Generic qualitative methods Sample Clauses

Generic qualitative methods. This study adopts a ‘generic qualitative method’ (Caelli et al. 2003) that seeks ‘to discover and understand a phenomenon, a process, or the perspectives and worldviews of the people involved’ without necessarily attempting to develop particular theories or explanatory frameworks’ (Merriam 1998 p.11) As such, generic methods are ‘not guided by an explicit or established set of philosophic assumptions’ (Caelli et al. 2003, p.3-4) and are therefore open to both criticism and praise. On the one hand, Caelli et al (2003) have argued that generic methods are problematic, especially regarding the transparency and robustness of the framework. However, the advantage of this method is that it encourages a ‘basic or fundamental qualitative description’ of data (Xxxxxxxxxxx 2000, p.335), which provides an ‘interpretive description’ that offers a ‘non-categorical’ approach (Xxxxxx et al. 1997, p.169). In doing so, it provides an approach to data analysis with which an evaluative framework can be overlaid, such as the CA, without falling into an overly-elaborate or convoluted theoretical framework, what might be called a ‘metaphysical swamp’ (Xxxxx and xx-Xxxxxx 2007, p.77). This offers the research both theoretical benefits, making the interpretive journey from student experience to capability analysis more direct, and practical benefits, by not overburdening the conclusions with theoretical commitments. Due to their underspecified nature, generic methods require the same degree of critical reflection and robustness that are found in established qualitative traditions. To achieve this, the discussion follows Caelli et al’s (2003) recommendations to specify four parameters of the study to enable the reader to adequately evaluate the research. These parameters involve establishing: the theoretical positioning of the researcher, the congruence between methodology and methods, the strategies to establish rigour, and the analytic lens through which the data are examined. Theoretical positioning refers to ‘the researcher’s motives, presuppositions, and personal history that leads him or her toward, and subsequently shapes, a particular inquiry’ (Caelli et al. 2003, p.9). It is important to make this ‘leading’ and ‘shaping’ explicit (Cheek 1995; Xxxxxx 1986; Rudge 1996), and this is relevant to the current study in two respects. Firstly, my experience working as a member of teaching staff and support staff in a school over 7 years has shaped my understanding of post-16 polic...