Qualitative Research Critique Essay Example

and calls for papers. The goal is to provide the IS community with useful information on qualitative research in IS (subject to copyright considerations) with as much material as possible provided -- through links -- by the original authors themselves. If you wish to cite this work, the complete citation information is included below.

Please send suggestions for improvement to the Section Editor at: m. myers@auckland. ac. nz Overview of Qualitative Research Research methods can be classified in various ways, however one of the most common distinctions is between qualitative and quantitative research methods. Quantitative research methods were originally developed in the natural sciences to study natural phenomena. Examples of quantitative methods now well accepted in the social sciences include survey methods, laboratory experiments, formal methods (e. g. conometrics) and numerical methods such as mathematical modeling. See the ISWorld Section on Quantitative, Positivist Research edited by Straub, Gefen and Boudreau (2004).

Qualitative research methods were developed in the social sciences to enable researchers to study social and cultural phenomena. Examples of qualitative methods are action research, case study research and ethnography. Qualitative data sources include observation and participant observation (fieldwork), interviews and questionnaires, documents and texts, and the researcher? s impressions and reactions.

The motivation for doing qualitative research, as opposed to quantitative research, comes from the observation that, if there is one thing which distinguishes humans from the natural world, it is our ability to talk! Qualitative research methods are designed to help researchers understand people and the social and cultural contexts within which they live. Kaplan and Maxwell (1994) argue that the goal of understanding a phenomenon from the point

of view of the participants and its particular social and institutional context is largely lost when textual data are quantified.

Although most researchers do either quantitative or qualitative research work, some researchers have suggested combining one or more research methods in the one study (called triangulation). Good discussions of triangulation can be found in Gable (1994), Kaplan and Duchon (1988), Lee (1991), Mingers (2001) and Ragin (1987) . An empirical example of the use of triangulation is Markus' (1994) paper on electronic mail. As well as the qualitative/quantitative distinction, there are other distinctions which are commonly made.

Research methods have variously been classified as objective versus subjective (Burrell and Morgan, 1979), as being concerned with the discovery of general laws (nomothetic) versus being concerned with the uniqueness of each particular situation (idiographic), as aimed at prediction and control versus aimed at explanation and understanding, as taking an outsider (etic) versus taking an insider (emic) perspective, and so on. Considerable controversy continues to surround the use of these terms, however, a discussion of these distinctions is beyond the scope of this section.

For a fuller discussion see Luthans and Davis (1982), and Morey and Luthans (1984). See also the section on philosophical perspectives below. »General References on Qualitative Research »ICIS 1996 Panel on Survey Research »ICIS 2000 Panel on Markus' 1983 Classic Study Philosophical Perspectives All research (whether quantitative or qualitative) is based on some underlying assumptions about what constitutes 'valid' research and which research methods are appropriate.

In order to conduct and/or evaluate qualitative research, it is therefore important to know what these (sometimes hidden) assumptions are. For our purposes, the

most pertinent philosophical assumptions are those which relate to the underlying epistemology which guides the research. Epistemology refers to the assumptions about knowledge and how it can be obtained (for a fuller discussion, see Hirschheim, 1992). Guba and Lincoln (1994) suggest four underlying "paradigms" for qualitative research: positivism, post-positivism, critical theory, and constructivism.

Orlikowski and Baroudi (1991), following Chua (1986), suggest three categories, based on the underlying research epistemology: positivist, interpretive and critical. This three-fold classification is the one that is adopted here. However it needs to be said that, while these three research epistemologies are philosophically distinct (as ideal types), in the practice of social research these distinctions are not always so clear cut (e. g. see Lee, 1989).

There is considerable disagreement as to whether these research "paradigms" or underlying epistemologies are necessarily opposed or can be accommodated within the one study. It should be clear from the above that the word 'qualitative' is not a synonym for 'interpretive' - qualitative research may or may not be interpretive, depending upon the underlying philosophical assumptions of the researcher. Qualitative research can be positivist, interpretive, or critical.

It follows from this that the choice of a specific qualitative research method (such as the case study method) is independent of the underlying philosophical position adopted. For example, case study research can be positivist (Yin, 2002), interpretive (Walsham, 1993), or critical, just as action research can be positivist (Clark, 1972), interpretive (Elden and Chisholm, 1993) or critical (Carr and Kemmis, 1986). These three philosophical perspectives are discussed below.