Article

'Clear as Mud': Toward Greater Clarity in Generic Qualitative Research

Kate Caelli
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Lynne Ray
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Judy Mill
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

© 2003 Caelli et al. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

We have observed a growth in the number of qualitative studies that have no guiding set of
philosophic assumptions in the form of one of the established qualitative methodologies. This
lack of allegiance to an established qualitative approach presents many challenges for "generic
qualitative" studies, one of which is that the literature lacks debate about how to do a generic
study well. We encourage such debate and offer four basic requirements as a point of departure:
noting the researchers’ position, distinguishing method and methodology, making explicit the
approach to rigor, and identifying the researchers’ analytic lens.

Keywords: generic qualitative research, basic qualitative research, rigor, methodology

Acknowledgements: The authors gratefully acknowledge Dr. Jennifer Medves for her thoughtful
review of the manuscript. We would also like to thank the three anonymous reviewers for their
in-depth reviews, which challenged us to make explicit our assumptions

Introduction

The impetus for this article was a casual discussion among the authors about the various challenges we
faced when reviewing manuscripts and grant proposals that did not align with any specific qualitative
approach. These challenges motivated us to extend the conversation about generic qualitative research
approaches and encourage ongoing discussion and debate about them, particularly as they are practiced
within the health sciences. Our intention is not to be prescriptive about the ways generic qualitative
studies should be carried out but to put forward our concerns for consideration. The purpose of this article
is to build on the work of Thorne, Sandelowski, and others (Thorne, Joachim, Paterson, & Canam, 2002;

1
 International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2003, 2(2)

Sandelowski & Barroso, 2002; Sandelowski, 1986, 1993, 2000; Thorne, Kirkham, & MacDonald-Emes,
1997; Thorne, 1991, 1997a) by analyzing the current state of generic qualitative research approaches and
proposing more rigorous criteria for their design and evaluation.

A variety of reasons led us to this examination and discussion. First, basic or generic approaches to
qualitative research have become quite common, even though few and disparate guidelines for their
implementation or evaluation have been proposed. We see no reason to believe that this trend toward
generic studies will be reversed; rather, there are several indications that this is a growing trend. Second,
there is the problem presented to and by masters’ students wishing to explore a qualitative research
question. In programs where course-work demands are heavy, students rarely have the time to develop an
in-depth understanding of qualitative methodological approaches. Third, there are a growing number of
clinical researchers who have good clinical questions that can only be addressed through a qualitative
approach. It is rarely feasible for these researchers to engage in a deeply theoretical and methodologically
sophisticated study, yet this should not exclude clinicians from thoughtful rigorous inquiry. Fourth, for
those who review proposals and manuscripts, there is the pragmatic concern that evaluating the scientific
appropriateness of a qualitative study that does not align itself with any particular approach or
methodology can be a particularly challenging task. Last, there are many conversations about
methodological concerns, often with conflicting arguments. With the rapid expansion of qualitative
literature, researchers face a daunting task keeping abreast of the debates. For many, a generic approach is
seen as a less demanding option.

In the literature on qualitative research, many different terms are used to define research that does not fit
within an established qualitative approach. In recent efforts to clarify generic approaches, Thorne et al.
(1997) describe ‘interpretive description’ as a ‘noncategorical’ qualitative research approach (p. 169) and
Sandelowski (2000) puts forth what she calls "basic or fundamental qualitative description" (p. 335).
Merriam (1998) refers to this genre of research as basic or generic qualitative research, whereas Brink and
Wood (2001) refer to all descriptive qualitative research as exploratory research and categorize it as a
Level 1 research endeavor. Many authors merely state that they are reporting on a qualitative study,
without defining what that means in the context. Merriam takes the view that generic qualitative research
studies are those that epitomize the characteristics of qualitative research but rather than focusing on
culture as does ethnography, or the building of theory as does grounded theory, "they simply seek to
discover and understand a phenomenon, a process, or the perspectives and worldviews of the people
involved" (p. 11).

From our perspective, generic qualitative studies are those that exhibit some or all of the characteristics of
qualitative endeavor but rather than focusing the study through the lens of a known methodology they
seek to do one of two things: either they combine several methodologies or approaches, or claim no
particular methodological viewpoint at all. Generally, the focus of the study is on understanding an
experience or an event. For this article, we define generic qualitative research as that which is not guided
by an explicit or established set of philosophic assumptions in the form of one of the known qualitative
methodologies. This article is not a plea for a purist approach to qualitative research; rather, it is a plea for
more attention to, and examination, discussion, and critique of this common and somewhat pressing
problem in qualitative research. There is a need and a place for generic qualitative research — the
question is how to do it well.

Background

We have noted the knowledge gap surrounding evaluative criteria for generic qualitative manuscripts. For
each of us, there exists the central problem of trying to reconcile various manuscripts with the purposes of
knowledge development. Just as quantitative methods grew out of objectivist or positivist philosophy,

2
 International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2003, 2(2)

most qualitative research approaches grew out of constructivist philosophy. Within this position, humans
construct knowledge out of their somewhat subjective engagement with objects in their world. What is
represented in many generic qualitative manuscripts, however, is a sparse understanding of the
importance of an epistemological or theoretical position from which to begin research.

In all its many different forms, the central aim of research is knowledge development. The processes of
knowledge development are framed by the types of knowledge that are sought and are, of necessity,
rigorous, demanding, and meticulous. These processes must be scrupulously applied throughout the
entirety of a study, to ensure that the knowledge that is developed is not flawed, and therefore of little use
to the discipline it purports to inform. The trend towards generic qualitative research, or research that does
not claim explicit philosophical foundations, is currently evolving and highly contested. For example,
Thorne et al.’s (1997) interpretive description is a noncategorical, highly interpretive approach that
requires explication of theoretical influences, and an analytic framework that locates the interpretation
within existing knowledge. In contrast, Sandelowski (2000) suggests that basic or fundamental qualitative
description is categorical, less interpretive, less abstract, and has the goal of a straight descriptive
summary of the data. While debate exists around how to conduct a generic qualitative study, this debate
has yet to address the question of how to evaluate a qualitative study that is not based on a particular
foundational premise.

Devers (1999) applies this criticism about lack of criteria to all qualitative research in health services.
Describing the search for ‘good’ qualitative research, he says that the field must engage in a collective
‘qualitative’ process to determine what criteria to adopt. We view the problem Devers describes
differently. Within the traditional or established qualitative approaches, researchers grounded within a
particular methodology generally know and state emphatically their methodological affiliations. Even
when they do not do so, it can sometimes be readily detected from the references they use and the
theoreticians to whom they give primacy. Quality criteria within methodological boundaries are available
but they are not uniformly, and only idiosyncratically, applied. A problem arises, however, when we try
to develop quality criteria that are applicable to all qualitative approaches. This task has been
unsuccessful because the fundamental suppositions, presuppositions, and premises that need to be
considered when using a particular approach vary significantly, making it virtually impossible to set
criteria that apply to all. This difficulty signals the problem for generic approaches that we seek to
address. If quality criteria for each differ, it is the mixture of approaches and methods that creates a
problem in generic research. Quality criteria that apply specifically to generic qualitative approaches are
the intent here.

In the field of education, generic qualitative studies are among the most common forms of qualitative
research (Merriam, 1998). They characteristically draw from concepts, models, and theories in
educational, developmental or cognitive psychology, or from sociology, which provide the frameworks
for the studies. Analysis of data uses concepts from the theoretical framework and generally results in
identification of recurring patterns, categories, or factors that cut through the data and help to further
delineate the theoretical frame. In the health sciences however, we see generic research studies that fail to
designate a methodological or theoretical framework, and which frequently cite incommensurable
methods of data collection and analysis.

These deficits give rise to several questions. Can one do qualitative research that is not in some sense
methodologically and, thus, philosophically oriented? Has qualitative research reached a point where we
wish researchers to adopt a received view of an approach and never question their own relationship to the
approach or phenomena? Are qualitative researchers no longer required to state the philosophic position
that guides the research, or the position of the researcher vis-a-vis the research question? Do we want to
reach these latter stages? These questions are critically important because underneath generic approaches

3
 International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2003, 2(2)

to qualitative research lies a much deeper issue: "What needs to be there for generic research to be
credible as qualitative?"

The questions that are posed within each discipline carry those disciplinary traditions and perspectives.
Science within those disciplines must accommodate and honor those perspectives. The disciplinary
perspective of the authors is nursing, even though we each have different specialty areas in nursing and
our methodological expertise differs. Thorne et al. (1997) present an impassioned and compelling
argument for "a quintessentially nursing form of science" (p. 171) in the qualitative domain. This
argument is based on nursing being an applied or practical science, without the limitations that tie many
other sciences to theoretical or methodological orthodoxy. Thorne (1997b) also makes the point that
researchers in applied disciplines who present qualitative research findings must understand that research
results may well find their way into clinical applications. However, no discipline can stand alone,
particularly in this age of multidisciplinary research. In no discipline can genuine scholarship advance
without examination, discussion, and critique of the old as well as the new. Such discussion and critique
is what is largely absent from the literature related to the many original or melded methodological
approaches in health science research. Since a great deal of discussion was previously given to defending
qualitative methodologies in health science research, it is difficult to comprehend why there appears to be
a dearth of critique of generic qualitative approaches.

Generic approaches: Specifying some parameters

Across disciplines there have been numerous attempts to begin a concerted discussion of generic forms of
qualitative research (Kvale, 1996; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Thorne et al., 1997; Sandelowski, 2000;
Silverman, 2000). In particular there has been lively discussion focused on a desire for a universal set of
criteria for evaluating the quality of qualitative reports, regardless of the approach that has been used
(Thorne, 1997b; Silverman, 2000). These discussions are important and necessary for the ultimate
development of guiding criteria. Thorne et al. (2002) make the point that "historical trends are important
to understanding the style and form of research reports, and also for evaluating the quality of the findings
on the basis of reported aspects of the inquiry process" (p. 3). Sandelowski and Barroso (2002) propose
that we shift the debate concerning quality in qualitative research from a concern with epistemology to a
focus on aesthetic and rhetorical concerns, which are part of epistemic criteria. In pursuit of this aim, they
reconceptualize research reports as a "literary technology that mediates between researcher/writer and
reviewer/reader" (p.1). They maintain that there is still no consensus on quality criteria for qualitative
research, despite many efforts over the past 20 years to develop criteria to evaluate the quality of
qualitative research. We agree with the argument of Sandelowski and Barroso that no singular set of
evaluative criteria can effectively address the wide range of methodologies that fall within the rubric of
qualitative research. Each qualitative approach needs to be evaluated in a manner that is congruent with
its epistemological and methodological origins. Similarly, generic approaches need to be evaluated from
one, or potentially many, methodologically congruent positions.

Qualitative approaches do not encompass a single universally understood position. Arising as they do
from multiple and evolving philosophic understandings of the world and the nature of humanity, there are
many different standpoints from which to evaluate qualitative research (Sandelowski, 2002). Sandelowski
and Barroso’s (2002) argument correctly posits that qualitative research can be judged only on its
individual merits based on the research report. This means that the responsibility for laying out the merits
of a particular study lies with the author(s). Qualitative researchers cannot invoke a known method in a
few words. Enough detail about the study, the approach, and the methods needs to be included so that the
reader can appropriately evaluate the research.

4
 International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2003, 2(2)

Multiple and contrasting epistemological perspectives exist, even within the qualitative research
community. There are those among us who argue that postmodernity has changed the way research is
viewed and, thus, that many of the old habits of custom and usage in science need to be overturned.
Others argue that qualitative researchers need to honour the philosophical and methodological roots rather
than overturning them. We argue from the latter position. Accordingly, we posit that research reports
aiming for credibility as generic qualitative research must address the following four key areas:

1. the theoretical positioning of the researcher;

2. the congruence between methodology and methods;
3. the strategies to establish rigor; and
4. the analytic lens through which the data are examined.

Theoretical positioning

Theoretical positioning refers to the researcher’s motives, presuppositions, and personal history that leads
him or her toward, and subsequently shapes, a particular inquiry. A researcher’s motives for engaging
with a particular study topic are never a naïve choice. The notion of researchers as value neutral observers
has long been challenged and overturned. Notions of researchers being able to "bracket" personal values
and prior knowledge of a substantive field are open to question and debate. To some extent, it depends on
one’s interpretation of bracketing. Some see it as a way of identifying and managing the researcher’s
assumptions and presuppositions about the phenomenon. Others see it as implying that these need also to
be held in abeyance. For example, in traditional or critical phenomenology, the former interpretation is
accepted and bracketing is what you do to achieve the phenomenological reduction (Caelli, 2000).
However, critical scholars have interpreted bracketing as the putting aside of one’s presuppositions and
have, therefore, discarded the notion as untenable and undesirable. This underscores the importance of
researchers indicating both the position from which they speak about the research (Cheek, 1995; Lather,
1986; Rudge, 1996) and the approach and the methods chosen to explore the topic. This turn is reflected
in the substantial literature that has accumulated around the notion of reflexivity (Koch & Harrington,
1998; Anderson, 1991; Lather, 1991; Warren & Bourque, 1991; Collins, 1990; Woolgar, 1988; Harding,
1986).

A further positioning occurs through disciplinary socialization to particular research approaches (Ray,
1999). Disciplinary socialization occurs when a researcher receives his or her research training within a
disciplinary culture or setting where a particular approach is well known and accepted. Researchers
within that disciplinary or local linguistic community are conversant with the approach, its conventions,
and what it represents, and these become part of the taken-for-granted life world of the researcher
(Bernstein, 1991). Frequently, problems arise when these researchers write for publication because the
shorthand that they are accustomed to using when speaking about the approach is not understood beyond
their particular research community. A second problem originates in the early socialization of qualitative
researchers. Not all students are schooled in a tradition that emphasizes the philosophic and methodologic
underpinnings of a particular approach. Their failure to address these foundations may be more a
reflection of their educational exposure than their personal research capacity. We argue that, at a
minimum, researchers employing a generic approach must explicitly identify their disciplinary affiliation,
what brought them to the question, and the assumptions they make about the topic of interest. In their
report, investigators must also demonstrate congruence between the questions posed and the generic
approach employed.

5
 International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2003, 2(2)

Methodology or method(s)?

When engaging in any qualitative research, methodology must be clearly distinguished from method.
Methodology reflects the beliefs about knowledge and existence that arise from the values in the
philosophic framework that is to be employed (van Manen, 1998). Methodology also represents
theoretical frameworks that guide how the research should proceed (Rawnsley, 1998; King, 1995; Guba
& Lincoln, 1994; Harding, 1987), and implies a concern for constructing a particular type of knowledge
(Morrow & Brown, 1994). Although all research is value driven, few research approaches accord such
significance to clear recognition of the values and assumptions inherent in the theoretical framework as
does the qualitative domain. Methods, on the other hand, refer to the tools, techniques, or procedures used
to gather the evidence (Harding, 1987). For example, to honor the value placed on enabling the voices of
all participants that is part of a feminist methodology, researchers seek methods that are congruent with
those values.

A lack of methodological clarity is among the most common problems identified in generic qualitative
studies. In the absence of an explicit methodology, the reader of these studies is left to speculate about the
research approach, by piecing together clues based on data collection or analysis methods. Generally, the
type of methodology employed, and the philosophical assumptions about human nature, govern the
reporting of findings in the qualitative domain. Sandelowski (1993) suggests however that an
overemphasis on reporting and defending methodology may result in insufficient attention to the
substantive findings of the research project because of space limitations. The preoccupation with the
selection and defense of methods, to the exclusion of the substance of the research, has been referred to as
methodolatry (Chamberlain, 2000; Janesick, 2000; Harding, 1989). We do not advocate in favor of
idealizing methodology but, rather, that relevant methodological issues and method must be understood
and clearly articulated in generic qualitative studies.

Lowenberg (1993) argues that confusion exists in interpretive research methodology between the levels of
epistemology, methodology, and methods. Frequently the terms methodology and method are used
synonymously (Morrow & Brown, 1994) or are used in an inconsistent manner. Much of the confusion
may arise from different positions explicated in the literature. For example, Woolcott (2002) asserts that
participant observation is the core of all qualitative research approaches, whereas Morse and Field (1995)
define it merely as a data collection technique. Explicit in this example are the reasons why there may be
a genuine lack of understanding among some researchers about the differences between method and
methodology. In some instances the inconsistent use of terms may be based on disciplinary differences:
"methodology is inevitably interwoven with and emerges from the nature of particular disciplines"
(Lincoln & Guba, 2000, p.164). Disciplinary allegiances must be made explicit then for two reasons: (1)
as a signal to the researcher’s theoretical positioning, and (2) as an indication of the possible disciplinary-
related methodological interpretations and associated methods of the author(s). This needs to be done in
order to avoid the confusion to which Lowenberg (1993) refers, and to maintain integrity in the research
report.

Although methods are primarily regarded as tools or techniques in qualitative research, not all methods
are appropriate to all qualitative methodologies. The tools used to collect and analyze the data must be
congruent with the epistemological and ontological inferences of the approach taken (van Manen, 1998;
King, 1995). While some methods have their origins in a particular methodology, for example having
participants review findings, such methods may be imported into a generic approach without invoking the
methodology of origin only as long as they are congruent with the research question and the purpose of
the research. Another methodologic aspect of generic studies that frequently lacks clarity relates to
saturation. Claims of saturation are often made without an explanation of what saturation means in the
context of the study. The notion of data saturation was introduced with grounded theory, however it has

6
 International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2003, 2(2)

been appropriated by other qualitative approaches with limited discussion of its meaning. Saturation is
rarely evident in research reports. We believe that evidence of saturation must be given in the presentation
of the data and discussed via the forms in which it was recognized during the analysis. In a generic study,
it is not sufficient to merely say that saturation was achieved, without explaining clearly what is meant by
the term.

Rigor

We argue that qualitative approaches need to be rigorous. The notion of what constitutes a rigorous
qualitative study has been the subject of hotly contested debates over the past two decades and is often
intertwined with debates about what constitutes quality criteria. Authors have grappled with the
importance and interpretive implications of concepts such as reflexivity, legitimation, representation, and
the politics of location (Cheek, 1996; Coffey, Holbrook, & Atkinson, 1996; Purkis, 1994; Collins, 1990;
Lynch & Woolgar, 1990; Richardson, 1991). The texts that engage this discourse struggle with questions
such as: "What makes a qualitative account credible?", "How does one construct a multi-vocal account?",
"Whose account is privileged in a text?", "What responsibility does an interpreter have to declare his or
her positionality?", "Is ‘member checking’ incommensurable with a constructivist epistemology?"
Despite this lively, exciting, and deeply reflective discourse, many authors of qualitative manuscripts
seem unaware of these debates, and rarely do authors of generic studies locate themselves within these
debates.

Not only has there been an intriguing debate about what constitutes a rigorous qualitative study, but there
has been an important evolution of thought as notions of rigor mature. This evolution can be observed
both across disciplines and authors as well as within individuals’ published work; well known examples
are those of Lincoln and Guba (1985), Denzin and Lincoln (2000), and Sandelowski (1986, 1993). In
recent years there have been efforts to consolidate rigor discourse by providing an evolutionary
perspective on the arguments (Sparkes, 2001; Putney & Green, 1999; Emden & Sandelowski, 1998a,
1998b; Koch & Harrington, 1998). While these authors use somewhat different labels for the evolutionary
stages, the core ideas are similar. Qualitative rigor began with efforts to establish criteria that were equal
in form and intent to those criteria held sacrosanct in quantitative research. As philosophic notions
underpinning an interpretive paradigm were embraced by a new generation of qualitative researchers, the
need for a new understanding of rigor became apparent. Efforts at this stage still emphasized methods as
the exclusive foundation for a credible qualitative study. However, as researchers matured in their
understanding of approaches informed by various philosophic and methodological premises, an
imaginative but often confusing array of approaches to rigor were subsequently proposed. More recently a
postmodern influence is evident as notions of moral soundness, representation, and power differentials are
foregrounded in the rigor debates. Despite this rich history, we continue to see researchers claim
allegiance to a particular approach to rigor without acknowledging the historical context, incongruence, or
potential datedness of their choices.

Not since early in the methodological discourse on qualitative inquiry has the emphasis been on technique
or methods as the prime consideration when demonstrating a rigorous interpretation. The notion that a
single set of criteria can be applied across all interpretive contexts has been widely disputed (Manning,
1997; Schwandt, 1996). Different qualitative approaches are based on fundamentally different principles,
and criteria for one approach may be in direct conflict with criteria for another approach. Our position is
that qualitative researchers need to 1) articulate a knowledgeable, theoretically informed choice regarding
their approach to rigor, and 2) select an approach that is philosophically and methodologically congruent
with their inquiry. Researchers’ approaches to these two issues must reflect an understanding that rigor is
a deeply theoretical issue, not a technical one (Sandelowski, 1993; Mishler, 1990).

7
 International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2003, 2(2)

As an example, the practice of returning to participants to review, clarify, or validate tentative findings
depends entirely on one’s theoretical stance. Few would argue that it is feasible for a participant to reflect
on or validate the intent of a statement made in a prior interview, given that their own understanding of
the topic is changing and will evolve as a consequence of participating in research. However, returning
for the purpose of seeking new insights based on the reflection of both interviewer and participant reflects
a fundamentally different understanding of the practice. By comparison, in critical phenomenology one
would of necessity go back to participants and ask them to critique their own accounts to see if, on
reflection, they considered all the elements described in the interviews to be essential to the experience of
the phenomenon (Caelli, 2001). These examples illustrate how readers will need to understand the
researcher’s purpose and theoretical rationale for retuning to participants before they can judge the rigor
of this particular step in the research.

We argue that in-depth methodological knowledge may be outside the ambit of many people wishing to
conduct a generic study. Investigators need then to ensure rigor by adhering to principles that are
congruent with the assumptions of the approach they are using. For example, if a participatory action
approach is used, the study may be evaluated by the degree to which the collaboration was achieved, and
change facilitated among participants and researchers (Mill & Ogilvie, 2003). In contrast, a study guided
by critical or emancipatory ideas may be evaluated by the degree to which competing interpretations are
drawn out. If presenting a feminist inquiry, the account will be evaluated by how carefully issues of
power are considered, whose perspective is privileged, what is left out of the account and how this is
negotiated. Accounts need to demonstrate awareness of the basic methodological assumptions employed,
with an explicit account of how these are addressed in the study. The assumptions and principles that
inform a generic study may not be based on the well established theoretical traditions that inform each of
the established approaches, but the research choices made in any generic study are still informed by a set
of assumptions, preconceptions and beliefs. It is these influences that need to be articulated by generic
researchers. With these considerations addressed, readers can feel confident that the research report
presents a rigorous and thoughtful study.

The analytic lens

We use the terms ‘analytic lens’ to refer to the methodologic and interpretive presuppositions that a
researcher brings to bear on his or her data. While theoretical positioning was about the researcher and his
or her motives for pursuing a particular area of inquiry, the analytic lens is about how the researcher
engages with his or her data. All research approaches have underlying presuppositions about the nature of
knowledge (i.e. epistemology). Qualitative approaches also carry with them implicit assumptions about
what it means to be human (i.e. ontology). The underlying assumptions of the approach should then
implicitly guide every aspect of the study. Sometimes these presuppositions or assumptions are explicit,
as they are for example in Heideggerian phenomenology. Even when not explicit, the assumptions of the
established qualitative methodologies can be understood via scrutiny of the abundant rich and finely
nuanced discussions about qualitative approaches that are now found in the literature.

Generic qualitative research is not supported by this abundance of referent literature. Still, it is incumbent
on researchers wishing to pursue a generic qualitative approach to closely examine the assumptions they
bring to bear on the study, and to explain them in any resultant manuscript. The study should be designed
to be contiguous with the positions and assumptions that led to the research question. It is only through
understanding of these elements that the quality of a study may be evaluated. Identification of the
researcher’s position is of the utmost importance, and generic researchers must make their own
assumptions clear, as well as ensure that the methods they choose are congruent with those assumptions.

8
 International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2003, 2(2)

The issues of congruence or commensurability are particularly apparent when researchers borrow
methods or selected components of established approaches when designing their generic qualitative study.
Such borrowed components were developed as part of a deeply theoretical whole and their use conveys an
allegiance to a distinct set of assumptions. When pieced into a generic study, those assumptions are often
contravened or ignored - a situation that leads readers into a quandary when evaluating the reports of the
research. A frequent example again relates to saturation; many claim that ‘sampling was concluded once
saturation was reached.’ While saturation has a distinct theoretically embedded meaning in grounded
theory, its ubiquitous and non-selective use risks rendering the term meaningless to the qualitative
research community. We are not suggesting that novice researchers should be more sophisticated than
other qualitative researchers. What we wish to highlight are the dangers inherent in making such claims in
the absence of diverse methodological knowledge.

Further along the continuum of borrowing components from established approaches we find reports
where the researchers claim to use a particular qualitative approach, but the methodological depth and
interpretation of the data demanded by the stated approach are missing. In fact, many of these studies
resemble more of a generic qualitative approach, given their thin or ‘hollow’ allegiance (Thorne et al.,
1997) to the approaches they purport to emulate. Most often these studies present a thematic analysis
almost as the status quo, although it is not clear precisely why it was done. Sometimes, the reader can see
why it was undertaken, even though the author fails to make the reasons explicit. At other times however,
it is not at all clear and a thematic analysis remains only that and adds not at all to an understanding of the
topic of interest. Then there is the increasing number of studies that report only the themes that were
identified but fail entirely to take the research a further step to show what meaning lies beyond the
themes. It is these meanings that need to be embedded in the theoretical and historical context of the
research and the topic researched. We find this to be an increasingly common occurrence, and believe it
stands as evidence of the need for more discussion of generic approaches. If researchers wishing to pursue
a straightforward generic study had literature to turn to for guidance, there would no longer be the need to
claim thin or false allegiance to an established qualitative approach.

Conclusions

We have defined generic qualitative research as that which is not guided by an explicit or established set
of philosophic assumptions in the form of one of the known qualitative methodologies. We see no reason
to believe that generic qualitative studies will fade from the qualitative scholarship horizon. On the
contrary we see many reasons why this will be a growing trend, particularly in applied disciplines.
Without a body of literature and critical discussion, novice qualitative researchers, their supervisors,
clinical researchers, and manuscript and grant reviewers will not have the methodological foundations to
move forward in their work. We argue for an epistemologically and methodologically congruent standard
rather than an incoherent amalgamation of methods or techniques. We have offered four key issues for
discussion: a declaration of the researcher’s position, congruence between methodology and method, a
clear articulation of the researcher’s approach to rigor, and an explanation of his or her analytic lens.

Our goal is not for these four issues to be reified as ultimate criteria, but to help stimulate the much-
needed critique around the issue of generic qualitative research. Critique is essential to the development
of any subject or branch of learning and qualitative methodology is both of those. Critique has played and
will play an important role in the ongoing development of qualitative approaches and has led us in
directions that were previously unknown in research terms. For this reason, new developments occur all
the time. However, such developments should not be received uncritically, nor should any approach or
methodology be accepted merely because of a lack of scrutiny and critique from the field.

9
 International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2003, 2(2)

References

Anderson, J. M. (1991). Reflexivity in fieldwork: Toward a feminist epistemology. IMAGE: Journal of

Nursing Scholarship, 23(2), 115-118.

Bernstein, R. J. (1991). Beyond objectivism and relativism: Science, hermeneutics, and praxis.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Brink, P. J., & Wood, M. J. (Eds.). (2001). Basic steps in planning nursing research: From question to
proposal (5th ed.). Boston: Jones and Bartlett.

Caelli, K. (2000). The changing face of phenomenological research: Traditional and American
phenomenology in nursing. Qualitative Health Research, 10, 366-377.

Caelli, K. (2001). Engaging with phenomenology: Is it more of a challenge than it needs to

be? Qualitative Health Research, 11, 273-281.

Chamberlain, K. (2000). Methodolatry and qualitative health research. Journal of Health Psychology,
5(3), 285-296.

Cheek, J. (1995). Nurses, nursing and representation: an exploration of the effect of viewing positions on
the textual portrayal of nursing. Nursing Inquiry, 2(4), 235-240.

Cheek, J. (1996). Taking a view: Qualitative research as representation. Qualitative Health Research,
6(4), 492-505.

Coffey, A., Holbrook, B., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Qualitative data analysis: Technologies and
representations. Sociological Research Online, 1(1). Retrieved January 29, 2002 from
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/1/1/4.html.

Collins, P. H. (1990). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of
empowerment. New York: Routledge.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Devers, K. J. (1999). How will we know "good" qualitative research when we see it? Beginning the
dialogue in health services research. Health Services Research, 34(5 Pt 2), 1153-1188.

Emden, C., & Sandelowski, M. (1998a). The good, the bad and the relative, part one: Conceptions of
goodness in qualitative research. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 4, 206-212.

Emden, C., & Sandelowski, M. (1998b). The good, the bad and the relative, part two: Goodness and the
criterion problem in qualitative research. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 5, 2-7.

Guba, E.G. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S.
Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

10
 International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2003, 2(2)

Harding, S. (1986). From feminist empiricism to feminist standpoint epistemologies. In S. Harding

(Ed.), The science question in feminism (pp. 135-162). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Harding, S. (1987). Introduction: Is there a feminist method? In S. Harding (Ed.), Feminism and
methodology (pp. 1-14). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Janesick, V. J. (2000). The choreography of qualitative research design. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln
(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 379-399). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

King, K. E. (1995). Method and methodology in feminist research: What is the difference? Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 20, 19-22.

Koch, T., & Harrington, A. (1998). Reconceptualizing rigour: The case for reflexivity. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 28, 882-890.

Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

Lather, P. (1986). Issues of validity in openly ideological research: Between a rock and a soft
place. Interchange, 17(4), 63-84.

Lather, P. (1991). Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy with/in the postmodern. New York:
Routledge.

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

Lowenberg, J. S. (1993). Interpretive research methodology: Broadening the dialogue. Advances in

Nursing Science, 16(2), 57-69.

Lynch, M., & Woolgar, S. (1990). Introduction: Sociological orientations to representational practice in
science. In S. Woolgar (Ed.), Representation in scientific practice (pp. 1-18). Boston, MA: MIT
Press.

Manning, K. (1997). Authenticity in constructivist inquiry: Methodological considerations without

prescription. Qualitative Inquiry, 3(1), 93-115.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Mill, J. E., & Ogilvie, L. D. (2003) Establishing methodological rigor in international qualitative research:
A case study from Ghana. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 41, 80-88.

Mishler, E. (1990). Validation in inquiry-guided research: The role of exemplars in narrative

studies. Harvard Educational Review, 60, 415-442.

Morrow, R., & Brown, D.D. (1994). Critical theory and methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Morse, J. M. & Field, P. (1995). Qualitative research methods for health professionals. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

11
 International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2003, 2(2)

Purkis, M. E. (1994). Representations of action: Reorienting field studies in nursing practice. In P. Chinn
(Ed.), Advances in methods of inquiry for nursing (pp. 13-31). Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.

Putney, L. G., & Green, J. L. (1999). Evolution of qualitative research methodology: Looking beyond
defence to possibilities. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 368-377.

Rawnsley, M. M. (1998). Ontology, epistemology, and methodology: A clarification. Nursing Science

Quarterly, 11(1), 2-4.

Ray, L. (1999). Evidence and outcomes: Agendas, presuppostions and power. Journal of Advanced
Nursing, 30, 1017-1026.

Richardson, L. (1991). Postmodern social theory: Representational practices. Sociological Theory, 9, 173-
179.

Rudge, T. (1996). (Re) writing ethnography: the unsettling questions for nursing research raised by post-
structural approaches to ‘the field’. Nursing Inquiry, 3(3), 146-152.

Sandelowski, M. (1986). The problem of rigor in qualitative research. Advances in Nursing Science, 8(3),
27-37.

Sandelowski, M. (1993). Rigor or rigor mortis: The problem of rigor in qualitative research
revisited. Advances in Nursing Science, 16(2), 1-8.

Sandelowski, M. (2000). Focus on research methods: Whatever happened to qualitative

description? Research in Nursing and Health, 23, 334-340.

Sandelowski, M. (2002). Focus on research methods: Combining qualitative and quantitative sampling,
data collection, and analysis techniques in mixed-method studies. Research in Nursing and
Health, 23, 246-255.

Sandelowski, M., & Barroso, J. (2002). Reading qualitative studies. International Journal of Qualitative
Methods, 1(1). Article 5. Retrieved January 29, 2002 from http://www.ualberta.ca/~ijqm/

Schwandt, T. A. (1996). Farewell to criteriology. Qualitative Inquiry, 2(1), 58-72.

Silverman, D. (2000). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sparkes, A. C. (2001). Myth 94: Qualitative health researchers will agree about validity. Qualitative
Health Research, 11, 538-552.

Thorne, S. E. (1991). Methodological orthodoxy in qualitative nursing research: Analysis of the

issues. Qualitative Health Research, 1, 178-199.

Thorne, S. E. (1997a). Phenomenological positivism and other problematic trends in health science
research. Qualitative Health Research, 7, 287-293.

12
 International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2003, 2(2)

Thorne, S. (1997b). The art (and science) of critiquing qualitative research. In J. M. Morse,
(Ed.), Completing a qualitative project: Details and dialogue (pp. 117-132). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

Thorne, S., Joachim, G., Paterson, B., & Canam, C. (2002). Influence of the research frame on
qualitatively derived health science knowledge. International Journal of Qualitative Methods,
1(1), Article 1. Retrieved January 29, 2002 fromhttp://www.ualberta.ca/~ijqm/.

Thorne, S., Kirkham, S. R., & MacDonald-Emes, J. (1997). Interpretive description: A noncategorical
qualitative alternative for developing nursing knowledge. Research in Nursing and Health, 20,
169-177.

van Manen, M. (1998). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy.
London, Canada: The Althouse Press.

Warren, K. B., & Bourque, S. C. (1991). Women, technology, and international development ideologies.
In M. diLeonardo (Ed.), Gender at the crossroads of knowledge: Feminist anthropology in the
postmodern era (pp. 278-311). Berkeley: University of California Press.

Wolcott, H.F. (2002). Writing up qualitative research…better. Qualitative Health Research, 12, 91-103.

Woolgar, S. (Ed.). (1988). Knowledge and reflexivity: New frontiers in the sociology of knowledge.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

13