Qualitative Research

http://qrj.sagepub.com/

Innovation in qualitative research methods: a narrative review

Rose Wiles, Graham Crow and Helen Pain
Qualitative Research 2011 11: 587
DOI: 10.1177/1468794111413227

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://qrj.sagepub.com/content/11/5/587

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Qualitative Research can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://qrj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://qrj.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://qrj.sagepub.com/content/11/5/587.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Oct 20, 2011

What is This?

Downloaded from qrj.sagepub.com by Silvina Tatavitto on October 23, 2012

 Q
Innovation in qualitative R
research methods: Qualitative Research

a narrative review 11(5) 587­–604

© The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission: sagepub.
co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1468794111413227
qrj.sagepub.com

Rose Wiles
University of Southampton, UK

Graham Crow
University of Southampton, UK

Helen Pain
University of Southampton, UK

Abstract
This article reviews claims for methodological innovation in qualitative research. It comprises
a review of 57 papers published between 2000–9 in which claims to innovation in qualitative
methods have been made. These papers encompass creative methods, narrative methods, mixed
methods, online/e-research methods, focus groups and software tools. The majority of claims
of innovation are made for new methods or designs, with the remainder claiming adaptations
or adoption of existing methodological innovations. However, the evidence provided of wholly
new methodologies or designs was limited, and in several papers such claims turned out to relate
either to adaptations to existing methods, or to the transfer and adaptation of methods from
other disciplines, primarily from arts and humanities. We argue that over-claiming innovation in
the sense of the development of a wholly new methodology or design has a number of important
implications that are potentially detrimental to qualitative social science.

Keywords
literature review, methodological innovation, qualitative research

Introduction
Claims made for innovation in social research methods have become widespread. A
number of issues appear to underlie this development. Researchers’ propensity to claim

Corresponding author:
Rose Wiles, National Centre for Research Methods, School of Social Science, University of Southampton,
Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK
Email: R.A.Wiles@soton.ac.uk

Downloaded from qrj.sagepub.com by Silvina Tatavitto on October 23, 2012

588 Qualitative Research 11(5)

methodological innovation has been partly fuelled by recent research funding programmes
as well as trends within research reporting (Gwyther and Possamai-Inesedy, 2009; Taylor
and Coffey, 2009). Both Travers (2009) and Taylor and Coffey (2009) have noted that
the competitiveness of book publishing and grant applications compels researchers to
emphasize novelty or innovation. Pressures from research assessment or evaluation
exercises (the RAE or REF in the UK), on which institutional funding and individual
career progression are premised, are also likely to be important influences in encouraging
claims towards novelty and innovation. Institutional culture also seems to play an impor-
tant role in encouraging innovation claims; Xenitidou and Gilbert (2009) found that there
are key institutions in which a concentration of claims to innovators and innovations are
made. Societal, political and ideological pressures are also important in influencing a
desire to innovate and to claim innovation (Platt, 1996). Indeed, Travers (2009) notes the
cultural trend towards constant innovation fuelled by market forces.
It is generally recognized that a claim to innovation should not be gimmickry, attract-
ing the favourable opinion of book or grant reviewers in the same way as novelties are
marketed in the retail industry, nor be in response to the latest wave of enthusiasm.
Rather it should be rooted in genuine attempts to improve some aspect of the research
process (Taylor and Coffey, 2008). Some authors regard innovation as part of the
‘progress narrative’ of qualitative research in which new and ‘cutting edge’ methods are
viewed as superior to those developed at earlier stages of qualitative research practice
(see Alasuutari, 2007). This approach to innovation is reflected in Xenitidou and Gilbert’s
(2009) study of innovation across the social sciences. In contrast, Travers (2009) has
argued things presented as innovation in research methods are largely the latest ‘fads’
and that these ‘innovations’ fail to address the important, long-standing and unresolved
challenges of qualitative research. Travers argues that innovations are frequently a
response to technological developments which do not further the development of
methods to better understand the social world. These sentiments have been echoed by
some methodologists who argue that contemporary ‘innovations’ (or developments) in
research methods are transient and lack the careful considered development of methods
of, for example, the Chicago School (Kleinknecht, 2007).
In order to explore claims to innovation, it is necessary to define what constitutes
methodological innovation. It has been argued that innovation is not necessarily con-
fined to the creation of new methods and can equally be applied to advances or develop-
ments of ‘tried and tested’ research methods. Such a definition includes ‘the creation of
new designs, concepts and ways doing things’ (Taylor and Coffey, 2008: 8). There is
also the question of the extent to which ‘true’ innovations must be accepted, and taken
up, by the wider research community. Arguably a development is not really an innova-
tion if it is not disseminated and subsequently taken up by others (Taylor and Coffey,
2008). However, the process by which innovations are disseminated and how they are
received and judged by the wider community is often slow and is influenced by a range
of inter-personal, social, cultural and political factors (Greenhalgh et al., 2005; Rogers,
2003; Von Hippel, 1998). Thus something can still be innovative even if it has not (yet)
been taken up by the wider community. This fits with Xenitidou and Gilbert’s (2009)
definition used in their study of international innovation in research methods, in which

Downloaded from qrj.sagepub.com by Silvina Tatavitto on October 23, 2012

Wiles et al. 589

innovation was identified as novel research practices that have not yet filtered through
to the mainstream.
There has been only limited empirical research exploring innovation in qualitative
research (Forbes, 2003; Travers, 2009; Xenitidou and Gilbert, 2009). Two of these
studies have relied on the views of key informants or ‘experts’ to identify innovations
and innovators fairly uncritically (Forbes, 2003; Xenitidou and Gilbert, 2009).1 Travers
(2009) takes a more critical approach to innovation but undertakes only a limited
exploration of innovation claims focusing on books accessed via an internet ‘Google’
search. This article seeks to extend Travers’ (2009) research by systematically exploring
the claims made for innovation in qualitative social science research methods in journal
publications over the last decade. The article comprises a literature review which explores
the following questions: i) what claims for innovation in qualitative methods are being
made and what is the basis of these claims?; ii) in what areas are innovations being
claimed?; iii) what are researchers’ motivations for developing these ‘innovations’?; iv)
to what extent are these ‘innovations’ taken up by the social science community?; v)
what are the implications for qualitative social science of these innovation claims?
Specifically, we seek to explore what evidence there is for Travers’ (2009) assertions that
there is an increasing tendency for authors to claim innovation, that such claims are
exaggerated and that they are detrimental to qualitative social science.

Exploring diverse data

This article draws on an approach to literature review that has been informed by debates
about the systematic review of qualitative research (Dixon-Woods et al., 2006; Jones,
2004; Popay et al., 2007). In this review we used traditional methods of qualitative
systematic review for summarizing data as well as qualitative analysis of text to explore
the narratives of the claims being made. The aim was to explore the claims authors
made for methodological innovation. This raised several challenges, not least the fact
that authors inevitably make their claims for innovation within publications in a range of
ways and some provided only very limited information to support their claims. Indeed,
in several cases the adjective ‘innovative’ was applied to the method employed but little
information was provided to substantiate this claim. The challenge was how to approach
the ‘missing data’ when elements were absent within papers, without resorting to
judgements based solely on our own understandings and preconceptions rather than
the original authors’ views. Our aim was to explore authors’ claims and to minimize
the influence of our assumptions when extracting and exploring data from papers.
Nevertheless, our evaluation is inevitably subject to our interpretations of authors’ inno-
vation claims. Team discussions informed our decisions and interpretations of the claims
for innovation being made by authors.
In order to identify innovation claims in research methods we searched publications
from peer-reviewed journals so that authors’ claims had been scrutinized by others in the
field, indicating that the claims were deemed reasonable. Journals listed by the social
sciences’ bibliographic databases were searched for the terms ‘method’ or ‘qualitative’.
Those databases that did not provide search facilities on journal names were examined

Downloaded from qrj.sagepub.com by Silvina Tatavitto on October 23, 2012

590 Qualitative Research 11(5)

manually. We identified 22 journals. Those relating exclusively to statistical methods and

those that were not fully peer-reviewed were excluded (n = 3), then the aims and scope
were explored on each journal’s website and those that indicated a specific interest in
research methods were selected (n = 14).
The 14 journals were searched from 2000 to 2009 for the terms innovat*, new, novel
and emerg* in the title or abstract; 207 papers were identified. From the papers that were
identified, we excluded those that did not use the search terms in connection with research
methods and those that were not in English or were primarily quantitative, leaving 57
papers from 10 journals. A large proportion of the discarded papers used the search terms
in relation to research findings rather than the method employed. Table 1 lists the jour-
nals and the numbers of papers identified from each. The full list of the papers identified
is too large to include here but is available as an annotated bibliography (Pain, 2009).
These papers were all reviewed and information extracted from them about the inno-
vation, the features claimed as innovative, the stimulus for the innovation, its benefits
and any caveats or guidance. If antecedents to the innovation were cited, these were
noted. A forward citation search was also carried out to identify diffusion of innovations.
This information was summarized into a database and formed the basis of our

Table 1.  Journals and numbers of papers

Journal Papers identified Included papers

Cultural Studies – Critical 8 0
Methodologies
Field Methods 8 3
Forum: Qualitative Social Research 56 12
International Journal of Research 7 3
And Method In Education
International Journal of Qualitative 11 8
Methods
International Journal of Social 14 3
Research Methodology
Journal of Mixed Methods 6 1
Research
Methodological Innovations Online 2 0
Methodology: European Journal 1 0
of Research Methods for the
Behavioural and Social Sciences
Organizational Research Methods 5 0
Qualitative Inquiry 44 6
Qualitative Research 25 10
Quality and Quantity - 3 1
International Journal of
Methodology
The Qualitative Report 17 10
Totals 207 57

Downloaded from qrj.sagepub.com by Silvina Tatavitto on October 23, 2012

Wiles et al. 591

discussions about the nature of innovation claims. Text relating to innovation claims was
also analysed using qualitative methods to explore the narratives employed by authors in
their claims to innovation.

Sites for innovation

The papers encompassed many disciplines, although two-thirds were uni-disciplinary.
Most papers were drawn from sociology, education, psychology, social work or anthro-
pology. There was considerable cross-fertilization between disciplines, with methods
taken from market research into sociology (Pevey and McKenzie, 2009), from anthro-
pology to hypermedia design (Duncan, 2004), literature to education (Otto, 2007),
among others. The use of arts-based approaches, drawing on methods from arts and
humanities was particularly prominent. The authors were distributed widely across the
globe, but North America and Europe represented 80 per cent of the sample. This bias is
unsurprising given that we confined the sample to English language papers. We recog-
nize that methodological innovation is not confined to the English-speaking world.
The distribution of papers claiming innovation across the decade under review was
more clustered towards the mid to later years; almost three quarters of the 57 papers were
published between 2006–9. This supports Travers’ (2009) claim that there is increasing
pressure for researchers to present their research, and their research practice, as innova-
tive. Papers focusing on creative and performative approaches occurred more frequently
in the later years, reflecting the growing interest in these approaches (see Figure 1). This
was also the case for mixed methods which, as Bryman noted in 2006, ‘has become a

14
software
other
12
online
narrative
10 mixed
focus
8 creative

0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Figure 1.  Distribution of papers per year by topic

Downloaded from qrj.sagepub.com by Silvina Tatavitto on October 23, 2012

592 Qualitative Research 11(5)

focus of more and more interest’ (p. 5). Innovations relating to narrative and online
methods were evident across the whole period indicating the longer timeframe in which
these methods have been growing in popularity and use. This was in contrast to the
papers relating to software development which mostly clustered at the earlier years.
The majority of innovations claimed were at the level of methods, techniques or tools
with only a minority (10 papers) focusing on methodology. We return to this issue below
in reflecting on the nature of these claims to innovation. The innovations focused on a
range of different types of research method or approach which we grouped into six
categories which describe the focus of innovation claimed with an ‘other’ category for
those papers which were not easily classifiable. The types were: i) creative methods 15
papers that employed art, drama, dance, poetry, photography or a combination of these
with the aim of engaging participants or audience in a more holistic way, giving scope
for emotional and moral as well as intellectual responses; ii) narrative methods 10 papers
describing techniques for collecting, analysing or presenting narratives, including auto-
ethnography. Several of these papers explored participatory approaches to research
afforded by narrative methods; iii) mixed methods nine papers, describing techniques
for combining and analysing different types of qualitative data or qualitative and quan-
titative data; iv) online and e-research methods eight papers widening the scope of
online research, using synchronous and asynchronous text facilities, blogs and a graphi-
cal online environment; v) software tools five papers describing software to assist in, or
enhance, the analysis or sharing of a range of qualitative data; vi) focus group methodol-
ogy three papers that addressed different aspects of the method including managing the
process of data collection and enhancing the trustworthiness of analysis. The ‘other’
category comprised seven papers, one describing the use of a radio phone-in programme
in research (Weller, 2006); and six presenting methods to improve an aspect of the
research process, including validity (Cho and Trent, 2006), analysis (Tate, 2007;
Wasserman et al., 2009), quality of questionnaires (Hak et al., 2006), relevance to
practitioners (Kahn et al., 2008) and the presentation of cross-lingual research (Lincoln
and Gonzalez, 2008).
The topic areas in which innovation is claimed reflect the trends towards, and the
current popularity of, particular types of methods and approaches. These reflect, then,
the latest ‘fads and fashions’ in methods. Approaches with a focus on what we have
called ‘creative methods’ comprising arts-based and performative approaches were the
largest group of innovations among the papers identified. Innovations in these areas
draw largely on traditions within Arts and Humanities disciplines. These sorts of
approaches broadly comprise what Denzin and Lincoln (2000) refer to as the ‘seventh
moment’ of qualitative research and are viewed by many researchers in the UK and
North America as the methods that ‘up-to-date, well-informed’ researchers should be
using (see Alasuutari, 2007: 513). The same might also be said of developments in
e-research and narrative methods, both of which have become popular over the last
decade. Mixed methods research has a longer history and is, arguably, less of a fad.
Along with interdisciplinarity, mixed methods have grown increasingly popular in
recent years as a means to better address key research questions than single method
approaches (Bryman, 2006).

Downloaded from qrj.sagepub.com by Silvina Tatavitto on October 23, 2012

Wiles et al. 593

Innovation, adoption or adaptation?

None of the authors defined innovation when they used the term. It was applied to adop-
tion of well-published approaches such as auto-ethnography (Wall, 2006), to adapta-
tions of established methods such as focus groups (Peterson and Barron, 2007), and to
innovations such as the introduction of a series of participant drawings as longitudinal
data (Richards, 2006). So in some cases the innovation related to the use of an already
established practice, in others it related to what Taylor and Coffey (2008: 12) have
termed ‘routine’ innovation involving the ‘repair and maintenance of existing methods’,
while others related to more novel innovations.
Rogers’ (2003) four stages of innovation take-up, namely ‘innovation’, ‘early adopter’,
‘early majority’ and ‘late majority’, were inappropriate for understanding the stage of the
innovations being reported on in these papers. Diffusion in qualitative research methods
is marked by far greater adaptation than in Rogers’ classical model; much innovation in
social science research methods involves adapting established methods rather than
inventing completely new methods. Analysis of authors’ core narratives suggested that
the innovation stage being claimed for in papers could be categorized as ‘inception’,
‘adaptation’ or ‘adoption’. This categorization is hierarchical in terms of the level of
novelty that is claimed with adoption involving the lowest level of novelty. We reiterate
here that this categorization of papers was done on the basis of what authors appeared to
be claiming and not our views about the innovatory nature of the methods described.
Claims for innovation at the inception level are those in which authors claim to be
using a new method, approach or tool or when the setting in which the research is
conducted intrinsically affects the research process so that it is, in effect, a new or novel
method; for example, the online environment (e.g. Hinchcliffe and Gavin, 2009;
Williams, 2007). Hookway’s (2008) paper on blog data collection provides one exam-
ple of claims at the level of inception:

In this article I highlight the significance of the ‘blogsphere’ as a new addition to the qualitative
researchers’ toolkit . . . Despite the growing research on blogs and blogging – most of which
has been produced by information/computer science and media/rhetoric/communication studies
– the research opportunities they afford for the social sciences . . . remain(s) unexamined. (pp.
91, 93)

Claims for innovation which are adaptations are when an author claims an established
method has been adapted or changed in order to improve the method or to meet specific
needs within the research context. Mahoney (2007) provides an example of this type of
claim in relation to the adaptation of an interpretive ethnographic approach in order to
achieve greater collaboration:

My collaborative storytelling methodology for this project is based on an emotional, interpretive,

ethnographic framework . . . the collaborative story-telling methodology employed in the
project created new interpretive ways of knowing and writing about gay male subjectivity. (pp.
580, 592)

Downloaded from qrj.sagepub.com by Silvina Tatavitto on October 23, 2012

594 Qualitative Research 11(5)

Claims for innovation relating to adoption are when an author claims they are taking an
established method, relatively unchanged, and applying it or taking it into a new disci-
pline or sphere of study. Gavin’s (2005) paper on story completion questions used in the
study of attitudes to offenders provides an example of an innovation being taken into a
new area of study. ‘Adoption’ also includes cases in which a novel combination of meth-
ods is used, for instance the use of quantitative, textual and visual analyses in combina-
tion (Lockyer, 2006). Saldana’s (2003) paper on ethnotheatre offers an illustration of
adoption claims:

Ethnotheatre provides a fairly recent movement in qualitative inquiry to experiment with

artistic modes of research representation . . . Examples from my own two ventures with
ethnotheatre will be used to illustrate selected playwriting concepts and staging techniques.
(Saldana, 2003: 218, 220)

Using these categories, the majority of papers appeared to claim innovation at the incep-
tion level (32 papers). Only six papers claimed innovation through adapting a method to
use in a particular context, while one-third (19 papers) appeared to claim innovation
through adoption of a method into a new discipline or sphere of work.
The fact that the majority appeared to be claiming innovation at the inception level is
surprising, because one might expect the majority of innovations to be adaptations or
adoptions. This led us to look beyond the claims to innovation contained in the core nar-
ratives of the papers and to engage in more detailed analysis of the descriptions of what
the authors did. In several cases it transpired that inception had been extended to include
‘new ways of doing things’, in effect incorporating adaptations to established methods,
as well as new methods, concepts and designs (Taylor and Coffey, 2009). In such formu-
lations, anything that deviates from an established method and has, to the author’s
knowledge, not been done before counts as inception. Thus claims that were made in
papers’ core narratives for innovation at the level of inception turned out to include inno-
vations that were more at the level of adaptation or adoption, such as integrating online
and offline data in internet ethnography (Sade-Beck, 2004) and the use of ‘post-it’ notes
in focus groups (Peterson and Barron, 2007). In further cases the papers lacked detailed
descriptions of what the authors had done, thus making it impossible to determine the
veracity of the claim to have achieved innovation at the level of inception. Whether or
not these cases fit Travers’ (2009) argument that authors overstate the case for innovation
in a bid to get their work published, the inflation of claims regarding the level of innova-
tion is clearly an issue that merits attention.

Why innovate?
The narratives presented in these papers revealed three key reasons for innovating: for
theoretical reasons, for moral or ethical reasons, and for practical reasons. Moral or
ethical reasons for innovations accounted for more than a third of the papers and related
to the desire to broaden understanding of the emotional aspects of a topic in order to
present a holistic picture (e.g. Borum, 2006) or to issues of empowerment and acting
fairly to participants either by increasing collaboration or reducing risk of harm. These

Downloaded from qrj.sagepub.com by Silvina Tatavitto on October 23, 2012

Wiles et al. 595

16
practical
14 ethical
theoretical
12

10

0
creative online and software focus mixed narrative other
e-research groups

Figure 2. Type of motivation for the innovation by topic

motivations were particularly prominent in relation to creative approaches and narrative

approaches (see Figure 2). The following extract is illustrative:

This study offers a new and relatively easy way that we can corroborate the ideas of the narrators
in their life story . . . In order to find out the meaning they give to their life, we ask them to title
the life story during the interview . . . by asking the narrators to title their life story we are
giving them the power to lead the story analysis. (Kacen, 2002: 50, 58)

In 18 papers the reason for the innovation was more practical, arising from research
praxis which is the response of experienced researchers to challenges in their work.
Innovations arising from practical considerations were prominent in relation to online
and e-research. These innovations were made to improve recruitment (Matthews and
Cramer, 2008), the quality of participant responses (Scott, 2004), participants’ engage-
ment with the research process (Doornbos et al., 2008), to facilitate data handling (Secrist
et al., 2002) or analysis (Fielding, 2000). Scott (2004), for example, notes:

Methodological innovation can enable us to overcome the common practical problems of

accessing hidden populations. (p. 103)

The innovation in the remaining 17 papers had been inspired by theoretical reasons,
either to improve shortcomings within the research process such as validity (Cho and
Trent, 2006), analysis (Wasserman et al., 2009) or data collection methods (Tsoukalas,
2006). Theoretical rationales for innovations were prominent within mixed methods
research. It was within this group of papers that had been inspired for theoretical reasons
that innovations were most commonly at the ‘inception’ level. The paper by Koenig
(2006) provides an illustration:

Downloaded from qrj.sagepub.com by Silvina Tatavitto on October 23, 2012

596 Qualitative Research 11(5)

This article presents a novel methodological program for frame analysis of textual data . . . The
proposed approach systematizes recent theoretical developments in frame analysis, and offers
a step-by-step program for frame identification and measurement, which synthesises the
implications of aforementioned developments into a coherent methodological framework. (p. 61)

Narratives of innovation claims

An analysis of the narratives used by authors in claiming innovation at the inception or
adaptation level indicated that authors drew on three broad arguments about the nature
of their innovations. We refer to these as: the ‘pushing boundaries’ claim; the ‘solution’
claim and the ‘pioneering’ claim. ‘Solution’ claims to innovation appear to bear a closer
relationship to what we argue is wholly new innovation (i.e. at the inception stage), a
point we return to in the discussion.
The ‘pushing boundaries’ claim refers to those innovation claims that purported to
develop or extend existing social research methods. The phrase ‘going beyond’ was
commonly used within these innovation claims. Within this type of narrative, claims
were not that these were departures from existing methods but rather that they were
extensions or developments to existing methods. Many of these innovation claims were
for adaptations to existing methods but also included were those innovations that
claimed to extend established methods in more radical directions. However, in all cases
the innovation was seen as rooted in, and an extension of, established methods. Claims
for innovation in creative and narrative methods often used the ‘pushing boundaries’
narrative. Dodson et al.’s (2007) paper on interpretive focus groups and Kahn et al.’s
(2008) study of a practitioner-based interpretive approach to research synthesis provide
examples of this narrative:

In our experience we have found that whereas involving participants in research practice is
commonly theorized as a critical component of social justice-oriented research . . . during the
interpretive stage researchers commonly revert to the habit of relying on professional or
academic expertise . . . we offer examples of how we have tried to break this habit, using IFGs
to keep local knowledge and ‘subjects’’ vantage of the world at the center of analytical authority.
(Dodson et al., 2007: 822)

The value of incorporating a range of voices was . . . seen as important within the review itself,
forming as it does an important element of our claim to novelty in taking us beyond standard
interpretive approaches to reviewing . . . Our claims for the validity of this review methodology
rely significantly on combining standard theoretical foundations with an explicit voice for
considerations from practice . . . it is the combination of this which . . . grounds our claim to
novelty for the review methodology. (Kahn et al., 2008: 172, 178)

The ‘solution’ claim refers to those innovation claims that purported to solve a prob-
lem inherent in current methods by proposing a new method. The terms ‘remedy’, ‘alter-
natives’ or ‘fresh approach’ were commonly used within these innovation claims. These
types of claims are in contrast with the ‘pushing boundaries’ claim in that the claim is
for a new approach, arising out of problems with existing methods, rather than an

Downloaded from qrj.sagepub.com by Silvina Tatavitto on October 23, 2012

Wiles et al. 597

extension of existing approaches. In these narratives, authors outlined current methods

or approaches and highlighted their problematic nature in that they raised, or failed to
address, theoretical or practical difficulties. The innovation identified in these papers
was then presented as a solution to, or resolution of, these problems. The ‘solution’ claim
was used most frequently in relation to innovation claims at the inception level and
often for those innovations that were inspired for theoretical reasons. Wasserman et
al’s (2009) claim for innovation in grounded theory and Cho and Trent’s (2006) paper
on validity are examples of this narrative:

‘Problematic’ is a word much abused in the academy. Properly utilized, it is not just the
intellectual sounding version of the word ‘problem’ but rather intended to note ambiguities and
things yet unresolved . . . for the varying grounded theory approaches offered and vigorously
defended, there remain glaring ambiguities about the theory building process. Our purpose in
this article is to identify and suggest resolution for two core problematics of grounded theory.
(Wasserman et al., 2009: 356)

The authors note that recent trends have shown the emergence of two quite different approaches
to the validity question within the literature on qualitative research. The authors categorize and
label these ‘transactional’ validity and ‘transformational’ validity. While useful, the authors
assert that neither approach is sufficient to meet the current needs of the field. The authors
propose a recursive, process-oriented view of validity as an alternative framework. (Cho and
Trent, 2006: 319)

The ‘pioneering’ claim is in contrast to claims to push boundaries of, or resolve problems
with, established methods. These types of claims to innovation are based on the develop-
ment of new methods for social research that are viewed as, to some degree, departures
from, or additions to, existing methods. Their development does not arise out of a desire
to push the boundaries of existing methods or because existing methods are inherently
problematic. Rather, the opportunities to develop these new methods related to techno-
logical developments and the motivation for development was to explore how new meth-
ods afforded by new technologies can be used in social research. The terms ‘pioneer’,
‘new frontier’, ‘new possibilities’, ‘potential’ and ‘discovery’ were used within these
innovation claims. These claims often related to new ways of collecting data that might
give access to a specific part of the social world or activity. It was often recognized that
these innovations were not necessarily new methodologies but rather new methods of
accessing particular groups or activity. Nevertheless, these claims were frequently at the
inception level. Online and e-research were areas in which such claims were evident.
Hookway’s (2008) paper on blogs and Hinchcliffe and Gavin’s (2009) paper on synchro-
nous online interviewing using Instant Messenger provide examples of these types of
claims:

Although the research possibilities and issues involved with online research methods are
relatively unexplored . . . it is generally recognised that cyberspace offers a new and exciting
frontier for social research . . . While 1999 may well be remembered as the year blogging
exploded, it is yet to be seen how this newest addition to online life can be utilized as a

Downloaded from qrj.sagepub.com by Silvina Tatavitto on October 23, 2012

598 Qualitative Research 11(5)

qualitative social research technique. The aim of this article then was to make an important first
step in building this knowledge base. (Hookway, 2008: 92, 106)

For both respondent and researcher, the substantial gains of online interviewing using IM
[Instant Messenger] outweighed the losses. IM is more than just a novel research tool to be
exploited, it is a ‘cutting edge’ communication medium used frequently by students as part of
everyday university life. Consequently, IM was considered by respondents and researchers
alike as being convenient, easy, a comfortable and very enjoyable experience for innovative
online interviewing. (Hinchcliffe and Gavin, 2009: 333)

The take-up of innovations

The issue of uptake is central to innovation; arguably an innovation is not useful unless
it is disseminated and viewed favourably by at least a section of the social science com-
munity. Most authors presented narratives of success in that the innovation was reported
as having met its purposes or had specific benefits within the context of their research.
Authors often provided guidance on how the innovation could or should be used, includ-
ing the ethical and practical issues it raised. However, it was less usual for authors to
critically evaluate the methodological appropriateness of the innovation in comparison
with other methods. With some exceptions (e.g. Wasserman et al., 2009), many narra-
tives did not locate the innovation within methodological debates about qualitative meth-
ods but rather identified their innovation as possible additions to the methodological
toolkit. For example:

Radio phone-in discussions are seldom utilized as a research method despite the increase in
new media techniques . . . As part of the multi-method approach the radio phone-in was
successful in that it highlighted the concerns and issues of many teenagers, as well as engaging
other members of the public in the subject matter. (Weller, 2006: 313)

Our experience suggests that stickies should be added to the qualitative researcher’s toolbox.
(Peterson and Barron, 2007: 144)

Despite limitations of the study, the enquiry supports the efficacy of analyzing preservice
teachers’ self-portraits and the accompanying dialogue as rich sources of data. (Richards,
2006: 46)

There were few narratives of failure. This may be because success stories are easier to
write and get published, but it may also be that researchers are reluctant to report failures.
Failure narratives were limited to providing information about how to avoid the chal-
lenges or limitations experienced by the researcher in using the method described, for
example:

We have seen how a number of issues impacted on the success of the TT project and its aims
and aspirations. Despite these difficulties, what lessons might be learned about the use of
visual data within evaluation? Could their use be developed, as they have been within (visual)

Downloaded from qrj.sagepub.com by Silvina Tatavitto on October 23, 2012

Wiles et al. 599

anthropology, ethnography and cultural studies? The experiences reported here suggest that
they can, but that there are a set of key principles that should inform any such development.
(Mason, 2005: 340)

Assessing the uptake of the innovations claimed in these papers is difficult given that we
do not know from these papers what, if any, diffusion strategies were adopted by authors.
Exploring citations of these papers is one way of exploring uptake, although this gives
only a partial picture. A forward citation search of the papers was conducted using
Google Scholar to discern any patterns in uptake. Just over half of the papers had
between 0–3 citations, suggesting limited uptake of these innovations. However, there
were some papers that were more widely cited; nine papers had 12 or more citations,
the highest number of citations being 40 for a paper on ethnotheatre (Saldana, 2003).
There was a higher citation rate for the papers in the adoption category, predictably
given the innovation has begun to be diffused and consequently a greater number of
people are likely to be aware of it. The majority of the nine papers with 12 or more cita-
tions were those where innovations were classified as relating to adoption of an existing
innovation. Only three of the 32 papers which we classified as claiming innovations at
the inception stage had 12 or more citations; these related to online methods (Hookway,
2008; Sade-Beck, 2004) and validity (Cho and Trent, 2006). In general there was a
markedly higher citation rate of the papers on online and software innovations (Bourdon,
2002; Fielding, 2000; Holge-Hazelton, 2002; Hookway, 2008; Sade-Beck, 2004) and
auto-ethnography (Duncan, 2004; Wall, 2006).
Google Scholar citations, or indeed citations in general, are not necessarily a good
indicator of uptake. The process whereby innovations or developments in research
methods are diffused involves a range of processes. In academia diffusion occurs from
dissemination of research as well as through opinion leaders or champions of methods
and interactions within networks. Unlike Rogers’ (2003) classic model, which assumes a
centralized point from which diffusion occurs, and a product that has to be adopted or
ignored without adaptation, research methodology innovation follows the more complex
and organic path in which adaptation is more common and diffusion is more ‘horizontal’
than top-down. However, if the definition of innovation involves new methods that are
taken up promptly by the social science community, the findings from the search of
citations indicate claims to innovation may be overstated among this sample of papers.

Discussion
This sample, taken from peer-reviewed journals that had an explicit interest in qualitative
research methodology, is a varied one, both regarding topic addressed, type of innova-
tion, discipline of authors and their geographical location. It is important to note that not
all innovative methods used during this period will have been identified by this process;
only those authors who made some explicit claim to innovation (or novelty) in the
abstract or title of papers were identified. Interestingly this excluded papers published in
two special issues on innovative methods in which the authors made no explicit reference
in the abstracts to the innovative nature of their work (Crow et al., 2009; Taylor and
Coffey, 2009). Thus, developments which might be objectively judged by the wider

Downloaded from qrj.sagepub.com by Silvina Tatavitto on October 23, 2012

600 Qualitative Research 11(5)

community as innovative are excluded from this design and those that might similarly be
judged as lacking innovation are included. It is also the case that some of the ‘claims’ to
innovation were very limited in that authors referred to the method as innovative but
provided little explanation as to the basis of the claim. The sample would clearly have
been very different if the methodology to select it had been different.
Our findings provide further evidence of the trend identified by Travers (2009)
whereby publication and research funding requirements encourage researchers to make
claims to innovation or novelty. The term ‘innovation’ used in papers in social science
journals appears to be used to refer to anything, however small, that the authors view as
novel and the pressure to identify such novelty is endemic.2 It is certainly the case that
there is limited evidence of wholly new methodologies or designs in this sample of
papers. This may not be surprising given that the development of methods that can be
defined as wholly new is a rare event (Alasuutari, 2007). This study indicates the major-
ity of innovation or novelty claims in these papers might more appropriately be called
developments in that they involve adapting methods either to meet the needs of a particu-
lar project or to meet some moral, ethical or theoretical standpoint. In some cases these
can be seen as ‘routine’ developments involving the ‘repair and maintenance’ of existing
social research methods (Taylor and Coffey, 2008) and in others more significant devel-
opments involving transferring and adapting methods from other disciplines. If innova-
tion is understood as inception, adaptation and adoption, most of the papers considered
here draw on the traditions of existing methods, either inside or outside of social science.
We argue that there is little evidence of paradigmatic shifts in qualitative research
methods within these ‘innovations’ but rather that qualitative researchers draw on exist-
ing traditions to develop methods even though these developments may be articulated in
terms of innovation as inception. While these may have the potential to contribute to the
techniques that qualitative researchers use they are not, in the main, new methods.
Furthermore, there is limited evidence to date of these developments being actively taken
up by the broader social science community.
These factors, together with the fact that evidence in support of claims to innovation
was not always provided, make claims for innovation in many of these papers question-
able. Alasuutari’s (2007: 514) notion of a ‘collectively owned toolbox’ of research
methods (across disciplines) in which ‘each user leaves their mark on the tools that
they use’ is a particularly apposite description of ‘innovation’ that emerges from this
research; many of the ‘innovations’ identified in these papers are little more than the
day-to-day adaptation that researchers have always, rightly, undertaken in applying
methods to a specific research context.
The areas in which innovation is claimed reflect the trends towards, and the current
popularity of, particular types of methods and approaches, particularly performative
methods, visual methods and online or e-research methods. Innovations at the interface
with arts-based approaches appear to dominate. As we have noted, these ‘innovations’
appeared to be those developed, in the main, by early adopters of such approaches rather
than originators. For some researchers there is an excitement about being an ‘early adop-
ter’ of methods that are perceived as new and ‘cutting edge’; such developments can take
on a life of their own so that researchers who do not engage with these methods end up
feeling (and perhaps are perceived as) ‘out of date’ and, in Rogers’ (2003) terminology,

Downloaded from qrj.sagepub.com by Silvina Tatavitto on October 23, 2012

Wiles et al. 601

as ‘laggards’. As such, it is unsurprising that these topics are sites for innovation
claims, in that they represent what Prus refers to as the latest fad or fashion in methods
(Kleinknecht, 2007). This does not necessarily preclude them from being innovative but
the rapid evolution of techniques within these ‘trendy’ areas make the likelihood of
considered and enduring methodological innovation less likely.
The question of why this matters is an important one. It could be argued that the
position we have taken here is simply a matter of semantics and whether one calls nov-
elty in methods a development, an adaptation or an innovation is unimportant. However,
we argue, following Travers (2009) and Prus (Kleinknecht, 2007), that any trend to over-
claiming innovation has important implications that are potentially detrimental to qual-
itative social science. First, it encourages a focus on the latest methodological fads and
detracts from developing well-established methodologies and engaging with the endur-
ing methodological challenges that social science raises. Second, it encourages a view
that the established social science methods of the past are ‘old hat’ and inappropriate; yet
these methods, such as traditional ethnography, have proved to be exemplary in under-
standing people’s social worlds. Third, the over-claiming of innovation risks losing
credibility in the same way as has over-claiming by academics of ‘international’ standing
in research. This is not to argue that methods should not be developed according to
changing contexts; this is something researchers have always done and is essential to
good social science. We also are not arguing that wholly new innovation, involving
considered development of methodologies, is unnecessary. Rather we argue that the
relentless pursuit of, and claims for, innovation understood as inception risks downgrading
the value of adaptation and adoption and established methods falling out of use as funders
and publishers pursue the latest new thing. This poses particular concerns in relation to
the new generation of social science researchers. New and different methods should not
necessarily be assumed to be better than older methods; whether they are improvements
is something that has to be established.
Despite the limited evidence for wholly new innovation in this study, in a small
number of papers there was some indication that claims for such innovation have some
substance. These relate, primarily, to innovation claims that are situated within a frame-
work of resolving problems or ambiguities within established methods or designs and
in which the contribution of the innovation is made explicit and located within meth-
odological debates. However, even with these papers, the diffusion and take up of
the ‘innovation’ appears limited. As we have noted, the process whereby innovations
are disseminated and taken up by the social science community is a slow and complex
one; there is little indication that the innovations identified through this project are in
the process of becoming mainstream.
We concur with Taylor and Coffey’s (2008, 2009) argument for the need for funding
to enable the testing, experimentation and evaluation of methodological innovations –
but we argue that such funding should focus on innovations that address fundamental
methodological problems and not innovations that are a response to technological devel-
opments or adaptations to existing methods. Central to this research agenda is the need
to explore the benefits of such innovations. Methodological innovations are useful and
appropriate only if they improve our methods of understanding the social world. Certainly
innovations provide social researchers with different methods of conducting research but

Downloaded from qrj.sagepub.com by Silvina Tatavitto on October 23, 2012

602 Qualitative Research 11(5)

different is not necessarily better. Whether or not innovations provide better research
methods is an empirical question that needs to be subjected to detailed exploration and
demonstration over time.

Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding in the public, commercial or not-for-
profit sectors.

Notes
1. The studies conducted by Xenitidou and Gilbert (2009) and Forbes (2003) focus on both
qualitative and quantitative methods.
2. Four of the 14 journals from which these papers were identified specifically identify innova-
tion or innovative in their aims and scope; a further three identify methodological advances or
risk-taking.

References
Alasuutari P (2007) The globalization of qualitative research. In: Seale C, Gobo G, Gubrium J and
Silverman D (eds) Qualitative Research Practice. London: Sage, 507–520.
Borum V (2006) Reading and writing womanist poetic prose - African American mothers with
deaf daughters. Qualitative Inquiry 12(2): 340–352.
Bourdon S (2002) The integration of qualitative data analysis software in research strategies:
resistances and possibilities. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 3(2): art. 11.
Bryman A (2006) Editorial. Qualitative Research 6(1): 5–7.
Cho J and Trent A (2006) Validity in qualitative research revisited. Qualitative Research 6(3):
319–340.
Crow G, Bardsley N and Wiles R (2009) Methodological innovation and developing understandings
of 21st Century society. 21st Century Society 4(2): 115–118.
Denzin N and Lincoln Y (eds) (2000) Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd Edition). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dixon-Woods M, Bonas S, Booth A, Jones DR, Miller T and Sutton AJ et al. (2006) How can
systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A critical perspective. Qualitative
Research 6(1): 27–44.
Dodson L, Piatelli D and Schmalzbauer L (2007) Researching inequality – through interpretive
collaborations shifting power and the unspoken contract. Qualitative Inquiry 13(6): 821–843.
Doornbos A, Van Rooij M, Smit M and Verdonschot S (2008) From fairytales to spherecards:
towards a new research methodology for improving knowledge productivity. Forum Qualita-
tive Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research 9(2): art. 48.
Duncan M (2004) Autoethnography: critical appreciation of an emerging art. The International
Journal of Qualitative Methods 3(4): 28–39.
Fielding N (2000) The shared fate of two innovations in qualitative methodology: the relationship
of qualitative software and secondary analysis of archived qualitative data. Forum Qualitative
Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research 1(3): art. 22.
Forbes I (2003) Perceptions of cutting edge research in UK Social Science. Innovation: The
European Journal of Social Science Research 16(3): 271–291.
Gavin H (2005) The social construction of the child sex offender explored by narrative. Qualitative
Report 10(3): 395–415.

Downloaded from qrj.sagepub.com by Silvina Tatavitto on October 23, 2012

Wiles et al. 603

Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O and Peacock R (2005) Storylines

of research in diffusion of innovation: a meta-narrative approach to systematic review. Social
Science and Medicine 61(2): 417–430.
Gwyther G and Possamai-Inesedy A (2009) Methodologies a la carte: an examination of emerging
qualitative methodologies in social research. International Journal of Social Research
Methodology 12(2): 99–115.
Hak T, Van der Veer K and Ommundsen R (2006) An application of the three-step test-interview
(TSTI): a validation study of the Dutch and Norwegian versions of the ‘illegal aliens scale’.
International Journal of Social Research Methodology 9(3): 215–227.
Hinchcliffe V and Gavin H (2009) Social and virtual networks: evaluating synchronous online
interviewing using Instant Messenger. The Qualitative Report 14(2): 318–340.
Holge-Hazelton B (2002) The internet: a new field for qualitative inquiry? Forum: Qualitative
Social Research 3(2): art. 15.
Hookway N (2008) ‘Entering the blogosphere’: some strategies for using blogs in social research.
Qualitative Research 8(1): 91–113.
Jones K (2004) Mission drift in qualitative research, or moving toward a systematic review of
qualitative studies, moving back to a more systematic narrative review. The Qualitative Report
9(1): 95–112.
Kacen L (2002) Supercodes reflected in titles battered women accord to their life stories. The
International Journal of Qualitative Methods 1(1): 49–60.
Kahn P, Wareham T, Young R, Willis I and Pilkington R (2008) Exploring a practitioner-based
interpretive approach to reviewing research literature. International Journal of Research &
Method in Education 31(2): 169–180.
Kleinknecht S (2007) An interview with Robert Prus: his career, contributions and legacy as an
interactionist ethnographer and social theorist. Qualitative Sociology Review 3(2): 221–288.
Koenig T (2006) Compounding mixed-methods problems in frame analysis through comparative
research. Qualitative Research 6(1): 61–76.
Lincoln YS and Gonzalez E (2008) The search for emerging decolonizing methodologies in
qualitative research: further strategies for liberatory and democratic inquiry. Qualitative
Inquiry 14(5): 784–805.
Lockyer S (2006) Heard the one about . . . applying mixed methods in humour research? Interna-
tional Journal of Social Research Methodology 9(1): 41–59.
Mahoney D (2007) Constructing reflexive fieldwork relationships: narrating my collaborative
storytelling methodology. Qualitative Inquiry 13(4): 573–594.
Mason P (2005) Visual data in applied qualitative research: lessons from experience. Qualitative
Research 5(3): 325–346.
Matthews J and Cramer EP (2008) Using technology to enhance qualitative research with hidden
populations. The Qualitative Report 13(2): 301–315.
Otto S (2007) Beneath and beyond truth: studying literary narratives to research human phenomena.
International Journal of Research & Method in Education 30(1): 73–87.
Pain H (2009) Innovation in qualitative research methodology: annotated bibliography. National
Centre for Research Methods Working Paper. Available at: http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/811/
Peterson ER and Barron KA (2007) How to get focus groups talking: new ideas that will stick. The
International Journal of Qualitative Methods 6(3): 140–144.
Pevey CF and McKenzie NJ (2009) Love, fear, and loathing: a qualitative examination of Chris-
tian perceptions of Muslims. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social
Research 10(1): art. 1.
Platt J (1996) A History of Sociological Research Methods in America 1920–1960. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Downloaded from qrj.sagepub.com by Silvina Tatavitto on October 23, 2012

604 Qualitative Research 11(5)

Popay H, Baldwin S and Britten N et al. (2007) Narrative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews.
Manchester: ESRC Research Methods Programme.
Richards JC (2006) Post modern image-based research: an innovative data collection method for
illuminating preservice teachers developing perceptions in field-based courses. The Qualitative
Report 11(1): 37–54.
Rogers EM (2003) Diffusion of Innovations (5th Edition). New York: Free Press.
Sade-Beck L (2004) Internet ethnography: online and offline. The International Journal of
Qualitative Methods 3(2): 45–51.
Saldana J (2003) Dramatizing data: a primer. Qualitative Inquiry 9(2): 218–236.
Scott S (2004) Researching shyness: a contradiction in terms? Qualitative Research 1(1): 91–105.
Secrist C, De Koeyer I, Bell H and Fogel A (2002) Combining digital video technology and nar-
rative methods for understanding infant development. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/
Forum: Qualitative Social Research 3(2): art. 24.
Tate SA (2007) Foucault, Bakhtin, ethnomethodology: accounting for hybridity in talk-in-interaction.
Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research 8(2): art. 10.
Taylor C and Coffey A (2008) Innovation in Qualitative Research Methods: Possibilities and
Challenges. Cardiff: Cardiff University.
Taylor C and Coffey A (2009) Editorial – Special issue: qualitative research and methodological
innovation. Qualitative Research 9(5): 523–526.
Travers M (2009) New methods, old problems: a sceptical view of innovation in qualitative
research. Qualitative Research 9(2): 161–179.
Tsoukalas I (2006) A method for studying social representations. Quality and Quantity 40(6):
959–981.
Von Hippel E (1998) Economics of product development by users: the impact of ‘sticky’ local
information. Management Science 44(5): 629–644.
Wall S (2006) An autoethnography on learning about autoethnography. The International Journal
of Qualitative Methods 5(2): 146–160.
Wasserman JA, Clair JM and Wilson KL (2009) Problematics of grounded theory: innovations for
developing an increasingly rigorous qualitative method. Qualitative Research 9(3): 355–381.
Weller S (2006) Tuning-in to teenagers! Using radio phone-in discussions in research with young
people. International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory and Practice 9(4):
303–315.
Williams M (2007) Avatar watching: participant observation in graphical online environments.
Qualitative Research 7(1): 5–24.
Xenitidou M and Gilbert N (2009) Innovations in Social Science Research Methods. Guildford:
University of Surrey.

Biographical notes
Rose Wiles is Co-Director and Principal Research Fellow at the National Centre for Research
Methods. She is a medical sociologist with an interest in qualitative methods and research ethics.
Graham Crow is Deputy Director at the National Centre for Research Methods. His main research
interests are in the sociology of community and in various aspects of research methods.
Helen Pain is a researcher at the University of Southampton. She worked as an occupational
therapist before moving into research in the field of disability and health and social care.

Downloaded from qrj.sagepub.com by Silvina Tatavitto on October 23, 2012