Integrating creativity and systematic methodology in teaching qualitative research

Qualitative research is both a wide and deep field of study. It is difficult for the beginning researcher to navigate the various approaches within the qualitative paradigm to which s/he is introduced. This involves reading the maps of the territory, i.e. understanding the underlying philosophy and principles of the different approaches, choosing a route, and of course the journey itself—collecting and analyzing data. In many B.A. or M.A. programs in the social and behavioral sciences, students enroll in a one semester course in qualitative research, and some may embark on a one to two year supervised qualitative research project. In this presentation I will share my experiences as a teacher and supervisor of qualitative research with an emphasis on the dilemma of whether to emphasize developing skills in creative free-flowing interpretation or in structured systematic analysis. I will suggest a way of integrating these two approaches by using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (Smith, Flowers & Larkin, 2009). I will explain the principles and practices of IPA and will demonstrate the techniques I use to guide beginning students through what some initially experience as the quagmire of qualitative research

Gadamer\u27s philosophy of interpretation: Creative dialogue among researchers of diverse professional and personal backgrounds

Hans-Georg Gadamer’s (1976) primary focus was on the concept of understanding, which he posited could be achieved through four key philosophical constructs: prejudice, the hermeneutic circle, dialogue, and fusion of horizons (Koch, 1996; Matheson, 2009). The hermeneutic experience, according to Gadamer, takes place within a framework of multiple voices. This presentation will consist of a dialogue among three researchers of very diverse backgrounds (cultural, academic, professional) who collaborated on a research project about the experiences of adults whose fathers died prior to their birth. We attempted to expand the boundaries of the interpretative framework during the various stages of the textual analysis to incorporate our very different interpretive stances. It is the questions, says Gadamer (1981), that are of crucial importance, not the answers, which are only a resting place on the way. Since every interpretive endeavor is limited and raises questions that spur further investigations, we will describe the simultaneous entrances and exits in a number of interpretive circles: researchers-text, colleague-supervisor-student, interviewer-research participants. Different research partnership positionings, contracts, dialogues, and deadlocks that we experienced will be illustrated and conceptualized