AEIJMR Vol 5 Issue 05 May 2017 ISSN - 2348 - 6724

Understanding in Qualitative Research

*John Branch, Ph.D.
Keywords
Understanding, Qualitative research, Qualitative paradigm, Methodology, Language,
Evaluation
Abstract
Numerous articles have appeared in the literature in the last two decades which have
questioned researchers continuing reliance on the positivist, or quantitative, approach to
research. The result has been a new-found focus on non-positivist, or qualitative, approaches
to research. These approaches share the common goal of understanding, and together reject
the hypothetico-deductive, causal designs of the conventional positivist approach. This article
explores this goal of understanding in qualitative research. The notion of a paradigm as a set
of guidelines for understanding is first introduced. The variety of paradigms for understanding
is then outlined. Finally, understanding in qualitative research is discussed, with specific
reference to language, methodology, context, outcome, and evaluation.
Introduction
There is at least one philosophical problem in which all thinking men are interested. It is the
problem of cosmotology the problem of understanding the world including ourselves, and
our knowledge, as part of the world (Popper, 1959, p. 3).
These words, which appeared in Karl Raimund Poppers late 1950s book entitled The
Logic of Scientific Discovery, alluded to the central role which understanding plays in science.
Indeed, understanding the world could be considered the primary goal of all scientific
endeavours.
However, Poppers words also foreshadowed, whether purposefully or not, the
dichotomous split which has more recently taken place in the scientific community. For, with
the inclusion of ourselves, and our knowledge as part of the cosmos of which science seeks
an understanding, Popper hinted at the cavernous rift which now separates the natural and
the cultural, fact and value, object and subject that is, the continuous and often contentious
debate between quantitative and qualitative researchers. This debate is characterised, initially,
by arguments over what constitutes understanding: what does it mean to understand
something? Equally, it manifests itself in the variety of approaches to understanding: how can
we gain an understanding of something? And thirdly, the debate raises the issue of truth:
when do we know if it is a true understanding of something?
The purpose of this article is to explore these questions in qualitative research. It begins
by examining the notion of a paradigm as a set of guidelines for understanding. The variety of
paradigms for understanding is then outlined. Finally, understanding in qualitative research
is discussed, with specific reference to language, methodology, context, outcome, and
evaluation.
A Paradigm for Understanding
Hirschman (1986) and Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggested that researchers must make
an a priori ideological commitment to one philosophical project (e.g., humanism) before
undertaking research (Hirschman and Holbrook, 1992, p. 2). That is, they must buy into a
set of guidelines, prior to the start of the research, which will steer them throughout the
course of the investigation. This ideological commitment this set of guidelines is often
referred to as a paradigm (Kuhn, 1970).
1
www.aeph.in
 AEIJMR Vol 5 Issue 05 May 2017 ISSN - 2348 - 6724

A paradigm reflects a systematic set of beliefs, together with their accompanying

methods (Lincoln and Guba, 1985, p. 15), and provides the foundation for scientifically
rigorous research. It is a set of primary assumptions (axioms) that are accepted on faith; that
is they are based on beliefs about the nature of reality whose truth or falsity is not subject to
empirical test . . . [they] define what phenomena the scientist believes to be knowable, the way
in which the phenomena may become known, and criteria for evaluating what becomes
known (Hirschman, 1986, p. 238). In other words, a paradigm governs the researchers
specific philosophical approach to understanding.
Quantitative versus Qualitative Understanding
However, the term understanding itself has been construed in different ways by different
researchers. For quantitative researchers, who buy into the axioms of positivism,
understanding has become synonymous with prediction or explanation. One can understand
a phenomenon by identifying the causes of the phenomenon and by predicting or explaining
outcomes of the phenomenon as a result of changes in the causes. The understanding of the
phenomenon the researchers predictive and explanatory ability is refined through
continuous hypothetical experimentation.
Qualitative researchers would argue, though, that neither prediction, nor explanation, is
equal to understanding. Explanation, the province of empirical research, can never furnish
understanding a clear grasp of the meaningful structure of an experience where that
quality is initially lacking (Dukes, 1984, p. 202). And prediction will not necessarily permit
us to comprehend the meaning [of the phenomenon] (Hudson and Wadkins, 1988, p. 259).
Qualitative research, therefore, must be descriptive as opposed to explanatory or predictive
and must concentrate on interpretive understanding (verstehen) (Smith, 1983, p. 7).
Qualitative researchers would suggest further that positivism was initially conceived as
partly a description of, and partly a prescription for, the conduct of the natural sciences
(Howe and Eisenhart, 1990, p. 3). And, since nature and culture are inherently different, they
require different methods of study (Hughes, 1990, p. 90). Indeed, when we have different
goals, we must use different means to achieve them.
Moreover, in taking the physical sciences as their model, [quantitative researchers] have
artificially constrained the legitimate area of inquiry (Dukes, 1984, p. 197). They have
misconstrued the nature of social action, and hence social reality . . . by relegating the
elements of meaning to a subjective role and merely versions of social reality (Hughes, 1990,
p. 116).
Quantitative researchers, however, have had similarly potent rebuttals to the nature of
the qualitative paradigm for understanding. For example, they claimed that qualitative
research lacks scientific rigour, often relying on makeshift methodologies and intuitive
analysis. They pointed to the bias injected seemingly into every stage of a qualitative research
study. And they questioned the utility of the non-generalisable and (frequently) descriptive
results of qualitative research. How could this be understanding? they asked.
But the essence of this on-going quantitative/qualitative dialogue stems from the very
philosophical axioms to which each paradigm is rooted, and, to repeat Hirschman (1986),
whose truth or falsity is not subject to empirical test (p. 238). The three primary axioms
(Denzin and Lincoln, 1998) are: ontology, or the nature of reality; epistemology, or the
relationship between the researcher and the phenomenon; and methodology, or the process of
reason. These three in turn influence axiology, or the rle of values in research, and rhetoric,
or the language of research. A comparison of these axioms for both the quantitative and
qualitative paradigms is summarised in Table 1; the striking differences between the two
paradigms are evident.

2
www.aeph.in
 AEIJMR Vol 5 Issue 05 May 2017 ISSN - 2348 - 6724

Table 1. Axioms of the Quantitative and Qualitative Paradigms

Axiom Quantitative Paradigm Qualitative Paradigm
The nature of reality Reality is single, Realities are multiple,
(ontology). tangible, and constructed, and
fragmentable. holistic.
The nature of social Individuals are Individuals are
beings. deterministic and voluntaristic and
reactive. proactive.
The position of Time- and context-free Only time- and context-
generalisation. generalisations bound working
(nomothetic statements) hypotheses (ideographic
are possible. statements) are possible.
The possibility of There are real causes, All entities are in a state
causal statements. temporally precedent to of mutual simultaneous
or simultaneous with shaping, so that it is
their effects. impossible to
distinguish causes from
effects.
The relationship Knower and known are Knower and known are
between the knower independent a interactive, inseparable.
and the known dualism.
(epistemology).
The role of values Inquiry is value-free. Inquiry is value-bound.
(axiology).
The process of reason Deductive, static designs Inductive, dynamic,
(methodology). are common, focusing emerging processes are
on validity and common, based on
reliability. verification.
The language of Formal, impersonal Informal, personal
research (rhetoric). language is used, based language is used, based
on a set definitions and on evolving definitions.
accepted words.

Adapted from: Lincoln and Guba, 1985, p. 37; Creswell, 1994, p. 5; Hudson and Ozanne,
1991, p. 508.

3
www.aeph.in
 AEIJMR Vol 5 Issue 05 May 2017 ISSN - 2348 - 6724

Variety of Paradigms for Understanding

Hirschman and Holbrook (1992), however, argued that the bipolar nature of this
quantitative/qualitative split is false that instead, there is a variety of paradigms which fall
along a continuum of philosophical positions on the origin of understanding (See Table 2.).
One extreme of the continuum is governed by material determinism, the other by mental
determinism; the middle is comprised of other paradigms. Each of these differs with respect to
its specific approach to understanding. The terms quantitative and qualitative figure only at
the level of method, and not paradigm (Crotty, 1998).

Table 2. A Continuum of Philosophical Positions on Understanding

Material Mental
Determinism Determinism
Philosophy Empiricism Constructio Interpretivism Subjectivism Rationalism
nism
View of Physical Social Linguistic Individual Mental
Reality construction of constructio construction of construction of construction of
reality n of reality reality reality reality
Methodology Common- Marxism, Hermeneutics, Phenomenology, Ideals, innate
sense ethnometho semiotics, existentialism ideas,
empiricism, dology, structural archetypes
logical genetic criticism
empiricism structuralis
m

Adapted from: Hirschman and Holbrook, 1992, p. 8.

But material determinism most resembles the positivist or neo-positivist paradigm to

which many of the so-called quantitative researchers subscribe. The emphasis it places on
the role of experience in providing empirical evidence corresponds to the general hypothetico-
deductive method . . . widely adopted by the consumer-behavior mainstream (Hirschman and
Holbrook, 1992). The remaining paradigms on the continuum could ostensibly be labelled
non-positivist, supporting the convention of researchers to lump them all under a single
qualitative umbrella.
Understanding in Qualitative Research
However, despite the argument of Hirschman and Holbrook (1992) for a continuum of
paradigms, the literature continues to treat the alternatives to traditional positivist research
as a single approach often called the qualitative approach (Jacob, 1987, p. 1). And it
appears that a number of commonalties with respect to understanding can be traced in this
qualitative approach. Together, these commonalties suggest a core of recurring features for
understanding in non-positivist studies, which are configured differently in any particular
research tradition along the continuum (Miles and Huberman, 1994).
Qualitative Understanding Defined
So, understanding in qualitative research is defined here not as prediction or
explanation, like in the positivist paradigm, but as the eidos, or sense, of a particular
4
www.aeph.in
 AEIJMR Vol 5 Issue 05 May 2017 ISSN - 2348 - 6724

phenomenon. It does not entail or require knowledge of how to predict or control a

phenomena (Lindlof, 1995, p. 9). Rather, the goal of understanding in qualitative research is
to uncover the inherent logic of that experience or phenomenon, the way in which it makes
sense to its subjects (Dukes, 1984, p. 198).
This level of understanding calls for the researcher to empathise with members of a
particular culture to achieve verstehen by grasping the shared meanings within a culture of
language, contexts, roles, rituals, gestures, arts, and so on (Hudson and Ozanne, 1988, p.
510). It emphasises the meanings which human beings use to structure their existence, and
requires an explanation of the constitutive meanings of phenomena (Lindlof, 1995, p. 9).
Understanding in qualitative research, unlike prediction and explanation, necessitates a
wider view of the phenomenon within its context. Realities are wholes and cannot be
understood in isolation, nor can they be fragmented for separate study of their parts (Lincoln
and Guba, 1985, p. 39). And therefore, researchers must gain a holistic (systematic,
encompassing, integrated) overview of the context under study: its logic, its arrangements, its
explicit and implicit rules (Miles and Huberman, 1994, p. 6).
The Language of Qualitative Understanding
It follows, then, that realities cannot be identified in abstract from the language in which
they are embedded (Hughes, 1990, p. 116). That is, the holism, verstehen, and eidos, which
define understanding in qualitative research, can only be achieved by comprehending the
language which the informants use to structure and make sense of their worlds. This is in
contrast with the positivist paradigm which focuses on a priori concepts, well defined from
accepted definitions (Creswell, 1994, p. 6), and in an impersonal, objective, and formal
voice a neutral scientific language that [rises above] context-bound and value-laden
everyday language (Smith, 1983, p. 7).
With qualitative research, the collection of data focuses on the natural responses of
informants; the researcher records faithfully the language used to describe their realities the
in vivo expressions, jargon, phrases, codes, gestures, signs. Every care is taken to preserve
them in their natural states, to maintain them in their original forms throughout the study
(Miles and Huberman, 1994, p. 7).
The analysis of this qualitative informant data concentrates on the interpretation of the
in vivo language. Indeed:
Most analysis is done with words. The words can be assembled, subclustered, broken into
semiotic segments. They can be organized to permit the researcher to contrast, compare,
analyze, and bestow patterns upon them . . . the researcher may isolate certain themes and
expressions that can be reviewed with informants (Miles and Huberman, 1994, p. 6).
Finally, the reporting of the data analysis in qualitative research also reflects this
concern for the natural, subjective language of the informants, through the rhetoric of the
report itself (Firestone, 1987). Qualitative researchers prefer non-technical report writing
because it is more adapted to a description of multiple realities; suited to description of
influences, value positions of the researcher, methodological paradigm, etc. (Lincoln and
Guba, 1985, p. 39). Moreover, it encourages researchers to make words mean something by
virtue of their resonance in human lives (Holbrook, 1995, p. 24).
The Methodology of Qualitative Understanding
Understanding in qualitative research also points, methodologically, to the tight
interrelationship between the researcher and the phenomenon under study. They are
mutually interactive. The researcher cannot distance the self from the phenomenon nor can
the phenomenon be understood without the personal involvement of the researcher
5
www.aeph.in
 AEIJMR Vol 5 Issue 05 May 2017 ISSN - 2348 - 6724

(Hirschman, 1986, p. 238).

This, again, is in contrast to the positivist paradigm of research, which advocates
researcher objectivity that is, when the researcher is independent from that being
researched (Creswell, 1994, p. 5). In qualitative research, the investigator and what [is] being
investigated [are] impossible to separate, and what exists in the social and human world [is]
what we (investigators and laymen) think exist (Smith, 1983, p. 7). Therefore, the qualitative
researcher becomes part of the research context and attempts to capture data on the
perceptions of local actors from the inside (Miles and Huberman, 1994, p. 6).
This interrelationship between the researcher and the research context also means that
relatively little standardised instrumentation is used in the methodology (Lincoln and Guba,
1985, p. 39). The researcher is essentially the main measurement device in the study (Miles
and Huberman, 1994, p. 6), and the research relies on this human instrument for generating
the thick description, content and textual analysis to yield an interpretation (Murray and
Ozanne, 1991, p. 133).
Moreover, this interrelationship prescribes an intensity between the researcher and the
research context, which is otherwise avoided by the traditional positivist researcher.
Qualitative research is conducted through an intense and/or prolonged contact with a field
or life situation (Miles and Huberman, 1994, p. 6), and cannot be achieved at arms length.
Due to this interrelationship and intensity between the qualitative researcher and the
research phenomenon, research inquiry is [therefore] inherently value-laden because
researcher values inevitably influence the choice of phenomenon, choice of method, choice of
data, and choice of findings (Hirschman, 1986, p. 238). Qualitative researchers, then,
attempt to remove these values by removing pre-conceptions about the topics under study
(Miles and Huberman, 1994). Called phenomenological bracketing, it involves the process of
temporarily suspending any consideration of the facts, in order to uncover the essential
principle of an experience (Dukes, 1984, p. 198).
Understanding in qualitative research also suggests that the use of multiple methods of
data collection methods which reflect the belief in multiple realities and which offer more
flexibility (Lincoln and Guba, 1985, p. 39). This multiplicity of methods also provides the
sensitivity to value patterns and shaping influences, hidden meanings, and the eidos and
verstehen needed for understanding the sensitivity which, qualitative researchers argue,
quantitative research methods lack.
Among these methods is the acceptance of tacit knowledge. The qualitative researcher
argues for legitimation of tacit (intuitive, felt) knowledge in addition to propositional
(expressed in language form) knowledge (Lincoln and Guba, 1985, p. 39).
A concurrent belief of this multi-method perspective is the acknowledgement of the need
for flexibility in the inductive data-collection and data-analysis processes. Interaction is
impossible to pre-define, and an a priori theory could never fit multiple realities. Therefore, the
qualitative researcher allows the research design to flow, to emerge, rather than constructing
it a priori, and the theory (patterns, propositions, themes) emerges from the data analysis
(Lincoln and Guba, 1985).
The Context of Qualitative Understanding
Understanding in qualitative research, in terms of context, necessitates focus-determined
boundaries. That is, the qualitative researchers aim to understand a phenomenon in context
(Robson, 1997, p.52) dictates the setting of boundaries of the inquiry on the basis of the
emergent focus that is, the multiple realities which emerge throughout the inquiry draw
focus on the inquiry (Lincoln and Guba, 1985, p. 39).

6
www.aeph.in
 AEIJMR Vol 5 Issue 05 May 2017 ISSN - 2348 - 6724

Setting these boundaries is not possible without intimate contextual knowledge

surrounding the phenomenon. Moreover, understanding the context is crucial in deciding
whether or not a finding may have meaning in some other context as well (Lincoln and Guba,
1985, p. 41).
Understanding a phenomenon in context also intimates purposive sampling which
thereby increases the scope of data and full array of multiple realities (Lincoln and Guba,
1985, p. 42). Strictly theoretically, a sample size of one would suffice . . . [although] . . . it is
wise to expand the sample to include three, five, or perhaps even ten subjects (Dukes, 1984,
p. 200).
A further contextual assumption is that the qualitative researcher is interested in daily
phenomena those events which represent the everyday lives of the informants. The main
task, is to explicate the ways in which people in particular settings come to understand,
account for, take action, and otherwise manage their day-to-day situations . . . these
situations are typically banal or normal ones, reflective of the everyday life of individuals,
groups, societies, and organisations (Miles and Huberman, 1994, p. 7).
And finally, unlike quantitative research which often uses contrived, manipulative, and
experimental designs to measure these phenomena, the qualitative researcher carries out
research in context (Lincoln and Guba, 1985, p. 43). Understanding of a phenomenon can
only be achieved in its natural setting.
The Outcome of Qualitative Understanding
The scientific outcome of understanding in qualitative research is the development of an
ideographic body of knowledge consisting of tentative statements about a particular
phenomenon (Hirschman, 1986, p. 238). Qualitative research does not create universal
theories.
Instead, the qualitative researcher strives to construct a thick description (Geertz,
1973) of the phenomenon under study, which details its complexity and internally constructed
meanings (Hirschman, 1986, p. 238). Complexity cannot be stripped away, as in quantitative
research; meanings are embedded in the complexity.
The qualitative researcher avoids making broad sweeping statements because of
multiplicity of the realities; contexts may vary considerably (Lincoln and Guba, 1985, p. 42).
Because phenomena are engaged in a process of continuous creation, it is meaningless to
designate one set of phenomenal aspects as causes and another set as effects (Hirschman,
1986, p. 238). Instead, the qualitative researcher generates tentative hypotheses about a
phenomena, which are subject to constant recourse to research experience [and which]
cannot at any point enjoy certification as final (Albert, 1956, p. 244).
These tentative hypotheses, are social constructions resulting from the subjective
interaction between the researcher and the phenomenon (Hirschman, 1986, p. 238). They
involves negotiated outcomes . . . negotiated meanings from interactions with informants
(Lincoln and Guba, 1985, p. 43). So, in this sense, understanding is subjectively attained; [it]
is constructed, not discovered (Hirschman, 1986, p. 238).
And finally, since there often exist multiple realities, inquiry into these multiple realities
will inevitably diverge (each inquiry raises more questions that it answers) (Lincoln and Guba,
1985, p. 37). Prediction and control are unlikely outcomes; however, understanding
(verstehen) can be achieved.
Evaluating Qualitative Understanding
This appreciation of multiple realities, results subsequently in the possibility of multiple
constructions or interpretations. However, it is argued that some are more compelling for
7
www.aeph.in
 AEIJMR Vol 5 Issue 05 May 2017 ISSN - 2348 - 6724

theoretical reasons or on grounds of internal consistency (Miles and Huberman, 1994, p. 6).
The challenge to the researcher, then, is to insure that the interpretation is indeed a valid
interpretation, or, that the understanding is true.
Validity, however, is seen here not in the positivist vein; instead, it is seen in terms of the
trustworthiness of the interpretation. It is a measure of the authenticity (Lincoln and Guba,
1985) of the interpretation. The researcher must strive to maximize credibility (Glaser and
Strauss, 1965) of the research process and the interpretation.
The problem, then, lies in the choice of criteria for evaluating the interpretation.
Qualitative researchers argue that there are special criteria for trustworthiness that the
positivist evaluation criteria of validity, reliability, and generalisabilty do not apply to
interpretive work (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). No social research is accurately portrayed by
positivism, and thus positivism should not serve as the foil against which standards for
qualitative research should be developed (Howe and Eisenhart, 1990, p. 3).
Qualitative researchers, however, have been quick to adopt the validity-reliability-
generalisability framework (for example: Creswell, 1994; Miles and Huberman, 1995) in the
development of their interpretive evaluation criteria (Maxwell, 1992). Hirschman (1986)
outlined four evaluation criteria, termed credibility, transferability, dependability, and
confirmability.
Credibility alludes to whether the interpretation is credible to constructors of the
multiple realities. That is, confidence in the interpretation is buttressed by local
groundedness (Miles and Huberman, 1995, p. 10). Dukes (1984) refers to this as the eureka
factor, where outside readers see the logic in the interpretation of the qualitative researcher
as their own. If the researcher succeeds in seeing the structural invariants of an experience
and in faithfully articulating them (which would require more vivid and jargon-free language
than is currently standard in the human sciences), then the reader should spontaneously
recognize the faithfulness of the description (p. 201).
Transferability is analogous to generalisability, and measures the ability of the
interpretation to transfer to other contexts. Can the knowledge of this particular phenomenon
be extended to or subsumed by another phenomenon? Lincoln and Guba (1985) call this
understanding and management the development of patterns and working hypotheses
from an empathetic understanding, and the use of these hypotheses in pertinent situations.
Dependability is akin to reliability and refers to how the interpretation compares to other
studies of the same phenomenon/context/time and to other similar qualitative research. Have
things been done with care? Does the researcher follow best practice? Is the process
transparent and auditable (Miles and Huberman, 1995)?
And finally, confirmability suggests that the research process and the interpretation itself
are more trustworthy if they can be confirmed by external sources. So, a researcher can use a
team of auditors to review notes, transcription, data entry, interpretation, and other aspects of
the research, to provide confirmation (Dukes, 1984) (See Table 3.).

8
www.aeph.in
 AEIJMR Vol 5 Issue 05 May 2017 ISSN - 2348 - 6724

Table 3. Confirmation Questions for Qualitative Research

Criteria
Has the phenomenon been examined in the natural setting?
Is the researcher comfortable with the setting - becomes one with the
organisation?
Is the interpretation a thick description - detailed and inclusive of contextual
and historical aspects?
Does the interpretation use the language and terminology of the people being
studied?
Does the interpretation illuminate, disclose, and reveal the lived experience?
Does the interpretation rest on thickly contextualised, on thickly described
materials, and on concepts near to experience?
Is the interpretation historically embedded and temporally grounded?
Does the interpretation reflect the phenomenon as a process that is relational
and interactive?
Does the interpretation engulf what is known about the phenomenon?
Does the interpretation incorporate prior understandings and interpretations?
Do all the contextual elements coalesce into a meaningful whole?
Does the interpretation suggest an termination, or is it written to open new
avenues for research?
Adapted from: Hudson and Ozanne, 1988, p. 515.
Conclusion
Numerous articles have appeared in the ing literature lately, which have used a variety of
alternative approaches to the conventions of positivism. Together, these approaches have been
grouped under the title qualitative research, and share the common goal of understanding.
This article explored this goal of understanding in qualitative research. The notion of a
paradigm, as a set of guidelines for understanding, was first introduced. The variety of
paradigms for understanding was then outlined. Finally, understanding in qualitative research
was discussed, with specific reference to language, methodology, context, outcome, and
evaluation.
References
Albert, Ethel M. (1956), The Classification of Values: A Method and Illustration," American
Anthropologist, New Series 58, pp. 221-248.
Creswell, John W. (1994), Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, London,
England: Sage Publications.
Crotty, Michael (1998), Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the
Research Process, London, England: Sage Publications.
Denzin, Norman K., and Yvonna S. Lincoln (Eds.) (1998), The Landscape of Qualitative
Research: Theories and Issues, Thousand Oaks, U.S.A.: Sage Publications.
Dukes, Sheree (1984), Phenomenological Methodology in the Human Sciences, Journal of
Religion and Health, Vol. 23, No. 3, Fall, pp. 197-203.
Firestone, William A. (1993), Meaning in Method: The Rhetoric of Quantitative and Qualitative
9
www.aeph.in
 AEIJMR Vol 5 Issue 05 May 2017 ISSN - 2348 - 6724

Research, Educational Researcher, Vol. 16, No. 7, October, pp. 16-21.

Geertz, Clifford (1993), The Interpretation of Cultures, Glasgow, Scotland: Fontana.
Glaser, Barney G., and Anselm L. Strauss. (1965), Discovery of Substantive Theory: A Basic
Strategy of Underlying Qualitative Research, The American Behavioral Scientist, February, pp.
5-12.
Hirschman, Elizabeth C. (1986), "Humanistic Inquiry in Marketing Research: Philosophy,
Method, and Criteria," Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. XXIII, August, pp. 237-249.
_____ , and Morris B. Holbrook (1992), Postmodern Consumer Research: The Study of
Consumption as Text, Newbury Park, U.S.A.: Sage.
Holbrook, Morris B. (1995), Consumer Research: Introspective Essays on the Study of
Consumption, Newbury Park, U.S.A.: Sage.
Howe, Kenneth, and Margaret Eisenhart (1990), Standards for Qualitative (and Quantitative)
Research: A Prolegomenon, Educational Researcher, Vol. 19, No. 4, May, pp. 2-9.
Hudson, Laurel Anderson, and Julie L. Ozanne (1988), Alternative Ways of Seeking
Knowledge in Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14, March, pp. 508-
521.
Hudson, Laurel Anderson, and Marsha Wadkins (1988), "Japanese Popular Art as Text:
Advertising's Clues to Understanding the Consumer," International Journal of Research in ing,
Vol. 4, pp. 259-272.
Hughes, John A. (1993), The Philosophy of Social Research, New York, U.S.A.: Longman
Publishing.
Jacob, Evelyn (1987), Qualitative Research Traditions: A Review, Review of Educational
research, Vol. 57, No. 1, Spring, pp. 1-50.
Lincoln, Yvonna S., and Egon G. Guba (1985), Naturalistic Inquiry, London, England: Sage
Publications Limited.
Lindlof, Thomas R. (1995), Qualitative Communication Research Methods, London, England:
Sage.
Marshall, Catherine, and Gretchin B. Rossman (1995), Designing Qualitative Research,
London, England: Sage Publications Limited.
Maxwell, Joseph A. (1992), Understanding and Validity in Qualitative Research, Harvard
Educational Review, Vol. 62, No. 3, Fall, pp. 279-300.
Miles, Matthew B., and A. Michael Huberman (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded
Sourcebook, London, England: Sage.
Murray, Jeff B., and Julie B. Ozanne (1991), The Critical Imagination: Emancipatory Interests
in Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 18, September, pp. 129-144.
Popper, Karl Raimund (1959), The Logic of Scientific Discovery, London, Hutchinson
Educational.
Robson, Colin (1997), Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and Practitioners-
Researchers, Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Smith, John K. (1993), Quantitative versus Qualitative Research: An Attempt to Clarify the
Issue. Educational Researcher, Vol. 12, No. 3, March, pp. 6-13.
Tesch, R. (1990), Qualitative Research: Analysis Types and Software Tools, Newbury Park,
U.S.A.: Sage.

10
www.aeph.in