1. How does an individual’s research philosophy, or view of reality, truth and knowledge influence their approach to research?
2. What are the basic assumptions a researcher should consider when designing a study?
3. How do basic assumptions influence the way research is designed, conducted and reported (methodology and methods)?
4.  What assumptions should a researcher consider when designing qualitative, descriptive studies?

Research Philosophy 

Prior to conducting a study, an individual should reflect on his or her research philosophy, or basic assumptions about the nature of knowledge and reality. These beliefs will guide all aspects of a research project, including what knowledge a researcher considers as acceptable and desirable, along with the extent to which the researcher thinks it is necessary to remain detached from their data (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009). In general, a researcher should consider four main areas when designing a study: ontology, epistemology, methodology (the general research approach), and methods (the strategies used to collect and analyze data (Crotty, 1998). These concepts differ between qualitative and quantitative research and guide all decisions made in the design, from collection and analysis of data to interpreting and presenting the results. 

Basic Research Assumptions

 During every stage of a study, the researcher will develop and/or apply assumptions about knowledge, reality, and the research process. These basic assumptions shape how the researcher designs the research questions, the methods used to conduct the study, and the interpretation of results (Crotty, 1998). While these concepts can get very detailed and complex, a foundational understanding will help one understand how these terms or concepts inform the design and conduct of research. At a minimum, the researcher should reflect on the nature of reality (ontology) and the nature of knowledge (epistemology). 

 Ontology. Ontology is the study of the nature of reality. Since research is a dynamic, cyclical process, there is abundant debate regarding what constitutes reality (Arghode, 2012). Ontological assumptions shape the way we see the world and the context in which we determine what needs to be researched and how that research will be conducted (Saunders, et al., 2009). There are two foundational views of reality. 

• Realism is based traditional science, incorporating the assumption that reality exists separate and apart from human behavior.  
  1. Reality is based on fact and laws. 
  2. Knowledge is static and can be measured in an objective manner. 
  3. Associated primarily with quantitative research. 
• Relativism is based on the assumption that knowledge and reality are subjective and do not exist outside of the individual. 
  1. Reality is based on one’s interpretation of experiences.
  2. Truth is dynamic, constantly changing, and evolving. 
  3. Associated primarily with qualitative research. 

 One must remember that these views, or assumptions are rarely self-contained. As such, researchers often use a blended approach to their studies. This module presents the basics to allow novice researchers to develop an understanding of the foundational differences. These basic assumptions about the nature of reality (ontology) inform how one views knowledge, what is worth knowing and the validity of knowledge (epistemology).

 Epistemology. Epistemology refers to the study of knowledge and the assumptions one has about the nature of knowledge. The term also refers to how one determines what knowledge is acceptable and legitimate, and how that knowledge will be shared with others (Caelli, 2003; Saunders, et al., 2009). Two broad areas of epistemology that differentiate qualitative versus quantitative methodologies are the emic versus an etic perspective. 

• Emic perspective
  1. Truth and reality are determined from an insider’s perspective.
  2. Truth is based on the inside perspective (contextual and based on experiences)
  3. Bottom-up or inductive approach.
  4. Generally associated with qualitative research. 
• Etic perspective
  1. Truth and reality are objective determined from an outside perspective
  2.  Truth is based on facts that can be objectively measured.
  3. Top-down, or deductive approach. 
  4.  Generally associated with quantitative research

 The terms are defined in Table 1, and Figure 1 provides a visual of the general methodology associated with the perspectives. To further illustrate the concepts, YouTube offers some great videos. One is offered below and focuses on a nursing context, but the concepts are explained in a concrete manner. 

Table 1. Ontology and Epistemology

 Figure 1. Comparing approach and reality in qualitative and quantitative research.

 Epistemology associated with qualitative research can be further defined by terms such as interpretive, naturalistic or constructivist. Interpretivism takes a broad view of knowledge that is socially constructed through one’s subjective experiences (Thorne, 2008, p. 49). Researchers such as Sandelowski (2010), have implied a constructivist epistemology to descriptive studies, in that the attempt to approach individuals’ interpretations of experiences is always mediated by researcher interpretations. As its name suggests, interpretive description takes a naturalistic theoretical perspective (Thorne et al., 2004). Naturalistic inquiry purports a commitment to studying something in its natural state to the extent that is possible within the context of the research arena (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Thus, there is no pre-selection of study variables, no manipulation of variables, and no prior commitment to any one theoretical view of a target phenomenon. Using a varied set of strategies, the researcher studies the phenomenon in its natural state and does not manipulate or impede the events or outcome of the study (Colorafi and Evans, 2016). 

Methodology and Methods

Once the researcher has reflected on the assumptions regarding truth, reality, and knowledge, an appropriate method and methodology for a study can be determined. For the purposes of this module, methodology refers to the general research approach (qualitative, quantitative, or mixed). Methods refer to the strategies used to collect and analyze data (Crotty, 1998). Each research methodology has a different view of what constitutes quality evidence, and this also applies to specific disciplines, such as business, social sciences, and education. 

 Methodology. As noted in the preceding content in this module and outlined in Table 1, the general research methodology flows from the basic assumptions the researcher brings to the study regarding the nature of reality and knowledge. Quantitative methodology is associated with realism, or the view that reality is separate from human behavior, based on facts that can be objectively measured. Qualitative methodology is generally associated with relativism. Knowledge and reality are contextual, subjective, and based on experiences. Truth constantly changes and evolves. 

 Methods. Qualitative and quantitative methodologies incorporate different methods, or strategies, used to collect and interpret data. Quantitative studies focus on numeric data to objectively measure variables and test hypotheses associated with research questions. In contrast, qualitative studies collect subjective data focused on experiences and the meaning that individuals make from those experiences. Since these approaches have different goals, the researcher should clearly identify and outline his/her position and make those assumptions clear at the onset of the study. Data collection and analysis should be compatible with those assumptions (Caelli, et al, 2003). Techniques or methods indicate the way a researcher will operationalize the study. A focus group, for example, can be used to generate data; however, the way a focus group is envisioned and carried out, along with how the data are analyzed should reflect the methodology (qualitative or quantitative) (Sandelowski, 2010).

 Assumptions to Consider when Designing Qualitative, Descriptive Studies

Qualitative research is not about locating a singular truth about a phenomenon, but rather to glean the multiple ways humans perceive and experience the world. Thus, the methodology does not assume the parts can help explain the whole. These studies evolve from a variety of understandings of the world and the nature of humanity; therefore, a variety of stances are taken to evaluate qualitative research (Sandelowski, 2002). 

Qualitative inquiry takes an interpretive approach, assuming there is value in understanding the meaning that results from everyday lived interactions of people (Arghode, 2012). To compound the issue, descriptive qualitative research does not neatly fit within conventional methodologies (Caelli, et al., 2003). Thorne (2008) cautioned against the use of a priori theory that is selected in advance of data collection and used as a prescription for understanding the data. Instead, she suggested that researchers use language and references to “cue” their audience as to their disciplinary and theoretical location. Researchers may draw on various theoretical perspectives but need not declare allegiance to any one theory (Thorne, 2008). Some would embrace this stance in a positive manner because research questions do not always fit within the boundaries of a specific method. Generic or descriptive qualitative studies allow researchers to cross the boundaries of other designs to use tools that fit their own specific epistemological position, academic discipline, and research questions (Kahlke, 2014). Regardless, the researcher is ethically bound to provide ample detail about their study, methods, and approach to allow the reader to make a decision regarding a study’s quality. 

Theoretical Frameworks

Research methodology also represents theoretical frameworks that determine how the study should be conducted (Caelli, et al., 2003). Since qualitative research is value driven, the person conducting the research needs to clearly outline the values and assumptions in the study (Caelli et al, 2003). The study should be designed to align with the positions and assumptions that led to the development of the research question. These strategies allow readers to judge the quality of the research. This section will describe how to avoid common alignment issues present in descriptive, qualitative studies. These alignment issues are exposed to extra inspection in descriptive designs because the researcher borrows selected components of other methods or approaches when designing their study. When these pieces are fit into a study, those assumptions can be disregarded. or ignored (Caelli et al., 2003). To mitigate this issue, Kahlke, 2014) recommended that researchers clearly identify their disciplinary association, the process used to arrive at the research question, and the assumptions they hold about the topic under study. Additionally, the theoretical framework can help the researcher develop a foundation for the study. 

While qualitative research tends to be broadly conceptualized, there is a difference between being open-minded and empty-headed, as opposed to approaching research with an idea or reflection of the assumptions associated with the methodology (Sandelowski, 2010). A mandate for qualitative researchers is to clearly outline their philosophical stance, as noted earlier in this module, but also to outline the theory, model or law that undergirds their specific research study. Whereas epistemology refers to the foundational assumptions of a research method or design (qualitative, descriptive, for example), the theoretical framework functions as an organizational structure for the design of one’s specific research study, including sampling strategies, data collection, analysis and interpretation (Kahlke, 2014). Such frameworks affect the way in which data are ultimately viewed. 

Qualitative descriptive studies may begin with a theory of the target phenomenon or a framework for collecting or analyzing data, but that does not mean a commitment to that framework. However, it does provide an initial, organizational structure for the study. In a review of qualitative, descriptive studies Kim et. al, (2017) found that many researchers did not include any theoretical or philosophical stance. Some authors included a theoretical framework as a basis for the development of interview questions. Two authors used the theoretical framework as an organizing structure for predetermined codes or categories. These findings reflect the ambiguous nature of the descriptive design, which can end in alignment issues for even the most seasoned researcher, let alone the novice researcher. Therefore, detailed planning is needed for a qualitative descriptive study. 

 Several strategies can help researchers ensure their descriptive, qualitative study is aligned. 

1. Reflect on the assumptions brought to the research study and situate those within the discipline and context where data collection will occur. Make those philosophic assumptions clear and transparent.
2. Identify a beginning conceptual or theoretical framework to guide and focus the design of the research questions, development of instruments and as a lens through which to analyze data. The researcher can use a theory, theoretical framework, or a review of the literature to develop an organizational structure for the study. 
3. Considering the qualitative methodology, and descriptive design, develop the research questions and determine the data collection instruments that will be appropriate to answer the research questions. 
4. Data analysis is constant comparative, designed to generate a summary or broad understanding of the phenomenon. 
5. Research reports and products should be written to allow for applications to occur in the practice setting (Thorne et al., 2004).

References

 Arghode, V. (2012) Qualitative and quantitative research: Paradigmatic differences.  Global Education Journal, 4, 155-163.

 Kim, Sefcik, & Bradway (2017, November). Characteristics of qualitative descriptive studies: A systematic review. Res Nursing Health. 40(1): 23–42. doi:10.1002/nur.21768.

 Caelli, K, Ray, L., Mill, J. (2003).  'Clear as Mud': Toward Greater Clarity in Generic Qualitative Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 1-13.

 Colorafi, K. & Evans, B. (2016). Qualitative Descriptive Methods in Health Science Research. Health Environments Research & Design Journal. Vol. 9(4) 16-25.

 Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research. Sage Publications. Thousand Oaks, CA.

 Khalke R. (2014).  Generic Qualitative Approaches: Pitfalls and Benefits of Methodological Mixology. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. P. 37-52.

 Lincoln, Y. S., and Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.

 Sandelowski, M. (2000). Whatever happened to qualitative description? Research in Nursing and Health, 23, 334–340. 

 Sandelowski, M. (2010). What’s in a name? Qualitative description revisited. Research in Nursing and Health, 33, 77–84. doi:10.1002/nur.20362

 Saunders, M. N. K., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students (5th Edition). London: Pearson Education.

 Thorne, S. (2008). Interpretive description. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. 

 Thorne, S., Kirkham, S. R. and MacDonald-Emes, J. (1997). Focus on qualitative methods interpretive description: A non-categorical qualitative alternative for developing nursing knowledge. Research in Nursing and Health, 20, 169-177.

 Thorne, S., Kirkham, S.R. and O’Flynn-Magee, K. (2004, April). The analytic challenge in interpretive description. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 3 (1). 1-11.