserl, E., 89, 90, 171 Lochmiller, C., 471
Hycner, R. H., 167, 332 Lore, A., 472
Loseke, D. R., 98, 100–101
Lynch, M., 468, 471
I
Imenda, S., 164, 236–237, 470
Inoue, Asao B., 67
M
Macleod, C. I., 145, 400
MacQueen, K., 469
J Madden, R., 87, 471
Jackson, A., 298, 327 Ma, V., 185
Jackson, K., 360 Mah, C., 471
Jacob, S. A., 322, 470 Malterud, K., 278, 350
Jacobson, D., 144, 470 Marconi, V., 378, 469
Jarrett, R., 285 Marshall, C., 21, 81, 85–86, 107, 137, 169, 173,
Jarvinen, M., 330, 333, 378 187, 238, 260, 291, 391, 322
Josselson, R., 476 Martin, V. B., 89, 111, 471
Jowett, A., 133, 470 Marvasti, A., 457
Marx, J., 400
Mason, J., 472
K
Mason-Bish, H., 138, 400
Kane, M., 246, 470 Maxwell, J. A., 193, 201, 238, 239, 246, 312, 326, 359
Kaiser, B. N., 269, 278, 350 May, T., 141, 145, 314, 472
Keane, E., 95, 466 McLaren, P., 106
Kennedy, B., 471 McMullen, L. M., 69, 476
Kim, J., 99, 100, 111, 157, 162, 168–169 McNess, E., 141
Kincheloe, J. L., 106, 470 McNiff, J., 101, 103–105, 111, 157, 472
Kivunja, C., 164, 236–237, 253 McSpadden, E., 476
Kiyimba, N., 28, 142, 153, 159, 165, 362 Mertler, C. A., 101, 103, 104, 105, 111, 157,
Kovach, M., 107 464, 472
Krefting, L. M., 117 Mertz, N. T., 236, 238, 242, 252
Kreuger, R. A., 284, 285 Mezirow, J., 386, 465, 472
Kuckartz, U., 342 Mickunas, A., 89
Kvale, S., 281, 322, 341 Mihas, C. P., 331, 464
Mik-Meyer, N., 330, 333
Miles, M. B., 238, 246, 298, 327, 342, 359,
L
362–363, 398
Lahman, M. K. E., 192, 311 Mills, J., 84, 87, 95, 98, 100, 109, 157, 161–162,
Lanford, M., 99 168, 177
Lani, J., xxix Mitchell, R., 133
Largan, C., 296 Mittenfelner Carl, N., 75, 79, 106, 131, 137, 165,
Larkin, M., 475 237, 310, 326, 382, 400–401, 407
Leavy, P., 124, 140–141 Mnyaka, P., 145
Leedy, P. D., 344 Mollett, A., 457, 459
Lennon, H., 138 Monzo, L. D., 470
Lester, J. N., 132, 283, 334 Morgan, D. L., 115, 284–287, 322, 323
Morrill, Z., 29 R
Morris, T., 111, 296
Morse, J. M., 80, 112 Rallis, S. F., 137, 311, 323, 381
Mortari, L., 472 Randall, A. K., 310
Moustakas, C., 89, 91, 161, 167, 332 Rantala, T., 81, 105
Mulvihill, T. M., 106, 113, 192 Ravasi, D., 361
Mustafa, N., 144 Ravitch, S. M., 75, 79, 106, 109, 115, 131, 137,
Muylaert, C. J., 99–100 165, 177, 236–239, 244, 253, 310, 326,
382, 400–401, 407, 474
Reeping, D., 469
N Reis, A. O., 473
Namey, E. E., 377, 469 Rempel, G. R., 468
Nathaniel, A. K., 94, 473 Richards, L., 342–343, 347, 378
Ness, L. R., 124, 278, 350, 361 Riggan, M., 165, 236, 238–239, 244, 253
Neto, M. L., 473 Rizo, J. L., 29
Norman, G., 110 Rose, G., 356–358
Norris, J. M., 145 Ross, K., 282
Nowell, L. S., 116 Rossman, G. B., 137, 311, 322–323, 381,
Nygaard, L., 460 471, 474
Roulston, K., 141, 282, 295, 323, 474
Rowe, W. E., 138
O Rubin, H. J., 282, 363, 474
O’Reilly, M., 28, 142, 153, 159, 165, 177, 362 Rubin, I. S., 282, 363, 474
Ormrod, J. E., 344 Ryan, G. W., 337, 377
Osanloo, A., 237–238, 240, 243, 252, 468
O’Toole, J., 98–99 S
Ozkan, D., 469
Sakshaug, J. W., 469
Saldana, J., 201, 337, 343, 345, 347
P Salmons, J., 295
Palys, T., 269 Sarubbi, V., 473
Patton, M. Q., 77, 266 (table)–267 (table), 265, Schutt, R. K., 192, 465
277, 346, 384, 388, 390, 407 Schon, D. A., 102
Pasque, P. A., 110 Schwandt, T. A., 67, 78, 84, 93, 104, 156
Paulus, T. M., 132–133, 283, 295, 306 Sebastian, K., 93
Pelto, P. J., 87, 112 Seidman, I., 91, 161, 280, 282, 323, 341, 363
Penslar, R. I., 65 Siersma, V. K., 471
Peoples, K., 90, 112, 473 Silvia, P. J., 460, 475
Perez, M. S., 110 Simmons, O. E., 97, 475
Perry, B., 141, 145, 314 Shamdasani, P. N., 284, 475
Phillips, D. C., 77, 473 Shelton, S. A., 141
Phillips, L., 77 Silverman, D., 463, 467, 471, 474
Piantanida, M., 406 Smith, J., 88, 90, 105, 106, 112, 140, 156, 475
Pierce, C. S., 473 Smith, J. A., 88, 90, 105, 106, 140, 156
Pierce, R., 468 Smith, L. T., 88, 90, 105–106, 112, 140, 156
Pinnagar, S., 101 Sousa, B. J., 457
Plano Clark, V. L., 70, 466 Spencer, S., 467
Polkinhorne, D. E., 98, 473 Spradley, J., 323
Poth, C. N., 83, 88, 110, 155, 157, 172, 288, 342, Squire, C., 463
347, 406 Stewart, D., 89, 284, 475
Prior, L., 291, 354 Stierand, M., 89
Pritchard, K., 146 St. Pierre, E. A., 81, 298, 327
Przybylski, L., 112 Stake, R. E., 39, 83, 85, 113, 155, 414, 477
Author Index 483
Stavros, J. M., 466 Van Maanen, J., 87, 155, 171, 363
Steinberg, S. R., 470 van Manen, 88, 89–92, 114, 156, 161, 167, 171
Stewart, D. W., 89, 284, 475 Vanova, C., 464
Stolz, S. A., 93, 475 van Rijnsoever, F. J., 269, 278
Strauss, A., 93–97, 156, 168, 207, 246, 266 Verrier, D., 467
(table), 348, 350, 354 Vilches, S. L., 240 (table)
Stringer, E. T., 101, 105, 113, 157, 169
Strunk, B. N., 67
Sultana, F., 138–139, 306, 310
W
Swaminathan, R., 106, 113, 192 Wallace, M., 253, 460, 476
Walsh, I., 95, 168
Werse, N. R., 475
T Wertz, F. J., 69
Tashakkori, A., 70 Wheeldon, J., 246
Talbert, S., 475 White, D. E., 145
Tamboukou, M., 463 White, E. B., 67
Tarrant, A., 296, 378, 469 Whiting, R., 146, 476
Tatano Beck, C., 92 Whitney, D., 466
Thornberg, R., 95 Williams, J. M., 200
Tierney, W. G., 471 Williams, R. A., 469
Timonen, V., 97 Williams, S., 459
Tolich, M., 125 Willig, C., 391
Tracy, S. J., 125 Winkler, S., 468
Treharne, G. J., 145 Witkowsky, P., 464
Trochim, W., 246 Wolcott, H., 332, 391, 454, 460, 477
Tumilty, E., 125 Wong-Wylie, G., 468
Turunen, H., 476 Wray, A., 253, 460
Wutich, A., 377, 463
U
U.S. Department of Health and Human
Y
Services, 127, 473 Yazan, B., 84, 113
Yin, R. K., 83–86, 113, 114, 155, 166, 477
V
Vagle, M. D., 88, 113
Z
Vaismoradi, M., 345 Zimmer, M., 468
SUBJECT INDEX
A research questions, 148, 152–154, 159–160,

163, 165
Abductive analysis, 329–331 research traditions/genres, 166
Abstracts, 8, 204, 211, 215, 426, 442 theoretical framework, 165, 175 (table)
Academic integrity. See Plagiarism Ambiguities, 17, 390. See also Deviant cases;
Academic writing guidelines, 2, 27, 55–62, 205, Negative cases
321, 460 American Psychological Association (APA)
Acknowledgments, 8, 431–432, 452 format, 7, 13, 45, 67, 134, 231, 365, 456.
Action research See also References
about, 79, 101–102 American Psychological Association (APA) style,
critical, 105–106 7, 13, 45, 231, 365, 427, 456. See also
critique, 104–105, 108–109 References
data analysis, 87, 95 Analysis. See also Analysis and synthesis
methods, 103–104, 106–108 chapter; Data analysis
participatory, 102, 104, 107, 157, 172 abductive, 329–331
philosophical underpinnings and application, conceptual, 344
103, 106 content, 344–345
presentation of findings, 170–173 deductive, 330
Action science, 102. See also Action research discourse, 87, 105, 158, 356
Active voice, 8, 58, 427 exceptions, 353. See also Deviant cases;
Advisors, 35–41, 43, 50, 71, 137, 140, 234, 246, Negative cases
393, 398, 443, 445 inductive, 330–331, 346
Afterword, 461–462 interpretation, 17–18
Alignment relational, 344
about, 147–148, 149 (table)–150 (table) text, 291, 353–358
analysis and synthesis chapter, 148, 149 thematic, 15, 85, 92, 166, 265, 278, 298, 327,
(table) 333–335, 345, 371–372
conclusions and recommendations thinking about your, 384–386
chapter, 174 visual, 353–358
data analysis, 165–170 Analysis and synthesis chapter:
findings chapter, 148 about, 228, 385
importance of, 147–148, 151–152, 175 (table) alignment with other elements, 148, 149
interpretations, 173 (table)
introduction chapter, 147–148 introductory section of chapter, 22, 33, 55,
literature review, 164–165 153, 190–191, 194, 198, 208, 395
methodology, 148, 150–151 planning analysis of your findings, 386–388
methodology chapter, 159 presenting analysis and synthesis, 298
methods, 148, 151, 153–155, 157, 159–164 quality assessment checklist, 431–441
presentation of findings, 170–173 reflexive questions, 197–198, 247–248, 314–
recommendations, 174 317, 373–374, 402–403, 415
research approach, 148 rival explanations, 85, 181, 392, 405
research design, 148, 149 (table), 153–164 summary section of chapter, 174–177, 198,
research findings, 165, 173 248–249, 314, 317–318
research problem, 150–154, 164 thinking about analysis, 384–386
research purpose, 151–158 visuals, 353–358
485
Analytic memo. See Memo critique, 85–86

Analytic category development tool, 398, 398 data analysis, 84–85, 166
(figure) methods, 84–85
Analytic framework, 235, 238–240, 338–341 philosophical underpinnings and
Analytical narrative, 372 application, 84
Annotated bibliographies, 221–223 presentation of findings, 171
Annotations, 222–223, 245. See Theoretical Categories, developing, 338–339. See also
annotations Coding
Anonymity, 45, 65, 116, 128, 137, 307–308, 358. Causal conditions, 96, 162
See also Confidentiality; Ethics; Privacy Certification for use of human subjects in
APA format. See American Psychological research, 65
Association format Chair, dissertation, 26, 36, 38, 46, 179, 445,
APA style. See American Psychological 451–452
Association style Chapter 1. See Introduction chapter
Appendices, 16, 398, 429 Chapter 2. See Literature review
Appreciative inquiry, 102. See also Action Chapter 3. See Methodology chapter
research Chapter 4. See Findings chapter
Apprenticeship model, 35, 444 Chapter 5. See Analysis and synthesis chapter
Archival data. See Qualitative secondary Chapter 6. See Conclusions and
research recommendations chapter
Archival turn, 295 Chapter outline, tentative, 24–25, 55
Arts-based inquiry, critical, 107–108 Charts:
Assumptions, 10, 17, 18, 23, 28, 33, 70, 77, 82, alignment flowchart, 174, 175 (table)-176
107, 120, 123, 138, 142–143, 158, 197, (table), 414, 422
246, 289, 333, 343, 372, 392, 462 analysis and critique of research-based
Attributions. See References literature, 213 (table), 223, 224 (table)
Audience, potential, 187, 455 analysis and critique of theoretical literature,
Audiencing, 357 225 (table)
Audit trail, 46, 52 (table), 92, 166, 298–299, 303, analytic category development tool, 398
327, 342, 395 (figure)
Autoethnography, 87, 100, 155, 158, 173, 407 consistency, 411 (table)
Axial coding, 96, 162, 332, 388 data summary table, 349 (table)
Axiology, 77 flip, 299–300, 351–352
if/then/therefore/thus matrix, 182 (table)
information needed overview, 257 (table)
B interpretation outline tool, 387 (figure)
Backing up files, 45 participant demographics matrix, 271 (table)
Back matter, 20, 432 (table) problem statement development, 189
Belmont Report. See National Commission (table)–190 (table)
Bibliographic citations. See References research questions/interview questions
Bibliographies, annotated, 221–222 matrix, 199 (table)
“Big ideas,” 337, 341 synthesis matrix, 231–232 (table)
“Black box approach to data analysis,” 298, 327 thematic, 370 (table)
Blogs, 159, 218–219, 295, 457 Chunks, breaking task into, 69, 326,
Bracketing. See Phenomenology 344, 382, 393
Citation management software, 25, 45
Citations. See References
C
CITI. See Collaborative Institutional Training
Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate Initiative
(CPED), 185 Clarity, 11, 22, 25, 55–58, 61, 120, 153, 192, 193,
Cases, negative/deviant, 353 206, 246, 309, 379
Case study: Coding:
about, 83–84 about, 15, 96
Subject Index 487
axial, 95–96, 162, 168, 332, 388 Congruence, methodological, 2, 24, 82, 152–
categories, 346, 369 (table) 153, 159, 181, 184, 273, 331, 385, 391,
code book, 299, 330, 342 441 (table). See also Alignment
content analysis versus, 344–345 Consent, informed, 65–66, 127–128, 135–136,
data analysis and, 342 305, 307–309, 320 (table)
described, 321 Consequences, 62, 77, 96, 132, 161–162, 180,
open, 96, 156, 162, 168, 299, 332, 346 188, 264, 332, 383, 388, 393
process, 166, 300, 328, 334, 339, 344–346, Consistency charts, 299–300
438 (table) Constant comparative method, 94–96, 167
selective, 95–96, 156, 162, 332, 388 Constructivism, 78, 151
Coherence, 12, 27, 55–58, 98, 140, 148, 238–240, Content analysis, 344–345, 354, 358, 360
338, 394 Context, 13, 22, 28, 62, 75–76, 78, 82, 85, 88, 93,
Cohesiveness, 25, 55–58 98, 102, 118, 123, 133, 183, 186, 194,
Collaboration, 99, 104, 106, 135, 137, 145, 270, 304–305, 355–356, 413, 462
162–163, 169–170, 172, 217, 293, 310, Context-bound extrapolations, 155, 305
359, 457 Contextual information, 270
Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative Copyright page, 7, 431 (table)
(CITI), 40 Council for Graduate Schools, 466
Colleagues, 24, 35, 37, 45, 47, 92, 121–122, 140, COVID-19, 132–133, 135, 286, 294–295
246, 299, 302, 304, 333, 347, 424, 446, Credibility, 18, 46, 52 (table), 65, 75–76, 115,
454–455 118, 120–122, 124, 142, 151, 260, 263,
Collegial support system, 46–47, 54 (table) 281, 297, 301–302, 305 (table), 397, 399,
Committee, dissertation, 22, 35–38, 444–445 453. See also Trustworthiness; Validity
Computerized filing system, 221 Criterion-based sampling, 268
Computers, 45, 134. See also Computer assisted Critical action research, 102. See also Action
qualitative data analysis; Software research
Concept maps/mapping, 214 (table), 221, 233, Critical arts-based inquiry, 107–108
246, 359, 365 Critical ethnography, 86, 106, 155, 158
Concepts, defined, 239 Critical genres:
Conceptual analysis, 344 about, 105–106
Conceptual framework. See Theoretical critique, 108–109
framework data analysis, 107
Conclusions and recommendations methods, 106–108
chapter: philosophical underpinnings and
about, 174, 415 (table) application, 106
alignment with other elements, 174 presentation of findings, 172–173
conclusions, 15, 19, 148, 173, 204, 328, 335, Critical incidents, 120, 160, 289, 337, 339
410–412 Criticality, 46. See Qualitative research
final reflection statement, 414–415, 415 Critical theory, 78–79, 84, 106, 158, 243
(table) Critical visual methodology, 358
quality assessment checklist, 439 Current landscape of qualitative research,
(table) 79–81. See also History of qualitative
recommendations, 15, 19–20, 85, 112, 133, research
142, 174, 181, 220, 409–417
reflexive questions, 415 (table)
Confessional tales, 171
D
Confidentiality, 45, 65, 116, 125, 128, 136–137, Data. See also Data analysis; Data collection
265, 308, 329, 358. See also Anonymity; methods
Ethics; Privacy elicited, 295
Confirmability, 24, 74 (table), 75, 117, 122–123, enacted, 295
143, 256, 301 (table), 303, 306. See also extant, 295
Objectivity; Trustworthiness managing, 45, 213, 329
online, 45, 111, 132–134, 233, 292–295, observation, 288–289

307, 323 online data collection, 293–295
organizing and preparing for analysis, 170, quality assessment checklist, 436
359, 385 in quantitative, qualitative, and mixed
raw, 16, 96, 162, 166, 180, 299, 326–327, 343, methods, 71 (table)
362, 381–382, 404, 429 reflexive questions, 197–198
rereading and coding, 43, 205, 430 surveys, 291–293
reviewing and exploring, 9, 29, 57, 59, 180, Data management strategies, 329
184, 204, 206, 209, 221, 225–226, 228, Data security, 45
239, 244, 247, 333, 343, 366, 410, 432 Data summary tables, 300, 348, 364–365, 389
(table) Data synthesis, 393–394
saturation, 268–269, 278–279, 350–351, Data use agreement, 186
377 Deadlines, setting, 37, 39, 43, 47, 49–50, 88, 445
synthesis, 393 Debriefing, peer, 75, 121, 160
triangulation, 75, 120, 277–278 Dedication and acknowledgments, 8, 228, 427,
Data analysis. 431 (table)
about, 14, 33 Deductive analysis, 330. See also Data analysis
action research, 169 Deductive disclosure, 128. See also Informed
alignment with other elements, 165–170 consent
approach, deciding on, 331–332 Defense preparation and beyond
“black box” approach to, 298, 327 committee, selecting/forming, 35–36
case study, 166 defense questions, 448–449
critical genres, 169–170 documentation, submitting, 444
data, organizing and preparing for analysis, post-defense preparation, 451–459
329–335 pre-defense preparation, 444–451
data, rereading and coding, 43, 205, 430 preparing for defense, 453–459
data, reviewing and exploring, 217–220 publishing and presenting your research,
data synthesis versus, 393–394 453–457
deductive analysis, 330 revisions to manuscript, 451–453
ethnography, 166–167 Definitions of key terminology, 197–198
grounded theory, 167–168 Delimitations, 311–314. See also Limitations
inductive analysis, 330–331, 346 and delimitations
narrative inquiry, 168–169 Demographic information, 270
phenomenology, 167 Dependability, 122–123, 151, 303–304,
plausible explanations, 18, 390 306 (table). See also Reliability;
quality assessment checklist, 436 Trustworthiness
in quantitative, qualitative, and mixed Description:
methods, 71 (table)–74 (table) structural, 92, 171, 332, 391
rival explanations, 85 textural, 171, 391
road map, 191 (figure) thick, 16, 75, 87, 124, 280, 302, 304, 360, 362
software for, 299, 358–360 Descriptive research questions, 193
systematic procedure for, 335, 336 (figure) Descriptors, 216, 337, 339, 348, 352
theoretical framework and, 164–165 Design complexity, 75, 109, 449
Databases, 43, 45, 186, 211, 213, 216, 226–227, Design flexibility, 21, 25, 76, 449
233, 425–426 Deviant cases, 353. See also Ambiguities;
Data collection methods. See also social media Disconfirming evidence; Negative
about, 14 cases
collecting data online, 293–295 Diagrams, 246, 290, 356, 398, 447
critical incidents, 289–290 Digital divide, 134, 286, 294, 306
document review, 290–291 Disconfirming evidence, 121, 298–299, 352, 384
focus groups, 284–288 Discourse analysis, 87, 105, 158, 356. See also
interviews, 280–284 Analysis
Subject Index 489
Dissertation Abstracts International, 6, 8, 426 Ethnography:

Dissertation chairs, 26, 36, 38, 40, 179, 445, about, 86
451–452 autoethnography, 87, 100, 158, 173, 407
Dissertation committee, 35–38, 444, 448 cognitive, 86
Dissertation in practice. See EdD critical, 86, 106, 155, 158
Dissertation manuscript. See Manuscript critique, 88
Dissertation overview, 5 data analysis, 87
Dissertation proposal. See Proposal Internet, 86
Dissertations, looking at previously methods, 87–88
published, 34 performance, 87
Diversity, 36, 58, 108, 139, 155, 162, 284, 456 philosophical underpinnings and application,
Do-ability (feasibility), 21, 186–187 86–87
Doctoral student responsibilities, 21, 36–37, 49, presentation of findings, 110
140, 450 virtual, 86, 136
Doctoral student rights, 36–37, 140, 450 Etic, 72 (table), 87, 88, 167, 171
Documentation, 233, 337, 354, 395, 444 Evaluating quality of qualitative dissertations,
Document review, 159–160, 279 (table), 290, 3, 27–29
339, 364 Exceptions, 353, 427
Drafts, 21, 25, 39, 42, 44, 52 (table), 62, 232, Exclusion/Exclusive practices, 132–133,
235, 239 307, 355
Explanations:
plausible, 18, 390, 396
E rival, 85, 392
EdD, See Dissertation in practice, Education Extant documents, 290, 295
doctorate Extant online data collection, 295
Editing and proofreading, 61–62, 210, 430 Extrapolations, context-bound, 155, 305
Education doctorate, 185
Electronic flip charts, 352
Elevator speech, 25–26
F
Elicited documents, 290, 295. See also Data Facebook, 47, 134, 136, 264, 356, 457
Elicited online data collection, 295 Feasibility, 21, 24–26, 33, 71, 123, 186–187, 261
Emic, 72 (table), 87–88, 171 Feedback, 24–26, 37–41, 50, 179, 205, 210, 235,
Empirical science, 207, 243, 330, 351, 454 299, 399, 402, 443, 452, 459,
Enacted online data collection, 295 Field tests, 24, 258, 263, 273. See also Pilot
EndNote, 25, 216–217 studies
Epistemology, 28, 77, 81, 107, 159, 166 Figures, 6, 9, 15–16
Epoche, 91 Files, backing up, 45
Equity, 58, 80, 137, 140, 158, 284 Filing system, computerized, 221
Ethics: Final reflection statement, 414–415
Common Rule (The), 126–129 Findings. See also Analysis and synthesis
data security, 45, 51 chapter; Findings chapter
discrimination, 80, 170 alignment with other elements, 170–173
diversity, 36, 58, 108, 139, 155, 162, 284, 456 in quantitative, qualitative, and mixed
equity, 58, 80, 137, 140, 158, 284 methods, 71 (table)
marginalization, 80, 139, 140, 145, thematic presentation of, 367–371
173, 306, 461 Findings chapter.
methodology chapter, 86–88 about, 11–13, 16–20, 29, 75–76, 85, 95, 101
online data collection, 111, 132, 134, 295 alignment with other elements, 170–173
praxis, 125–126 chapter summary, 374–375
quality assessment checklist, 436–437 introduction section, 233
research problem, 132–137 presentation of findings section, 171–173
vulnerable populations, 129–137 quality assessment checklist, 438–439
quotations, 64, 171, 221, 234, 362, 456 Imagination, research, 228
reflexive questions, 207–211 Impact. See Influence
Findings road map, 365 Impact factor, 455–456
First draft, 214, 235 Impositional interpretation, 401
First-person, use of, 58, 93, 99 Impressionist tales, 171
Flexibility, design, 21, 25, 76, 449 IMRD structure, 220
Flip charts, 229, 300, 351–352 Inclusion/Inclusive practices, 59, 108
Focus groups, 120, 159, 277, 284–288 Inclusive writing guidelines, 2, 59
Footnotes, 59, 359, 428–429 Inconsistencies, 17, 76, 148, 219–221, 235, 390
Format/style requirements, 59–61 Indigenous research, 107, 158
Forms. See Charts colonial tool, 107, 139
Front matter, 6–9, 427, 431 (table) Inductive analysis, 330–331, 346. See also Data
analysis
Influence. See Impact
G Information, contradictory, 230–231, 346,
Generalizability. See Transferability 361, 451
Genres, research. See Research traditions/ Information needed overview:
genres about, 24, 182 (table), 269–270
Goals, personal/professional, 187 contextual information, 270
“Golden thread”. See Conceptual framework, demographic information, 270, 271 (table)
Theoretical framework perceptual information, 271
Google Scholar, 45, 226–227, 233 quality assessment checklist, 318, 435
Graduate handbooks, 38 template, 272 (table)
Grammatical errors, 57 Informed consent, 64–66, 88, 127–128, 133,
Grey literature, 211–212 135–136, 145, 263, 294, 305, 308–309
Grounded theory Insider/outsider perspective, 72 (table), 141
about, 93–94 Institutional review board (IRB), 64–66
critique, 96–97 Instrument:
data analysis, 95 researcher as, 58, 65
methods, 95–96 self as, 92
philosophical underpinnings and application, Integration, 230
94–95 Interest, sustained/sustaining, 106, 124, 157,
presentation of findings, 172 163, 186
Group interviews, 159, 279, 284. See also Focus International Development Research Center
groups (IDRC), 133
Intersectionality, 109, 139, 141, 144
Internet ethnography, 86, 88
H Internet resources, 218
Handbooks, graduate, 38 Interpretation outline tool, 300, 386, 387 (figure)
Headings, 9, 16, 233 Interpretations, 85, 100, 124, 151, 173, 356, 397
Heidegger, Martin, 89–90, 161 Interpretive authority, 401, 439
Hermeneutic perspective, 90, 161 Interpretive phenomenological analysis, 90
Heuristic significance, 33 Interpretive research questions, 391
History of qualitative research, 18, 25, 38, Interpretivism, 78, 151
58, 69, 74–76. See also Landscape of Inter-rater reliability, 304
qualitative research Intertextuality, 354
Human subjects in research, certification for Interviews:
use of, 65 group, 159, 279, 284
individual, 277, 284–287
participant, 281
I types, 281-282
I, use of first-person, 58 Introduction chapter:
If/then/therefore/thus matrix, 173–174, 410 about, 183–184
(table) alignment, 190
Subject Index 491
alignment with other elements, 147–148 organizing strategies, 216–217, 221

assumptions, 197 peer-reviewed, 210–211
context, 194 research-based, 213 (table), 224 (table)
definitions of key terminology, 197 retrieval stages, 213
problem statement, 188–190, 189 (table)–190 reviewing and critically analyzing, 213
(table) scholarly sources, 223–226, 224 (table)–225
proposal components, 21–26 (table)
purpose statement, 190–192, 191 (figure) theoretical, 223, 225 (table)
quality assessment checklist, 431 web resources, 217–219
rationale and significance, 196 Literature review. See also Literature
reflexive questions, 197–198 about, 11–13, 182 (table), 203–204
research design overview, 194–195 alignment with other elements, 164, 423
researcher, 196–197 (table), 434
research problem, 184–188, 189 conceptual/theoretical framework,
(table)–190 (table) developing, 214 (table), 235–247
research questions, 192–194 digesting scholarly sources, 223–226
In vivo labels, 346 documentation strategies, 233
IRB. See Institutional review board exhausting the literature, 226–227
Issues of trustworthiness. See Trustworthiness function and purpose of, 204–206
Google Scholar, 226, 227
literature, identifying and retrieving, 213
J (table), 214–219
literature, reviewing and critically analyzing,
Jargon, 7, 8, 55, 135, 192, 425, 431
213 (table), 219–227, 223 (table), 224
Journaling, 6, 46, 122, 197, 247, 310, 333, 347,
(table)
373
outline, 336 (table)
Judgment sampling, 123, 140, 186, 269, 298,
peer-reviewed literature, 210–211
311, 335, 346, 362, 384
preparing for, 209
presenting, 207
as proposal component, 22–24
K
quality assessment checklist, 433–434
Keywords, 6, 216, 227, 233, 425, 426, 431 reflexive questions, 247–248
Knowledge claims, 77. See also Critical theory; revisions, 235
Social constructivism/interpretivism road map, 213 (table)–214 (table)
role of, 206–209
scope of, 206–209
L
synthesis, 228–232, 229 (table), 231
Landmark studies, 208, 213, 215. See also (table)–232 (table)
Seminal works theoretical framework, developing, 214
Landscape of qualitative research, 79–81. See (table), 235–247
also History of qualitative research topic selection and, 77
Lessons learned, 104, 169, 171, 304, 391–392, writing, 214 (table), 228–232, 229 (table), 231
415 (table)–232 (table)
Libraries, 210, 291
Library databases, 43, 45, 210, 226
Limitations and delimitations, 14–15, 24, 259
M
(table), 311–314 Manuscript
LinkedIn, 47, 264, 458 assembling, 427–429
List of tables and figures, 9, 427, 432 revisions to, 451–453
Literature. See also Literature review Margins, 7, 428
bibliographies, annotated, 221–223 Maximum variation strategy, 268
digesting scholarly sources, 223–226, 224 “Member checks,” 121, 302, 383. See also
(table)–225 (table) Trustworthiness
identifying and retrieving, 249 (table) Memo, 92, 156, 348
Methodological congruence, 159, 177, 385. See methods, 99–100

also Alignment philosophical underpinnings and application,
Methodology. See also Methodology chapter 98–99
about, 10 presentation of findings, 172
alignment with other elements, 159–164, “Narrative smoothing,” 168
165–170 National Commission, See also Belmont
defined, 159, 275 Report
as proposal component, 24 Negative cases, 299, 352. See also
Methodology chapter Disconfirming evidence; Deviant cases
about, 13–15, 182 (table), 180 Node, 343, 359
alignment with other elements, 423 (table) Note taking, 63
chapter summary, 257 (table), 314 NVivo, 360
data analysis and synthesis, 258 (table),
297–300
data collection methods, 258 (table), 275–
O
276, 279 (table) Objectivity, 212. See also Confirmability
ethics, 258 (table), 305–307 Observation, 288–289
information needed overview, 257 (table), Online data collection, 133–134
269–271, 271 (table), 272 (table) Online learning environment, 223 (table)
introduction and overview, 257 (table), Ontology, 28, 77, 81, 159
266–267 Open access journal, 455–456
limitations and delimitations, 259 (table), Open coding, 96, 156, 162, 299, 332, 346
311–314 Organizing and managing your project:
quality assessment checklist, 318–321 data, managing, 44–45
reflexive questions, 314–317 data security, 45
research design, 257 (table) literature, identifying and retrieving, 217
research sample, 257 (table), 261–262 literature, reviewing and critically
road map, 257 (table)–259 (table) analyzing, 221
trustworthiness, 258 (table), 116–119 literature review, writing, 231–232, 231
Methods. See also Data analysis; Data collection (table)–232 (table)
methods support system, developing, 46–47
action research, 163 thinking, tracking your, 46
alignment with other elements, 159–164 time, planning, 47–49, 48 (figure)
case study, 160 workspace, creating, 43
critical genres, 163–164 Orientation, 38
defined, 159 Outlines, 129, 233
ethnography, 160–161 Overview of information needed. See
grounded theory, 161–162 Information needed overview
mixed, 71, 71 (table)–74 (table)
narrative inquiry, 162–163
P
phenomenology, 161
Mind maps, 233 Pages, numbering, 428
Mindmeister, 233 Pandemic. See COVID-19
Mixed methods, 71, 71 (table)–74 (table) Paradigms, research, 71 (table), 77–79, 311
Modern Language Association (MLA) format, 59 Paragraphs, 57, 428
Momentum, 53 (table), 55, 350 Participant observation, 171
Participant validation or confirmation, 120
Participants. See also Research sample
N demographics information, 270,
Narrative inquiry 271 (table)
about, 98, 162 interviews, 280–283, 284 (table)
critique, 101 observation of, 288–289
data analysis, 168–168 pseudonyms, use of, 308, 350 (table)
Subject Index 493
Participatory action research, 102, 103, 157, documentation, submitting, 444

163. See also Action research manuscript, assembling, 427–429
Patterns, 388–390. See also Themes proofreading and editing, 430
Pedagogy of the Oppressed (Freire), 102 Presentation of findings section
Peer debriefing, 121, 160 about, 360–361
Peer-reviewed literature, 210–211. See also action research, 172
Grey literature, Literature review; alignment, 170–173
Scholarly sources case study, 171
Peers, 24 critical genres, 172–173
Perceptual information, 271 ethnography, 171
Performance ethnography, 87, 171 grounded theory, 172
Phenomenology narrative inquiry, 172
about, 88–89 phenomenology, 171–172
critique, 92–93 quality assessment checklist, 376
data analysis, 167 quotation categories, 363–367
methods, 90–92 representation, 354
philosophical underpinnings and application, thematic presentation of findings, 367–371,
89–90 368 (table)– 371 (table)
presentation of findings, 171–172 Presenting
PhD, 10, 11, 140, 181, 185, 235, 237 meta-synthesis, 394–399, 398 (figure)
Phronesis, 81, 85, 169 your research, 458–459
Pilot studies, 24. See also Field tests Primary sources, 215
Pivotal studies, 215 Privacy, 136–137. See also Anonymity;
Plagiarism, 62–64 Confidentiality; Ethics
preventing, 63–64 Problem posing, 386
unintentional, 62 Problem statement, 10, 151, 152, 189
Planning analysis of your findings (table)–190 (table). See also Research
about, 386–388 problem
description and interpretation, 390–391 ProCite, 216
patterns and themes, examining, 388–390 Productivity, tracking, 52 (table)
synthesis, 393–394 Proofreading and editing, 61–62, 430
Plausible explanations, 18, 390. See also Data Proposal
analysis; Rival explanations about, 20–21
Podcast, 458 approval of, 21
Positionality, 138–140 chapter outline, tentative, 24–26
Positionality statement, 140, 310. See also Role components, 21–26
of researcher introduction to the study, 22
Post-defense preparation, 451–459 literature review, 22–24
publishing and presenting research, 453–459 methodology, 24
revising manuscript, 451–453 references, list of, 25
Postpositivism, 77 theoretical framework, 23
Potential significance, 21, 165 timetable, projected, 25
Practical significance, 33 ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database
Pragmatism, 77–78 (PQDT), 453
Praxis, 81, 106, 239. See also Ethics; Reflexivity; Protocol description section, of IRB approval
Reflexive Practices application, 65
Predatory journal, 456 Protocol review section, of IRB approval
Pre-defense preparation application, 65
abstract, writing, 425–427 Pseudonyms, 128, 270, 308, 349 (table)
committee, selecting/forming, 444–445 Publishing and presenting your research,
defense, preparing for, 445–448 453–457
dissertation title, creating, 6, 424 PubMed, 45, 426
Purpose. See Research purpose significance, 388–389

Purposeful sampling, 267–268. See also transparency, 143
Sampling trustworthiness, 120–121
Purpose statement, 12, 152, 190–192, 191 Questions, during dissertation defense,
(figure). See also Research purpose 448–451. See also Reflexive questions;
Research questions
Quotations
Q findings chapter, 360–363, 366–367
Qualitative Data Analysis Software (QDAS), 299, limited use of, 366–367
358–360 literature review, 234
Qualitative genres. See Research traditions/ plagiarism, avoiding, 63–64
genres sorting and categorizing, 337
Qualitative research.
characteristics, 69–71, 71 (table)–74 (table)
current landscape, 79–81
R
features, 74–76 Random sampling, 267–268. See also
history, 74 Sampling
Qualitative research design. See also Research Rationale
traditions/genres about, 10, 13
action research, 101–105 introduction to your study, 182 (table)
case study, 83–86 Raw data, 330
critical genres, 105–109 Realist tales, 87, 171
ethnography, 86–88 Recommendations, 19–20, 174, 412,
grounded theory, 93–97 413. See also Conclusions and
narrative inquiry, 98–101 recommendations chapter
phenomenology, 88–93 References
Qualitative secondary research. See Archival about, 20
data American Psychological Association format,
Qualitative traditions. See Methodology; 7, 13, 231
Research traditions/genres citation of, 60–61
Quality assessment checklists literature search and, 216–217
analysis and synthesis, 405–406, 438–439 Modern Language Association format, 59
back matter, 440 plagiarism, avoiding, 64
complete dissertation, 431–441 as proposal component, 22
conclusions and recommendations, 440 quality assessment checklist, 441
findings chapter, 375–376, 436–437 Reflection, 20, 92
front matter, 431–432 Reflexive practices, 141
introduction to your study, 199–200, 432–433 Reflexive questions
literature review, 249–251, 433–434 analysis and synthesis chapter, 197–198
methodology chapter, 318–321, 435–437 conclusions and recommendations chapter,
theoretical framework, 251 415
Quality of qualitative dissertations, evaluating, confirmability, 315–316
27–29 credibility, 315
Qualtrics, 291, 292 data collection, 315
Quantitative research dependability, 316
about, 79 findings chapter, 373–374
criticality, 137 introduction chapter, 197
knowledge claims, 77 literature review, 247–248
qualitative research and mixed methods methodology chapter, 314–317
versus, 71 (table)–74 (table) research problem, 197–198
research problem and research approach, research purpose, 198
150–151 research questions, 198
secondary, 295–297 sample selection, 314
Subject Index 495
theoretical framework, 248 Research questions

transferability, 316 about, 10
trustworthiness, 315–316 alignment with other elements, 152–153, 165
Reflexivity, 107, 116, 138, 140–143 conclusions and recommendations chapter,
RefWorks, 25 410–412
Relational analysis, 344 descriptive, 193
Relevant interpretations, 397 interpretive, 193
Reliability, 119, 304, 347. See also Dependability introduction to your study, 192–193, 191
Replicating previous studies, 34 (figure)
Representation, 100, 105, 126, 282, 402. See also open-ended, 10
Interpretations reflexive questions, 197–198
Research approach, alignment with other theoretical, 193
elements, 151 Research sample, 257 (table), 261–262, 268. See
Research-based literature, 224 (table) also Sampling
Research design. See Research traditions/ Research setting/site, 13, 260
genres Research traditions/genres. See also Design;
alignment with other elements, 159–164 specific traditions/genres
defined, 159 about, 82–83
introduction to your study, 194–195 alignment with other elements, 153–158
methodology chapter, 257 (table) analysis and synthesis, 391
quality assessment checklist, 318–321 data analysis, 332
in quantitative, qualitative, and mixed literature review, 207
methods, 72 (table) moving forward with, 109–110
Researcher presentation of findings, 362
assumptions of, 22 purpose statement and, 190–191
as instrument, 143 in quantitative, qualitative, and mixed
insider/outsider, 141 methods, 71 (table)
introduction to study, 196–197 types, 83–86
reflexivity, 140–143 Resources
role of, 22, 72 (table) Internet, 218
Research imagination, 228 writing, 43, 53 (table)
Research methodology. See Methodology Responsibilities
Research methods. See Methods faculty, 41–42
Research paradigms, 71 (table), 77–79, 311 student, 40–41
Research participants. See Participants; Restorying, See Narrative inquiry
Research sample Retrieval stages, literature, 216
Research population, 13, 186–188 Revisions, 44, 205, 451
Research problem. See also Problem statement Rights, student, 38
about, 184, 189 (table)–190 (table) Rigor, 137
alignment with other elements, 150–158 Rival explanations, 85. See also Data analysis;
evaluating, 186–187 Plausible explanations
identifying, 184–186 Road maps, 191 (figure), 213 (table)–214 (table),
introduction chapter, 184–186, 189 (figure), 257 (table)–259 (table), 336 (figure)
189 (table)–190 (table) ROC test, 187
refining and honing, 188–190, 189 Role of researcher, 219, 433. See also
(table)–190 (table) Positionality; Reflexive practices;
reflexive questions, 197–198 Researcher, role of
Research proposal. See Proposal
Research purpose. See also Purpose
statement
S
alignment with other elements, 151–158 SAGE MethodSpace., 458
in quantitative, qualitative, and mixed SAGE Navigator, 227
methods, 71 (table) Sample, research, 257 (table),
reflexive questions, 197–198 261–262, 318
Sampling, 134–135 Subheadings, 233

Saturation, See Data saturation Subjectivity, 122, 382
Saving files, 53 (table) Substantive significance, 388
Schedule, planning, 48 (figure) Summarizing, 57, 219, 229 (table)
Scholarly sources, 224, 224 (table), 225 (table), Support system, 46–47, 54 (table)
226. See also Literature review; Surveys, 291–293
Peer-reviewed literature SurveyMonkey, 136, 291
Scientific method, 77 Synchronous tools, 295
Secondary research, 296 Synthesis. See also Analysis and synthesis
Secondary sources, 215 chapter; Literature review
Second reader, 36, 38, 445 data, 258 (table), 300
Selective coding, 95, 96, 162 findings, 393–394
Self as instrument, 46 how to synthesize, 229–232, 231 (table)–232
Seminal works, 215. See also Landmark studies (table)
Sentences, 56 matrix, 231–232, 231 (table)–232 (table)
Setting, research, 13, 133, 364. See also process, 229–232, 231 (table)–232 (table)
Research setting/site summary versus, 228–229, 229 (table)
Should-do-ability, 21, 187
Significance
about, 10
T
heuristic, 33 Table of contents, 8–9, 432
introduction to your study and, 186 Tables, 61, 148
potential, 21, 165 Tales of the Field (Van Maanen), 87
practical, 33 Templates. See Charts
quantitative versus qualitative research, Terminology, definitions of key, 11, 197
388–389 Text analysis, 291
substantive, 388 Textural description, 171
theoretical, 196 Thematic analysis, 85
topic selection and, 33–34 Thematic charts, 368, 370 (table)
Site, research, 21, 196, 311. See also Research Thematic presentation of findings, 367–371, 370
setting/site (table)
Social constructivism/interpretivism, 78, 151 Themes, 167, 221, 230, 332. See also Patterns
Social justice inquiry, 95, 97 Theoretical annotations, 245
Social media, 45, 457. See also Collecting Data Theoretical framework
Online about, 214 (table), 235–236
Software alignment, 165
citation management, 216 creating, 242–245
data management and analysis, 329 data analysis and, 299
Sources, primary versus secondary, defined, 239
215 limitations of, 242
Sponsors, 36, 445, 451 overview, 164–165
Statement of problem, 432. See also Research presenting, 246–247
problem in proposal, 204–206
Statement of purpose, 10 quality assessment checklist, 251
Statistics, 326 reflexive questions, 248
Storytelling, 107 role, function, and application of,
Strategies, 63–64 239–240
Structural description, 92 value of, 240–241
Student responsibilities, 40–41 Theoretical literature, 175 (table)
Student rights, 38 Theoretical research questions, 150
Style/format requirements, 59–61 Theoretical sampling, 96, 268
Subject Index 497
Theoretical significance, 196 V

Theory. See also Grounded theory; specific
theories Validity, 119. See also Credibility
critical, 78–79, 106, 158 Verstehen, 82, 88, 156
defined, 93 Vignettes, 171, 363
Thick description, 87, 280 Virtual ethnography, 86, 88
Time, planning, 47–49, 48 (figure) Visual analysis, 353–358. See also
Timeline, 49–55 Analysis
Title of dissertation, 3, 3 (figure), 11, 20–21 Visuals
Title page, 6 analysis and synthesis, 398–399, 398
Topic (figure)
identifying and developing, 32–35 data analysis, 273
research problem versus, 184 defense of dissertation, 447
Traditions, research. See Methodology; Voice, active, 8, 57, 58, 427
Research traditions/genres
Transcription, 237 W
Transferability, 23–124, 301 (table),
304–305 Want-to-do-ability, 21
Transparency. See Qualitative research Web of Knowledge, 227
Triangulation, 75, 120, 160 Web resources, 217–219
of methods, 120, 277 Working title, 6, 26 (table), 424
of researchers, 75, 120–121 Workspace, 43, 51 (table)
of theory, 120 WorldCat, 45
strategies to address trustworthiness, Worldviews, 77–79, 153
277–278 “Writer’s block,” 47
Trustworthiness Writing
about, 14, 258 (table) abstract, 425–427
confirmability, 301 (table), 303 academic, 55–62, 205, 430
credibility, 301 (table), 301–302 American Psychological Association (APA),
dependability, 301 (table), 303–304 45, 231
quality assessment checklist, 320 conclusions, 412
in quantitative, qualitative, and mixed literature review, 213 (table), 228–232, 231
methods, 74 (table) (table)–232 (table)
reflexive questions, 315–316 recommendations, 412–413
transferability, 301 (table), resources, 44, 53 (table)
304–305
transparency, 278
Z
triangulation strategies for, 277–278
Twitter, 356, 458, 459 Zotero, 216, 217
LIST OF APPENDIXES

Appendix C: Sample Trustworthiness Statements
Appendix D: Sample Ethical Assurance Statements
Appendix E: Sample Positionality Statements
Appendix F: Change Matrix Template
Appendix G: Sample Alignment Plan: Problem, Purpose, Research Questions
Appendix H: Sample Literature Review Theme Development
Appendix I: Sample Literature Review Outlines
Appendix J: Theoretical Framework Brainstorming Samples
Appendix K: Template for Document Summary Form
Appendix L: Template for Participant Summary Form
Appendix M: Sample Research Methodology Flowchart
Appendix O: Sample Matrix Research Questions/Interview Themes/Focus Group Questions
Appendix P: Sample Coding Schemes
Appendix Q: Sample Coding Scheme Development Charts
Appendix R: Sample Segments of Coded Interview Transcripts
Appendix S: Qualitative Data Analysis Software Resources (QDAS)
Appendix V: Sample Thematic Charts
Appendix W: Sample Interpretation Outline Tool
Appendix X: Sample Analytic Category Development Tool
Appendix Y: Sample Consistency Chart of Findings, Interpretations, and Conclusions
Appendix Z: Dissertation Manuscript Cheat Sheet
APPENDIX A: RUBRIC FOR EVALUATING A COMPLETED
QUALITATIVE DISSERTATION
Outstanding Acceptable Minimally Acceptable Unacceptable
Title Page 1. Title is complete within 1. Title is appropriate but may 1. Title does not effectively 1. Title is not appropriate for a
character limit. not be very concise. convey all aspects of the dissertation.
study, or some necessary
elements are missing.
2. Includes all keywords 2. Most keywords are 2. Some key words may be 2. Most keywords are missing.
that will promote proper included. missing.
categorization into
databases, including
central phenomenon,
research participants and
site, purpose of study, and
research design.
3. All relevant parts of the 3. All relevant parts of the 3. All relevant parts of the title 3. Most relevant parts of title
title page are included title page are included page may or may not be page are missing.
(author’s full name, degree (author’s full name, degree included (author’s full name,
to be conferred, name of to be conferred, name of degree to be conferred,
university, year). university, year). name of university, year).
4. APA style is completely 4. APA style is completely or 4. APA style is not completely 4. Title page does not follow
correct. mostly correct. correct. APA style.
(Continued)
Abstract 1. Abstract includes problem, 1. Abstract includes all 1. Abstract is missing some 1. Abstract includes incorrect
purpose, scope of study, essential information but is essential information. information or does not
research design, number misleading due to a lack of accurately portray the study.
and type of participants, concise sentence structure,
methodology, major or there may be some
findings. Implications/ information missing.
limitations of these findings
stated clearly and concisely.
2. Writing is organized, 2. Writing is organized, 2. Writing may or may not be 2. Writing is mostly
coherent, and coherent, and organized, coherent, and disorganized, incoherent, or
grammatically correct. grammatically correct. grammatically correct. grammatically incorrect.
3. Format and style are 3. Format and style are 3. Format and style may or 3. Format and style are
correct as per APA correct as per APA may not be correct as per mostly incorrect as per APA
guidelines. guidelines. APA guidelines. guidelines.
4. Word limit is accurate as per 4. Word limit is accurate as per 4. Word limit may or may not 4. Word limit has been
APA guidelines. APA guidelines. be accurate as per APA significantly exceeded.
guidelines.
Literature Review See Appendix B See Appendix B See Appendix B See Appendix B
Scoring Rubric
Introduction 1. The research topic is 1. The research topic is 1. The research topic is vague 1. The research topic has no or
relevant to the program of somewhat relevant to the in its relationship to the very little relationship with
study (EdD or PhD), and the program of study (EdD program of study and to the the program of study.
content is current and timely or PhD), and somewhat researcher’s field of interest
in terms of the researcher’s current in terms of the and/or specialization.
field of interest and/or researcher’s field of interest
specialization. and/or specialization.
2. Clear statement of research 2. Statement of research 2. Statement of research 2. Statement of research

problem that fits with problem, description of problem, description of problem, description
qualitative research, and background/context to the background /context to the of background to the
description of background/ problem, and relationship problem, and relationship problem, and relationship
context to the problem is of the problem to previous of the problem to previous of the problem to previous
provided. research could be stated research is unclear or research is very unclear,
more clearly. vague. messy, or missing.
3. Relationship of the problem 3. Explanation of how this 3. There is little justification 3. There is no justification
to previous research research will contribute to for how this research will for how this research will
is stated, and relevant the knowledge base and/ contribute to the knowledge contribute to the knowledge
literature is cited. or practice and/or policy base and/or practice and/or base and/or practice and/or
is included, but it could be policy. policy.
more specific.
4. How this research might 4. Researcher’s perspectives 4. Researcher’s perspectives 4. Researcher’s perspectives
contribute to the knowledge and assumptions are and assumptions are and assumptions are very
base and/or practice and/ provided but could be stated unclear or vague. unclear or missing.
or policy is clearly stated, more articulately.
thereby substantiating the
study’s significance.
5. Researcher’s perspective 5. How the purpose will 5. Purpose of the study, 5. Purpose of the study,
and relationship to the address the problem could and how the purpose will and how the purpose will
problem is discussed, and be explained more clearly. address the problem, is address the problem, is very
to address positionality, all unclear or vague. unclear or missing.
researcher’s assumptions
and biases are made
explicit.
(Continued)
5

6. Purpose of the study is 6. The relevance of the study’s 6. The relevance of the study’s 6. The relevance of the study’s
clearly, succinctly, and purpose vis-à-vis the purpose vis-à-vis the purpose vis-à-vis the
unambiguously stated. chosen qualitative design chosen qualitative design is chosen qualitative design
could be explained more unclear or vague. is incoherent, messy, or
clearly. missing.
7. It is clear how the purpose

is aligned with and will
address the problem.
8. Stated purpose is relevant to

chosen qualitative research
design.
Research 1. Research questions are 1. Research questions are 1. Research questions are 1. Answers to research
Questions open ended and directly open ended, but it could be open ended, but it is unclear questions would not shed
answerable; answers made clearer how answers how answers will shed light light on research problem.
will clearly shed light on will shed light on research on research problem.
research problem. problem.
2. All research questions are 2. Relationship among the 2. Relationship among the 2. There is no relationship
interconnected; there is a research questions could be research questions is among the research
meaningful relationship clearer. unclear or vague. questions.
among them.
3. There is direct and strong 3. Alignment among problem, 3. Alignment among problem, 3. There is no alignment
alignment among problem, purpose, and research purpose, and research among problem, purpose,
purpose, and research questions could be stronger. questions is unclear or and research questions.
questions. vague.

Research Design 1. Offers a clear and 1. Offers an adequate 1. Offers a vague or 1. Offers no justification for
(qualitative compelling justification/ justification/rationale for insufficient justification for selection of design.
tradition or genre) rationale for selection of selection of design. selection of design.
design.
2. Research design is 2. Research design is 2. Research design is either 2. Research design is

appropriate and feasible appropriate and feasible not appropriate or not inappropriate and/or
as a means of qualitative as a means of qualitative feasible as a means of unfeasible as a means of
inquiry. inquiry. qualitative inquiry. qualitative inquiry.
3. The type of data being 3. The type of data being 3. The type of data being 3. Description or explanation
collected is clearly collected is briefly collected is not clearly of the type of data being
described. discussed but not clearly described or explained. collected is absent or
or sufficiently described or unclear.
explained.
4. A well-thought-out rationale 4. The rationale provided to 4. The rationale provided to 4. The rationale to justify the
is provided to justify the justify the qualitative study justify the qualitative study study is absent.
qualitative study. is not clearly described or is unclear or vague.
explained.
5. A convincing argument is 5. The argument made for the 5. The argument made for the 5. There is no argument
made for the importance or importance or significance importance or significance made for the importance or
significance of the study. of the study needs additional of the study is unclear, significance of the study. If
explanation or clarification. vague, or weak. there is an argument made,
it is very weak.
Methodology: 1. Sample is ideal for the 1. Sample is appropriate for 1. Sample is not appropriate 1. Sample is undefined.
Selection of questions being asked. the questions being asked. for the questions being
Participants and asked.
Research Setting
(Continued)
7

2. Specific purposeful 2. Specific purposeful 2. Purposeful sampling 2. Sampling strategy and

sampling strategy is sampling strategy and strategy and criteria for criteria for sampling are not
appropriate, and criteria criteria for sampling sampling selection are not discussed and/or are not
for sampling selection are selection are not clearly or clearly explained. appropriate.
stated and explained. sufficiently described.
3. Participant and site 3. Participant and site 3. Participant information 3. Participant information is
information includes all information includes some lacks clarity, misses some not provided.
necessary characteristics. but not all necessary details, or may include
characteristics. confidential details.
4. Ethical access, informed 4. Discussion of ethical 4. There is no clear reference 4. Ways to address ethical
consent, anonymity, and access, informed to research ethics. standards are not included.
confidentiality are all consent, anonymity, and

addressed. confidentiality is vague or
insufficient.
5. Transferability is adequately 5. Transferability is addressed 5. Transferability regarding 5. Transferability regarding

addressed regarding setting regarding setting and setting and timeframe lacks setting and timeframe is
and timeframe. timeframe but not in clarity. either inaccurate or is not
sufficient detail. discussed.
Methodology: Data 1. Strong explanation and 1. Research methods are 1. Lack of alignment among 1. Methodological integrity
Collection justification for how all of moderately aligned with research design, methods and congruence is lacking
the selected methods align the problem, purpose, and and the study's problem, throughout.
with the problem, purpose, research questions. purpose, and research
and research questions. questions.
2. Strong description 2. Adequate description 2. Discussion of methods 2. There is no rationale for

regarding how the choice regarding how the choice of is vague or includes selection of methods.
of all of the methods is methods is congruent with inaccuracies.
congruent with the research the research design.
design.

3. The type of data being 3. The type of data being 3. Inadequate description 3. No mention of the type of
collected is clearly collected is briefly outlined of the types of data being data being collected.
described and justified regarding the importance collected.
for the importance and/or and/or significance of the
significance of the study. study.
4. The process for collecting 4. The process for collecting 4. The process for collecting 4. The process for gaining
data is explained and data is briefly explained but data is identified but not ethical access, collecting
methods are described needs additional details so described in detail, and it is data, and methods selected
with sufficient detail that that a reader could replicate unclear whether a reader is not explained.
a reader could replicate the study consistent with could replicate the study
the study consistent with research questions. consistent with research
research questions. questions.
5. It is clear that methods were 5. Methods selected to 5. Methods selected to 5. If instruments were
used to gain ethical access gain ethical access to gain ethical access to developed specifically for
to and collect data from participants and collect participants and collect data this study, procedures
participants. data are not sufficiently are vague or unclear. involved in development,
explained. and administration are not
explained.
6. A clear rationale for 6. A rationale for selection 6. A rationale for selection 6. There is no evidence
selection of instruments of instruments used of instruments used is of triangulation of data
used is provided. is provided but needs provided but is vague or collection methods.
additional clarification or unclear.
explanation.
(Continued)
9

7. Instruments that were 7. Instruments that were 7. If instruments are 7. There is no evidence of
developed specifically for developed specifically for developed specifically for dependability, or evidence
this study, procedures this study, procedures this study, procedures that dependability was even
involved in development, involved in development, involved in development, addressed.
and administration are and administration need validation, and
clearly documented. additional clarification or administration are vague or
explanation. unclear.
8. Triangulation of data 8. Triangulation of data 8. Triangulation of data

collection methods has been collection methods could be collection methods is
achieved. clearer or more specific. unclear.
9. Dependability has been 9. Dependability has been 9. Dependability has been

satisfied and clearly moderately satisfied. Some, only minimally or vaguely
addressed and explained. but not all, of the processes addressed.

One can track the processes and procedures used to
and procedures used to collect and interpret data
collect and interpret data. can be tracked.
Methodology: The procedure is appropriate The procedure is appropriate The procedure is appropriate, The procedure is not
Procedure for the research questions and the description is mostly but description is not in order appropriate, and/or the
and is described in order or complete, but some minor or sequence, and/or it may be description is unclear, and/or
sequence, with enough detail details may be missing, or some difficult to follow, and/or a few many major details are absent.
that a reader could replicate the procedural aspects could be major details are absent.
study. Instructions and protocol explained more clearly.
are included. In addition:
1. A convincing argument A few of the procedural criteria Many of the procedural criteria Most or all of the procedural
for choosing qualitative listed in the left column listed in the left column criteria listed in the left column
research and particular are missing or are not fully are missing or are not fully are missing and remain
research design is provided. addressed. addressed. unaddressed.

2. All decisions made during

the course of the study,
including any changes or
modifications in focus,
direction, and design are
discussed.
3. All limitations and

delimitations pertaining
to study are discussed,
including how the
researcher attempted to
address limitations.
4. Specialized instructions or
a data collection protocol is
included as part of the study
or as an appendix.
5. Methodological
procedures are explained
as fully meeting all
ethical standards
and trustworthiness
requirements.
(Continued)
11

Analysis of Data 1. Data analysis is well 1. Data analysis is well 1. Data analysis steps are 1. Data analysis steps are not
and Presentation planned. All steps in the planned. All steps in identified, but explanation of identified.
of Findings analytic process are clearly the analytic process are how data were managed and
articulated, including identified but may exclude organized is vague or
clear explanation of how clear explanation of how unclear.
data were managed and data were managed and
organized. organized.
2. Researcher positionality is 2. Researcher positionality 2. Researcher positionality 2. There is no mention of

clearly and unambiguously is not adequately or is briefly addressed or not researcher positionality.
addressed, including a clear sufficiently addressed. addressed.
positionality statement.
3. The coding process 3. The coding process is 3. Coding process is described 3. Coding process is not
is clearly described, described and coding scheme and coding scheme is described and/or coding
and an organized and is included, but explanation included, but explanation scheme is not included.
comprehensive coding and/or presentation could be and/or presentation are
scheme is included. clearer. vague or unclear.
4. All findings statements are 4. All findings statements are 4. Some or all of the findings 4. Findings are summarized
clearly and precisely stated. stated but could be clearer. statements are unclear or and aggregated, but large
vague. portions of data are missing.
The process of summarizing
data is messy.
5. Findings are summarized 5. Findings are summarized 5. Findings are summarized 5. Findings are not free from
and aggregated, and clearly and aggregated in a way and aggregated but are not interpretation and/or are
and coherently organized that mostly addresses the clearly organized according not reported accurately and
and presented in direct research questions. The to research questions, nor objectively.
response to the research process of summarizing do they directly address all
questions. data may not be complete or the research questions. The
comprehensive. process of summarizing data
is unclear or incomplete.

6. Findings are free from 6. Findings are generally free 6. Findings are not all free 6. The narrative and tables/
interpretation and are from interpretation and are from interpretation and/ figures (as applicable)
reported accurately and reported accurately and or are not always reported summarize the findings but
objectively. objectively. accurately and objectively. do not address any of the
research questions.
7. The narrative and tables/ 7. The narrative and tables/ 7. The narrative and tables 7. Examples of specific
figures (as applicable) are figures (as applicable) (as applicable) summarize evidence that support
easy to understand and summarize the findings the findings but mostly do the findings of study are
summarize the findings in a but do not always directly not address the research inappropriate or absent.
way that responds to all of address the research questions.
the research questions. questions.
8. Examples of specific 8. Examples of specific 8. Examples of specific 8. No insights emerge from

evidence (multiple evidence (quotations or evidence that support the the analysis. Instead, the
quotations or other other qualitative data findings of study are mostly results simply reflect the
qualitative data including including artifacts or inappropriate or absent. idiosyncratic views of the
artifacts or visuals) are visuals) are provided to researcher. There is no
provided to support all the support only some of the theoretical/conceptual
findings of the study, and findings of the study. framework, or if there is
offer multiple perspectives. one, it is unclear, and/or
inaccurate and does not
enhance the study in any way.
9. The study’s theoretical/ 9. Some insights emerge 9. Few insights emerge from
conceptual framework from the analysis. The the analysis. If a theoretical/
clearly and logically theoretical/conceptual conceptual framework has
illuminates the relationships framework is clear and easy been developed, it is unclear
among the study’s variables, to understand. or imprecise in parts.
providing insights and
understanding.
(Continued)
13

Discussion: 1. Interpretations are clear, 1. Interpretations could 1. Interpretations are unclear 1. Interpretations are
Interpretation and thoughtful, and reasonable. be more clear and/or or vague. The argument unfounded, unrealistic,
Representation The argument flows thoughtfully explained. The does not flow logically and or naïve. The argument
logically and coherently. argument could flow more coherently. does not flow logically and
coherently. coherently at all.
2. Interpretations are relevant 2. Interpretations are mostly 2. Interpretations are only 2. Interpretations are not
to research problem, relevant to research sometimes relevant to relevant to research
purpose, and research problem, purpose, and research problem, purpose, problem, purpose, and
questions. research questions. and research questions. research questions.
3. Participant voices are 3. Participant voices could be 3. Participant voices are 3. There is no reference to the
credibly represented more credibly represented. missing or “hidden.” research participants’ voice.
to illustrate multiple
perspectives.
4. Major themes or patterns 4. Major themes or patterns 4. Major themes or patterns 4. There is no interrelationship
are interrelated to show a are interrelated to show are somewhat interrelated of any major themes or
higher level of analysis and a relatively high level of but show a low level of patterns in the data.
abstraction. analysis and abstraction. analysis and abstraction.
5. Analysis is positioned 5. Analysis is discussed in 5. Analysis is discussed in 5. Analysis is not discussed in

and discussed in terms terms of relevant related terms of relevant related terms of relevant related
of relevant related bodies bodies of literature and bodies of literature and bodies of literature and
of literature and previous previous research, but previous research, but previous research.
research. integration could be tighter. integration is lacking.
6. All information presented in 6. Information presented in 6. Information presented 6. Information presented in

tables/figures is consistent tables/figures is mostly in tables/figures is only tables/figures is mostly not
with information presented consistent with information sometimes consistent with consistent with information
in the narrative. presented in the narrative. information presented in the presented in the narrative.
narrative.

7. The researcher clearly 7. The researcher 7. The researcher infers that 7. The researcher does not
acknowledges multiple acknowledges multiple there are multiple ways acknowledge that there are
ways of interpreting findings ways of interpreting findings of interpreting findings, multiple ways of interpreting
and is open to alternative and is open to alternative but this is not adequately findings, and has not
interpretive possibilities. interpretive possibilities addressed. The researcher revisited or reflected upon
The researcher revisits and but has not revisited and has also not revisited initial assumptions and/or
actively reflects upon initial reflected upon initial and reflected upon initial biases.
assumptions and/or biases. assumptions and/or biases. assumptions and/or biases.
8. There is clear and logical 8. Credibility has been 8. Credibility has been only 8. There is no evidence or
argument in support of somewhat satisfied. The minimally or vaguely discussion related to
credibility. By way of various argument for establishing addressed. credibility.
appropriate strategies, the credibility could be more
researcher has accurately substantial.
represented what the
participants think, feel,
and do.
9. Comprehensive overview 9. An overview synthesizes and 9. An overview summarizes 9. There is no overview

synthesizes and integrates integrates all key points, key points, but there is no summary, integration, or
all key points. but this could be tighter and integration or synthesis. synthesis.
more comprehensive.
10. There is clear and 10. Overall alignment and 10. Overall alignment among 10. Overall alignment among
strong alignment and methodological congruence dissertation elements is dissertation elements
methodological congruence among all dissertation unclear, weak, or vague. is unclear, incorrect, or
among all dissertation elements could be missing.
elements. strengthened.
(Continued)
15

Discussion: 1. A complete picture of the 1. An almost complete 1. An inconclusive picture of 1. There is a very limited
Conclusions and research is portrayed, picture of the research is the research is offered. or flawed picture of the
Recommendations affording the reader an portrayed, affording the research.
in-depth understanding reader a relatively good
of the study and its understanding of the study
implications. and its implications.
2. Any limitations related 2. Any limitations related 2. Limitations of context, 2. Limitations of context,
to context, available to context, available available evidence, and available evidence, and
evidence, and alternative evidence, and alternative alternative interpretations alternative interpretations
interpretations are interpretations are are mentioned but not are not discussed.
acknowledged, considered, considered but not sufficiently discussed.
and critically evaluated. sufficiently considered or
critically evaluated.
3. All conclusions are 3. Most conclusions are 3. Most conclusions are 3. The conclusions are mere
presented as strong presented as strong not presented as strong restatements of the study’s
conclusive statements, are conclusive statements, are conclusive statements, and/ findings.
clearly derived from the clearly derived from the or are not clearly derived
study’s findings and are study’s findings and are from study’s findings, and/
warranted by the findings, warranted by the findings, or are mostly not warranted
are logical and clearly are logical and clearly by the findings.
explained, and are not explained, and are not
mere restatements of the mere restatements of the
findings. findings.
4. All recommendations are 4. Most recommendations 4. Most recommendations are 4. The recommendations are
justified by the findings, are justified by the findings, not justified by the findings, not justified by the findings,
are actionable, and include are actionable, and include and/or are not actionable, and/or are not actionable,
applications for practice, applications for practice, and/or do not have and/or do not have
policy, and further research. policy, and further research. applications for practice, applications for practice,
policy, and further research. policy, and further research.

5. A final take-home message 5. A final take-home message 5. A simple take-home 5. The study does not include a
is clearly articulated by way is included but is only message is presented, but final take-home message.
of a comprehensive and somewhat comprehensive. this needs fuller articulation
integrated synthesis. and expansion.
Appendix Appendixes that are referenced Appendixes that are referenced Appendixes that are Some or all of the appendixes
in the text are customized in the text are not customized referenced in the text are not that are referenced in the text
appropriately; well organized; sufficiently; lack organization; customized appropriately; are missing.
and include complete, accurate, and are missing some lack organization; are missing
and relevant details. components or details. key components, or include
incomplete, erroneous, or
irrelevant details.
Citations Current, no later than five years Almost all current, no later than Numerous old (beyond five Mostly outdated references
old (unless seminal research five years old (unless seminal years) resources used; many are used; most claims are
or landmark studies); relevant research or landmark studies); claims are unsubstantiated in unsubstantiated in the
scholarly literature is used relevant scholarly literature the literature; research bias literature; informal language is
appropriately; all claims are is mostly used appropriately; is present, and claims based used throughout.
substantiated in the literature; most claims are substantiated on personal opinion are often
there is an absence of personal in the literature; mostly there is included; frequent use of
opinion, avocation, bias, and an absence of personal opinion, informal language.
informal language. avocation, bias, and informal
language.
References 1. References are aligned from 1. Some references are not 1. Many references are not 1. Most references are not
the text to the reference list aligned from the text to aligned from the text to aligned from the text to
and vice versa. the reference list and vice the reference list and vice the reference list and vice
versa. versa. versa.
2. Includes all, and only cited, 2. Omits some cited article or 2. Some references may not be 2. Reference list is more like
publications. includes some that were not appropriate for the topic. a bibliography of related
cited. sources.
17
(Continued)
3. Appropriately scholarly and 3. Appropriately scholarly but 3. Key references are clearly 3. Includes many secondary
appropriate to the topic. may include some that are cited from other sources sources, or sources that are
somewhat tangential. and not integrated. not current.
4. Sufficient recent sources 4. Sources include a good mix 4. Sources do not include 4. Frequent use of unscholarly
make the review current, of recent and classic, as a good mix of recent and materials.
and relevant classic studies necessary. classic literature.
are included if applicable
and available.
5. All references adhere to 5. References mostly adhere 5. References mostly do not 5. References mostly do not
APA style and format. to APA style and format. adhere to APA style and adhere to APA style and
format. format.
Academic Writing: 1. Consistently follows 1. Mostly follows conventions 1. Mostly does not follow 1. Does not follow conventions
Format and conventions of scholarly of scholarly writing, voice, conventions of scholarly of scholarly writing, voice,
Presentation writing, voice, grammar, grammar, spelling, tense, writing, voice, grammar, grammar, spelling, tense,
spelling, tense, punctuation. punctuation. spelling, tense, punctuation. punctuation.
2. There is clear organization 2. Organization of the 2. Organization of the 2. Organization of the

to the document, and document is effective, document is inadequate, document is messy or
transitions are smooth and although improvements making the discussion confusing. Transitions are
effective. could be made. Transitions difficult to follow. missing or are very weak.
are generally, but not Transitions are sometimes
always, smooth, and there but could be improved.
paragraphs may stray from
the central idea.
3. Headings and subheadings 3. Writing throughout is mostly 3. Writing is not always 3. Writing is not scholarly.
are used effectively to scholarly and academic. scholarly, and tone is Tone is consistently informal
structure and present the Tone is mostly appropriately occasionally colloquial. or colloquial.
discussion. formal.
4. Writing throughout is 4. Sentences are generally 4. Sentences are not always 4. Sentences are not concise,
scholarly and academic. concise and word choice is concise, and word choice is and word choice is
Tone is appropriately formal. usually precise. sometimes vague. problematic.
5. Sentences are concise and 5. Paraphrasing is usually 5. Includes many quotes or 5. There is much needless
word choice is precise, with used, and direct quotations improper paraphrasing that repetition, and/or there are
nonbiased language. are used appropriately may constitute unintentional parts with insufficient or
where necessary. plagiarism. missing detail.
6. Paraphrasing is effective, 6. Tends to string together

and quotations are used quotations without sufficient
appropriately where necessary. original input.
APA Format and 1. Consistently applies 1. Inconsistently applies 1. Does not always apply 1. Does not apply fundamental
Style fundamental APA formatting fundamental APA formatting fundamental APA formatting APA formatting and style
and style requirements. and style requirements. and style requirements. requirements.
2. TOC components are all 2. TOC components are mostly 2. TOC components are mostly 2. TOC components are not
aligned. aligned. not aligned. aligned.
3. Information is always 3. For the most part, 3. Information is often not 3. Information is typically
included in appropriately information is included included in the appropriately included in the incorrect or
titled and ordered sections. in the appropriately and titled or ordered sections. inappropriate sections.
ordered sections.
4. Title page, in-text citations, 4. Style generally includes 4. There are many style errors 4. There are multiple style
paper format, and reference correct spacing, fonts, and in referencing, spacing, or errors throughout.
page are in APA style with margins. Page breaks are in headers.
no errors. appropriate places.
5. All headers, tables and 5. There may be minor errors

figures, margins, captions, in punctuation, references,
etc., are in APA style. or headers.

19
Source: This rubric is part of Bloomberg, L. D. (2015). Qualitative dissertation evaluation. Unpublished manuscript.
APPENDIX B: RUBRIC FOR EVALUATING
A LITERATURE REVIEW
Minimally
Category Criterion Outstanding Acceptable Acceptable Unacceptable
1. Coverage A. Justified criteria – Discussed exactly – The review justified – The review – The review did not
for inclusion and what should have the inclusion discussed the discuss the criteria
exclusion from been in the review and and exclusion of literature included for inclusion or
review was neither over- nor literature. and excluded. exclusion.
underinclusive.
2. Synthesis B. The review – The review offered – The review critically – The review – The review did not
distinguishes what new perspective on examined the state discussed what has distinguish what has
has been done in the state of the field. of the field. and has not been and has not been
the field from what done in the field. done in the field.
needs to be done
C. Situates the – The topic was – The topic was – There was some – The topic was
topic or problem examined in a way clearly situated discussion of the not placed in the
within the that showed a new within the broader broader body of broader scholarly
broader scholarly way of thinking about body of scholarly scholarly literature. literature.
literature it in the scholarly literature.
literature.
D. Situates the – A new and insightful – The history of the – There was some – The history of
research within the way of examining the topic was critically mention of the the topic was not
historical context history of the topic examined. history of the topic. discussed.
of the field was revealed.
(Continued)
Minimally
– Ambiguities in – The key vocabulary – The vocabulary was

definitions and/or was defined. not discussed.
vocabulary were
resolved.
– There was
some review of
relationships among
key variables and
phenomena.
E. Articulates New and insightful The review noted Theory or concepts The key variables
– – – –
important definitions of existing ambiguities in are introduced, but and phenomena
phenomena and new constructs the literature and it is not clear at all were not discussed.
relevant to the were attained. proposed new how these apply to
topic relationships. the study.
F. Theoretical – Theoretical or – The review includes – There was some – No theoretical

or conceptual conceptual theory or concepts critique of the or conceptual
framework is underpinnings that that have application literature. framework is
included as directly apply to the to the study, but included.
relevant. study were introduced are not sufficiently
and comprehensively explained.
explained.
G. Synthesizes – New and undiscovered – The literature was

and gains a new relationships in accepted at face
perspective on the the literature were value.
literature identified.
Minimally
3. Methodology H. Identifies the main – The review criticized – The research – There was some – Research methods
methodologies the existing methods methods common to discussion of the of the studies were
and research and offered new the literature were research methods not discussed.
techniques that ways to think critiqued. used to produce
have been used in about the standard the claims in the
the field and their or predominant literature.
advantages and methodology.
disadvantages
I. I. Relates ideas, – The new methods – The appropriateness – There was some
concepts, and/ suggested ways to of the research discussion of
or theories in the resolve unjustified methods to warrant appropriateness of
field to research claims in the the claims was research methods
methodologies literature. critiqued. that warrant claims
in the literature.
4. Significance J. Rationalizes – A new perspective was – The practical – The practical – The practical
the practical added to the practical significance of significance of significance of the
significance of the significance of the the research was the research was research was not
research problem research that was not critiqued. discussed. discussed.
found before in the
literature.
K. Rationalizes – A new perspective was – The scholarly – The scholarly – The scholarly
the scholarly added to the scholarly significance of significance of significance of the
significance of the significance of the the research was the research was research was not
research problem research that was not critiqued. discussed. discussed.
found before in the
literature.
(Continued)
3
Minimally
– Includes – The gap or missing – The gap or missing – No gap or missing

comprehensive information is information is knowledge is
discussion around identified and mentioned but identified or
what is missing appropriately not sufficiently discussed.
in theory and/ outlined. discussed.
or research, and/
or indicates gap in
knowledge.
5. Rhetoric (writing L. The review is – The writing was – The writing was – There was some – The paper
effectively) coherent, and the coherent and well well developed and coherent structure. was poorly
structure is clear
developed so that it coherent. conceptualized,

and ordered offered new ways to haphazard, and/or
write about and think messy.
about this literature,
adding to the
theoretical or applied
knowledge base.
6. Style M. The writing is – The writing is – The writing is – The writing – The writing is of a
compelling generally engaging. engaging in some overall is dull and poor quality and
parts of the review unengaging. difficult to follow.
but not in others.
N. The tone is – The tone is generally – The tone is not – The tone is largely – It is difficult to
consistently professional and consistently unprofessional. discern the tone.
professional appropriate for an professional.
academic research
paper.
Minimally
O. Grammar, spelling, – There are only a few – There are various – There are many – The writing is of a
and writing errors in grammar, errors in grammar, errors interspersed very poor quality,
mechanics are free spelling, and/or spelling, and/or throughout the and sentence
of errors writing mechanics. writing mechanics. review. structure is very
awkward.
7. Format P. Length is – The review is the – The length exceeds – The length exceeds – The length exceeds
appropriate as correct number of the word or page the word or page the word or page
required specified pages. limit, or does not limit, or does not limit, or does not
meet the word or meet the word or meet the required
page limit. page limit. word or page limit.
Q. Citations within the – Citations, references, – Citations, – There are – The review is
paper are accurate and APA format are references, and APA frequent errors characterized by
all accurate and format are mostly regarding citations, gross inaccuracies
consistent. accurate. references, and/or with citations,
APA format. references, and APA
format.
R. References are
professionally
legitimate and
correctly stated
S. APA format is
accurate and
consistent
Source: This rubric is part of Bloomberg, L. D. (2015). Qualitative dissertation evaluation. Unpublished manuscript.
5
APPENDIX C: SAMPLE
TRUSTWORTHINESS STATEMENTS
EXAMPLE 1
In qualitative research, trustworthiness features consist of any efforts by the researcher to
address the more traditional quantitative issues of validity (the degree to which something
measures what it purports to measure) and reliability (the consistency with which it measures
it over time). In seeking to establish the trustworthiness of a qualitative study, Lincoln and
Guba (2000) use the terms credibility, dependability, confirmability, and transferability, arguing
that the trustworthiness of qualitative research should be assessed differently from quantitative
research. Regardless of the terminology used, qualitative researchers must continue to seek to
control for potential biases that might be present throughout the design, implementation, and
analysis of the study.
Credibility. The criterion of credibility suggests whether the findings are accurate and
credible from the standpoint of the researcher, the participants, and the reader. This crite-
rion becomes a key component of a trustworthy qualitative research design Marshall et al.
(2022). Credibility involves consideration of the interrelationship between the research design
components—the study’s purpose, theoretical or conceptual framework, research questions,
and methods. To enhance the credibility of this study, the researchers triangulated data sources
as well as data collection methods. Gathering data from multiple sources and by multiple
methods yields a fuller and richer picture of the phenomenon under review. The research-
ers employed various strategies. First, they clarified their assumptions up front, and the steps
through which interpretations were made also were charted through journal writing. Second,
the researchers used various participatory and collaborative modes of research, including the
search for discrepant evidence and peer review, which has been discussed at length by Lincoln
and Guba (2000). This entailed looking for variation in the understanding of the phenomenon
and seeking instances that might challenge the researcher’s expectations or emergent findings.
Reviewing and discussing findings with professional colleagues was a further way of ensuring
that the reality of the participants was adequately reflected in the findings.
Dependability. Reliability in the traditional sense refers to the extent that research findings
can be replicated by other similar studies. Qualitative research usually does not cover enough
of an expanse of subjects and experiences to provide a reasonable degree of reliability. As argued
by Lincoln and Guba (2000), the more important question becomes one of whether the find-
ings are consistent and dependable with the data collected. As the researchers understood it, in
qualitative research the goal is not to eliminate inconsistencies but to ensure that the researcher
1
understands when they occur. Thus, it becomes incumbent on the researcher to document his
or her procedures and demonstrate that coding schemes and categories have been used consis-
tently. Toward this end, inter-rater reliability Miles and Huberman (1994) Lincoln and Guba
(1985) was established by asking colleagues to code several interviews. Although coding was
generally found to be consistent, there were certain instances where the raters made some infer-
ences that could not be fully supported by the data. In these cases, the researchers reviewed
the data and reconciled differences in interpretations. In addition, the researchers maintained
an audit trail Lincoln and Guba (1985) that chronicled the evolution of their thinking and
documented the rationale for all choices and decisions made during the research process. This
trail, which Merriam (1998) describes as offering “transparency of method,” depended on the
researchers keeping a journal as well as a record of memos that included detailed accounts of
how all the data were analyzed and interpreted.
Confirmability. The concept of confirmability corresponds to the notion of objectivity in
quantitative research. The implication is that the findings are the result of the research rather
than an outcome of the biases and subjectivity of the researcher. To achieve this end, a researcher
needs to identify and uncover the decision trail for public judgment. Although qualitative
researchers realize the futility of attempting to achieve objectivity, they must nevertheless be
reflexive and illustrate how their data can be traced back to their origins. As such, an audit trail
Lincoln and Guba (2000) was used to demonstrate dependability, including ongoing reflection
by way of journaling and memo, as well as a record of field notes and transcripts, thereby serving
to offer the reader an opportunity to assess and evaluate the findings of this study.
Transferability. Although generalizability is not the intended goal of this study, what was
addressed was the issue of transferabilityLincoln and Guba (2000)—that is, the ways in which
the reader determines whether and to what extent this particular phenomenon in this particular
context can transfer to another particular context. With regard to transferability, Patton (2015)
promotes thinking of “context-bound extrapolations” (p. 491), which he defines as “specula-
tions on the likely applicability of findings to other situations under similar, but not identical,
conditions” (p. 489). Toward this end, the researchers attempted to address the issue of transfer-
ability by way of thick, rich description of the participants and the context. Depth, richness,
and detailed description provide the basis for a qualitative account’s claim to relevance in some
broader context (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019; Schram, 2003).
EXAMPLE 2
Addressing Issues of trustworthiness

Trustworthiness is an overarching concept in qualitative research used to show the procedures
used to design and conduct a study will ensure the study’s rigor and quality (Frey, 2018). In qual-
itative research, there are four issues of trustworthiness that need to be addressed, as opposed
to quantitative research that evaluates studies based on validity and reliability (Bloomberg
& Volpe, 2019). Qualitative research is focused on ensuring that the research questions were
answered by the data and that the interpretation of the findings accurately represents the
Appendix C: Sample Trustworthiness Statements 3
experiences of the participants. The four criteria that establish trustworthiness in a qualitative
study include: (a) credibility, (b) dependability, (c) confirmability, and (d) transferability.
Credibility. Credibility is the process of ensuring that the way in which a researcher pres-
ents the participants’ data and experiences is accurate. There are several strategies that can
be practiced ensuring credibility such as researcher journaling, triangulation with other data
sources (in this case, critical incident questionnaires), attempting to find direct opposition state-
ments or experiences, engaging in member checking (when needed) of data or transcripts, and
debriefing with peers or others. Each of these strategies was used to ensure that participant
data are accurately represented. Data triangulation is ensured when the researcher uses different
sources of data to cross-check findings and strengthen trustworthiness Flick (2018). Frey (2018)
described member checking as a technique to ensure credibility. After the interview, a verbatim
transcription of the interview was sent to each participant to check for accuracy of meaning.
When applicable, the participant sent an edited interview transcript back to the researcher or
relayed accurate information. Consulting with professional colleagues over the course of the
study allowed me to engage in dialogue around important methodological choices and deci-
sions. Regularly engaging in these multiple credibility practices throughout data collection and
analysis helped keep the research process focused, and also offered measures of trustworthiness.
By stating my biases, I am very self-aware of potential gaps, concerns, or perspective issues.
Further, by having a larger sample size, greater levels of data stating similar themes can demon-
strate that researcher bias is minimal, and credibility is achieved.
Dependability. Dependability is established by a transparent, clear, and logical research
process (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019). Dependability is also demonstrated through a clear and
well-defined set of research questions and tools. In this instance, the usage of two methods
(interviews and critical incident questionnaires) helped triangulate the data gathered from the
participates. Triangulation reduced potential bias and increased dependability by engaging in
thick description of phenomena or patterns.
Confirmability. Ensuring confirmability allows the researcher to include impartial data
collection and interpretation aids in ensuring that the findings are not due to researcher bias
(Korstjens & Moser, 2018). Confirmability was addressed by using member checking, verifi-
cation questions for follow up and accuracy of meaning during focus groups, researcher field
notes, and ongoing self-reflection and journaling to ensure that clear patterns of thought were
demonstrated.
Transferability. While qualitative research does not seek to generalize or look for causation
(as in quantitative research), it does look to define opportunities for applicability and transfer-
ability to other contexts or settings (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019). Transferability refers to how
and in what ways a researcher can determine the extent of application of the findings to other
contexts (Frey, 2018). It is important to remember that the reader makes the judgment of trans-
ferability, not the researcher (Korstjens & Moser, 2018). To address transferability, the meth-
odology and design, sampling procedures, data collection, and data analysis are explained in
detail, with full transparency, and with sufficient information or “thick description” for appro-
priate determination regarding the potential transferability of the study.
EXAMPLE 3
Trustworthiness of the Data

Trustworthiness refers to the strategies a qualitative researcher utilizes to ensure the credibil-
ity and confirmability of data collection, analysis, and interpretation Nowell et al., (2017).
Establishing the trustworthiness of a qualitative research study encompasses a thick descrip-
tion of the researcher’s credibility, dependability, confirmability, and transferability methods.
Researchers need to provide a clear and concise narrative of the research approach so that the
reader has an opportunity to confirm the trustworthiness criteria of the study (Bloomberg &
Volpe, 2019).
Credibility. Credibility in the trustworthiness of qualitative research methods represents
the relationship between the participants’ words and the data. Researchers have noted that
the credibility of data collection methods depends on audio taping and direct transcription
(Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019). Interpreting the participants’ words through direct transcrip-
tion is crucial in the trustworthiness of qualitative research (Bloomberg and Volpe, 2019). The
researcher has to make sure that any judgments or comments made about a theme are relevant
to the actual words of the participants. Nowell et al., (2017) stated that credibility provides a fit
between participants’ responses and the researcher’s interpretations. Therefore, the researcher
conducted member checks after transcribing the interviews and focus group to ask clarifica-
tion of what participants said. The researcher has to represent what the participants think and
feel throughout the data collection and analysis process so that the findings are believable to
the reader (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019). Consulting with the participants to review how the
researcher interpreted their words promotes credibility by bridging the findings with their
reality.
Other credibility strategies that were used by the researcher include journaling (to facilitate
reflexivity), seeking negative instances, prolonged engagement with research participants, and
peer debriefing. Reflexivity allowed the researcher to clarify and reflect on any biases through-
out the study. Additionally, reflexivity enabled the researcher to seek negative instances that
brought different perspectives to the study. As an “insider”, the researcher experienced pro-
longed field engagement with the participants by serving as a facilitator during the structured
interviews and focus group session.
Peer debriefing took place by asking colleagues to review the questions formulated for the
interviews and focus group session. Peer debriefers were two former bilingual education teach-
ers. Conversations with peer debriefers included the rewording of interview and focus group
questions, collapsing of questions, shared ideas, and concepts that were overlooked by the
researcher. The peer debriefers communicated to the researcher that some questions were con-
fusing and helped her clarify and reword them according to the study’s purpose. During these
conversations new questions also emerged and were included in the interview transcript.
Dependability. The strategies that were used by the researcher to establish dependabil-
ity are data triangulation, audit trail, and peer examination. Data triangulation to establish
dependability engaged the researcher in providing a thick description of the methods under-
taken to explain the sequence of steps used to present transparent conclusions between the
data collection methods, analysis, and interpretation. The researcher provided an audit trail
by keeping raw data, journal notes, and interpretations available for review by other research-
ers. Peer examination established inter-rater reliability by ensuring coding consistency between
raters (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019). Three current doctoral candidates in education were asked
to collaborate in the coding process of this study. The researcher asked peer-reviewers to code
data and check for consistency between codes to establish dependability. Quality conversations
emerged as the peer reviewers shared their perspectives about their coding experience. As per
discussion with peer reviewers, the researcher was able to reflect on the data to make revisions
to the coding scheme.
Confirmability. The selected confirmability strategies involve an audit trail, theory trian-
gulation, and reflexibility through journaling. The audit trail under confirmability represents
more than the researcher’s assumptions but presents the reader with the relatedness between
data conclusions and literature (Nowell et al., 2017). The researcher provided an audit trail for
the reader to understand that conclusions were not solely created by the researcher but emerged
based on theoretical perspectives that informed the study’s methodology. Theory triangulation
as a strategy to establish confirmability allows the researcher to explain how the interpretations
of data triangulate with the chosen method and theoretical approach (Amankwaa, 2016). The
researcher explained how theory supports the study’s findings. The researcher used reflexivity
through journaling to account for and justify the researcher’s thinking process.
Transferability. The transferability of the study was supported by purposeful sampling,
detailed information regarding the data collection and analysis process, and thick description of
the research findings. In-depth knowledge of purposeful sampling supported the transferability
of the study by allowing the reader to connect with the participants’ background, setting, and
perceptions. The description of purposeful sampling and data collection methods permits other
researchers to replicate this study in a similar context. To ensure writing a thick description, the
researcher provided detailed information about the study’s context, background, data collection
methods, analysis of findings, and interpretations; all of which can serve to facilitate transfer-
ability for the reader.
EXAMPLE 4
Trustworthiness of the Study’s Findings

The researcher fortified the trustworthiness of this qualitative case study by applying the four
qualitative trustworthiness criteria that Lincoln and Guba (1985) established: credibility,
dependability, confirmability, and transferability.
Credibility was accomplished through data source triangulation of the findings, mem-
ber checking, and prolonged engagement. Prolonged engagement was achieved through the
researcher being present in the research site long enough to build trust with participants.
The researcher assured the participants that their level of knowledge of pragmatics or their
experience that they shared with the researcher would not be criticized; thus, participants felt
comfortable sharing their experience without worrying about being judged or criticized. The
participants did not only provide adequate information, but they also provided candid and
detailed information about their educational and classroom experiences with regard to prag-
matics. Data source triangulation was achieved by interviewing ESL teachers, conducting vir-
tual classroom observations, and reviewing documents. To ensure the participants’ ideas and
perspectives have been adequately and accurately represented, member checking was employed
by sharing transcripts and findings with the participants. After the interviews, each participant
read their recorded answers and provided additional information when they felt that it was
necessary. The researcher did not take notes during the interviews, which positively affected the
comfort level of participants since there were no distractions; however, right after each inter-
view, the researcher took notes and wrote down the highlights of each interview. Sample notes/
memos are provided in Appendix E. Credibility also was achieved through a close collaboration
with the dissertation chair and committee. Feedback was received and changes have been made
based on the feedback to ensure that the data has been collected, interpreted, analyzed, and
reported analytically and truthfully.
Dependability was achieved by providing a consistent, expressive, and detailed descrip-
tion of the procedures reported in the analysis of data. Preserving consistency throughout the
data collection and analysis procedure ensures and protects the trustworthiness of a qualita-
tive study (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019). Being consistent throughout the research and achiev-
ing methodological cohesion by accomplishing alignment among the purpose of the research,
research questions, methods of data collection and analysis enabled the researcher to provide
more dependable findings. To ensure the alignment of interview and research questions, the
researcher created an alignment matrix (Appendix C). To summarize participant data and com-
pile what the participants said about each of the categories in the conceptual framework, a data
summary table was created. (Appendix H). Bloomberg and Volpe (2019) stated, “Preparing
data summary charts provide a way to highlight the evidence to support what research says she
or he has found” (p. 243). Given that the researcher was working with a phenomenon happen-
ing “within a real-life context” and addressing questions of “what” and “how” to understand
and create an in-depth description and analysis of the participants’ experiences, the case study
methodology aligned with the research questions, which led to collecting rich data filled with
extensive samples of quotations from participants answering the interview questions.
Confirmability was achieved by explaining each phase of the research study clearly and
thoroughly and providing evidence as to how the findings and interpretations are evidently
derived from the data. To ensure both dependability and confirmability, the researcher pre-
served a clear record of transcripts, memos, observation checklists, and notes and provided what
is known as “audit trail” Lincoln and Guba (2000). In addition, the researcher created a schema
that illustrates the development of the codes and categories to themes. A chart that illustrates
how the codes and categories translated to themes can be found in Appendix F. To illustrate
connections between the research questions and the study’s themes and how the themes were
created from the codes, the researcher also utilized a sample coding and theme development
table suggested by Bloomberg and Volpe (2019). A copy of the coding and theme development
table can be found in Appendix G. To ensure consistency, the researcher also utilized a sample
consistency chart of findings, interpretations, and conclusions created by Bloomberg and Volpe
(2019). (Appendix D). Confirmability is also accomplished by acknowledging the researcher’s

own effect on the process and recognizing characteristic subjectivity as opposed to attempting
to eradicate bias (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019).
The researcher aimed to ensure transferability through purposeful sampling and by pro-
viding a detailed and clear description of the data. To better understand community college
ESL teachers’ pragmatics awareness and their educational and instructional experiences with
regards to integrating pragmatics in ESL classrooms, the criteria for selection of participants
was that all participants were teaching ESL and they were currently teaching or had taught ESL
at the research site. The findings of this study, as opposed to a quantitative study, cannot be gen-
eralized in broader populations or settings, such as other community colleges. Rather, a deeper
understanding of the phenomena and findings can be derived from the participants’ lived expe-
riences within other contexts and settings. Bloomberg and Volpe (2019) stated that generalizing
findings in qualitative research is not a goal. Rather, as Creswell & Poth (2018) and Yin (2018)
asserted, qualitative research is predicated upon the acquisition of a deeper understanding of the
core phenomenon being studied, so that the research findings may have some applicability (to a
lesser or greater extent) beyond a specific context or setting.
APPENDIX D: SAMPLE ETHICAL
ASSURANCE STATEMENTS
EXAMPLE 1
Any research study will involve ethical assurances from the Belmont Report which include
respect for participants, beneficence, and justice (1979). Providing elementary bilingual educa-
tion teachers with autonomy, a detailed explanation of the benefits, and probable harms of the
research will ethically treat participants. The strategies undertaken to treat participants ethi-
cally will care for their well-being during the study.
Respect for persons involves giving the participants the autonomy to make informed choices
(National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral
Research, 1979).
Respect for research participants was central to this study. Each research participant had
the opportunity to make a voluntary decision to participate in the study’s research after clearly
understanding informed consent. The informed consent notified participants about the study’s
purpose, foreseeable risks, benefits, confidentiality, and contact information. To provide auton-
omy to the participants throughout the study, informed consent was provided before each inter-
view and focus group session, thereby reminding participants about their choice to volunteer or
leave the study at any point. Treating participants with autonomy respects their decisions and
also secures their well-being.
Beneficence protects participants by maximizing benefits and minimizing harm (National
Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research,
1979). While conducting interviews is of low risk to the participants; however, confidentiality
cannot be guaranteed while conducting focus group sessions. The virtual structured interviews
are of minimal risk to participants. However, the focus group sessions may risk their confi-
dential identities and shared information. Although confidentiality procedures such as pseud-
onyms and encrypted data will protect recordings and transcripts, the researcher cannot control
or guarantee what participants may discuss outside of the focus group sessions. The data will be
stored for seven years in computers with protected passwords and without internet connection
under IRB requirements.
Justice refers to ethical treatment of participants by ensuring that all participants receive
equal benefits throughout the study (National Commission for the Protection of Human
Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1979). The researcher cannot assure partici-
pants confidentiality during focus groups but can confirm that the benefits of participating
in the research study will provide participants with improved knowledge, practical classroom
strategies, and enhanced student success.
1
EXAMPLE 2
During each stage in the research process (pre-study development, data collection, data analy-
sis, and sharing, reporting, and storing data) ethical consideration regarding participants must
be considered (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019; Creswell & Poth, 2018; Yin, 2018). Of primary
importance is the ethical obligation of the researcher to the research participants. Researchers
must anticipate any potential ethical issues that could arise during the qualitative research pro-
cess and act proactively to protect all participants as well as the integrity of the collected data
(Creswell & Poth, 2018). To achieve this, trust must be established between the researcher and
the study participants (Yin, 2018).
Approval was sought from the University IRB before any data was collected. In addition,
this study followed all federal directives to protect human rights and welfare as instructed by
the IRB guidelines. There was no IRB approval needed from the employers of those who par-
ticipated in this study. Ethical considerations were developed by the Belmont Report (National
1979). This report identified three basic ethical principles that should be considered when
conducting research with human subjects. These include respect for persons, beneficence, and
justice.
The first principle is respect for persons which includes that individuals should be treated
as autonomous agents and that people with diminished autonomy are entitled to special pro-
tections (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and
Behavioral Research, 1979). An autonomous agent is a person who is capable of making deci-
sions about themselves when presented with information to make a considered judgement
Research, 1979). For those people who are not able to make personal judgements, due to ill-
ness, mental disability, or some other circumstance, The Belmont Report (1979) calls for special
protections. The research participants were provided with information about the research and
given the opportunity to volunteer based on their evaluation of the research and their abil-
ity to participate in this study. Informed consent forms were used, and all participants were
informed that they could leave the study at any time without any penalty. Informed consent also
included informing participants about the full nature of the study and the responsibilities of the
researcher in written and/or oral language that is easy to comprehend. Participants were given
an opportunity to ask questions about the proposed study at any time before, during, or after
their participation. Additionally, anonymity and confidentiality was explicitly discussed with
study participants.
The second principle is beneficence which requires researchers to do no harm to study partic-
ipants and to maximize potential benefits while minimizing the possibility of harm (National
1979). The proposed study of consortium directors has several areas where harm could be done
to the participants including failure to ensure privacy and anonymity, disclosure of personal
information, and/or disclosing responses or comments made during the individual interview
or focus group. Every possible measure was taken to ensure that confidential or identifying
Appendix D: Sample Ethical Assurance Statements 3
information is secured and prevented from being shared. The protection of confidential data
and information is paramount to doing no harm to study participants and includes the storage,
delivery, or transfer of data and/or information on computer networks, external hard drives, and
computers that are accessible to people other than the researcher. Security of confidential data
and/or information was achieved by storing the data on a password protected laptop and pass-
word protected thumb drive that only the researcher can access.
The third principle is justice which relates to the fairness in distribution of any benefit
Research, 1979). The findings and analysis of the research study will be shared with partici-
pants and state officials.
Each of the principles identified in The Belmont Report (National Commission for the
Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1979) were followed in
this study and in accordance with University IRB guidelines. Additionally, each of the applica-
tions identified in the Belmont Report were strictly adhered to in this study and in accordance
with the University IRB guidelines.
The first application is informed consent which includes the need to provide full and
transparent information to study participants, assurance that each participant fully compre-
hends the study, and that study participants understand that participation is fully voluntary
Research, 1979). Informed consent supports the principle of respect for persons by recogniz-
ing that each person is an autonomous agent and can voluntarily participate in the proposed
study. Additionally, informed consent supports beneficence of no harm being done to study
participants while also providing support for justice through the sharing of research outcomes.
Research participants were fully informed about the nature of the study and be given the oppor-
tunity to voluntarily consent to their participation.
The second application is assessment of risks and benefits which requires that the research be
justified based on the nature and scope of risks and benefits and that a systematic assessment of
risks and benefits is conducted (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects
of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1979). This research study has a potentially low risk to
study participants but a high level of benefit as the findings will guide professional development
efforts. Participants remained anonymous and all responses to interview and focus group ques-
tions will be stored on a secure server with password protection and accessible only by myself.
Assessment of risks and benefits demonstrates respect for persons by through an analysis of
potential risks and benefits. Additionally, an assessment of risks and benefits supports benefi-
cence of no harm being done to study participants while also providing support for justice by
disseminating the findings.
The third application is selection of subjects which requires fair procedures in terms of the
selection of participants and special procedures be followed for special populations (National
1979). A purposive sampling method was used to identify potential participants in the pro-
posed research project. Purposive sampling, and specifically critical case sampling, allowed for
instances to be selected in a deliberate manner in order to yield the richest and most relevant
data (Yin, 2018). This study targeted 24 participants allowing for a minimum of six partici-
pants from both of the identified groups. This sample size aligns with the recommendations
of Yin (2018) and Creswell and Poth (2018). This method also aligns with both respect for
persons through voluntary participation and to justice through the dissemination of research
findings. Additionally, selection of research participants aligns to beneficence through volun-
tary participation.
APPENDIX E: SAMPLE POSITIONALITY
STATEMENTS
EXAMPLE 1
Self-Efficacy and its Impact on Teacher Retention and Burnout: A

Qualitative Study of Teachers Who Have Persisted on the Job
With over 15 years of experience in the foreign language education field, both as a teacher
and manager, the researcher serves as the Academic Specialist of UMB (one of the 8
Undergraduate schools at the DLIFLC) where the research took place. At the time of the
research, the school comprises 100 faculty members and around 350 students. UMA is
another Middle East School at DLIFLC with almost the same number of teachers and stu-
dents that the researcher added to this study, in the hope of reaching 15 volunteers for this
study that would fit the criteria of having at least five years of teaching experience. While the
researcher knew many teachers in the schoolhouse, the researcher satisfied all IRB require-
ments, followed the Belmont Report (1979). Throughout the research and writing process I
was constantly aware and intentional not to influence the participants, the analysis, nor the
findings. A journal was maintained throughout the process of all notes and thoughts. This
had helped put aside the suppositions and knowledge and concentrate on the actual answers
from participants’ experiences. As Bloomberg and Volpe (2019) explained, researchers are
encouraged to become reflexive and develop critical research skills, learning the difference
between reflection as a concept and the reflective practice of reflexivity. As a researcher,
reflexivity helped in recognizing the changes brought about because of the study process and
how these changes have shaped and impacted the journey and the research process itself. For
data collection, recording, and analysis, each participant was assigned a pseudonym and a
code that only the researcher will be able to identify; hence the privacy of the human sub-
jects involved was respected. The researcher reminded the participants that their participa-
tion was voluntary and that they have the right to refuse to answer any question they feel
uncomfortable with. The researcher addressed respect, beneficence, and justice as outlined
in the Belmont Report (1979). The information shared by the participant continues to be
both confidential and anonymous.
1
EXAMPLE 2
Elementary Bilingual Education Teachers’ Self-Efficacy in Teaching

English Language Learners: A Qualitative Case Study
The qualitative researcher’s role is to describe, understand, interpret, and communicate the
participants’ voices in a study (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019). The researcher’s role in this study
is a reflexive instrument to help understand how positionality may impact the research find-
ings. Reflexibility allows researchers to acknowledge and disclose biased social and cultural
backgrounds while interpreting data (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019). An insider, the researcher
will have prolonged field engagement with the participants by being a facilitator during the
structured interviews and focus group session. Being a dyslexia interventionist and a former
bilingual education teacher places the researcher as an insider within the community under
study. Most of the South Texas population comes from a Hispanic culture in which the spoken
language is Spanish and cultural values are shared similarly. As a former bilingual education
teacher, the researcher understands that personal background experiences may differ from those
of the participants. Reflexibility will be used as the primary strategy to reduce the researcher’s
bias and experiences from influencing the findings’ analysis. Reflexivity will remain an active,
intentional, and ongoing process throughout the research study to monitor and address the
researcher’s self-consciousness through the use of a research journal which provides an ongoing
process of the researcher’s thinking by creating a reflective thinking space. A reflective journal
will be used to write thoughts and ideas as they emerge during the data collection and analysis
process. The thoughts written in the reflective journal will be retrieved throughout the inter-
pretation of the findings to help the researcher understand the reasoning behind specific deci-
sions. Reflexivity will postulate the researcher as an instrument to raise her self-consciousness of
social, cultural, and political positions and be aware of her role as “researcher” throughout the
research process.
EXAMPLE 3
Understanding the Potential Influence of Supervision and Professional

Development Experiences on the Self-Efficacy of Nonacademic Middle
Managers in Higher Education: A Qualitative Case Study
Qualitative research involves the researcher as part of the inquiry itself; the researcher is both
an instrument and an observer to the phenomena under review. Within quantitative research,
the researcher is separate and outside of the research; the researcher and design are value free
and unbiased. Conversely, within qualitative design, it is expected that the researcher as instru-
ment is both invested personally in the experience of the research, but also acknowledges the
role that their own views, biases, and values play in the discovery within the study. Conducting
research via a fieldwork method such as interviewing requires innate knowledge of a subject
area, the participants who live and work in that area, and the phenomena under investigation.
Appendix E: Sample Positionality Statements 3
However, with that knowledge comes the need for this flexibility and the ways varying roles of
the researcher can influence the need to restructure or redefine the research process.
Role of the researcher. Inherent in a case study design where interviews are one of the
primary methods of gathering data is the notion of intimacy and reflexivity of the researcher
(Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019). In this study, I was aware of potential biases, intersections, experi-
ences, and political landscapes of their own experiences in conjunction with that of the par-
ticipant. I adopted the model of ‘researcher as instrument’ in this study. Bloomberg and Volpe
(2019) explained several benefits and potential concerns with ‘researcher as participant’ meth-
odology. I brought my own past experiences and contexts to the study. The potential ethical
concerns with bringing my personal experiences to the study are the lack of genuinely objective
perspectives on the research. Bloomberg and Volpe (2019) clarified that qualitative research
cannot be, nor should not strive to be, objective. The goal is not to have a separation between
researcher, participant, and data, but rather to be working in concert with all pieces to construct
a transferable study with beneficial results.
Researcher bias. Because I have significant professional experiences serving as a middle
manager in multiple higher education settings, it was essential that continuous self-checking
occurred throughout the participant recruitment process and data collection process. I have
served in four different middle management positions across three institutions (public and pri-
vate) over a continuous period of 10 years. These middle management roles have been in student
affairs, auxiliary services, and academic support services. I currently serve in a nonacademic
middle management position with both positive and negative experiences related to the research
topic. Mitigating researcher bias was and is of prime concern within this study. I regularly revis-
ited the data and transcripts to ensure that there was not a concern about the transference of
experience or assumption making. Maintaining clarity, focus, transparency, and rigor are all
key in qualitative research (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019). This maintenance and focus help to
translate into a highly credible study.
Because I can identify personally and professionally on some level with the participants, I
have a basic understanding of personal significance for participants to be questioned and lis-
tened to in an academic endeavor such as this study. For some, the significance lies in a deeply
personal space of being asked questions and encouraged to reflect on critical incidents that
have positively or negatively shaped personal beliefs in self (Flanagan, 1954). As a soon-to-be
doctoral-level professional, I have a new set of responsibilities that I must act on. I have now
heard the difficult and lackluster experiences of nonacademic middle managers, and I need to
identify opportunities to act on those experiences and bring change about in the academy ranks.
With my education, I can use my voice, power, privilege, and capital to help mend wounds,
develop new pathways, and empower individuals around me to make change for these critical
leaders in higher education. With my education, I will no longer be sidelined or allow my voice
not to be heard in our academic worlds; I will speak intelligently and proudly to foster change
and growth in our nonacademic middle managers peers. If I fail at this, I have failed my doc-
toral education and I have failed those that I set out to study and understand. If I succeed at this,
I have actualized my education, respected my peers, and in turn, respected myself. I will be the
change I want to see in our higher education world.
EXAMPLE 4
Exploring the Impact of an Urban Teacher Residency Program on

Teachers’ Cultural Intelligence: An Ethnographic Study
In a qualitative study, the researcher serves as the instrument for data collection, analysis, and
interpretation (Patton, 2015). Researchers bring their own biases and assumptions into the data
collection and analysis phases. As a practitioner conducting scholarly research, I have worked
in intercultural student development through higher education for a decade. For the past seven
years, I have served as a director of multicultural student development and was recently pro-
moted as the director of strategic diversity initiatives.
Additionally, I have served as a consultant and have worked with faculty, staff, and stu-
dents to develop cultural intelligence. Throughout my tenure in higher education, I gained
experience teaching and implementing numerous types of courses and workshops related to
cultural competence. In February of 2019, I became a certified instructor of cultural intelli-
gence. By following the steps outlined in the study procedures section, many of my inherent
biases and subjectivities will be acknowledged. Whereas my role in intercultural development
could be a benefit in understanding the scope of this study, related limitations may arise. As
such, I needed to remain mindful of biases that emerged in the analysis and interpretation of the
data. Researcher bias will also be a limitation related to trustworthiness. Reflexivity, as a way of
thinking rather than a method, may aid in the reduction of bias. The reflexive form of thinking
includes explicit self-consciousness and self-assessment by the researcher about internally held
views and positions related to how they may influence the design, execution, and interpretation
of research data and findings. To address reflexivity, consistent journaling occurred throughout
the research for intentional self-reflection and self-awareness, which can increase trustworthi-
ness (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019). Using self-reflection from the researcher’s journal may help
to make connections between current and past thoughts and developing viewpoints about the
analysis and interpretation of the collected data (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019). The researcher
focused on journaling about his perceptions of the experiences of the participants. Excerpts
from this journal have been analyzed weekly along with the participants’ data and shared in the
findings chapter.
EXAMPLE 5
Nursing Students’ Perceptions Regarding Dishonest Behaviors and

Academic Misconduct: A Phenomenological Study
The researcher in this study addressed data triangulation by utilizing two different sources of
data collection, focus groups and one-on-one interviews, to corroborate, or support, the find-
ings and to develop a deeper understanding of the nursing students’ perspectives on dishonesty
and misconduct in nursing school. Triangulation of the data helps to ensure the trustworthiness
of the study and increases the confidence that the researcher presents the participants’ perspec-
tives accurately, thus displaying credibility (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019; Yin, 2018). A qualitative
Appendix E: Sample Positionality Statements 5
researcher needs to engage in reflexivity, or self-reflection, throughout the study (Bloomberg &
Volpe, 2019). I acknowledge that as a nurse educator myself conducting a study with nursing
ed students some of my own assumptions and presuppositions may influence the study and the
particular the ways in which I interpret the findings. Addressing researcher bias was accom-
plished by keeping an ongoing research journal and writing field notes and descriptions during
the focus groups and interviews. This allowed me to reflect on how my own opinions and under-
standing of the topic may impact the research and the study’s findings. The researcher will, to
the best of her ability, attempt to keep any biases bracketed by using an interview guide to ask
the same questions of all participants. I will also be cognizant of remaining non-judgmental by
not reacting negatively to any participant responses and will, to the best of my ability, remain
neutral regarding participants’ responses during the focus groups and interviews, as outlined by
Bloomberg and Volpe (2019).
One limitation of the study was the issue of power dynamics where some participants may
be more likely to vocalize their perceptions, and those that are of the minority in their percep-
tions may be minimalized by those that are in the majority or more vocal than others. With the
one-on-one interviews taking place after the focus groups, the researcher hoped that the partici-
pants that were hesitant to speak up or those that were in the minority of what they felt during
the focus group would be comfortable enough to speak up to the researcher during this time.
EXAMPLE 6
Organizational Leadership Skills and Management Competencies: An

exploratory Case Study of California’s Adult Education Consortium
Directors Implementation of Collective Impact
Researchers must anticipate any potential ethical issues that could arise during the qualitative
research process and act proactively to protect all participants as well as the integrity of the
collected data (Creswell & Poth, 2018). To achieve this, trust must be established between the
researcher and the study participants (Yin, 2018). Trust was developed through several explicit
actions. First, only participants with whom I have not worked were included in this study. This
eliminated the existence of prior work history and any unfair bias. Second, no participant was
included with whom I have any supervisory oversight. Currently, I do not supervise any of the
consortium directors. Third, should there be a participant over whom I have influence due
to their positions as consortium director, they were excluded from participation in this study.
At the time this research was conducted, there were no consortium directors in this category.
Fourth, participants were excluded from the sample population if I was engaged in any way
with their supervisor. At the time of conducting this study, I was not consulting for anyone who
supervises a consortium director. Fifth, trust was developed in part through the support for this
project from the joint CAEP office that represents the CDE and the California Community
College Chancellor’s Office. The CAEP office confirmed that they would facilitate inform-
ing the field about this study, and would encourage participation in this research. Sixth, the
informed consent process affords participants knowledge of their rights and the processes and
procedures being implemented in this proposed research to ensure safety and anonymity. Lastly,
Bloomberg and Volpe (2019) discuss the need for researchers to recognize and reflect on the per-
ceptions that participants have toward the researcher and how these perceptions reflect in the
creation of rapport or trust. Included in these perceptual factors are age, gender, gender identity,
ethnicity, race, career status, socio-economic status, physical appearance, and other factors.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) noted that researchers need to be reflexive and consider issues
such as positionality as well as insider/outsider influences in their research. The focus of this
research is the leadership skills and management competencies needed to be a consortium direc-
tor under California Assembly Bill 104. As a consultant working in this space since the law’s
enactment, I am immersed in its implementation and am one of a small group of consultants
working in this space. I currently serve as a consortium director of two different consortia and
a consultant to the consortium director at three different consortia. As such, I am an insider
conducting research with a population of which I am a member. For these reasons, developing
trust will be a focus of this proposed study. I will adhere to clear and consistent ethical stan-
dards, while at the same time conducting research that is vital to the performance outcomes of
the legislation.
Having played a role in establishing, or remediating, several consortia, I am well known in
the state and am often the go-to person when consortia are having performance outcome issues.
This positionality creates both a power imbalance among the directors who will participate in
the proposed research, but also relies on sense of trust through years of working together. I will
actively strive to reduce bias and experiences from influencing the analysis or findings of this
proposed research project through implementing the steps identified above. Trustworthiness of
the data is directly related to the trustworthiness of those who collect it, analyze it and present
it (Patton, 2015). Using two methods of data collection reduces the risk of systemic biases and
chance association because of using any one specific method (Maxwell, 2013). I ensured that all
collected data was protected against improper disclosure. Pseudonyms were used when report-
ing the findings and sensitive information concerning participant responses were kept private
and stored electronically. All information regarding the employing agency and research partici-
pants remained secured and will not be available to anyone other than the myself for a period of
seven years as required by the IRB. Reasonable steps were taken to ensure the confidentiality of
all identifiable information and IRB guidelines and protocols were followed as required.
I am fully aware of how my personal experience as a consultant to consortium directors is
an influence on my thoughts about the leadership skills and management competencies of con-
sortium directors., and how my experience could influence participants during the individual
interviews and focus groups. Maxwell (2013) noted that researchers, particularly those who are
working in the field being researched, are faced with the inability to eliminate assumptions,
personal beliefs and the perceptual lens through which they view the world. Instead of attempt-
ing to discount or eliminate my own subjectivity, I was committed to working with integrity,
awareness and metacognition, and throughout the research process, remained cognizant of my
own positionality to ensure the safety and anonymity of the research participants.
APPENDIX F: CHANGE MATRIX
TEMPLATE
A detailed change matrix simplifies the review process and indicates to the dissertation chair-
person and committee that the student has demonstrated a clear and thorough response to
reviewers’ comments
TEMPLATE FOR CHANGE MATRIX
Student Name:
Title of Dissertation:
Chapter:
Date:
Reviewer’s recommendation How feedback has been addressed Page number/s where
change appears
(Provide exactly as reviewer (Be very specific regarding your
has stated) change and add explanations as
needed)
EXAMPLE: EXAMPLE: EXAMPLE
There seems to be too much in I have changed this to reflect p.1

intro regarding Schema Theory. and focus on dissertation topic
I would like the intro to be more of study. I have shortened the
clearly focused on this study, explanation of Schema Theory
rather than on a theory. Theory and explained how this applies to
will be explicated below under the proposed study. I refer to the
“Theoretical Framework” as theory here only for explanatory
well as in Chapter 2 purposes and plan to include the
details of the theory in Chapter 2
where I will expand the theoretical
framework.
This is stated differently in I have changed the statement so p.5

your lit review. The purpose that it is consistent throughout the
statement MUST be consistent entire paper
throughout
(Continued)
1
This section requires citations. I added citations in this section pp.8-9

Remember, all claims must be to strengthen my claims about
substantiated by research or lack of teaching professionalism.
literature I will continue to seek current
literature/research as I proceed.
Add rows as needed

*
APPENDIX G: SAMPLE ALIGNMENT
PLAN: PROBLEM, PURPOSE,
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Alignment will likely be met if you can establish the link between the research problem, pur-
pose, and research questions by highlighting key words. This appendix provides examples
of actual studies using color coding to emphasize alignment between problem, purpose, and
research questions. This is a useful exercise as you are preparing to develop the foundational
elements of your study.
EXAMPLE 1
This case study was about training using the Enneagram to address the problem of teacher stress
and burnout. Initially, the training program mentioned in the research questions was not pres-
ent in the problem or purpose statements. Completing this exercise helped the student see what
was missing, and how to better achieve alignment among all three core components.
The problem the proposed study addresses is teachers’ lack the training needed to build
relationship skills to maintain positive relationships thereby potentially reducing stress
The purpose of the proposed qualitative case study is to examine a training program
that could help teachers’ build relationship skills that could help them maintain positive
relationships that may have potential to reduce stress.
The following two research questions were developed to guide the study:
RQ1. As a result of a 1-day Enneagram training program how do teachers perceive that
relationship-building skills training could build their relationships with students and
colleagues?
RQ2. As a result of a 1-day Enneagram training program how do teachers believe
relationship-building skills could reduce their job stress?
1
EXAMPLE 2
This case study was about understanding the influence of supervision and professional develop-
ment on the self-efficacy of nonacademic middle managers in higher education.
The problem addressed by this study was the potential influence that institutional super-
vision practices and professional development and training have on the self-efficacy of
nonacademic middle managers in higher education is unknown.
The purpose of this qualitative case study was to explore the potential influence that
institutional supervision practices and professional development and training have on
the self-efficacy of nonacademic middle managers in higher education.
RQ1. How, if at all, do institutional supervision practices potentially influence self-efficacy

in nonacademic middle managers in higher education?
RQ2. How, if at all, do institutional professional development and training practices poten-
tially influence self-efficacy in nonacademic middle managers in higher education?
EXAMPLE 3
This was a case study about teachers’ perceptions regarding group contingency behavior plans
for early childhood students.
The general problem addressed by this study was that early childhood teachers were
not adequately trained to address the disruptive behavior of their students during struc-
tured activities in the classroom. The specific problem addressed in this study was that
limited knowledge has been established regarding the effective components of group
contingency behavior plans at the early elementary level.
The purpose of this qualitative case study was to explore what types of group contin-
gency plans were being used by early childhood teachers, if at all, as well as to explore
the perceptions of early childhood teachers regarding the effective components of group
contingencies in a suburban public elementary school located in northern New Jersey.
The following three research questions were developed to guide the study:
RQ1. What types of group contingency plans, if at all, do early childhood teachers utilize in
their classrooms to reduce the disruptive behavior of their students?
RQ2. How do early childhood teachers select, implement, and monitor the use of group
contingency plans?
RQ3. What aspects of group contingency plans do early childhood teachers believe to be
effective in reducing the disruptive behavior of their students, and why?
Appendix G: Sample Alignment Plan: Problem, Purpose, Research Questions 3
EXAMPLE 4
This study examined elementary bilingual education teachers’ self-efficacy in teaching English
language learners.
The problem addressed in this study was that some elementary bilingual education
teachers’ beliefs about their lack of preparedness to teach the English language may
negatively impact the language proficiency skills of Hispanic ELLs (Ernst-Slavit &
Wenger, 2016; Fuchs et al., 2018; Hoque, 2016).
The purpose of this descriptive case study was to explore the perspectives and expe-
riences of elementary bilingual education teachers regarding their perceived lack of
preparedness to teach the English language and how this may impact the language pro-
ficiency of Hispanic ELLs.
RQ1. What are elementary bilingual education teachers’ beliefs about their preparedness in
teaching English language proficiency skills to Hispanic ELLs?
RQ2. How do elementary bilingual education teachers’ beliefs about their preparedness to
teach English language proficiency skills impact the instruction for Hispanic ELLs?
EXAMPLE 5
This was a single case study that explored minority teachers’ experiences pertaining to their
value in education.
The general problem is that minority K-12 teachers are under-represented in the United
States. The specific problem that justifies the need for this study is the lack of minority
teachers in urban K-12 school districts in the United States, and how minority teachers
perceive their teaching practices because there is so few of them.
The purpose of this qualitative exploratory single case study is to gain a clearer under-
standing of minority teachers’ experiences concerning the under-representation of
minority K-12 teachers in urban school districts in the United States.
RQ1. What are minority teachers’ perceptions concerning their under-representation of

minority teachers in urban school districts?
RQ2. What are minority teachers’ perceptions concerning their teaching practices and its
impact on students in urban school districts?
APPENDIX H: SAMPLE LITERATURE
REVIEW THEME DEVELOPMENT
1
Appendix H: Sample Literature Review Theme Development 3
APPENDIX I: SAMPLE LITERATURE
REVIEW OUTLINES
EXAMPLE 1
This student outlined the review in chronological narrative form, section by section. In this way
she built out the outline that would become the guiding framework for her literature review:

LITERATURE REVIEW OUTLINE

(In this chapter, I will be starting with the introduction followed by the documentation strate-
gies I used to find the literature. This will be followed by the theoretical framework I used for
the problem, purpose, and research questions, including the interview questions. I will then
describe the different issues identified for this study based on the literature. Each section/head-
ing will include what was found in the literature and will end with a summary of the section. At
the end of the chapter, I will also include a chapter summary that describes what was discussed
in the chapter.)
(Introduction regarding the purpose of the proposed study will be written here.)
Documentation Strategies
(This section will include the databases accessed and key words used to identify articles/studies
used for the literature review and the study proposal.)
Theoretical Framework Explanation and Summary

(This section will incorporate the theoretical framework I used, the origin and development
of the framework, the research studies I found that utilized this framework, why this frame-
work was chosen, and how it relates to the proposed study’s problem, purpose, and research
questions.)
1
Types of Dishonest Behaviors and Misconduct in the Classroom Setting

(This section will include examples of what may constitute as dishonest behaviors and miscon-
duct in the classroom area of nursing school.)
Types of Dishonest Behaviors and Misconduct in the Clinical Setting

(This section will include those examples of what may constitute as dishonest behaviors and
misconduct in the clinical setting of nursing school.)
The Correlation Between Academic and Professional Misconduct

(This section will describe studies that have identified that there is a correlation between stu-
dents that participate in dishonest behaviors and misconduct in the classroom setting with the
participation of these behaviors in the clinical/workplace setting.)
Reasons Why Students Engage in Dishonest Behaviors and

Misconduct in Nursing School
(This section will cover what nursing students and others have described as reasons why nurs-
ing students may participate in dishonest behaviors and misconduct in both the classroom and
clinical settings while in nursing school based on the research previously performed.)
Neutralization of Academic Dishonesty and Misconduct by

Nursing Students
(This section will look at how nursing students neutralize/normalize their dishonest behaviors
and misconduct in nursing school based on previous studies performed.)
Deterrents to Dishonest Behaviors and Misconduct

(In this section, I will describe what previous studies have found about what may deter students
from performing these dishonest behaviors.)
The Attitudes, Morals, and Personality Traits that May Contribute to

Dishonest Behavior
(Here I am looking to discuss the different types of attitudes, morals, and personality traits
found from previous studies that may indicate those more at risk to partake in these types of
behaviors.)
The Effect of Dishonest Behaviors and Misconduct on Patient Care

(This section will incorporate how nursing students’ participation in these behaviors can affect
patient care and potentially cause harm to the patients these students care for.)
Appendix I: Sample Literature Review Outlines 3
The Effect Dishonest Behaviors and Misconduct Can Have on

Nursing Students
(In this section, I am looking to discuss how participation in these behaviors can affect students’
learning and how they care for patients in the clinical/workplace setting.)
Definition of Integrity in Nursing Care

(I am adding this section to describe how integrity is important in nursing and how a lack of
integrity can increase the risk of dishonest behaviors and misconduct while in nursing school.)
Policies and Honor Codes in Nursing School

(In this section, I will discuss how policies and honor codes in nursing schools can impact the
risk of nursing students’ participation in dishonest behaviors and misconduct. I will also discuss
the role of nursing educators in developing and enforcing these policies and honor codes prior to
assignments and exams, and also in the clinical setting.)
The Differing Perceptions of Nursing Educators and Nursing Students

(In this section, I will describe how previous studies note a difference in the perceptions of edu-
cators and students regarding constitutes as dishonest behaviors and misconduct.)
Patient Trust
(This section will describe how important it is for patients to be able to trust their nurses and
why this is so important for nursing to know.)
EXAMPLE 2
This student used headings and subheadings to structure the literature review. If you choose
this method, be sure to refer to APA 7 for correct formatting of heading levels, of which there are
five. For more details about how to format headings, including headings in the introduction of a
paper, see information about headings and headings in sample papers on the APA Style website.
Improving Proficiency: A Design and Development Case Study using

Learning Centers Within Secondary Mathematics.
Introduction (no header) (critical review of PISA effects)
Level 3: Database and keywords
Level 2: Conceptual Framework (10 pages)
Level 3: Learning Centers
Level 3: Learning Theories
Level 3: Discourse in Mathematics Instruction

Level 3: Technology in Mathematics Instruction
Level 3: Small Groups in Mathematics Instruction
Level 2: Learning Centers (5 pages)
Level 3: History
Level 3: Varied Use
Level 2: Learning Theories (10 pages)
Level 3: Constructivism
Level 3: Social Learning Theory
Level 3: Connectivism and Blended Learning
Level 3: Intelligences, Learning Styles, and Metacognition
Level 3: Bloom’s Taxonomy
Level 2: Technology in Mathematics Instruction (10 pages)
Level 3: Teaching Aide
Level 3: Responsive Feedback
Level 3: Differentiated Instruction
Level 2: Discourse in Mathematics Instruction (10 pages)
Level 3: Problem-solving
Level 3: Peer Tutoring
Level 2: Small Groups in Mathematics Instruction (10 pages)
Level 3: Interventions
Level 3: Academic Language
Level 3: Differentiated Instruction
Level 2: Summary
EXAMPLE 3
This student outlined the review, section by section. Each section would then translate into the
headings and subheadings that would form the guiding framework on which to build out the
complete literature review.
Exploring Culturally Responsive Teaching Practices for Low-income Black

Students by Way of School–Church Partnerships: A Phenomenological
Study.
Literature Review Outline
Documentation strategies (Key words; data bases used)
I. Discussion of the definition and measure of the achievement gap between Black and
White students.
A. How the achievement gap affects possibilities later in life
1. Socially
2. Employment
3. Education
B. The perpetuating achievement gap
C. The achievement gap as it relates to Black low-income students
1. How parental influences may contribute to achievement gap perpetuation
2. How access to school-related technology needs may contribute to achievement
gap
II. COVID pandemic
A. Disruption on “regular” learning scheme
B. Contingency plans and responses by educational entities
C. How contingencies may have contributed to achievement gaps
III. Social Justice concerns surfacing concurrent with pandemic (the 2nd pandemic)
A. Critical consciousness
B. Self-determination theory
C. Critical Race Theory
IV. Culturally responsive pedagogy: Definition and usage
A. How this assists students
B. How this enhances educators’ teaching skills/practice
1. Black urban student and community concerns
2. How the school climate is influenced
C. “Fictive kinships” as a component of culturally responsive teaching
V. The influence of the black church in the lives of Black people
A. How Black students are helped through association
B. How schools and educators are helped through partnerships
VI. Current available research on developing church/school partnerships
A. Possible beneficial results of development and execution
B. Possible drawbacks of development and execution
EXAMPLE 4
This student used a narrative outline accompanied by a mind-map such as Mindmeister The
mind-map provides a visual that guided the review.
Teachers’ Perceptions Regarding Implementation of Learner-Centered

Pedagogy: A Case Study of Indian Elementary Education
Restatement of purpose and problem statement
Documentation strategies (Key words; data bases used)
Topic 1: Education of India
Subtopic: Education for All

Subtopic: Equality
Subtopic: National Policies of Education
Topic 2: Cultural Beliefs
Subtopic: Caste system

Subtopic: Scheduled caste/tribe
Subtopic: Muslim/Hindu
Topic 3: Constructivism
Subtopic: Constructivism Approach

Subtopic: Constructivism Pedagogy
Subtopic: Learner-centered models
a) 5E learning model
b) Experiential learning
c) Collaborative learning
Topic 4: Indian Teacher
Subtopic: Teacher education

Subtopic: Teacher training
Subtopic: Teacher autonomy

Subtopic: Implementation of learner-centered approach
Summary
Concept Map
APPENDIX J: THEORETICAL
FRAMEWORK BRAINSTORMING
SAMPLES
THEORY NOTES
Transformative Learning Definition
This is a way of learning in which a person’s perspective is significantly

transformed due to critical thinking and reflection. This is also sometimes
referred to Transformational Learning theory (Kegan, 2000; Mezirow, 1991,
1994, 2000).
Description
Perspective transformation involves (a) an empowered sense of self,

(b) a more critical understanding of how assumptions and experiences
shape and influence one’s beliefs and knowledge, and (c) more functional
strategies and resources for moving forward. Learning is essentially about
making meaning of our experiences, transforming what we know, which in
turn influences the way we think and behave.
Application
One feature that makes transformative learning theory applicable to

teaching adults is the focus on the idea that significant learning arising
from critical reflection, and to achieve deep learning, ongoing critical
thinking is key. Critical thinking occurs through reflection and dialogue,
commonly referred to as discourse. The implication is to provide
opportunities for learners to fully participate in dialogue and reflection.
It is therefore essential to build critical thinking opportunities into course
content by asking questions that prompts deeper thinking. One feature
that makes transformative learning theory so applicable to workplace
and education environments is that it views the most significant learning
arising from critical reflection on premises about oneself (Taylor, 2007).
References
Kegan, R. (2000). “What ‘form’ transforms? A constructive-developmental

approach to transformative learning.” In J. Mezirow (Ed.), Learning as
transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress.Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (1994). Understanding transformation theory. Adult Education

Quarterly, 44(4), 222-244.
(Continued)
1
THEORY NOTES
Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult. Core concepts of

transformation theory. In J. Mezirow (Ed.), Learning as Transformation:
Critical perspectives on a theory in progress(pp. 3–33). Jossey-Bass.
Taylor, E. W. (2007). An update of transformative learning theory: A critical

view of the empirical research (1999-2005). International Journal of Lifelong
Education, 26(2), 173-191.
Community of Inquiry Definition
This model relates to online instructors developing collaborative working

relationships and interacting with learners in order to bridge transactional
distance and generate greater engagement and success (Garrison et al.,
1999, 2003).
Description
There are four elements of presence that pertain to online learning

environments, all of which are interconnected and interactive. These
elements include: social presence, cognitive presence, emotional presence,
and teaching presence. Research shows that presence in the online
education context includes learners’ perceptions of instructor involvement
as a central factor, leading to greater satisfaction, higher levels of
engagement, and a greater likelihood of course completion (Cole at al.,
2019; Martin & Bollinger, 2018).
Application
Online learning, online teaching, learner engagement, teaching strategies.

Through shared interaction, the instructor serves as a model for the
communication, and “learning facilitator.”
References
Cole, A. W., Lennon, L., & Weber, N. L. (2019). Student perceptions of online
active learning practices and online learning climate predict online course
engagement. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–15.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a

text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The
Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2003). A theory of critical

inquiry in online distance education. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson
(Eds.), Handbook of distance education, 113–127. Erlbaum.
Martin, F., & Bolliger, D. U. (2018). Engagement matters: Student

perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online
learning environment. Online Learning, 22, 205–222.
Appendix J: Theoretical Framework Brainstorming Samples 3
THEORY NOTES
Critical Race Theory Definition

(CRT)
Critical race theory engages in transforming and studying the
relationships within power, racism, and race (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017).
This ties into the study because according to the literature most studies
demonstrated how racism is significantly ingrained in schools and the
ones with power, who are privileged, overlook disparities that exist in
education.
Description
This theory can be used as an imperative tool to explain the inequity

that minorities experience (Ladson-Billings, 1998). Ladson-Billings
(1995) proposed culturally relevant pedagogy as a theoretical model that
would aid K-12 students in affirming their cultural identity, developing
perspectives that challenge inequities found in schools and other
institutions, and ultimately increasing student achievement through
effective teaching practices. Ladson-Billings (1995) developed culturally
relevant pedagogy around practical concerns of teaching practices. The
model itself is based on the work of scholars who studied grounded theory
in educational research and social action research
Application
Using a CRT framework, this study will explore a clearer understanding

of minority teachers’ experiences concerning the under-representation
of minority K-12 teachers in urban school districts in the United States.
CRT can shed light on how race and racism are experienced in the lives of
minorities. Since CRT focuses on racism in schools and institutions this
theory allows a researcher to explore this phenomenon through the lens
of race.
The premise of critical race theory is to understand and remove the

inequalities that exist for minorities as they experience racism. This
theoretical perspective assists in explaining and breaking down the image
that society has with regard to race (Ladson- Billings & Tate,1995). In light
of the perception of a post-racial society, this theoretical framework is
helpful in explaining and showing how society continues to view minorities
(Harrison et al., 2017).
Critical race theory recognizes that the voices of minorities have been
silenced and ignored in ways that misrepresent one’s shared experiences
(Ladson-Billings, 1998). To link education and critical race theory, voices
are needed for a complete view of the educational system (Delgado &
Stefancic, 2017). Showcasing the voices of minorities allows the oppressed
to express the pain that was caused from that of the oppressors (Delgado
& Stefancic, 2017). Powerfully told stories will exemplify the images that
minorities experience, hence, keeping the hold society has over them
(Ladson-Billings, 1998, 2014).
(Continued)
THEORY NOTES
References
Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2017). Critical race theory: An introduction

(3rd ed.). New York University Press.
Harrison, L., Bimper, A. Y., Smith, M. P., Logan, A. D. (2017). The

mis-education of the african american student-athlete. Kinesiology Review,
6(1) 60-69.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1998). Just what is critical race theory and what’s it

doing in a nice field like education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies
in Education, 11(1) 7-24.
Ladson-Billings, G., Tate, W. F. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of

education. Teachers College Record, 97(1) 8-13.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant

pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 465–491.
doi:10.3102/00028312032003465
Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: a.k.a. the

remix. Harvard Educational Review, 84, 74–84.
Cultural Intelligence Definition
Cultural intelligence is defined as one’s capability to function effectively in

intercultural environments (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008; Earley & Ang, 2003).
Description
Given the emphasis on a person’s potential to meet the demands of a

wide range of intercultural contexts, the definition is consistent with the
broader definition of intelligence as it emphasizes adaptability to a specific
type of environment: the intercultural context (Ang et al., 2015). While
similar to other perspectives on culture and intelligence, CQ advances
general capabilities to function effectively in a specific culture as it is an
extensive set of capabilities that facilitate effectiveness across different
intercultural environments (Ang et al., 2011; Ang et al., 2015). Such
differentiation highlights that one can learn to function effectively in one
culture without the ability to transfer the learning for effective functioning
in another culture. An example would be an educator who is very effective
in a homogeneous suburban school but would struggle when located in a
heterogeneous urban school.
Since its initial inception, the concept of CQ has been expanded:

Motivational CQ includes intrinsic interest, extrinsic interest, and
self-efficacy for intercultural encounters; Cognitive CQ encompasses
cultural-general and culture-specific knowledge; Metacognitive CQ
includes planning, awareness, and checking; Behavioral CQ encompasses
flexibility in verbal and nonverbal behaviors.
THEORY NOTES
Application
A question worth exploring related to teachers and their engagement

with culturally and linguistically diverse students is why some teachers
seem adequately prepared, while others do not meet expectations after
participating in teacher education programs (Yuksel & Eres, 2018).
Research on Cultural Intelligence emerged from similar questions in the
literature on culture and psychology. Earley and Ang (2003) presented the
concept of cultural intelligence (CQ) to address a similar need in global
business. The quest to understand the difference between success or
failure in intercultural contexts led to defining CQ as the capability to
function effectively in such contexts (Ang et al., 2015).
References
Ang, S., & Van Dyne, L. (2008). Conceptualization of cultural intelligence:

Definition, distinctiveness, and nomological network. In S. Ang, & L. Van
Dyne (Eds.). Handbook of cultural intelligence, 3–15. M.E. Sharpe.
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Rockstuhl, T. (2015). Cultural intelligence: Origins,
conceptualization, evolution and methodological diversity. In Gelfand,
M.J., Chiu, C.Y. and Hong, Y.Y. (Eds.), Handbook of advances in culture and
psychology. Vol. 5, (pp. 273–323). Oxford University Press.
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Tan, M. (2011). Cultural intelligence. In Sternberg,
R., & Kaufman S. (Eds.). The Cambridge handbook of intelligence, 582–602.
New York University Press.
Earley, C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural Intelligence: Individual interactions

across cultures. Stanford University Press.
Yuksel, A., Eres, F. (2018). The Correlation between Global Citizenship

Perceptions and Cultural Intelligence Levels of Teachers. Universal Journal
of Educational Research, 6(5), 1069–1076.
Social Learning Theory Definition

(SLT)
Social learning theory (SLT) asserts that people learn within a social
context (Bandura & Walters, 1977). While most notable for developing
social cognitive/learning theory, Bandura (1993, 1997) also proposed the
idea of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is the belief in one’s ability to complete a
task or action, Self-efficacy is also known to be a contributing factor to the
ability to learn and the ability to achieve new tasks (Bandura, 1994, 1997).
(Continued)
THEORY NOTES
Description
SLT was developed in response to earlier learning theories including

classical and operant conditioning. Unlike past learning theories,
Bandura and Walters (1977) argued that learning is neither purely
behavioral nor purely cognitive. Instead, these scholars believed that
learning encompasses both social and cognitive processes. This theory
is founded on the concept that people learn by observing others, with the
environment, behavior, and cognition as factors affecting their growth.
SLT advocates that people do not just respond to environmental influences
but also actively seek information and learning. They are not passive
receivers, but play an active role in how they behave.
SLT not only creates a model in which learning can be viewed in the
context of both cognitive and social processes but also helps explain how
learning occurs. According to Bandura and Walters (1977), individuals
learn specific behaviors or attitudes from one another through a variety of
socializations including observation, imitation, and modeling. One of the
primary strengths of SLT is its flexibility in explaining the differences in a
person’s behavior or learning, i.e., when there is a change in an individual’s
environment, their behavior may change. An additional strength of this
theory is that it allows for different ways of learning. An individual can
learn through observation or direct experiences. Where the theory falls
short is where it neglects the importance of accountability in one’s actions.
By placing greater weight on the environment, the theory assumes one’s
behavior and actions are determined by society, not by how an individual
addresses or processes information.
Application
This theory examines the relationship between mentorship, race and

self-efficacy. As informed by social learning theory, mentorship provides
a fertile learning environment because the mentee learns from observing
their mentor, and interacting with them. In a professional setting,
the mentor can be instrumental in helping their mentee understand
mentorship position, role in the organization and how to succeed
in that environment. In congruence with SLT, mentorship may be of
particular importance for individuals who are underrepresented in their
organization (such as women from minority racial groups), as SLT states
that individuals are more likely to learn from models (i.e., mentors) they
observe to be similar to themselves (Bandura, 1994). Even if a mentor is
not demographically similar to their mentee, when they both work closely
together and develop trust, they may very well find common ground
between them, which the mentee may not necessarily feel with all their
colleagues who may be racially congruent.
THEORY NOTES
According to SLT, the improvement of self-efficacy seen in individuals may

come from the observation and to some degree imitation or modeling of
mentors. SLT further posits that there are four necessary conditions for
modeling attention, retention, reproduction, and motivation (Bandura,
1994). An individual learning from a mentor is well primed to meet
those four conditions, as a mentor/mentee relationship exists to impart
knowledge and increase self-sufficiency. The mentee would logically enter
into such a relationship with the intention of paying close attention to their
mentor and is motivated to succeed, as a successful professional mentor
would be imparting wisdom important to the mentee’s career growth.
Self-efficacy can manifest in a number of different ways, such as actual

work task completion, methods of supervision, identification, and
actualization of work performance improvement. Leader self-efficacy,
as noted by Murphy and Johnson (2016) is defined by a person’s ability
to succeed in a leadership context. Leader self-efficacy is a substrate of
self-efficacy as a whole. Leader self-efficacy is also positively correlated to
the ability to change and grow, which is an essential skill in any leadership
capacity (Machida-Kosuga, 2017). Beyond Bandura’s (1997) research on
occupational self-efficacy, there is limited research that addresses the
ways in which self-efficacy applies specifically to leadership, supervision,
workplace risk-taking, and management. A further gap in the research
exists when examining self-efficacy in managers within higher education
(Machida-Kosuga, 2017), and this is therefore an area for further research.
References
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive

theory. Prentice Hill.
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American

Psychologist, 44, 1175-1184. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1175
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development

and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148. doi: 10.1207/
s15326985ep2802_3
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V.S. Ramachaudran (Ed). Academic

Press. Encyclopedia of Human Behavior, 2(4), 71-81.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman.
Bandura, A, & Walters, R. (1977). Social learning theory. General Learning

Press.
Machida-Kosuga, M. (2017). The interaction of efficacy and leadership

competency development. New Directions for Student Leadership, 2017(156),
19-30. doi: 10.1177/1548051811404419
APPENDIX K: TEMPLATE FOR
DOCUMENT SUMMARY FORM
Name or Type of Document:

Document No.:
Date Received:
Date of Document:
Event or Contact With Which Document Is Associated:
□ Descriptive
□ Evaluative
□ Other ________________________________________________________
Page # Keywords/Concepts Comments: Relationship to Research Questions
Brief Summary of Contents
Significance or Purpose of Document:
Is There Anything Contradictory About Document?
□ Yes
□ No
1
Salient Questions/Issues to Consider
Additional Comments/Reflections/Issues:
Source: Adapted from Miles and Huberman (1994, pp. 54–55).

APPENDIX L: TEMPLATE FOR
PARTICIPANT SUMMARY FORM
Participant Name:
Type of Contact: (Check where appropriate)
□ Face to Face
□ Phone
□ Videoconference (Skype, Zoom, or other online meeting platform)
□ E-mail
Contact Date:
Today’s Date:
Summary of Information for Each Research Question:

Research Question 1
Research Question 2
Research Question 3
Research Question 4
Research Question 5
Additional Information Needed:
1
Overall Impressions, Questions, Concerns, Issues Still to Be Addressed:
Source: Adapted from Miles and Huberman (1994, “Contact Summary Form,” pp. 52–54);
Miles, Huberman, and Saldana (2019, “Contact Summary Form,” pp. 124–127).
APPENDIX M: SAMPLE RESEARCH
METHODOLOGY FLOWCHART
Recommendations
Synthesis
Conclusions
Analysis and
Interpretation of Findings
Findings
Data Collection
Focus Group
Phase III
Analysis of Data
Strategies for Trustworthiness
Data Collection
Ongoing Data Analysis
Critical Incident
Phase II
Refinement of Instrumentation
and Coding Scheme
Interview Data Collection

Phase I
Development of Instrumentation
Development of Preliminary Coding Scheme
Literature Review
Source: This figure first appeared in Bloomberg, L. D. (2007). Understanding qualitative inquiry: Content and process (Part I).
1
APPENDIX N: SAMPLE MATRIX RESEARCH
QUESTIONS/INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Nursing Students’ Perceptions Regarding Dishonest Behaviors and Academic Misconduct: A Phenomenological Study
Research Questions
RQ3: What do nursing students

perceive regarding the risk
of harm to patients in the
RQ1: How are academic misconduct RQ2: What are some reasons why healthcare environment when
and dishonest behaviors in the nursing students may decide to they participate in academic
classroom and clinical settings engage in academic misconduct misconduct and dishonest
perceived by nursing students in and dishonest behaviors in the behaviors in the classroom and
Interview Questions ADN and BSN nursing programs? classroom and clinical settings? clinical settings?
1. For each of the following examples, Why do you think nursing students may Do you think if nursing students
discuss whether you feel the example participate in plagiarism when writing participate in plagiarism when writing
is considered dishonest behavior/ papers? papers in nursing school, that it could
misconduct: cause harm to patients? If so, in what
ways can patients be harmed?
a. Copying information from a source

without properly citing the source
b. Changing the words of material

from another piece of work and then
representing these words as your
own
(Continued)
Research Questions

c. Submitting the same, or similar,

work in more than one subject/class
without prior consent of the instructor
d. Submitting another’s material as your

own
e. Borrowing and then copying another

student’s work with/without their
permission
f. Having someone attend a class for

you as a substitute
g. Preparing work for another student to

be submitted for academic evaluation
h. Collaborating on an assignment with

others when instructed not to
i. Taking an examination for another

student or having someone take an
examination for you
(The above may be considered

plagiarism)
Research Questions

2. For each of the following examples, a. Why do you think nursing students Do you think patients could be
discuss whether you feel the example may make up information for an harmed when nursing students are
is considered dishonest behavior/ assignment? not prepared for an exam or do not
misconduct: complete an assignment on their own?
a) Using unauthorized material or b. What reasons would a nursing a) Why or why not?
fabricated data in an academic student have to purchase and submit
assignment/exercise someone else’s paper to use as their
own?
b) Purchasing and then submitting c. Why would a nursing student use an

another’s written paper/work as one’s exam that they knew was stolen?
own
c) Using an improperly acquired/stolen, d. Why would a nursing student sell or

examination lend their papers/assignments to
another student?
(Continued)
3
Research Questions

d) Selling or lending papers/ e. What reason would a nursing student

assignments to another student(s) for have to take pictures or write down
them to turn in as their own work exam questions during an exam and
why would they do this?
e) Asking another student “what was on

the test?” or telling another student
what was on the test
f) Using electronics to copy/take a

picture of an exam
g) Writing down test exam questions

during an exam to share with others
(The above may be considered

improper use)
3. For each of the following examples, What reasons would a nursing student When a nursing student participates in
discuss whether you feel the example have to participate in these types of dishonest behaviors such as planned
is considered dishonest behavior/ cheating behaviors? or spontaneous cheating, could patient
misconduct: harm occur in the clinical setting?
Research Questions

a) Using notes, cellphones, books, or

other unauthorized materials during
a closed-book exam to gain answers
b) Using hidden notes to use for an exam
c) Looking up test bank questions to

study for an exam
d) Taking a bathroom break during an

exam to look up answers to questions
e) Allowing another student to copy from

your paper during an exam
(The above may be considered planned

or spontaneous cheating)
4. For each of the following examples, a. Why would a nursing student have to (This topic can be answered with
discuss whether you feel the example make up false excuses to get out of question #2 above)
is considered dishonest behavior/ taking an exam or withdraw from a
misconduct: course?
(Continued)
5
Research Questions

a. Leaving the classroom after b. Why wouldn’t a student do anything

attendance has been checked when he/she saw another student
cheating?
b. Using a false excuse to delay taking

an exam in order to take a make-up
exam
c. Using a false excuse to withdraw from

a course to avoid receiving a failing
grade
d. Passing down completed coursework

to students in lower classes
e. Observing a student copying from

another student during an exam and
doing nothing with the information
f. Not participating in a group project

but taking credit for participating and
contributing to the project
Research Questions

g. Working together with other students

for an online exam meant to be done
independently in order to share
questions and answers
(The above may be miscellaneous types

of dishonesty)
5. For each of the following examples, Why do you think nursing students a. When a nursing student/nurse
discuss whether you feel the example participate in these types of unethical does not report an error involving
is considered dishonest behavior/ behaviors in the clinical setting? a patient, can this cause patient
misconduct in the clinical setting: harm? If so, in what way?
a. Not reporting an error or incident that b. If a treatment or procedure is not

involves a patient performed on a patient but was
documented that it was done, does
this have the potential to cause
patient harm?
(Continued)
7
Research Questions

b. Reporting and/or documenting c. If a nursing student/ nurse

treatments or procedures that were performs a procedure on a patient
not performed or assessed in which they may not have full
knowledge of and/or does not

obtain guidance or supervision
before performing, what are the
risks to the patient?
c. Documenting that medications were d. What is the harm in not replacing

administered when they were not a sterile item when it is
contaminated?
d. Performing a procedure on a patient e. What type of harm can occur to a

without adequate knowledge or failing patient if their medical information
to obtain guidance from the instructor was overheard by others who do
not need to know about it?
e. Breaking sterile technique and not

replacing the contaminated items
Research Questions

f. Discussing patient information in

public places or with nonmedical
personnel
g. Copying other nurses’ medical notes

(copying and pasting in electronic
health records)
h. Making up a false excuse to miss

clinical
(The above may be considered types of

misconduct in the clinical setting)
9
APPENDIX O: SAMPLE MATRIX
RESEARCH QUESTIONS/INTERVIEW
THEMES/FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS
EXAMPLE 1
Elementary Bilingual Education Teachers’ Self-Efficacy in Teaching English Language

Learners: A Qualitative Case Study
Examples of Emerging Themes

from Interviews Research Questions
RQ1: What are elementary RQ2: How do elementary

bilingual education bilingual education
teachers’ beliefs about their teachers’ beliefs about their
preparedness in teaching preparedness to teach English
English language proficiency language proficiency skills
skills to Hispanic ELLs? impact the instruction for
Hispanic ELLs?
Questions for Focus Group
Theme 1: Instructional planning What do you believe is important What are your beliefs regarding
and decisions to consider when teaching data and instructional
ELLs? decisions?
How do you make academic What strategies do you use
language instruction accessible to make academic language
to ELLs? What strategies do you instruction accessible to ELLs?
use and why?
Describe your experiences
when it comes to planning
instruction for ELLs.
Theme 2: Pedagogical To what extent do you feel Based on your beliefs, can you
strategies prepared when it comes to describe the strategies you
differentiating instruction for implement to develop English
ELLs? language proficiency skills?
Theme 3: “Shy kids” To what extent do you feel

prepared in creating a
comfortable classroom
environment for ELLs?
(Continued)
1
Please describe some

strategies that you use, and
explain why you choose these.
Theme 4: Teacher beliefs What are your beliefs in How and in what ways do your
teaching English to ELLs? beliefs in teaching English to
ELLs impact your instruction?
Theme 5: Unpreparedness To what extent do you feel How do your beliefs impact
regarding last minute changes prepared when it comes to these changes?
(newcomers) unexpected circumstances
In your experience, how have
when teaching ELLs?
you dealt with a situation in
How do your beliefs impact your which you have felt unprepared
instruction? to teach content language to
ELLs? Please explain.
What do you believe would make
you feel more prepared to each
ELL?
Theme 6: Cultural/linguistic To what extent do you feel

connections to students prepared when it comes to
embedding ELL cultural and
linguistic backgrounds in your
instruction?
In what ways are you prepared

or unprepared to embed
academic language in English to
content instruction?
Theme 7: Impact of COVID-19 How and in what ways has When it comes to developing
COVID-19 impacted ELL English language skills, how,
language proficiency skills? if at all, did the COVID-19
pandemic impact your
instructional decisions?
Theme 8: Ongoing challenges What are the main challenges

you have encountered when
teaching English to ELLs. Why?
How and in what ways have

these challenges impacted your
instruction?
APPENDIX P: SAMPLE CODING
SCHEMES
EXAMPLE 1
Exploring the Challenges Facing Doctoral Candidates: A Case Study of the Phenomenon of
“All But Dissertation” (ABD).
1. Preparedness for Dissertation Process
P1 Very prepared
P2 Unprepared
P3 Somewhat prepared
2. Knowledge, Skills, Attitudes/KSA (what they think they needed)
KSA1 Knowledge of the content; knowing what was required
KSA2 Understanding of the process; knowing how to do it
KSA3 Assertiveness
3. How They Learned
Formal Learning
FORM1 Course work
FORM2 Post–course work seminars
FORM3 Advisors and other faculty
Informal Learning
INFORM1 Dialogue with colleagues
INFORM2 Researching
INFORM3 Reading
4. Perceptions of Facilitators
FAC1 Advisor
FAC2 Other faculty
FAC3 Colleagues/classmates
FAC4 Personal attributes
5. Perceptions of Impediments
IMPED1 Advisor
IMPED2 Faculty/administration
IMPED3 Rigidity of the process
1
IMPED4 Personal and family issues

IMPED5 Professional demands
IMPED6 Financial constraints
IMPED7 Lack of confidence in ability
EXAMPLE 2
A Qualitative Case Study of Teachers’ Perceptions Regarding the Use of Group Contingency
Plans for Early Childhood Students
Coding Scheme: Version A

Group Contingency Behavior Plan Coding Scheme
Researcher
Research Question Research Question Question Three
Theme One Codes Two Codes Codes
Professional Support AS – Administrative

Support
CS – Colleague
Support
PD – Professional
Development Support
Type of GCP DGCP – Dependent
IGCP – Independent
INGCP – Interdependent
Benefits of a GCP PI – Positive Impact
NI – Negative Impact
Teacher Reinforcement VR – Verbal

Reinforcement
RR – Visual Strategies
Effective Strategies VS – Visual Strategies VS – Visual Strategies
SE – Student SE – Student
Engagement Engagement
SET – Setting SET – Setting

Expectations Expectations
Note: The coding scheme presents codes guided by the research questions and on the study’s theoretical framework.
Appendix P: Sample Coding Schemes 3
Coding Scheme: Version B
RQ 1. What types of group contingency plans, if at all, do early childhood teachers utilize
in their classrooms to reduce the disruptive behavior of their students?
Theme 1. A variety of group contingency plans
Ind Independent group contingency
Int Interdependent group contingency
D Dependent group contingency
C Combination
Theme 2. Instructional needs of the students
N None
Theme 3. General classroom strategies
GCS General classroom strategies
BSP Behavior-specific praise
RQ 2. How do early childhood teachers select, implement, and monitor the use of group
contingency plans?
Theme 4. Collaborating with colleagues
S/K Selecting the plan/Knowledge
T/S Training and Support
CW Coursework
Theme 5. Maintaining students’ interest
IMP Implementation
R Rewards
Theme 6. Students’ performance
Mon Monitor
SBI Student buy-in
RQ 3. What aspects of group contingency plans do early childhood teachers believe to be
effective in reducing the disruptive behavior of their students, and why?
Theme 7. Visuals
V Visuals
SOR Schedule of reinforcement
Theme 8. Peer influence

PI Peer influence
IVG Individual plan versus group plan
Theme 9: Consistency
CE Clear expectations
EXAMPLE 3
Exploring the Impact of an Urban Teacher Residency Program on Teachers’ Cultural

Intelligence: A Qualitative Case Study
RQ1. What is the cultural intelligence (CQ) level of teachers participating in the University
of Chicago’s Urban Teacher Residency Program?
Cultural Intelligence Scale Results – Overall Global Comparison on Factors
High CQ (H); Moderate CQ (M); Low CQ (L)

MOT Motivational CQ (M)
Intrinsic (H); Extrinsic (M); Self-Efficacy (M)
Curriculum, Character, Cohort, Context
COG Cognitive CQ (M)
Business (M); Values & Norms (H); Socio-Linguistics (M); Leadership (M)
Curriculum, Character, Context, Cohort
MCOG Metacognitive CQ (H)
Awareness (H); Checking (H); Planning (M)
BEH Behavioral CQ (M)
Verbal (M); Nonverbal (M); Speech Acts (M)
RQ2. What elements of the University of Chicago’s Urban Teacher Residency Program do
teachers perceive as affecting their cultural intelligence (CQ) development?
Critical Incident Report – Positive Reflections (+) & Negative Reflections (-)
Program Experience Themes:

Curriculum (Academics & Course Work) (+/-)
Context (Chicago, Neighborhoods, Organizations, Schools) (+/-)
Character (Mentoring & Coaching, Teaching/Co-Teaching Experiences) (+/-)
Cohort (Relationships/Experiences) (+/-)
Focus Groups – Programmatic CQ Impact Themes
Program Experience Themes:

Curriculum (Academics & Course Work) (+/-) K, S, D, A
Context (Chicago, Neighborhoods, Organizations, Schools) (+/-) K, S, D, A
Character (Mentoring & Coaching, Teaching/Co-Teaching Experiences) (+/-)
K, S, D, A
Cohort (Relationships/Experiences) (+/-) D, K, S, A
Cultural Intelligence Factor
MOT Motivational CQ (Curriculum & Context)
COG Cognitive CQ (Curriculum & Context)
MCOG Metacognitive CQ (Curriculum & Character)
BEH Behavioral CQ (Curriculum & Cohort & Character)
EXAMPLE 4
A Qualitative Case Study of Educators’ Perspectives Regarding Underachieving

Fourth-Grade Afro-American Males’ Reading Comprehension in Southern Urban
Classrooms
RQ1: According to educators, how and in what ways have positive reading interactions influ-
enced the comprehension development of the underachieving fourth-grade Afro-American
males linked to the academic accomplishments in their classrooms?
1. Teacher Support Administrative directives, Interventions, Remediation,

Work-study groups, Pacing, Incentives, Tasks, Encouragement &
Praise, Scaffolding, Below level reading strategies, Mentoring
2. Interactive group/ Partnership Cooperative learning groups, Teams, Learning partners,

Learning Learning center, Role models, Healthy competition, Small
groups, Readers theater, Read aloud, Think-pair-share
3. Balanced Resources Pens, Papers, iPad, Cell phone, Digital technology smart boards,
Journaling, Markers
4. Relevant Reading Materials/ Multi-cultural readings, Creative opportunities, Assignment

Activities choice, Current Events, Access to learning center, Project
learning, Independent reading, Limited variety of books
RQ2: According to educators, how and in what ways have adverse reading interactions influ-
enced the comprehension development of the underachieving fourth-grade Afro-American
males linked to the academic accomplishments in their classrooms?
1. Unhelpful Work–Study Incomplete assignments, Rush through work, Waste time, Not stay
Habits on task, Distractions (Fidget, Bored) Passive, Disorganized, Lack
of parental support, Rush through tests, Stay home from school,
Assignment avoidance, Inability to follow directions, Don’t ask
questions, Shy/withdrawn, Weak skills
2. Attitudes Behaviors Angry, Disruptive, Resent participating, Acts out, Shuts down, Playful,
Unconcerned, Inattentive, Poor self esteem
3. Lack of Interest See no relevance in assignment, Unable to view significance of subject

matter, Unable to relate to subject, Bored, Unaccepted by others,
Unaccepting of support,
4. Deficient Vocabulary and Reading material above reading level, Limited vocabulary, Unable to
Comprehension skills discuss topics, Responses are off topic
RQ3: According to educators, what if any, is the link between the fourth-grade under-
achieving Afro-American male students’ comprehension development and academic
accomplishments in their classrooms?
1. Trained Teachers Research-based practices, Caring teacher, Student–teacher

relationships, Enthusiasm, Discipline, Rules, Engaging all,
Patience and concern toward students, Teacher-to-parent support,

Scheduled tutorial support, Ongoing verbal affirmation, Provide
encouragement regarding reading assignment, Immediate feedback,
Recognition of completion of assignments, Recognition of ultimate
mastery of the subject matter
2. Relevant Instruction Interesting relatable materials, Allows for student voice and choice in
developing assignments, Relevant, rigorous, interactive reading activities,
Incorporate multiple activities, Incorporate movement, Incorporate
music, Incorporate audio-visuals, Incorporate Readers Theater, Bridge
connections between story with real world experiences, Practice fair and
equitable assessments.
APPENDIX Q: SAMPLE CODING
SCHEME DEVELOPMENT CHARTS
EXAMPLE 1
Exploring the Challenges Facing Doctoral Candidates: A Case Study of the

Phenomenon of “All But Dissertation” (ABD)
Developmental Phases of Analytic Explanation and Description of Resulting

Framework Changes to Coding Scheme
1. Coding scheme version April 2005. After 1: This coding scheme, developed as part of the
conducting the relevant literature reviews, researcher’s initial ideas about a conceptual
the researcher developed an initial framework, was based on Bogdan and Biklen’s (2007)
literature-based coding framework for the coding category system for organizing data. Based
dissertation proposal. on this system, a simple two-level scheme was
employed: a general etic level and a more specific
emic level, close to the literature, but nested in the
etic codes. At the outset, the original scheme includes
108 alphabetically ordered codes.
2. Coding scheme version August 2006. 2: This preliminary version of the coding scheme
Based on discussions with colleagues, the is a predefined approach to coding and is primarily
researcher developed a revised conceptual developed from the literature review combined with
framework and related coding scheme. personal experience. Five broad analytic categories
Analytic categories directly relate to the as they relate to the study’s three research
study’s five research questions. questions are identified: (a) “Preparedness”; (b)
“Knowledge, skills, attitudes”; (c) “How learning
occurred”; (d) “Facilitators of learning”; and
(e) “Barriers to learning.” The original scheme
includes 34 numeric codes.
3. Coding scheme version October 2006. 3: An initial round of open coding yielded further
Descriptors are too abstract and ideas, and the coding scheme is refined. Some
theoretical and need to be tied more closely descriptors are split apart to make them more
to what the researcher anticipated to be precise: Under categories b, c, and d, “advisors”
participants’ actual responses. Based and “other faculty” are added as opposed to just
on this critique, a new coding scheme is “advisors.” Six new descriptors are added: “desire
developed. This is framed in terms of the for continuous leaning,” “knowledge of content,”
literature in conjunction with anticipated “draw on experience,” “post–course work seminars,”
participant responses. “personal attributes,” and “interest in topic.” This
scheme includes 39 alphanumerically ordered codes.
(Continued)
1
Developmental Phases of Analytic Explanation and Description of Resulting

Framework Changes to Coding Scheme
October 17, 2006 The coding scheme is still cumbersome, and

categories are overly detailed. Further descriptors
The researcher conducted three pilot
are collapsed, and some are eliminated: In category
interviews. Using coding scheme version 2, the
a, “self-esteem” and “personal fulfillment”
transcript was open coded by the researcher
overlap; therefore “self-esteem” is eliminated.
and a doctoral candidate colleague.
“Time constraints” is eliminated from category
e due to overlap with “personal/family issues”
and “professional demands.” “Promotion” and
“compensation” are both eliminated from category
a because they both fall under “credentials.”
“Faith/confidence” and “realistic expectations” are
eliminated from category b. “Trial and error” and
“draw on experience” are removed from category c,
and “faculty” and “advisors” become collapsed into
one. The scheme now consists of 33 codes.
4. Coding scheme version December 2006. 4: The coding scheme becomes more streamlined
Based on a further round of discussions because seven descriptors are eliminated: four
with an advisor and on emergent data from from category c (“informed others,” “graduates,”
the open coding of pilot interviews, coding family/friends,” “course work”), one from category
scheme is further refined and reduced. d (“interest in topic”), and two from category
e (“academic requirements” and “insufficient
knowledge of process”). This version includes 26
codes.
5. Coding scheme version 4.1: February 2007. Coding grids are drawn up to plot which codes
The researcher conducted three further are being utilized and how often. This sheds light
interviews, open coded using version 4.1. on which descriptors are relevant and which are
redundant. Three more descriptors are deleted:
“writing skills,” “tolerance or perseverance,” and
“status/recognition.” The final scheme consists of 23
alphanumeric codes (see Appendix L).
6. Coding scheme version 5: March 2007.

As interviews are read, reread, and open
coded, minor modifications are made with
regard to certain descriptors. This version
now constitutes the final coding scheme
developed for this research. In line with
qualitative research, the scheme remains
flexible. As the researcher proceeded to
use this coding scheme, she acknowledged
that as new descriptors emerged from
the data, they would be added; conversely,
if descriptors became superfluous or
redundant, they would be omitted from the
scheme.
Source: This chart first appeared in Bloomberg, L. D. (2007). Understanding qualitative inquiry: Content and process
(Part I). Unpublished manuscript.
Appendix Q: Sample Coding Scheme Development Charts 3
EXAMPLE 2
Understanding the Influence of Professional Development Experiences

on the Self-Efficacy of Middle Managers in Higher Education: A Qualitative
Case Study
The first coding wave produced 29 independent codes across both the interview transcripts and
critical incident questionnaires (see Coding Scheme Development Chart). The second wave of
coding included 11 codes (see Coding Schema).
Coding Scheme Development Chart
Phases of Development Changes in Coding Scheme
1. Coding scheme version August 2019. Initial 1: The initial coding scheme was developed based
coding scheme developed after initial review of on reading relevant literature from the review as
transcripts and relevant literature well as the first listen, transcription, and review of
the transcripts. 29 initial codes were created.
2. Coding scheme September 2019. Based on 2: After realizing a number of codes were
review of initial codes and redundancies, codes redundant or irrelevant to the research, the codes
were merged or removed. were merged or removed. 11 codes resulted.
CODING SCHEMA
The initial coding process for the research results yielded the following 29 codes, which
then was distilled into 11 codes:
1. insufficient supervision 1. Who is non-acad MLM
2. Great quote 2. Great quote
3. PD needs unfulfilled on campus 3. Campus politics
4. adverse health effects 4. Mentoring up
5. advocacy for others 5. Off-campus PD needed
6. annual performance review 6. On-campus PD insufficient
7. autonomy 7. Oversight/micromanagement
8. campus politics 8. Self-directed learning/PD
9. change in supervisors 9. Support of supervisor (or lack of)
10. cocurricular 10. What is self-e?
11. compression 11. Why MLMs don’t get training
12. disappointing supervisees
(Continued)
The initial coding process for the research results yielded the following 29 codes, which
then was distilled into 11 codes:
13. feeling valued by rest of campus
14. hierarchy
15. who is non-acad MLM
16. lack of support
17. mentoring up
18. off-campus PD needed
19. on-campus PD insufficient
20. oversight/micromanage
21. positive/supportive supervision
22. purpose of PD
23. self-directed learning/PD
24. self-reflection
25. socialization
26. support of supervisor (lack thereof)
27. volume and variety of duties
28. what is self-e
29. why MLMs don’t get training
EXAMPLE 3
Elementary Bilingual Education Teachers’ Beliefs About Their

Preparedness in Teaching English Language Proficiency Skills
to Hispanic ELLs: A Qualitative Case Study
The first iteration of coding produced 50 independent codes across both the interview tran-
scripts and critical incident questionnaires (see Initial Coding Scheme). The second round of
coding included 44 codes (see Final Coded Themes).
Version 1: Initial Coding Scheme:
RQ1: What are elementary bilingual education teachers’ beliefs about their preparedness in
teaching English language proficiency skills to Hispanic ELL’s?
Teachers’ beliefs about their preparedness to teach ELLs:
ET Teachers are ELLs themselves

TP Teachers feel prepared
TT Took time for teachers to feel prepared
FW Teachers find ways to feel prepared
PD Professional development
BPH Teachers believe that having a bilingual program helped in their preparedness
PDH Teachers believe that professional development helped in their preparedness
PDM Professional development model
Teachers’ beliefs about teaching ELLs:
TRPA Teachers believe it’s rewarding, they are passionate and are advocates (Describing
teachers’ beliefs)
TDE Teachers describing ELLs
TIS Teachers believe learning English is important to be successful
TNL Teachers believe in developing native language first
TBC Teachers believe it’s challenging to teach ELLs (can also be used to transition to next
theme)
Teachers’ beliefs about their preparedness to make changes during instruction:
NPC Teachers don’t feel prepared to make changes during instruction

PC Teachers feel prepared to make changes during instruction
Teachers’ beliefs about their preparedness to plan instruction for ELLs:
TPL Teacher Planning
– IT Intentional teaching
– TM Teacher Modeling
RT Reflective Teachers
TMR Teacher Mentor
CC Colleague collaboration
HE High Expectations
CCH Curriculum challenges
– LR Teachers believe there are limited resources to teach ELLs
– CMF Teachers believe the curriculum moves fast
RQ2: How do elementary bilingual education teachers’ beliefs about their preparedness to
teach English language proficiency skills impact the instruction for Hispanic ELLs?
Teachers Cultural and Linguistic backgrounds impact instruction:
ET Teachers are ELLs themselves

CB Teachers and students share cultural backgrounds
TBK Teachers background knowledge
SCLB Students’ cultural/linguistic backgrounds
Data impacts teachers’ instruction:
TDD Teachers are data driven

SG Students Growth
AM Accountability measures
FIA Formal and Informal assessments
Teachers’ preparedness allows them to differentiate instruction for ELLs:
DI Differentiated Instruction
• TS Teacher Strategies:
• C Cognates
• BP Bilingual Partners
• V Visuals
• VO Vocabulary
• TPS Think pair share
• T Technology
• TR Recordings
• LS Learning Styles
• VA Alignment
• CE Comfortable Environments
• BR Build Relationships
• SK “Shy kids”
Teachers’ beliefs about COVID-19 and their instruction:
VT Virtual Teaching
DES Development of English Skills
TC Teacher comparisons between in person vs. virtual instruction
Version 2: Intermediate Coding Scheme
RQ #1 Themes Coded Themes
Theme #1: Teachers; beliefs TP-Teachers feel prepared

about their preparedness
PD-Professional Development
FW-Find ways
NPC-Not prepared to make changes
PDH-Professional development helped
PC- Prepared to make changes
PDM-Professional development model
BPH-Bilingual Program Helped
Theme #2: Teacher TP-Teachers feel prepared

experiences teaching ELLs
TBC-Teachers believe it’s challenging
influence their preparedness
FW- Find ways
TT- Took Time
TNL-Teachers believe in developing native language first
Theme #3: Passion for FW-Find ways

teaching ELLs impacts
TRPA-Teachers believe it’s rewarding, they are
teacher preparedness
passionate and advocates
TDE-Teachers describing ELLs.
TIS-Teachers believe English is important to be

successful
(Continued)
Theme #4: Shared cultural TSSCLB-Teachers and students share cultural and
and linguistic backgrounds linguistic backgrounds
resemble teacher
SCLB-Students cultural/linguistic backgrounds
preparedness
SN-Student Needs
Theme #5: Planning TPL-Teacher planning

corroborates to teacher
HE-High expectations
preparedness
VA-Vertical Alignment
CC-Colleague Collaboration
TMR-Teacher Mentor
Theme #1: Students cultural TSSCLB-Teachers and students share cultural and
and linguistic backgrounds linguistic backgrounds
impact instruction
SN-Student Needs
Theme #2: Data drives TDD-Teachers are data driven

instructional decisions
SN-Student Needs
Theme #3: Teachers’ use of DI-Differentiated Instruction

differentiated instructional
VO-Vocabulary
strategies
TS-Teacher Strategies
T-Technology
C-Cognates
TR-Technology recordings
BP-Bilingual Pairs
LS-Learning Styles
V-Visuals
Theme #4: Creating CE-Comfortable environments

comfortable learning
BR-Build relationships
environments for “Shy kids”
SK-“Shy kids”
T-Technology
Theme #1: Teachers’ beliefs TP-Teachers feel prepared

about their preparedness
TT-Took Time
Theme #2: Teacher experiences NPC-Not prepared to make changes

teaching ELLs influence
PC-Prepared to make changes
preparedness
Instructional Changes During FW-Find ways
Instruction
Theme #3: Passion for FW-Find ways

teaching ELLs impacts teacher
TRPA-Teachers believe it’s rewarding, they are
preparedness
passionate and advocates
TIS-Teachers believe English is important to be

successful
TNL-Teachers believe in developing native language

first
Theme #4: Shared cultural and TSSCLB-Teachers and students share cultural and
linguistic backgrounds resemble linguistic backgrounds
SN-Student Needs

corroborates to teacher
preparedness
Strategies Teachers use to VA-Vertical Alignment
Prepare Themselves CC-Colleague Collaboration
TMR-Teacher Mentor
FW-Find ways
(Continued)
RQ#2 Themes Coded Themes
Theme #1: Students’ cultural and TSSCLB-Teachers and students share cultural and
linguistic backgrounds impact linguistic backgrounds
instruction
SN-Student Needs

SN-Student Needs
Theme #3: Teachers’ use of DI-Differentiated Instruction

differentiated instructional
VO-Vocabulary
strategies
T-Technology
C-Cognates
BP-Bilingual Pairs
LS-Learning Styles
V-Visuals
Theme #4: Creating comfortable CE-Comfortable environments

learning environments for “shy
kids”
SK-“Shy kids”
T-Technology
Version 4: Final Coding Scheme

Final Codes and Themes
Theme #1: Teachers' TP-Teachers feel prepared

beliefs about their
FW-Find ways
preparedness
NPC-Not prepared to make changes
PC-Prepared to make changes

Theme #2: Teacher TP-Teachers feel prepared

experiences teaching
ELLs influence their
preparedness FW- Find ways
TT-Took Time
TNL-Teachers believe in developing native language first
Theme #3: Passion for FW- Find ways

teaching ELLs impacts
TRPA-Teachers believe it’s rewarding, they are passionate and
advocates
TIS-Teachers believe English is important to be successful
Theme #4: Shared TSSCLB-Teachers and students share cultural and linguistic
cultural and linguistic backgrounds
backgrounds resemble
SN-Student Needs

corroborates teacher
preparedness
VA-Vertical Alignment
CC-Colleague Collaboration
TMR-Teacher Mentor
Theme #1: Students TSSCLB-Teachers and students share cultural and linguistic
cultural and linguistic backgrounds
backgrounds impact
instruction
SN-Student Needs

SN-Student Needs
Theme #3: Teachers’ DI- Differentiated Instruction

use of differentiated
VO-Vocabulary
instructional strategies
T-Technology
C-Cognates
BP-Bilingual Pairs
LS-Learning Styles
V-Visuals
(Continued)
RQ#1
Theme #4: Creating CE-Comfortable environments

comfortable learning
environments for “shy
kids” SK-“shy kids”
T-Technology
EXAMPLE 4

Version 1: Initial Coding Scheme
Name Description # References
Perceptions of Types of
Dishonest Behaviors
What participants consider to be justification or validation

Breaking the Rules 24
when one blatantly breaks the rules
Justification Examples of how students may justify breaking the rules 3
How students may validate their reasons for breaking the

Validation 2
rules
What students discussed about instructors needing to be

Clear Expectations clear regarding what they can and cannot do - instructors 14
need to give more clear expectations
Participants perceptions about dishonest behavior when

Instructed not to 7
they were specifically told not to do something
Examples participants consider having to do with morals,

Morals, Ethics, Integrity 16
ethics, and/or integrity
Discussions about what nursing students do to help their

Peers
peers out and their perceptions about this
How students help each other in school to succeed and

Helping others succeed 47
their perceptions about it.
Sharing what’s on the How students feel about telling others what’s on a test
29
test and examples of this
Some personal examples of students that have either

Personal Examples- participated in dishonest behaviors, maybe how they
45
Stories felt about it, and when they heard of other students
participating in dishonest behavior
Personal Examples of students who have participated, witnessed

Participation-Observing others, or heard about examples of dishonesty/ 6
Others misconduct
How students feel about others being dishonest about

Attendance 12
attendance issues
Examples of students that feel very frustrated when

Frustration others are dishonest with their schoolwork or in clinical 19
settings
How student nurses feel about reporting dishonest

Reporting 26
behavior that they see or hear about
Examples-Discussion Perceptions of students when a fellow student is

on reporting dishonest - and reasons why they may or may not 10
misconduct report it
Nursing students’ feeling that even if they don’t say

Karma anything about witnessing dishonest behavior, karma will 6
come and take care of the ones that are dishonest
Nursing students feel that it is not up to them to report

Not my business 10
dishonest behavior
How students feel that once dishonest behavior starts, it

Slippery Slope 1
can lead to more dishonest behavior
Leads to More How students feel that once dishonest behavior starts, it
6
Dishonest Behaviors can lead to more dishonest behavior
Examples of different types of social media students use,

Social Media-Groups
online sites students use to cheat with, and use of group 13
Texts
texts for sharing information on tests, assignments, etc.
Student perceptions on using test banks and other types

Test Banks-Quizlet 31
of online tools that students use for misconduct/cheating
Resources
Places students go, other students, online resources,

Where to go find the
etc., to help them study, find answers - may be used in 21
answers
dishonest ways as well
Perceptions how students should be accountable with

Responsibility-
what they do - whether honest or not. Examples of a 0
Professionalism
student who lies to get out of doing something
Examples of how nurses and students need to be

Accountability 27
accountable for their behavior as professionals
Perceptions on why it’s not worth participating in

Risking Everything 8
dishonest behavior in nursing school & nursing
Perceptions on Reasons Student perceptions on why nursing students may

for Dishonesty participate in dishonest behavior
(Continued)
Different reasons why students may participate in

Classroom Environment dishonest in the classroom - assignments, group
work, etc.
Students participate in dishonest behavior out of fear -

Fear - Desperation or they may be desperate for a decent grade due to the risk
16
Panic of failure or panic because they weren’t prepared and use
dishonest means for an assignment/test
Examples of how students may receive monetary benefit

Financial 6
with participating in dishonest behavior
Student examples of how someone may participate in

dishonest behavior because they weren’t aware it was
Lack of Knowledge 23
dishonest or didn’t know the correct way to do something
(i.e. plagiarism).
Lack of Preparation - Examples of what students may do when they aren’t

10
Procrastination prepared for a test, assignment, lab, clinical
Examples/feelings of when students participate in

Laziness-Lack of Caring dishonesty because they don’t care or don’t feel like doing 14
the work
How students may participate in dishonest behavior

Opportunity 10
because they have the opportunity - examples
Students may participate in dishonesty because they have

Other Obligations other obligations and do not have the time to prepare as 14
much as they would like to
Examples of how pressure & stress may cause someone

Pressure-Stress 15
to participate in dishonesty
Students are dishonest because of poor time

Time Management 12
management or just don’t have enough time
Perceptions on reasons for dishonest behaviors in the

Clinical Environment
clinical area
Burnout Burnout with nurses - lack of caring 2
Nurses/students may not report something out of fear

Intimidation-Fear of getting into trouble, feeling intimidated - lack of 8
confidence
Students’ perceptions on the stress and pressure in the

Stress-Pressure 5
clinical environment for reasons why
Perceptions on how participation in dishonest behaviors

Thoughts on Patient
in both the classroom and clinical environments can lead 1
Harm
to patient harm
Nursing student perceptions on how classroom

Effects of Classroom
dishonesty can lead to patient harm in the clinical 40
Dishonesty-Misconduct
environment
Nursing student perceptions on how participation in

Effects of Clinical
dishonesty in the clinical environment can lead to patient 44
Dishonesty-Misconduct
harm
Perceptions on Reasons for Dishonest Behavior & Misconduct
• Classroom Environment
• Lack of Knowledge
• Pressure/Stress
• Time Management
• Fear - Desperation/Panic
• Financial
• Other Obligations
• Laziness/Lack of Caring
• Opportunity
• Lack of Preparation/Procrastination
• Clinical Environment
• Intimidation/Fear
• Burnout
• Pressure/Stress
Perceptions on Types of Dishonest Behaviors & Misconduct
• Responsibility/Professionalism
• Accountability
• Resources
• Where to go to find the answers
• Peers
• Helping others succeed
• Sharing what’s on the test
• Breaking the Rules
• Validation
• Justification
• Clear Expectations
• Instructed not to…
• Risking Everything
• Observing Others/Witnessing
• Attendance
• Reporting
▪ Examples of Reporting
▪ Karma
▪ Not my business
• Social Media/Group Texts
• Test Banks/Websites
• Slippery Slope
▪ Leads to more dishonest behaviors
• Frustration
• Morals/Ethics/Integrity
• Personal Examples/Stories
School/Instructor Deterrents/Ways of Prevention
• Proctoring/Monitoring
• Prevention
Thoughts on Patient Harm
• Effects of Classroom Dishonesty/Misconduct

• Effects of Clinical Dishonesty/Misconduct
Version 3: Final Coding Scheme
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK/CODING SCHEME
Perceptions on Reasons for Dishonest Behavior & Misconduct
• Classroom Environment
• Lack of Knowledge
• Pressure/Stress
• Time Management
• Fear - Desperation/Panic
• Financial Reasons
• Other Obligations
• Laziness/Lack of Caring
• Opportunity (Online Classroom)
• Lack of Preparation/Procrastination
• Clinical Environment
• Intimidation
• Burnout
• Lack of patient cooperation
Perceptions on Types of Dishonest Behaviors & Misconduct
• Responsibility/Professionalism
• Accountability
• Honesty
• Resources
• Where to go to find the answers
• Test Review
• Peers
• Helping others succeed
• Breaking the Rules
• Validation
• Justification
• Clear Expectations
• Instructed not to…
• Risking Everything
• Observing Others/Witnessing
• Reporting
• Karma
• Not my business
• Slippery Slope
• Leads to more dishonest behaviors
• Frustration
• Morals/Ethics/Integrity
• Personal Examples/Stories
• Test banks/Quizlet
• Social Media/Group Texts
• No Tolerance
School/Instructor Deterrents/Ways of Prevention
• Proctoring/Monitoring
• Perceptions of Ease or Difficulty of Performing Dishonest Behaviors/Misconduct in
Both Classroom & Clinical Environments
Thoughts on Patient Harm
• Effects of Classroom Dishonesty/Misconduct

• Effects of Clinical Dishonesty/Misconduct
APPENDIX R: SAMPLE SEGMENTS OF
CODED INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTS
EXAMPLE
Teachers’ Perceptions Regarding Group Contingency Behavior Plans for Early Childhood
Students: A Qualitative Case Study
Group Contingency Behavior Plan Coding Scheme
Codes for Research Codes for Research Codes for Research

Theme Question 1 Question 2 Question 3
Professional Support AS – Administrative

Support
CS – Colleague
Support
PD – Professional
Development Support
Type of GCP DGCP – Dependent
IGCP – Independent
INGCP – Interdependent
Benefits of a GCP PI – Positive Impact
NI – Negative Impact
Teacher VR – Verbal
Reinforcement Reinforcement
RR – Visual Strategies
Effective Strategies VS – Visual Strategies VS – Visual Strategies
SE – Student SE – Student
Engagement Engagement
SET – Setting SET – Setting

Expectations Expectations
1
PARTICIPANT 3: CODED TRANSCRIPT
Participant 3: Interview
Name of participant: Maribel

Teaching Certification(s): Elementary K-6;
Education Level (Highest degree attained) M.A.
Total years of teaching experience: 5
Years of teaching students in preschool through third grade? 5
Date & time of interview: 8/3/18- 11:00
1. Are you currently or have you ever implemented a group contingency plan to manage
your students’ behavior? (If the response if “yes” then ask all questions-; if the
response is “no” then proceed to use questions 8-10)
Yes.
2. How long have you been implementing group contingency plans? How did you learn
about the plan?
The last three years. So my two years before this district, I taught in Oakland California
and it was like a disadvantaged community I guess really a different environment than what
I teach in now. so I spent a lot of time with their school psychologist like talking about how to
manage behavior so things that I was like building (AS) but it’s like the last three years is when
I really like started to implement them.
3. Describe the type of group contingency plan you are using.(If not provided in the
answer, ask about behavior criteria, schedule reinforcement, types of reinforcers,
BSP, tracking system, use of visuals.)
I’m currently using a sticker chart… so I have like 12 different classes that I see in a
week. And the chart would just have the class name on the chart and then for any like positive
behavior during whole class transitions or when everyone is focused on the assignment, or
everyone follows directions the first time, they can earn like earn the star or a sticker (SET)…
and then for every like 15 stars or stickers they earned like a classroom reward. (INGCP) which
was usually like 10 or 15 minutes of free time so like at the end of the class once they completed
their task they can move on to either like free computer game or they could build with some of
the building materials. (RR)
4. How did you decide to use this type of plan?
I had seen another teacher use it maybe another like specialist teacher. (CS) I just use those
tracker things. I like to keep it posted. So in previous years I used class dojo but it wasn’t always
accessible when I had something else on the smart board. I liked having this that they can even
Appendix R: Sample Segments of Coded Interview Transcripts 3
see it when we are using the smart board. Also I can have a helper do the stars or stickers for me
as like a responsibility. They were also excited to do that (SE, VS) so I tried class dojo and some
other ones and they were still a group wide and still like the interdependent where everyone
needed to be doing it. But I saw this one and thought I could be easier to manage for me so I
gave it a try and for the most part think it went well this year.
5. How do you monitor the effectiveness of this plan? Does anyone else assist in
monitoring or overseeing the plan?
I guess I see how many stars they like are earning. it also checks me, like am I rewarding
them when I should be. (SR) And if that’s like a motivating factor so if I were to say something
like if you have a smooth transition back to your desks you’ ll earn a sticker. Or we need like
three more to get to our goal. If that seems to be like… like …some of them students get like
really excited about that. Or they’ ll come in and be like two more and we get be free time today.
6. How do you determine what the reinforcers will be associated with the group
contingency plan?
so that I have tried it for a couple years. I don’t want to spend money on like a treasure
chest I also think it could be a lot for having 300 kids. I felt like giving them free time with
things they liked seemed to have worked. Like something that they were looking forward to
earning…so in general I go by their interests. (RR) They like playing on the computer just like
free games and some like to build so they kind of have a choice of couple different things.
7. Do you believe this plan has decreased disruptive behavior and increased
appropriate behavior (Ask their beliefs about specific components they believe
contributes to reducing disruptive behavior and increasing appropriate behavior, if
not provided)?
For me I think making it like posted and available for them to see changed it. (VS). This
way I can have someone in charge of stars for that week and their job was to be like anytime
I noticed that were on task they get to put it on and they liked having that responsibility. So I
think having a visually accessible to them so they can check with it at any minute and compare
themselves to other classes or grade levels. (VS). They will be like wow we have like the most
in second grade. This competition helped them to behave. That was a factor, but not the main
thing.
8. Have you ever implemented an individual contingency plan?
Yes. I do find that the individual plans are challenging when I have so many classes like I
need to be more organized with like remembering that. Or sometimes they don’t always have
the datasheet (NI). But as far as my class, the group plan is effective overall because I only have
like 40 minutes with the students (INGCP)
9. What behavior management resources/supports are currently available to you for
managing classroom behavior?
Well I have definitely come to the child study team now I know that the school psychologist
and the school social worker did a presentation on classroom management and I use a lot of the
resources they provided (PD, AS). It gave me a lot of ideas and things I might try next year and
add on to what I am doing. I have also asked other teachers. And teachers in a similar position
as mine, that see multiple classes for a shorter period of time. So mostly just like talking to more
experts, since I still only have taught for a few years (CS, PD).
10. Are there any final thoughts or feelings concerning behavior management you wish
to share?
Um I just feel like this is something that like I’m always working on. And I definitely have
a hard time figuring out what works because my set up is different than a classroom teachers.
So I’m still struggling to figure out what works for me and like the students. I do feel like
organization would help me be better at it. I do think that sometimes this plan isn’t working
for this class, but it is for another class. Do I abandon it completely, change it for that one class.
How do I make it fit for everyone? I ask myself, is that really a possibility? (PD)
PARTICIPANT 3: CRITICAL INCIDENT REPORT
During the interview process, you indicated that you have or currently are implementing
a group contingency plan.Please respond to the following questions. You may handwrite
or type your responses. Thank you for your time.
Have you experienced any positive or rewarding outcomes regarding the imple-
mentation of a group contingency plan? If your answer is yes, please describe your
experience(s) in detail. If your answer is no, please indicate whether you would change
your implementation of a group contingency plan, and why.
Yes, I have noticed some positive behavior changes with challenging classes. I have also noticed
some challenging students shift some of their behaviors due to the group contingency plans because
they want to fit in and they want to earn the group reward (PI).
Have you experienced any unsuccessful outcomes regarding the implementation of a
group contingency plan? Please describe.
Yes, there are some classes or some specific students who have not found success with the group
contingency plans because they did not meet their needs and/or did not motivate them to change
their behavior (NI). For example, I had one student who had frequently had meltdowns in class
and was not socially motivated so his behavior was not impacted by the group contingency plan.
Name of participant: Carla

response is “no” then proceed to use questions 8-10.)
Yes.
about the plan?
Well I feel like it depends on the year because there’s some years where my classes needed it
more than others. So I’m going to probably say past few years I’ve become more consistent with it
so we can say half the time maybe 5 years. Well just from reading and seeing what other teachers
are doing for class management (CS).
So this year I started using the beeper system. So I would set a timer for a certain amount
of time and it would always be varied. It could be 5 minutes, it could be 2 minutes, it could
be 10 minutes. And the students would never know when the beeper would go off. But when
the beeper did do off I would do a quick scan around the room and those students that were on
task would get a hole punch. If they had a certain amount of hole punches they could cash it in
for a reward…But I would also use it as well, the same plan for the whole class. So I used it for
whole group things and individual things (INGCP, DGCP). I made it clear there were times
where everyone had to be doing something so that everyone can get a point and then there were
individual students I would recognize. The students knew what was expected of them, how to
earn, what the reward would be. There was a whole discussion about it so that there would be
no surprises (SET).

I’ve struggled with this and have used various things over the years. The plan was shared
with me by one my coworkers, the school social worker, and then another teacher using a punch
card (CS). So I kind of just (pause) sort of married the two of them together. um I made it my
own I had to feel comfortable with it was a period of time where I thought like you know what
I can’t be setting the beeper all the time so I’m just going to sort of overall if the class is quiet
during that time we can all get a punch. When I first started it, I thought about the periods
where I felt like either my class was having the most difficult time being quiet. (SR) I mean I
kinda feel like yes it’s nice to be rewarded but at the same time there’s just certain expectations
that like we need to be quiet during reading we need so reading workshop was always a quiet
time in my class I didn’t really use it. But I used it for other times where I felt like the chattiness
could be an issue, And I think I would continue to do that I think the second graders talking
when it’s not really time to talk um you that when I feel I need this the most.
I think it was effective because truthfully like most of the time when I gave them a
reminder about the behavioral expectation, I do really feel like they responded to it. Um the
kids seemed excited about it. (PI, SET) They loved the punch cards. Um and overall I think
I had a really well managed class so to me that’s sort of the evidence. I mean I don’t know for
sure maybe if I didn’t have this they would have been not as well behaved. um and I feel like
because I varied when they were going to get them sometimes I didn’t say that I’m looking for
a quiet class but I’m when I noticed the kids are really quiet I would say know wow everyone’s
been doing such an amazing job I’m going to come around and give everyone a punch. So it was
very unexpected that’s why I didn’t know we need the buzzer all the time I think you know I
just kept them on their toes. (SE) Um and overall I think I had a really well managed class so to
me that sort of the evidence I mean I don’t know for sure maybe if I didn’t have this they would
have been but I think it’s nice to have a visual and know kids are earning. (VS)
contingency plan?
Once the kids hit 20 punches, they could earn a prize. Sometimes it [the reward] would
be a homework pass, other times it would be something else and we talked about what were
things that they would want. So it was really based on their interest, so that um they were really
invested in it. (RR, SE)
not provided)?
I think the individual students seeing that maybe other students happen to have gotten
more hole punches made them see that others were really doing their work, and I think just
seeing that the kids thought that they better get to work (PI).

Yes, I have done different plans. Other kids wanted rewards. You know other years when
I had sticker charts for certain kids the prize associated with it in school the other kids would
question it. So yeah I mean I think kids do get excited with it um get excited about it when they
see other kids are getting. So I think the group plan is better. (SE)
Well definitely piggybacking off of other teachers as a resource I’m always asking other
teachers and the child study team, I think they always have really good ideas being that they
work with so many different kinds of kids those are probably the two (CS, PD). You know I
don’t do so much research online like Pinterest I just don’t find it helpful I like to sort of what’s
been tried and done by people that I respect.
to share?
I think that that my thoughts have changed a little bit about it. Like I said before I have
had some years where I haven’t done anything you know I have done some individual work for
the kids that need it up but never for everybody. But I kind of feel that even if you have a really
good class sometimes it’s nice to be rewarded and it’s that positive feedback. So often we focus
on the negative. so I think that whether I have like an amazing… ya know like going to target
chattiness during quiet work, even if I have an amazing class, I think it’s still nice to be able to
continue to reward for that so that continues. (VR) Because I think that with second graders
they can slide. So I just thinking going in with a fresh thought that it’s important to have
something you know to start the year out with and set the standards.
Yes- I have noticed my students are invested in the plan and want to reach the goal. They get
excited when I announce that I am looking for quiet workers or announce the beeper has been set.
Their body language and verbal language is proof they are invested. More importantly, I see good
behavior when the plan begins for that time period. (PI)
No, I have not experienced unsuccessful results. However, I do think I need to do a better job at
varying the reward to keep it fresh. (RR)
Name of participant: Jaxon

Teaching Certification(s): P-3; Elementary K-6; Sp.Ed P-12
Yes.
about group contingency plans?
I guess the last two school year. I learned about the plan through the CST who introduced
the program and gave me a few articles to read on group contingency plans and the background
on the specific plan … I also learned about class plans during my first year. I did work with
an experienced teacher um who observed me in the classroom and reviewed with me different
strategies and techniques to improve student behavior. (AS, CS, PD)
So it’s a whole class behavior plan that [pause] um it uses a visual of a caterpillar that
has circles that move up to the head of the caterpillar. (INGCP, VS) And the overall goal is to
encourage students to follow classroom rules and routines. As they follow those rules and make
positive choices in the classroom a butterfly moves up the circles of the caterpillar and once the
butterfly reaches top of the caterpillar’s head there is a whole class wide reward system. So in
a bag there’s visual cards that show what the reward would be so for example there’s a dance
party, umm they could time with bubbles, they could earn free choice time. (VS, RR) That part
of the plan is adaptable based on the interests of the student and once the top of the caterpillar
is reached we pull one of those visuals from the bag and the entire class gets to participate in
reinforce. (SE) [pause] It is important to review with students what the classroom rules and
expectations are and to let students know that you’re initiating the plan so you can use it at
different times during the day. (SET) I mainly used it during circle time and other whole group
activities.

From mentoring and advice from the CST. (PD) And then also once I started using the
plan I saw the benefits and effectiveness of it so I continued to use it.
I guess based on how often the reinforcers are met, so how often we meet the goal.
contingency plan?
Just based on what I’ve seen in my classroom and the interests that I know my students
have. (SE) So for example they love go noodle which we have used in the past so I knew that
would be something they would want to earn. Um also on the playground we have used bubbles
before and they loved it…so I kind of use my own background knowledge on the students and
then also in class discussion about it.
not provided)?
Yes, um… I think during a whole group activity if I’m able to pinpoint a student who
is making a good choice it reminds me to give that verbal praise and then it’s coupled with
the visual movement up the chart which really motivates the other students because they see
the direct reward and because they are working as a whole group it gives them the feeling of
teamwork and the students want, you know they want to get the rewards so once they see that
one student helped them get to the top it encourages the other students to make similar choices.
(VR, RR, VS, INGCP, PI, SE)
8. Have you ever implemented an individual contingency plan?8.
Yes I have. I really like how the whole group contingency plan works because it takes
the emphasis off of just one student and really puts the responsibility on the class as a whole
(INGCP)… so you’re able to focus on more behaviors at one time... and it encourages a
classroom culture and it allows you to kind of spread your praise around versus constantly either
redirecting or praising one student. When the whole class works as a team to make good choices,
the entire class benefits and receives a class wide reinforcer which increases the effectiveness
of the plan. (PI) The plan has also encouraged my students to work cooperatively and has
motivated the entire class. I have run an individual plan along with the group plan. I think
in a way the whole group is more beneficial… because it gives…say you have one student that
does require some type of behavior plan and you are using an individual plan it can sometimes I
guess need like constant change… whereas I feel the whole group plan doesn’t lose um its interest
as much, so you can change it up a little bit more and I think that sometimes if you give maybe a
child that needs redirecting or needs some assistance in the classroom, if you give them too much
attention for a specific behavior it could increase the behavior. Where this really limits how
much attention is just given to one student while they still are being encouraged by the plan and
the reinforcer and it shows the whole class that when everybody does make good choices (pause)
or a specific student that their friends could benefit from it as well as versus just one student
getting a reinforcer. (RR, SE)
Um it wasn’t so specific but we definitely reviewed in my coursework we reviewed different
types of plans you can use different types of reinforcers (PD) so I wasn’t familiar with this
specific plan but I’ve definitely been introduced to the use of positive praise in the classroom, um
how to increase certain behaviors and decrease certain behaviors. Um so I would think like a
general overview of behavior management in some course, not specific a course.
to share?
So I always had a visual rules board in my classroom which works really nice actually with
this specific plan because you can reference it at the beginning of a whole group activity and
um I like to make those rule charts with my students so that they are a part of coming up with
what they think would be effective rules to have in our classroom. (VS, SE) I think through this
whole group contingency behavior plan I’ve really increased my use of positive reinforcement in
the classroom and positive praise which I think just lifts the overall sentiment in the classroom
and the students aren’t seeking to gain as much attention because it’s already built into the way
the whole group activities work and really limiting the use of redirecting in a sense of using
language that explains what the students shoulddo versus what they shouldn’t do. (PI, SET)
During the interview process, you indicated that you have or currently are implementing
a group contingency plan.Please respond to the following questions. You may handwrite
or type your responses. Thank you for your time.
Yes I have experienced positive and rewarding outcomes while implementing a group con-
tingency plan in my pre-K classroom. The plan has enabled the students to work as a team
to follow classroom rules and has greatly increased my use of positive reinforcement. the
visual nature of the plan has also helped my students to clearly see the benefits of their posi-
tive choices. The plan is also adaptable, allowing the positive reinforcers to be directly related
to the interest of the students. When the whole class works as a team to make good choices, the
entire class benefits and receives a class wide reinforcer which increases the effectiveness of the
plan. the plan has also encouraged my students to work cooperatively and has motivated the
entire class. the plan has also helped me by reminding me to repetitively review classroom rules
and to set clear and concise expectations. the plan also encourages the use of behavior specific
praise connected with the visual increase which allows the whole class to again hear expecta-
tions coupled with a visual response that brings them closer to receiving their class-wide reward.
(PI, VS, SE, VR, RR, SET)

No response provided
Name of participant: MiaJoy

No
PROBE: Why have you not implemented a group contingency plan? Please
describe the specific reasons why you have not implemented a group contingency
behavior plan with your students.
I feel that my students would not benefit, at the age and skill level that I teach, from
that type of reinforcement system. Most of the students entering have very few skills. I need to
teach basic readiness skills which need to be broken down and reinforced immediately. I am
fortunate enough to have and always have had enough support in my classroom to have a staff/
student ratio of 1:1 or 1:2 so that readiness skills can be taught and reinforced immediately in
an individual format, rather than a whole class approach. (IGCP) I also feel like the students
need to have some sort of social awareness of others for a dependent or interdependent group
contingency plan to work. They need to realize that their behavior affects everyone else and care
about that fact.

Yes, so I use a token boards for all my students for work completion. (SE) It could be
for different things. Initially, clearly the children have to understand how a token works. So
usually I would do a 1:1 token for a response and then maybe move to 5 or 10 responses. Then
you would just change the ratio of how you would reinforce. You can also change the amount
of tokens before a child earns a reward. it also could be a time based like you’re going to earn
tokens over a certain amount of time. So, I have done it different ways, it depends on the
student. so, there is usually a choice board, so they can choose what they want to work for, I
would have a visual. (VS) And that would go on the board somewhere. And when they earn the
token, they would receive their reinforcement. The CST and the other teachers help me. I mean
I think really everybody on the team, the related service providers, um you know are valuable
in their own way. It can be based on their experience, or um you know whatever their expertise
is. Sometimes there might be behaviors related to their area. So, if we are doing a gross motor
activity and there is a problem I can ask the OT or PT for suggestions to see if there is something
I can do. I mean it’s really everybody that helps. (CS)
The school psychologist and the school social worker have provided a lot of the resources that
I use on a daily basis. These are very helpful to me. (AS)
to share?
I think in my type of classroom if you can’t get the behavior under control, then it… that’s
primary, you have to do that first or else you are never going to get to teach. And I also look
like its that it is preschool and that social/emotional component um is almost more important
in the very beginning than teaching the letters and the numbers. I mean it’s almost secondary
to focusing on behavior and how you…just generally thing about the behavior. And the other
things like sitting in a chair, participating, those kind of learner behaviors. As well as refraining
from hitting and screaming and all those things. That primary and has to be focused on first
before you can even get to anything else. I kind of feel like when we focus on those other things
(not that they are not important) but it just like not accurate, if that can show all those skills,
but can’t behavior, then those skills are not functional. You can’t use it if you can’t behave. So,
it’s really… l I feel like my job with the kids I have, is to getting the behavior as under control as
a I can in order to start teaching things other preschoolers may be learning. (SR)
THIS RESEARCH PARTICIPANT DID NOT COMPLETE A CRITICAL INCIDENT

REPORT SINCE SHE DOES NOT IMPLEMENT GROUP CONTINGENCY PLANS
APPENDIX S: QUALITATIVE
DATA ANALYSIS SOFTWARE
RESOURCES (QDAS)
There are currently many software packages for qualitative data analysis (QDAS). Software can
perform specialized searching and sorting tasks, but it cannot do the thinking for you! These
programs do not engage in interpretive work, nor were they designed to do this!
Program Name Website
ATLAS.ti http://www.atlasti.com/
Friese, S. (2019). Qualitative data analysis with ATLAS.ti (3rd ed.). SAGE.
(See note 2)
Dedoose http://www.dedoose.com/
A cross-platform app for analyzing mixed methods research with text,

photos, audio, video, and spreadsheet data.
HyperRESEARCH http://researchware.com
(ResearchWare Inc.)
NVivo12 PRO (QSR https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo-qualitative-

International) data-analysis-software/about/nvivo
Jackson, K. & Bazeley, P. (2019). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo

(3rd ed.). SAGE. (See note 3)
MAXQDA http://www.maxqda.com/
Analyzes text, imagery, audio and video files, tweets, focus group
discussions, and survey responses
QDA Miner (Provalis https://provalisresearch.com/products/qualitative-data-analysis-

Research) software/freeware/
Quirkos https://www.quirkos.com/
Note 1: Information regarding the features, functions, and capabilities of the software is included in each of the pro-
gram websites.
Note 2: Friese (2019) is a step-by-step guide to using Atlas.ti, featuring methodological and technical support, practi-
cal exercises, and a companion website with online tutorials.
Note 3: Jackson and Bazeley (2019) is a useful introductory text for planning and conducting qualitative data analysis
with NVivo. This text includes practical instruction and real-world examples; illustrating how NVivo can accommo-
date analysis across a wide range of research questions, data types, perspectives, and research designs.
1
APPENDIX T: SAMPLE DATA SUMMARY TABLES
EXAMPLE 1
Elementary Bilingual Education Teachers’ Beliefs about Their Preparedness in Teaching English Language Proficiency Skills to Hispanic
ELLs: A Qualitative Case Study.
Data Summary Tables

X-In red are focus group responses (triangulation purposes)
Not
Prepared Bilingual Rewarding
ELL Took Finds Changes to Program PD Passionate “Shy Learning Native
Themselves Prepared Time Ways Instruction Helped Helped Advocates Describing Kids” E is Imp Lang Challenging
(ET) (P) (TT) (FW) (NPC) (BPH) (PDH) (TRPA) ELLs (TDE) (SK) (TIS) (TNL) (TBC)
1 XX X X X X XX X X X X
2 X X X X X X X X XX
3 X X X X X X
4 X X X X X X X X
5 X X XX X XX X X XX
6 X X XX XX X XX X
7 X X X X X X X X X X X
8 X X X X X X X X
9 X X X X X X X X
(Continued)
1
(Continued)
Not
Prepared Bilingual Rewarding
ELL Took Finds Changes to Program PD Passionate “Shy Learning Native
Themselves Prepared Time Ways Instruction Helped Helped Advocates Describing Kids” E is Imp Lang Challenging
(ET) (P) (TT) (FW) (NPC) (BPH) (PDH) (TRPA) ELLs (TDE) (SK) (TIS) (TNL) (TBC)
10 XX X XX XX X XX X XX XX X
11 X X X X X XX X X X
12 X X X X X X X XX X X
13 X X X X X X X X X X X
14 XX X X X X XX XX X
Prepared
Virtual Build Students Cultural/ Data Learning Reflective Changes to High
Teaching Relationships Linguistic Driven Technology Styles Recordings Teachers Instruction Expectations
(VT) (BR) Backgrounds (SCLB) (TDD) (T) (LS) (TR) (RT) (PC) (HE)
1 XX X XX X X XX XX X X XX
2 XX
3 X X
4 X X X X X
5 XX X XX X X X XX
6 X XX XX X X X
Prepared
Virtual Build Students Cultural/ Data Learning Reflective Changes to High
Teaching Relationships Linguistic Driven Technology Styles Recordings Teachers Instruction Expectations
(VT) (BR) Backgrounds (SCLB) (TDD) (T) (LS) (TR) (RT) (PC) (HE)
7 X X X X
8 X X X X
9 X X X X
10 XX X X XX X X XX XX
11 XX X X X XX
12 X X X X X X XX
13 X X X X
14 X X
Teachers
and Students
Colleague Share Cultural Teacher Vertical Differentiated Bilingual Teacher
Collaboration Backgrounds Planning Visuals Vocabulary Alignment Instruction Partner Mentor Accountability
(CC) (CB) (TPL) (V) (VO) (VA) (DI)* (BP) (TMR) Measures (AM)
1 X X X X X X
2 X XX X X X X X X
3 X X X X X
(Continued)
3
(Continued)
Teachers
and Students
Colleague Share Cultural Teacher Vertical Differentiated Bilingual Teacher
Collaboration Backgrounds Planning Visuals Vocabulary Alignment Instruction Partner Mentor Accountability
(CC) (CB) (TPL) (V) (VO) (VA) (DI)* (BP) (TMR) Measures (AM)
4 X X X
5 X X XX XX X X X
6 XX XX
7 X X X
8 X X X
9 X X
10 X XX X XX X X XX X X
11 X XX X X X
12 X XX X X X XX
13 X X X X X X
14 X X X X X X
Think Prepared Teachers
PD Pair Limited Bilingual Development Background Comfortable Student Teacher Teacher
Model Share Resources Program of English Knowledge Environments Growth Cognates Modeling Comparisons
(PDM) (TPS) (LR) (PBP) Skills (DES) (TBK) (CE) (SG) (C) (TM) (TC)
1 X X X
2 X X X
3 X X X X
4 X X
5 X X X XX XX
6 X X X
7 X X X X
8 X X X
9 X
10 XX X XX X
11 X
12 X XX XX
13 X X
14 X X
(Continued)
5
(Continued)
Updated
Intentional Curriculum Parental Professional
Student Needs
Teaching Moves Fast Formal and Informal Involvement development
(IT) (SN) (CMF) Assessments (FIA) (PI) (UPD)
1 X
5 X
6 X X
9 X
10 X X X
11
12
13 X X
14
EXAMPLE 2
Nursing Students’ Perceptions Regarding Dishonest Behaviors and Academic Misconduct: A Phenomenological Study.
Data Summary Table:

Perceptions of Dishonest Behaviors/Academic Misconduct
Example of Dishonest Behavior/

Perceptions of Nursing Student Participants TOTAL #(%)
Misconduct
Participants Celeste Maggie Sarah Jessica Naomi Debbie Carla Caitlyn Joanne Theresa Brittany
Copying information from a 11(100%)

source without properly citing the Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
source Yes
Changing the words of material

from another piece of work and 11(100%)
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
then representing these words as Yes
your own
Submitting the same, or similar, 9(82%) Yes

work in more than one subject/
Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 2(12%)
class without prior consent of the
instructor No
Submitting another’s material as 11(100%)

your own Yes
Borrowing and then copying 11(100%)

another student’s work with/ Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
without their permission Yes
Having someone attend a class for 11(100%)

you as a substitute Yes
(Continued)
7
Misconduct
Preparing work for another 11(100%)

student to be submitted for Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
academic evaluation Yes
6(45%)
Collaborating on an assignment Yes

Y N N N Y Y Y N N Y Y
with others when instructed not to 5(55%)
No
Taking an examination for another 11(100%)

student or having someone take Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
an examination for you Yes
Using unauthorized material or 11(100%)

fabricated data in an academic Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
assignment/exercise Yes
Purchasing and then submitting 11100%)

another’s written paper/work as Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
one’s own Yes
Using an improperly acquired/ 11(100%)

stolen examination Yes
Selling or lending papers/

assignments to another student(s) 11(100%)
for them to turn in as their own Yes
work
8(73%)
Asking another student “what was Yes
on the test?” or telling another Y N Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y
student what was on the test 3(27%)
No
Misconduct
Using electronics to copy/take a 11(100%)

picture of an exam Yes
Writing down test exam questions 11(100%)

during an exam to share with Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
others Yes
Using notes, cellphones, books,

or other unauthorized materials 11(100%)
during a closed-book exam to gain Yes
answers
Using hidden notes to use for an 11(100%)

exam Yes
7(64%)
Looking up test bank questions to Yes

Y N N Y Y Y Y Y N N Y
study for an exam 4(36%)
No
Taking a bathroom break during 11(100%)

an exam to look up answers to Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
questions Yes
Allowing another student to copy 11(100%)

from your paper during an exam Yes
10(91%)
Leaving the classroom after Yes

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N
attendance has been checked 1(9%)
No
(Continued)
9
Misconduct
9(82%)
Using a false excuse to delay Yes
taking an exam in order to take a Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y
make-up exam 2(18%)
No
9(82%)
Using a false excuse to withdraw Yes
from a course to avoid receiving a Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y
failing grade 2(18%)
No
8(73%)
Passing down completed Yes
coursework to students in lower Y Y N N Y Y Y Y N Y Y

classes 3(27%)
No
8(73%)
Observing a student copying
from another student during an Yes
Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N
exam and doing nothing with the 3(27%)
information
No
Not participating in a group

project but taking credit for 11(100%)
participating and contributing to Yes
the project
Working together with other

students for an online exam 11(100%)
meant to be done independently Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
in order to share questions and Yes
answers
Misconduct
Not reporting an error or incident 11(100%)

that involves a patient Yes
Reporting and/or documenting 11(100%)

treatments or procedures that Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
were not performed or assessed Yes
Documenting that medications 11(100%)

were administered when they Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
were not Yes
Performing a procedure on
a patient without adequate 11(100%)
knowledge or failing to obtain Yes
guidance from the instructor
Breaking sterile technique and not 11(100%)

replacing the contaminated items Yes
Discussing patient information in 11(100%)

public places or with nonmedical Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
personnel Yes
Copying another nurses’ medical 11(100%)

notes (copying and pasting) in Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
electronic health records Yes
10(91%)
Making up a false excuse to miss Yes

Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
clinical 1(9%)
100% No
11
APPENDIX U: CODED TRANSCRIPT SUMMARY CHARTS
EXAMPLE 1
Teachers’ Perceptions Regarding Group Contingency Behavior Plans for Early Childhood Students: A
Qualitative Case Study
Research Question
Participants I Codes Research Question II Codes Researcher Question III Codes
Themes Types of GCP Professional Support GCP Behavior Impact
Teacher Reinforcers GCP Teacher Strategies
GCP Teacher Strategies
Participant 3 I'm currently using I spent a lot of time with their school psychologist like talking I can have a helper do the stars or stickers for me as like
a sticker chart… so I about how to manage behavior so things that I was like building a responsibility. They were also excited to do that (SE)
have like 12 different (AS)
For me I think making it like posted and available for
classes that I see in a
I had seen another teacher use it maybe another like specialist them to see changed it.(VS)…So I think having a visually
week. And the chart
teacher.(CS) accessible to them so they can check with it at any
would just have the
minute and compare themselves to other classes or
class name on the I guess I see how many stars they like are earning. it also checks
grade levels.(VS).
chart and then for any me, like am I rewarding them when I should be.(SR)
like positive behavior I do find that the individual plans are challenging when
once they completed their task they can move on to either
during whole class I have so many classes like I need to be more organized
like free computer game or they could build with some of the
transitions or when with like remembering that. Or sometimes they don't
building materials. (RR)
everyone is focused on always have the datasheet (NI).
the assignment, Like something that they were looking forward to earning…so in
general I go by their interests.(RR)
1
(Continued)
Research Question
or everyone follows Well I have definitely come to the child study team now(PD). I liked having this that they can even see it when we are
directions the first using the smart board. (VS)
I know that the school psychologist and the school social worker
time, they can earn
did a presentation on classroom management and I use a lot of I have also noticed some challenging students shift some
like earn the star or a
the resources they provided (AS)… of their behaviors due to the group contingency plans
sticker …and then for
because they want to fit in and they want to earn the
every like 15 stars or I have also asked other teachers. And teachers in a similar
group reward (PI).
stickers they earned position as mine, that see multiple classes for a shorter period
like a classroom of time (CS)
reward. (INGCP)
But as far as my So mostly just like talking to more experts, since I still only have the class name on the chart and then for any like
class, the group plan taught for a few years(PD). positive behavior during whole class transitions or when
is effective overall everyone is focused on the assignment, or everyone

I do think that sometimes this plan isn't working for this class,
because I only have like follows directions the first time, they can earn like earn
but it is for another class. Do I abandon it completely, change it
40 minutes with the the star or a sticker (SET)
for that one class. How do I make it fit for everyone? I ask myself,
students (INGCP)
is that really a possibility? (PD)
Participant 5 So I used it for whole Well just from reading and seeing what other teachers are doing I think it's nice to have a visual and know kids are
group things (INGCP) for class management (CS). earning. (VS)
and individual things
The plan was shared with me by one my coworkers, the school
(DGCP).
social worker, and then another teacher using a punch card (CS).
um I made it my own I had to feel comfortable with it was a I varied when they were going to get them sometimes I
period of time where I thought like you know what I can't be didn't say that I'm looking for a quiet class but I'm when
setting the beeper all the timeso I'm just going to sort of overall I noticed the kids are really quiet I would say know wow
if the class is quiet during that time we can all get a punch. (SR) everyone's been doing such an amazing job I'm going to
come around and give everyone a punch. So it was very
When I first started it, I thought about the periods where I felt
unexpected that's why I didn't know we need the buzzer
like either my class was having the most difficult time being
all the time I think you know I just kept them on their
quiet.(SR)
toes.(SE)
Research Question
So it was really based on their interest, so that um they were I think the individual students seeing that maybe other
really invested in it. (RR) students happen to have gotten more hole punches
made them see that others were really doing their work,
Well definitely piggybacking off of other teachers as a resource
and I think just seeing that the kids thought that they
(CS).
better get to work (PI)
More importantly, I see good behavior when the plan

begins for that time period. (PI)
I'm always asking other teachers and the child study team, I I made it clear there were times where everyone had
think they always have really good ideas being that they work to be doing something so that everyone can get a
with so many different kinds of kids those are probably the two point and then there were individual students I would
(PD.) recognize. The students knew what was expected of
them, how to earn, what the reward would be. There was
So often we focus on the negative. so I think that whether I have
a whole discussion about it so that there would be no
like an amazing… ya know like going to target chattiness during
surprises(SET)
quiet work, even if I have an amazing class, I think it's still nice to
be able to continue to reward for that so that continues. (VR)
I do think I need to do a better job at varying the reward to keep I think it was effective because truthfully like most of the
it fresh. (RR) time when I gave them a reminder about the behavioral
expectation, I do really feel like they responded to it. Um
the kids seemed excited about it.(PI, SET)
Participant 6 So it's a whole class I learned about the plan through the CST who introduced It is important to review with students what the
behavior plan that the program and gave me a few articles to read on group classroom rules and expectations are and to let students
[pause] um it uses a contingency plans and the background on the specific plan …I know that you're initiating the plan so you can use it at
visual of a caterpillar did work with an experienced teacher um who observed me in different times during the day.(SET)
that has circles that the classroom and reviewed with me different strategies and
Just based on what I've seen in my classroom and the
move up to the head of techniques to improve student behavior. (AS, CS)
interests that I know my students have. (SE)
the caterpillar. (INGCP,
So in a bag there's visual cards that show what the reward would
VS)
be so for example there's a dance party, umm they could time
3
with bubbles, they could earn free choice time.(VS, RR)
(Continued)
Research Question
Yes I have. I really like So it's a whole class behavior plan that [pause] um it uses a So I always had a visual rules board in my classroom
how the whole group visual of a caterpillar that has circles that move up to the head of which works really nice actually with this specific plan
contingency plan the caterpillar. (INGCP, VS) because you can reference it at the beginning of a whole
works because it takes group activity and um I like to make those rule charts
That part of the plan is adaptable based on the interests of the
the emphasis off of just with my students so that they are a part of coming up
student and once the top of the caterpillar is reached we pull
one student and really with what they think would be effective rules to have in
one of those visuals from the bag and the entire class gets to
puts the responsibility our classroom.(VS, SE)
participate in reinforce.(SE)
on the class as a
whole(INGCP)
When the whole class works as a team to make good choices, I think through this whole group contingency
the entire class benefits and receives a class wide reinforcer behavior plan I've really increased my use of positive
which increases the effectiveness of the plan.(PI) reinforcement in the classroom and positive praise
which I think just lifts the overall sentiment in the
Where this really limits how much attention is just given to one
classroom and the students aren't seeking to gain as
student while they still are being encouraged by the plan and
much attention because it's already built into the way the
the reinforcer and it shows the whole class that when everybody
whole group activities work and really limiting the use
does make good choices (pause) or a specific student that their
of redirecting in a sense of using language that explains
friends could benefit from it as well as versus just one student
what the students should do versus what they shouldn't
getting a reinforcer. (RR, SE)
do.(PI, SET)
Um it wasn't so specific but we definitely reviewed in my the plan has also helped me by reminding me to
coursework we reviewed different types of plans you can use repetitively review classroom rules and to set clear and
different types of reinforcers (PD) concise expectations.
Research Question
Participant 9 I am fortunate I use a token boards for all my students for work completion.(SE) there is usually a choice board, so they can choose what
enough to have and they want to work for, I would have a visual.(VS)
So, if we are doing a gross motor activity and there is a problem I
always have had
can ask the OT or PT for suggestions to see if there is something l I feel like my job with the kids I have, is to getting the
enough support in
I can do. I mean it's really everybody that helps. (CS) behavior as under control as a I can in order to start
my classroom to
teaching things other preschoolers may be learning.
have a staff/student The school psychologist and the school social worker have
(SR)
ratio of 1:1 or 1:2 so provided a lot of the resources that I use on a daily basis. These
that readiness skills are very helpful to me. (AS)
can be taught and
reinforced immediately
in an individual format,
rather than a whole
class approach. (IGCP)
5
EXAMPLE 2
Teachers’ Perceptions Regarding Group Contingency Behavior Plans for Early Childhood Students: A Qualitative Case Study
Presentation of the Findings
RQ2 – Themes
How do early childhood
teachers select,
implement, and monitor
the use of group
Category contingency plans? Supporting Quotations
Classroom Interdependent Participant #3, “I'm currently using a sticker chart… so I have like 12 different classes that I see in a week. And the
Management chart would just have the class name on the chart and then for any like positive behavior during whole class transitions
Plan or when everyone is focused on the assignment, or everyone follows directions the first time, they can earn like earn the
star or a sticker…”
(2.1 - CMPINT)
Participant #5, “I think the individual students seeing that maybe other students happen to have gotten more hole
punches made them see that others were really doing their work, and I think just seeing that the kids thought that they
better get to work.”
(2.1 - CMPINT)
Participant #6, So it’s a whole class behavior plan that [pause] um it uses a visual of a caterpillar that has circles that
move up to the head of the caterpillar. And the overall goal is to encourage students to follow classroom rules and
routines. As they follow those rules and make positive choices in the classroom a butterfly moves up the circles of the
caterpillar and once the butterfly reaches top of the caterpillar's head there is a whole class wide reward system.”
(2.1 - CMPINT)
RQ2 – Themes
How do early childhood
teachers select,
implement, and monitor
the use of group
Category contingency plans? Supporting Quotations
Teacher Ease of Use Participant #3, “I don't want to spend money on like a treasure chest I also think it could be a lot for having 300 kids. I
Rewards felt like giving them free time with things they liked seemed to have worked.”
(6.4 - TREU)
Participant#3, “It gave me a lot of ideas and things I might try next year and add on to what I am doing.”
(6.4 - TREU)
Participant #5, “They loved the punch cards.”
“So I kind of just (pause) sort of married the two of them together. um I made it my own I had to feel comfortable with it .”
(6.4 - TREU)
Motivation Visual Participant #3, “For me I think making it like posted and available for them to see changed it.”
(4.1 - MV)
Participant #5, “Um and overall I think I had a really well managed class so to me that sort of the evidence I mean I
don't know for sure maybe if I didn't have this they would have been but I think it's nice to have a visual and know kids are
earning.”
(4.1 - MV)
(Continued)
7
RQ3 – Themes
What aspects of group
contingency plans do
early childhood teachers
believe to be effective in
reducing the disruptive
behavior of their
Category students, and why? Supporting Quotations
Motivation Rewards Participant #3, “I guess I see how many stars they like are earning. it also checks me, like am I rewarding them when
I should be. And if that’s like a motivating factor so if I were to say something like if you have a smooth transition back to
your desks you'll earn a sticker.”
(4.2 - MR)
Participant #6, “The plan has also encouraged my students to work cooperatively and has motivated the entire class.”
(4.2 - MR)
Motivation Competition Participant #3, “. So I think having a visually accessible to them so they can check with it at any minute and compare
themselves to other classes or grade levels. They will be like wow we have like the most in second grade. This
competition helped them to behave.”
(4.5 - MC)
Participant #5, “I think the individual students seeing that maybe other students happen to have gotten more hole
punches made them see that others were really doing their work, and I think just seeing that the kids thought that they
better get to work.”
(4.5 - MC)
Motivation Student Choice Participant #3, “Like something that they were looking forward to earning…so in general I go by their interests. They
like playing on the computer just like free games and some like to build so they kind of have a choice of couple different
things.”
(4.3 - MSC)
Participant #6, “Just based on what I've seen in my classroom and the interests that I know my students have.”
(4.3 - MCS)
APPENDIX V: SAMPLE THEMATIC
CHARTS
EXAMPLE 1
A Model for Educational Change Initiatives: Addressing Readiness for

Change and Awareness of the Need for Change
(A separate chart is created for each emergent theme.)
THEME 1: CHANGE READINESS
Question: To what extent are schools ready to embrace change?
Keywords: readiness to embrace change; awareness of need for change.
OVERVIEW
XYZ (Systemic Change Process) offered a model of educational excellence, creating the impetus for
schools to define success by providing a framework or structure for a way to make changes. Readiness
for change and awareness of the need for change are key precursors for any educational change effort.
Readiness and awareness engenders buy-in and commitment to the change process.
To be effective a change process requires buy-in and ongoing commitment from all stakeholders. XYZ
created awareness of the need to change and as such provided both the impetus for change and the
resources and support to facilitate change.
Paradoxically, those who are least ready for change are often those who need it most. Engendering
awareness of the need for change thus becomes an important function of any change effort.
FINDINGS/OUTCOMES
1. In some schools, change was already under way. XYZ invigorated and validated the change process,
providing further impetus; change had already begun to take root, and XYZ provided further
stimulation to move the change process forward.
2. In other schools, XYZ provided the very awareness of the need for change. Awareness is not always
associated with readiness, however, and so change was embraced and as such occurred at different
rates and in different ways in the schools.
3. Those schools that were less “ready” for change took longer to embrace change.
4. In many cases, the pace of change could not be anticipated. Change and transformation have been
differentially experienced, and this has been an incremental process.
(Continued)
1
PARTICIPANT PERSPECTIVES
“We had begun changing. XYZ provided the needed impetus for moving from the traditional education
model of simply being a supplementary education program to the model of creating a true learning
environment taken seriously by teachers, students, and parents. It helped garner support among board
members that led to increased funding of our program. The model that developed during the process still
guides our decision making and is the foundation of our program.” (Education director)
“We were already going through a transformation, and the school was changing. This change continued
throughout the XYZ process, and became supercharged by XYZ. XYZ provided validation of our direction
and change. We are no longer shooting in the dark.” (Education director)
“XYZ brought about a huge systemic and culture change, and now it has become the norm. We didn’t start
to see the change and benefits until years four and five.” (Education director)
“XYZ came into our lives at a time when we were experiencing a lot of change; the community was
looking for more rigor in their education, more substance, more thoughtful education. We had parents
demanding that.” (Lay leader)
“XYZ is focused on bringing excellence in education into the school. We were slow to come to the table in
understanding that. XYZ has been very helpful in making us aware of a lot of things that are necessary in
our school system.” (Professional leader)
“There were the beginnings of some curricular changes prior to XYZ, but through XYZ we began writing
curriculum that was tailored to our own needs. Our education director got guidance and support from
XYZ staff. So the process was rejuvenated.” (Teacher)
“We had support for XYZ then that wasn’t present before. We were amending our vision because the
community was looking for something new. XYZ was the right thing at the right time. I’m not sure if it
would have grabbed hold 10 years earlier.” (Lay leader)
“What we gained through XYZ is that it made us aware of what we needed. Having awareness, however,
was not enough to bring about change. We needed help in recognizing the need for change. And we
needed to be ready for change.” (Lay leader)
“XYZ offered us goals and a sense of what we could be; something to aim for. We were unhappy with what
we had, but we didn’t know what we wanted to be. We needed a model for what a school should and could
be like.” (Teacher)
“It was time for the school to mature and change. XYZ helped bring about change in the classroom, and
bring the teachers along with all the changes.” (Lay leader)
“There is now more connection and collaboration. It has a lot to do with XYZ. XYZ is all about community.
It took time to make changes, but we are making them.” (Principal)
MOVING FROM FINDINGS TO ACTION
Key questions include:
1. What motivates impetus for change?
2. What are the key facilitators and barriers involved in readiness for change?
3. How can awareness of need for change be nurtured?
4. What structures need to be in place to nurture the change process as it unfolds?
5. What is the extent of consensus among stakeholders regarding buy-in and commitment to the change
process?
6. To what extent can discrepancies among stakeholder perspectives be addressed in the interests of
authentic organizational change?
Appendix V: Sample Thematic Charts 3
7. How and in what ways can follow-up measures be set in place to ensure that embrace of change is
ongoing and long-lasting?
8. Which logistical issues need to be addressed regarding buy-in and commitment to change? Why?
THEME 2: SYSTEMIC IMPACT
Question: To what extent do the components or “parts” speak to and inform one another?
Keywords: interconnection of structures and systems; integrated whole; intentionality of parts;

communication; coherence; holistic; vision congruence.
OVERVIEW
XYZ is based on the premise that programs that are integrated into a systemic and aligned whole will
create the synergy necessary to facilitate and promote transformational change in a school’s culture.
XYZ approaches change from a systems perspective, viewing the organization as being synergistically
interconnected as an “integrated whole.” As such, achieving and sustaining enduring change of necessity
requires systemic alignment.
XYZ was conceptualized as a holistic and comprehensive change effort, and is generally appreciated
as such. XYZ provided tools and support that continue to enable and contribute to multiple changes
including integrated curricula, improved pedagogy, and transformed infrastructure of lay and
professional leadership, including well-structured committees with high levels of lay leadership
involvement.
FINDINGS/OUTOMES
1. XYZ is viewed as bringing about long-lasting change in school culture. Those who experienced XYZ
view their schools as purposeful and goal oriented.
2. Participants understand the systemic and holistic nature of change, and recognize that achieving
long-term impact requires that all stakeholders share commitment to the process. XYZ components
are for the most part understood as interconnected and necessary, and the full process is viewed as
rich and effective.
3. While some stakeholders perceived weaknesses in particular areas, and while some felt that the
full complement of components simultaneously applied was exhausting, most felt that all of the XYZ
components were essential for schools to receive maximum benefit.
4. Moreover, stakeholders believe that a school’s capacity for ongoing change, development, and
improvement reflects the systemic nature of the change process itself.
“Through XYZ we learned that change has to be systemic and that all players have to have buy-in and
a stake in what we do for the program to be successful. I don’t think that any one component was more
important than the others. I don’t think we would have had success if any component was eliminated.”
(Education director)
“We wouldn’t have been as successful if we hadn’t gotten all the pieces. All the pieces together led to
systematic growth and development. All the components work well together, and are interconnected.”
(Education director)
“All the pieces fit together. I cannot conceive of implementing only one part. One needs all the supporting
structures to derive the full benefit.” (Lay leader)
“I am not really sure that I can think of how we may have turned out if we only had part of XYZ. Everything
seemed to be so vital to us.” (Lay leader)
(Continued)
“The strength of XYZ is the comprehensiveness. Doing two pieces won’t work. I think that from a logical
view that would not have been enough. In past we had done that; we had improved only this or that.”
(Principal)
“XYZ was a systemic change effort and brought about curriculum revisions, board changes and growth,
and professional development. These are all components of a system that work together and rely on each
other.” (Professional leader)
1. What is the extent of consensus and/or discrepancy among stakeholders regarding systemic impact?
Why?
2. What are the key facilitators and barriers involved in creating and implementing XYZ as an integrated
whole?
3. What structural processes need to be in place to keep the process moving forward as an “integrated
whole”?
4. What action needs to be taken to strengthen existing resources?
5. How and in what ways can additional information/experiences/training and/or resources be

introduced to enhance ongoing systemic impact?
6. What follow-up measures or methodology can be set in place to encourage and ensure ongoing
systemic impact?
7. Which logistical issues need to be addressed? Why?
8. What are the challenges to addressing logistical issues? Why?
THEME 3: ENCULTURATION
Question: To what extent is the culture significantly transformed?
Keywords: commitment; visibility; common language; history; norm; institutional memory; model of
excellence; artifacts, espoused beliefs and values; assumptions.
OVERVIEW
Guided by a belief in the centrality of an integrated systems approach, XYZ is based on the premise
that only those programs that are integrated into a coherent systemic whole will create the synergy
necessary to facilitate and promote transformational change in a school’s culture.
Culture is an abstraction, yet the forces that are created in social and organizational situations deriving
from culture are powerful. At the surface is the level of artifacts; the visible products of a group,
including its language, style, stories, and observable rituals and ceremonies. At deeper levels culture
includes espoused beliefs and values and basic underlying assumptions (Schein, 2010).
Even if a “visible entity” is not apparent, cultural assumptions and values must be strong enough to
sustain change and ongoing growth. An issue for consideration is whether and to what extent the culture
is ingrained in schools, and whether not just the impact but the process and underlying philosophy of XYZ
are identifiable.
FINDINGS/OUTCOMES
While the systemic impact of XYZ is clearly evident, and while XYZ for the most part is integrated with the
schools’ history and culture, in most cases XYZ is no longer a “visible” entity in itself.
While a majority of teachers surveyed report that the XYZ approach to teaching and learning is still
strongly felt in their school, a lesser number of teachers report that XYZ is still spoken about or
discussed in their schools.
While XYZ may have become institutionalized as the “norm,” the finding that it is not a term that is widely
used or recognized suggests that not in all instances has XYZ been strongly sustained to the degree that it is
part of a school’s culture and history. Moreover, many point out that XYZ practices are not regularly revisited.
This raises a concern regarding sustainability of the change process, which is discussed as Theme 6.
“Things are so ingrained and systematized that we don’t talk about ‘XYZ’ anymore. Many laypeople came
in after NESS was in place. The education director has the history, but they (laypeople) don’t have the
history, so we don’t talk about XYZ per se.” (Education director)
“Those who went through XYZ understand what it was, and what it set out to achieve. Those who didn’t
go through XYZ themselves understand what it means to be a XYZ school. We don’t use ‘XYZ language,’
but our actions, behaviors, expectations, the way the school runs as a whole, is ‘XYZ’ . . . We are so many
years out, so we don’t talk about ‘XYZ’, but it has become who we are; it’s the norm.” (Education director)
“We don’t mention XYZ anymore. A lot of the practices have become part of the school’s culture in terms
of raising the bar professionally.” (Education director)
“I like to think that we have integrated what we have gained through XYZ. We don’t look at it as a
stand-alone entity any more. My hope is that rather as a ‘special program’ XYZ becomes an indication of
institutional change.” (Education director)
“XYZ is not a word anybody would recognize. XYZ is not visible. I’m not sure how much XYZ is still
apparent in this school.” (Education director)
“Some of us have lived through the initial period of XYZ, and now it is institutionalized; but it isn’t
something that is talked about.” (Lay leader)
“We were very excited about XYZ and that positive things came out of it . . . I would like it to be back in the
forefront, and have open discussions and thinking around what XYZ is about.” (Principal)
“There is no culture or language that would speak directly to XYZ. They talk about XYZ here, but on
the whole I don’t see it as part of the ongoing life of the school. As a whole, I don’t think it is part of our
regular currency.” (Teacher)
1. To what extent are stakeholders aware of XYZ as an ongoing change effort including its philosophy,
process, and impact? Why? Why not?
2. What is the extent of consensus and/or discrepancy among stakeholders regarding cultural change in
XYZ schools? Why?
3. In what ways can the impact of XYZ become identifiable?
4. How can XYZ as a “brand” (process and philosophy) be identifiable?
5. What structural processes need to be in place to sustain the XYZ culture?

6. What are the key facilitators and barriers involved in sustaining the XYZ culture?
Source: Thematic charts first appeared in Bloomberg, L. D. (2010). Understanding qualitative inquiry: Content and pro-
cess (Part II). Unpublished manuscript.
EXAMPLE 2
Performing Arts in the Digital Space: Handling Uncertainty by Reshaping

Expectations and Seizing Opportunities
The study’s conceptual framework was guided by connected learning as intersected with a
Freirean view of emancipatory education. In their analysis, the researcher took both a top-down
(deductive) and bottom-up (inductive) approach; first, seeking how elements of connected
learning (i.e., shared practices toward shared purposes; connections across settings; sponsorships
of youth interests) were manifested in the interviews; and second, how interview anecdotes
informed emergent themes. The connected learning (CL) elements were complemented by a
Freire-inspired (F) element the researcher called handling uncertainty. After a close and iterative
analysis of the interviews, seven emergent themes were derived that illustrate how performing
arts teachers adapted their instruction online as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
TABLE A ■ Turning to the Digital Space in the Times of COVID-19: Emergent

Themes.
Connected
Learning (CL)
Element/
Freirean (F) Name of
Element Theme Definition Example
Shared practices Centering Coming together to Students worked together to
toward shared collaboration collaborate on a project create part of a chain story.
purposes (CL) toward a shared goal
Connections across Centering Bridging the home and The extension to family is
settings (CL) community school environments really key, and to the wider
school community.
Sponsorship of Centering Student ideas are Allowing the students to sort
youth interests student voice accounted for, sought, of guide the direction that we
(CL) and implemented go in, whatever the topic
Shifting of power Democratization of the You could start talking about
classroom, with democracy (...) when we all
students and teachers have the same screen, same

on
space on the screen.
equal terms
Connected
Learning (CL)
Element/
Freirean (F) Name of
Element Theme Definition Example
Handling Changing COVID-19 has This whole idea of meeting
uncertainty (F) expectations necessitated a change kids where they’re at. It’s like
in
absolutely the most important
expectations
thing and has to be done in
order to keep them with us.
Embracing COVID-19 has opened Look for the opportunities that
opportunities up the door to new this in itself presents. That
opportunities could be something that we
wouldn’t have been able to
achieve in person.
Facing COVID-19 has come That’s something I’ve
challenges with an undisputed been struggling with,
number of challenges because with
performance and
storytelling it’s about
the in-person dynamics

APPENDIX W: SAMPLE
INTERPRETATION OUTLINE TOOL
EXAMPLE 1
Exploring the Challenges Facing Doctoral Candidates: A Case Study of the

Phenomenon of “All But Dissertation” (ABD)
ANALYTIC CATEGORY 1: COURSE WORK DID NOT PREPARE

STUDENTS FOR THE DISSERTATION PROCESS
It is conceivable that the course work is not the primary reason that students are not progressing.
Why? What are other possibilities? There are two major underlying themes: program design
and personal factors.
Program Design
Why?
• The primary purpose of higher education is to foster critical thinking by exposing

students to philosophical and theoretical concepts. The focus, therefore, is not to
prepare students to be practitioners, but rather to develop students as academic
scholars.
• Aside from the research skills, writing skills are not easily taught. Course work cannot
be expected to fully prepare one for a project as intense and complex as a dissertation.
• Unlike quantitative research, qualitative research is not as structured, systematic, and
procedural. Students have no prior experience with this type of work. It is unfamiliar
to them. As such, course work cannot fully prepare students for the experience of doing
it. Students learn by doing; that is, through experience.
• Doctoral programs arec not always designed to provide a supportive environment.
• The academic institution in general and doctoral programs in particular have an
expectation that students working on a terminal degree will most likely be highly
self-directed. This expectation is often unspoken. Is this expectation realistic? The
expectation among many doctoral students is that, as part of their educational
experience, they will be prepared to carry out research and write a dissertation.
1
• Unprepared may mean that students are unsocialized as to the scope and meaning of
a dissertation. This is about the traditional institution of a doctoral dissertation and
all the expectations that go along with it, including the political aspects involved
with faculty, the university system/institutional protocol (ambiguities, nuances,
rules, regulations), working with committee members (who often have differing
requirements), and so on. Students often do not have a good grasp of the policies and
procedures involved. The "system" is oten unfamiliar to them, hence the general feeling
of “unpreparedness.”
• NOTE: We must acknowledge that some programs do a much better job at preparing
their students than others. This is not reflected in this study's sample.
Personal Factors
Why?
• Personal idiosyncrasies can come into play, including such things as motivation,
commitment, academic ability, and other psychological and personal factors and
inadequacies. It may be that some students are not sufficiently motivated to do the
rigorous work, others are not con-ident in their own ability, and still others simply do
not possess the requisite skills to conduct research and write the dissertation.
• NOTE: Some students do succeed. So what are the factors that lead to success?
Links to literature on higher education/doctoral programs and adult learning theory

(self-directed learning; experiential learning; informal learning).
ANALYTIC CATEGORY 2: WHAT STUDENTS NEEDED TO

LEARN AND HOW THEY ACQUIRED THAT LEARNING
Students acknowledged that to do the dissertation they needed knowledge of both content and
process. Why? Because content and process are intertwined. There were two areas of knowl-
edge: Content knowledge and process knowledge.
Content Knowledge
Why?
• It may be that during the course work students were focused on other course demands.
That is, they were not ready to learn about research because they had not yet begun
really thinking about their dissertations. Therefore, the work was not yet “relevant.”
• When they did start paying attention to dissertation work, they didn’t always know
how to go about conducting research.
Appendix W: Sample Interpretation Outline Tool 3
Process Knowledge
Why?
• When students later embarked on dissertation work, it was completely unfamiliar.

They have never carried out a research project like this before and did not understand
the rigor involved in doctoral-level research.
• They were not receiving the necessary support in the process.
• They didn’t have the confidence that they would get the help they needed from advisors
or through post–course work seminars.
• Motivation is dissipating. Students have spent many years at this point and, despite
all good intentions, are not sufficiently motivated to complete the dissertation.. Both
extrinsic and intrinsic factors come into play. Which are more compelling?
Because their course work was seemingly not preparing them adequately, students sought
knowledge and support elsewhere.
How Did They Derive the Knowledge They Needed? This Occurred Both
Informally and Formally:
Largely Through Informal Learning
Why?
• Reliance on self. Reading and conducting literature searches. Why? We draw on

personal strengths when all else fails.
We have a preference for finding things out on our own. Adults want to be
independent.
• Reliance on colleagues. Why?
We draw on strengths of others “in the same boat” both for support and for
know-how. Learning with colleagues is less threatening than approaching “experts.”
Literature shows that adults tend to learn best through dialogue, reflection, and
collaboration, rather than in isolation. Therefore, seeking out a learning community is
intuitive.
• Informal learning is not surprising. Why?
• The adult learning literature consistenly illustrates that adults tend to learn informally
in unstructured ways.
Sometimes Through Formal Learning Why?
• Students received some help in post–course work seminars.

• Seminars are not always successful. Why?
In the dissertation process there is oftentimes a lack of accountability. Because of

a “loose” program structure, students can tend to experience a lack of commitment.
Oftentimes, students are not involved in planning their goals and setting their own
objectives and outcomes. As a result, they are therefore often disconnected from the
program structure and course requirements.
This connects to literature on adult learning as it relates to cognitive development

(Knowles’s principles of adult learning; informal learning theory) and theories of motivation
(Houle, Wlodkowski).
ANALYTIC CATEGORY 3: SUPPORTS AND BARRIERS

INFLUENCING STUDENTS’ PROGRESS
In the absence of formal support, through either course work, faculty, or advisement, students
had to rely on themselves and their peers to try to understand and carry out their research.
Supports:
• Personal attributes. People speak about needing dedication, commitment,

determination, tenacity, perseverance, and persistence.
• Colleagues
Why?
Reasons discussed in Analytic Category 2.
Barriers/Impediments to Progress: Advisement Was Seen as the Biggest

Impediment. Why?
• Advisors plays a critical role at all stages of the dissertation process.

• Advisors needed for guidance and support.
• Students want to be able to seek advice from their advisors.
• Students can often have unrealistic expectations of their advisors.
Appendix W: Sample Interpretation Outline Tool 5
• Advisement can indeed be inadequate, and thereby not adequately meet the needs of
students.
• Not all advisors are committed to their students. Some might prefer the European
method; that is, students should largely be independent and fend for themselves.
Advisement can intentionally or unintentionally be less than suitable; that is, it can be a real
impediment to students’ progress.
NOTE: We must acknowledge that all things are not equal; some advisors do much more to
prepare their students than others, and this contrast is not reflected in this study’s sample.
Professional Work Demands and Personal Life Issues Are Also

Impediments. Why?
• Dissertation work is highly demanding and iterative.

• Dissertation work is often in conflict with life and career demands and other
commitments.
• Most of the participants are working adults who are confronted with the challenges
and demands of both work and school. There is a need to understand these challenges
holistically within the context of adulthood.
• Look across cases: It does not appear in this study that any demographics played a
significant role in explaining the findings one way or another.
The reasons that some students do not progress more quickly and that others abandon the
process altogether are most likely the result of a complex set of factors and combinations of fac-
tors. In other words, it does not appear to be a function of course work not preparing students,
advisors not providing adequate guidance, students not being able to handle the pressures of
daily life, or students not being sufficiently motivated or self-directed. It is most likely due to a
combination of these factors, as this research sheds light on.
Link to literature on higher education/doctoral programs and adult learning theory.
Source: An initial version of the interpretation outline tool first appeared in Bloomberg, L. D.
(2007). Understanding qualitative inquiry: Content and process (Part I). Unpublished manu-
script. A revised version appears in Bloomberg, L. D. (2011). Understanding qualitative research:
Content and process (Part III). Unpublished manuscript.
APPENDIX X: SAMPLE ANALYTIC
CATEGORY DEVELOPMENT TOOL
Outcome/
Consequence
(Research Analytic
Research Question Finding Statement Problem) Category
1. On completing course Finding 1: Students remained Category 1:

work, to what extent A majority of participants ABD because of the Acknowledging
do participants indicated that course work gap that existed the gap between
perceive that they are did not adequately prepare between course work course work
prepared to conduct them to conduct research and dissertation work. and dissertation
research and write the and write a dissertation. work
dissertation?
2. What do participants Finding 2:

perceive they needed All participants expressed
to learn in order the need to know the
to complete their content and process
dissertation? involved in conducting
research and writing a
dissertation.
3. How do participants Finding 3: The content-process Category 2:

attempt to develop The majority of participants gap could be closed Closing the
the knowledge, attempted to learn by through self-directed content-process
skills, and attitudes reaching out to colleagues learning and other gap
they perceive are and others through informal learning
necessary to complete informal means. strategies.
a dissertation?
4. What factors do Finding 4:

participants perceive The majority of participants
might assist them indicated that they were
in completing their self-reliant. More than half
dissertation? indicated that colleagues
were instrumental in
facilitating progress.
(Continued)
1
Outcome/
Consequence
(Research Analytic
Research Question Finding Statement Problem) Category
5. What factors do Finding 5: Support pertaining to Category 3:

participants perceive The majority of participants dissertation-related Leveraging
have impeded their cited lack of timely and obstacles was lacking. dissertation
progress in working consistent advisement as a support
toward completing barrier to progress.
their dissertation?
Source: This tool appears in Bloomberg, L. D. (2010). Understanding qualitative research: Content and process (Part II).
APPENDIX Y: SAMPLE
CONSISTENCY CHART OF
FINDINGS, INTERPRETATIONS, AND
CONCLUSIONS
1. The overwhelming • Course work cannot fully prepare Students who enroll in
majority of participants students for the practicalities doctoral programs should not
indicated that the involved in conducting research expect that course work alone
course work did not and writing a dissertation. will or can fully prepare them
prepare them to conduct to conduct research and write
research and write their
• Doctoral programs do not provide
their dissertations.
a supportive environment.
dissertations.
Completion of a dissertation
• There are unrealistic
is a journey the student
expectations on the part of
undertakes that is content
programs vis-à-vis what students
specific and, as such, becomes
should be able to do.
a process of discovery. The
• There are unrealistic primary purpose of course
expectations on the part of work is to provide a sound
students. theoretical foundation.
• Personal idiosyncrasies come

into play.
2. All 20 participants • Content and process are Being grounded in theory

expressed the need to intertwined. alone is insufficient. Students
know the content and to also need practical know-how,
understand the process
• During course work, students
and they need to acquire this
are not yet ready for the content
involved in conducting through more informal means.
knowledge.
research and writing In the absence of formal
their dissertations. • Later, when students embark preparation, students need to
on dissertation work, they don’t be open to learning informally.
understand the rigorous process.
• Students are unmotivated to

carry out the process.
(Continued)
1
3. A majority of participants • Adults learn best through Dialogue with colleagues in a

attempted to learn what dialogue, reflection, and similar situation can provide
they needed to know by collaboration, and so students a source of support. Dialogue
reaching out in dialogue struggling through the also offers the opportunity for
with colleagues and dissertation process seek out reflection and action.
others, rather than their colleagues. Collaborative opportunities
through more formal
means.
• Learning with colleagues who are hold the potential for
in the same boat is comforting development of new
and might be less threatening understanding and new
than approaching “experts” to learning.
ask for advice.
4. A majority of participants • Adults generally want to feel in Most adult students have a
indicated that they charge. preference for directing their
relied on themselves to own learning. Progress also is
facilitate their progress.
• Adults generally want to be
largely a function of personal
self-reliant.
More than half of these characteristics as well as
same participants also • When students find themselves in motivation and drive.
said that colleagues were a “common” situation, they tend
instrumental in helping to band together in camaraderie
them. and are empathic toward one
another.
• Determination is important!
5. A majority of participants • The advisement that is available To move forward, students

cited lack of good, does not always meet students’ need support, feedback,
timely, and consistent needs. and guidance from advisors.
advisement as a major Timely and consistent
barrier standing in the
• Students might have unrealistic
advisement must be an
expectations of their advisors.
way of their progress. integral part of the doctoral
• Advisement might be experience. The experience
intentionally or unintentionally cannot function optimally as a
ineffective, and may in fact be solitary endeavor.
a real impediment to students’
progress.
APPENDIX Z: DISSERTATION
MANUSCRIPT CHEAT SHEET
1
Appendix Z: Dissertation Manuscript Cheat Sheet 3


Completing Your Qualitative Dissertation - A Road Map From Beginning To End, Fifth Edition

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Completing Your Qualitative Dissertation - A Road Map From Beginning To End, Fifth Edition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Praise for Completing Your Qualitative Dissertation

Excellent, easy-to-use resource on developing, or supporting the development of a qualitative

And for my three children,

And for little Bella, for staying at my side, always.

My love for all of you is forever, and never ending.

Elie Wiesel, Somewhere a Master (1982)

Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Melbourne

A Road Map From Beginning to End

Linda Dale Bloomberg

Acquisitions Editor: Helen Salmon

Product Associate: Yumna Samie

Production Editor: Vijayakumar

Copy Editor: Christobel Colleen Hopman

Cover Designer: Gail Buschman

Marketing Manager: Victoria Velasquez 22 23 24 25 26 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

List of Tables xxiii

List of Figures xxv

List of Appendixes xxvii

About the Author liii

PART I TAKING CHARGE OF YOURSELF AND

PART II CONTENT AND PROCESS: A CHAPTER-BY-

PART III NEARING COMPLETION 419

Author Index 479

Subject Index 485

List of Tables xxiii

List of Figures xxv

List of Appendixes xxvii

About the Author liii

PART I TAKING CHARGE OF YOURSELF AND YOUR WORK 1

Chapter 3: Qualitative Methodology, Research Design, and Methods 13

Chapter 2 Gearing Up: There Is Method in the Madness 31

Organizing and Managing Your Project 42

Chapter 3 Choosing a Qualitative Research Design 69

Chapter 4 Ensuring Rigor and Ethics in Qualitative Research 115

The Role of the Qualitative Researcher 137

Chapter 5 Achieving Alignment Throughout Your Dissertation 147

C. Presentation of Findings: Phenomenology 171

PART II CONTENT AND PROCESS: A CHAPTER-BY-

Chapter 7 Developing and Presenting Your Literature Review 203

Seminal Works 215

Chapter 8 Presenting Research Methodology, Design, and Methods 255

Purposeful Sampling 265

Chapter 9 Analyzing Data and Reporting Findings 325

Organizing and Preparing Data for Analysis 329

Chapter 10 Qualitative Meta-Synthesis: Analyzing and

Examining Themes and Patterns 388

Chapter 11 Drawing Trustworthy Conclusions and Presenting

PART III NEARING COMPLETION 419

Assembling the Manuscript 427

Chapter 13 Defense Preparation and Beyond 443

Author Index 479

Subject Index 485

1.1 Dissertation Proposal Alignment Worksheet 26

I.1 Visualizing the Dissertation Process 3

Appendix A: Rubric for Evaluating a Completed Qualitative Dissertation

WHO SHOULD READ THIS BOOK?

T his book is essentially a dissertation in action; an explanation and illustration of content

THE PURPOSE OF THIS BOOK

THE BOOK’S STRUCTURE: A ROAD MAP FROM BEGINNING TO END

ORGANIZATION OF THIS BOOK

This book is organized in three parts:

DEFINING FEATURES OF THIS BOOK

• The focus throughout is on conceptual understanding as it relates to the practical