RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok

PLANNING NATURALISTIC RESEARCH 173
generating new hypotheses and assumptions (the
‘generative questions’ referred to above).
Should one have a hypothesis in qualitative
research
We mentioned in Chapter 1 that positivist approaches
typically test pre-formulated hypotheses
and that a distinguishing feature of naturalistic and
qualitative approaches is its reluctance to enter the
hypothetico-deductive paradigm (e.g. Meinefeld
2004: 153), not least because there is a recognition
that the researcher influences the research and
because the research is much more open and emergent
in qualitative approaches. Indeed Meinefeld
(2004), citing classic studies like Whyte’s (1955)
Street Corner Society, suggeststhatitisimpossible
to predetermine hypotheses, whether one
would wish to or not, as prior knowledge cannot
be presumed. Glaser and Strauss (1967) suggest
that researchers should deliberately free themselves
from all prior knowledge, even suggesting
that it is impossible to read up in advance, as
it is not clear what reading will turn out to be
relevant – the data speak for themselves. Theory
is the end point of the research, not its starting
point.
One has to be mindful that the researcher’s own
background interest, knowledge, and biography
precede the research and that though initial
hypotheses may not be foregrounded in qualitative
research, nevertheless the initial establishment
of the research presupposes a particular area of
interest, i.e. the research and data for focus are
not theory-free; knowledge is not theory-free.
Indeed Glaser and Strauss (1967) acknowledge
that they brought their own prior knowledge to
their research on dying.
The resolution of this apparent contradiction
– the call to reject an initial hypothesis in
qualitative research, yet a recognition that all
research commences with some prior knowledge
or theory that gives rise to the research, however
embryonic – may lie in several fields. These
include: an openness to data (Meinefeld 2004:
156–7); a preparedness to modify one’s initial
presuppositions and position; a declaration of the
extent to which the researcher’s prior knowledge
may be influencing the research (i.e. reflexivity);
a recognition of the tentative nature of
one’s hypothesis; a willingness to use the research
to generate a hypothesis; and, as a more
extreme position, an acknowledgment that having
a hypothesis may be just as much a part
of qualitative research as it is of quantitative
research.
Features and stages of a qualitative study
An effective qualitative study has several
features (Cresswell 1998: 20–2), and these can
be addressed in evaluating qualitative research:
The study uses rigorous procedures and
multiple methods for data collection.
The study is framed within the assumptions
and nature of qualitative research.
Enquiry is a major feature, and can follow one
or more different traditions (e.g. biography,
ethnography, phenomenology, case study,
grounded theory).
The project commences with a single focus on
an issue or problem rather than a hypothesis
or the supposition of a causal relationship of
variables. Relationships may emerge later, but
that is open.
Criteria for verification are set out, and rigour
is practised in writing up the report.
Verisimilitude is required, such that readers
can imagine being in the situation.
Data are analysed at different levels; they are
multilayered.
The writing engages the reader and is replete
with unexpected insights, while maintaining
believability and accuracy.
Stage 1: Locating a field of study
Bogdan and Biklen (1992: 2) suggest that research
questions in qualitative research are not framed
by simply operationalizing variables as in the
positivist paradigm. Rather, research questions are
formulated in situ and in response to situations
observed, i.e. that topics are investigated in all
their complexity, in the naturalistic context. The
Chapter 7