Qualitative research is not a paradigm: Commentary on Jackson (2015) and Landrum and Garza (2015).

Abstract

paradigmatic commitment will influence the way in which one utilizes methods of data collection and analysis . . . because there is often no one-to-one correspondence between method and paradigm, there is flexibility in the purposes to which many qualitative methods can be put and the particular paradigmatic framework they can serve . . .

Is it time to share qualitative research data?

“…In the context of such fundamental differences in approaches to data gathering, data analysis, and research goals, it is no wonder that some have rejected the idea of defining qualitative research (Madill, 2015). In fact, defining it is not only difficult, but also fraught with practical risks: ...It is unhelpful to decide on features uniquely defining qualitative research.…”

“…The potential negative implications of such a practice are that it excludes, marginalizes, and/or devalues methods falling outside or near the edge of presented definitions, the fields in which these methods tend to be used, and the research questions they are best placed to address. (Madill, 2015, p. 215)…”

Improving the career resilience of a survivor of sexual abuse

“…Madill (2015) suggests that qualitative research focuses on lived experience, which stands in agreement with Walsh (2015) who states that from an epistemological stance qualitative research is interested in experiences embedded in a real-life context. Maree (2012) seem to support the above statements, and defines qualitative research as working from the assumption that there are multiple realities that are socially constructed and presented as subjective realities (facts) through narrative (Landrum & Garza, 2015).…”

There is no generalizability crisis

“…Beyond status, a major barrier to embracing qualitative methods in mainstream psychology is the conflation of paradigms and methods (Madill, 2015), which is perpetuated by both postpositivists and constructivists (e.g., Jackson, 2015). Indeed, nearly all discussions of qualitative analysis in psychology are situated within constructivist/critical paradigms (e.g., Gergen, Josselson, & Freeman, 2015).…”