Innovation in qualitative research methods: a narrative review

Abstract

This article reviews claims for methodological innovation in qualitative research. It comprises a review of 57 papers published between 2000–9 in which claims to innovation in qualitative methods have been made. These papers encompass creative methods, narrative methods, mixed methods, online/e-research methods, focus groups and software tools. The majority of claims of innovation are made for new methods or designs, with the remainder claiming adaptations or adoption of existing methodological innovations. However, the evidence provided of wholly new methodologies or designs was limited, and in several papers such claims turned out to relate either to adaptations to existing methods, or to the transfer and adaptation of methods from other disciplines, primarily from arts and humanities. We argue that over-claiming innovation in the sense of the development of a wholly new methodology or design has a number of important implications that are potentially detrimental to qualitative social science.

But is it Innovation?: The Development of Novel Methodological Approaches in Qualitative Research

“…Identifying cases of innovation was far from straightforward. The criteria used to guide the selection of cases were that i) they had been in existence in some form for around 10 years, to allow time for uptake by the wider social science community; ii) they had been identified as 'innovations' through previous research (e.g., Bardsley and Wiles 2006;Wiles et al, 2009Wiles et al, , 2011Gilbert 2009, 2012) iii) they had a specific individual involved with their development and iv) they comprised a qualitative approach 1 . Additionally, the three cases were selected as exemplars of innovations which address methodological challenges such as enabling the study of a new area of social life, providing insight into aspects of social life that are not accessible by traditional methods or addressing the ethical, access or response issues raised by traditional methods or approaches.…”

“…Many claims to methodological innovation appear to be largely adaptations of existing methods rather than new methodologies or designs . Regardless of the status of innovation claims, it has been argued that the drive to innovation has a detrimental effect on qualitative social science in that it encourages the development of poorly thought through and investigated 'fads' in social science methods which are, arguably, to the detriment of more established 'tried and tested' methods (Travers 2009;Housley and Smith, 2010;Wiles et al 2011). However, alongside this concern, it is recognised that methodological innovation is crucial for the future relevance of qualitative research and social science disciplines (Coffey 2011).…”

Innovation in social work research

“…The problem of fad is that where we fetishise the novel we may inadvertently recast tried and tested methodologies as dated, or at worse obsolete. Traditional ethnography and conventional methods of qualitative interviewing have been so vital to our understanding of the social world, we must resist casting such methods as old hat (Wiles et al, 2011). Critics have also argued that claims to innovation are frequently overstated and can amount to little more than adapation of tried and tested methods.…”

“…Based on a review of 57 papers from 10 journals, the authors noted frequent reference to 'pushing boundaries' in social research, where authors were in fact extending tried and tested methods. Wiles et al (2011) also identified a 'solution narrative', where researchers claimed to be 'solving problems inherent in current methods, by proposing a new method' (p. 596). They noted the language of a 'remedy' or 'fresh approach' as central to those claiming solution-focused innovation.…”

“…(in Phillips and Shaw, 2011: 612) Taking a contrasting approach, Wiles et al (2011) sought to identify narratives of innovation from a detailed review of published articles that included direct reference to innovation either in the title of papers or the abstract. Based on a review of 57 papers from 10 journals, the authors noted frequent reference to 'pushing boundaries' in social research, where authors were in fact extending tried and tested methods.…”