1. The Ontology and Epistemology of Qualitative Data Analysis Professor Cathy Urquhart

2. What do we mean by ontology and epistemology? How do issues of ontology and epistemology affect coding? Realist, contextual and radical constructivist perspectives on grounded theory 2 Outline

3. ONTOLOGY – beliefs about the nature of reality (Orlikowski and Baroudi 1991) eg objectivism, constructivism,subjectivism EPISTEMOLOGY - framework for knowledge (Orlikowski and Baroudi 1991) eg Positivism and post positivism, Interpretivism, Symbolic interactionism, phenomenology,hermeneutics, critical enquiry, feminism, post modernism 3 My definition of ontology and epistemology – different from yours?

4. How does our ontology and epistemology impact on our qualitative data analysis? Two key areas How we design our research How it is evaluated by others In a nutshell – to what extent do we believe that findings are waiting to be discovered in the data?

5. Takes two examples of grounded theory analysis Discusses those examples from a realist, contextualist and radical constructivist epistemologies Madill, Jordan and Shirley 2000 5

6. Several options here Transfer notions such as objectivity and reliability into the evaluation of the findings – can the findings be replicated? Use triangulation – easiest way to do this is to have more than one coder do the coding, or at least agree coding standards Pay attention to representative sampling and generalisability Common themes can be shown by two coders – thus results are broadly reproducible 6 Realism

7. Contextualism holds that all knowledge is local, provisional and situation dependent So results will vary according to the context in which the data was collected Contextualism can sometimes use a critical realist stance so the focus there would be in grounding accounts so that underlying structures can be discovered. Can triangulate, especially by consulting participants 7 Contextualism

8. Contextualism - continued Contextualism is concerned with the relationship between accounts and the situations in which they were produced. So there is a strong rationale for researchers articulating their own perspective – including age, ethnicity, gender etc The idea is that by providing the essential context, the reader can assess if the researcher and participant have the same cultural assumptions

9. Contextualism - continued Useful to be aware of different analytical styles Descriptive, deductive, thematic, speculative Goal of triangulation here is completeness not convergence

10. Radical constructivism Challenges the idea that there can be any absolute foundation for knowledge Profound distrust of language – how can it represent reality? Alternative critiques of objectivity and reliability – objectivity could be viewed as an emotionless subjectivity (and a set of values). Reliability is still subject to negotiation between scientists Challenges also the idea that a text can be internally coherent, and that evaluation should be on the basis of other texts.

11. Can assess account as to whether it extends or challenges existing theories. Internal coherence, reader evaluation etc do not guarantee reliability of analysis Aim is to explain, not predict A relativist stance – but perhaps modified when it is realised that some social structures are constant (a realist position then?) Radical constructivism cont

12. Conclusions Is radical constructivism possible for grounded theory? Our understanding of the subjectivity of the coding process can go further, always Important to distinguish between ontology and epistemology Madill, Jordan, Shirley (2000), Objectivity and Reliability in qualitative analysis: realist, contextualist and radical constructivist epistemologies, British Journal of Psychology, 91, 1-20