QUALITATIVE RESEARCH DESIGN AS

TOOL FOR TRUSTWORTHY RESEARCH

E. Schurink
Sanlam Centre for Public Management and Governance
University of Johannesburg

ABSTRACT

T
his article introduces the reader to the fundamental elements and process
of a qualitative research design. It argues that a research design is more
than a researcher’s plan to do qualitative research. The importance of the
interrelatedness of the elements in the research undertaken is explained from an
insider perspective. As a starting point and basis to understand the development
of a qualitative research design, this article firstly provides background information
on the meaning of design in qualitative research. Following this the theoretical
approaches in qualitative research, the formulation of the research question,
research strategies, the choice of a research setting or sampling, and the different
qualitative research methodologies that could be followed to develop a conceptual
framework for the research, are discussed. Lastly, attention is given to the
importance of the research design as tool for trustworthy research.

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH DESIGN

iterally, design is a researcher’s plan of how to execute a particular study from
identifying the topic to interpreting the results. But unlike the quantitative paradigm,
qualitative design is more than a plan or set of data-gathering methods. In short, if
properly designed it could be used as a tool or model to help the researcher to unlock
the empirical world (Taylor and Bogdan, 1984). Particularly important is that designing
and executing a qualitative research study, should be treated as a process whereby
the steps taken by the researcher is based on his/her assumptions of how the research
question could be answered most truthfully1. These assumptions are based on the
researcher’s background and knowledge and on his/her theoretical and methodological
approaches. However, it is important to note that on the other hand these assumptions
shape the researcher’s actions, approaches taken and the issues to be focused on. In this

E. Schurink 803
Article
way a qualitative research design provides the markers, parameters and tools helping the
researcher to proceed (Taylor and Bogdan, 1984).
It is therefore crucial to also see the research process as a reflexive one during which
the researcher critically analyses all decisions and actions taken during the execution of
the study. In practice, this means that the researcher must continuously reflect upon each
action taken to help him/her to gain a better understanding of the phenomenon under
study, deciding whether a particular decision is the best possible step to answer the research
question truthfully, and in view of the decision taken at that point decide what to do next.
Etherington (2007:601) emphasises the importance of reflexivity in qualitative research by
explaining that reflexivity could be regarded as: “… a tool whereby we can include our
“selves” at any stage, making transparent the values and beliefs we hold that almost certainly
influence the research process and its outcomes. Reflexive research encourages us to display
in our writing/conversations the interactions between our selves and our participants from our
first point of contact until we end those relationships, so that our work can be understood,
not only in terms of what we have discovered, but how we have discovered it”.
It is clear from the preceding argument that designing qualitative research is a flexible,
cyclic, and ongoing process that involves moving back and forth between the different
components of the design, assessing the implications of the goals set, of the theories
and research approach chosen, of the research questions, methods, and the quality
implications of the research (Maxwell, 2005).
Not only is the character of a qualitative research design fluid but it is unique to
the study. This viewpoint is in direct contrast to researchers suggesting that qualitative
researchers have a choice of design2. By placing your study within a research design means
that you situate it within a specific framework with interrelated assumptions, concepts,
values and practices that comprise the way you think reality should be viewed (ontology)
and studied (epistemology). By choosing just one design and sticking to it means that the
chosen research design has to serve as an all purpose vehicle and thus be suitable for any
type of research road. Given the rough terrain through which qualitative researchers have
to pass, this will not always be possible. For example, although following a biographical
strategy the researcher may decide to use grounded theory to analyse the data. In reality,
the focus in qualitative research should rather be on the research question and the ability
of the research design to clarify the research purpose and perspective, and not on choosing
one design and sticking with it regardless of whether it is serving its purpose or not.
It is important that the research must be designed in such a way that it opens up the
inquiry, not narrow it down. The research design, therefore, outlines the possibilities of
ongoing changes in the researcher’s ontology and epistemology and thus the assumptions
made in the study. The design must therefore be flexible enough to allow the possibility
that other conceptual frameworks could prove to be useful (Josselson, 2003).
However, not following a specific recipe does not mean that the qualitative researcher
has no plan on how to proceed in answering the research question. Therefore, to suggest
that qualitative research does not have a design, would be misleading. Furthermore it is
important to understand that the flexible nature of a qualitative research design implies
that particular decisions taken during the execution of the research, such as selecting

804 Journal of Public Administration • Vol 44 no 4.2 • November 2009

research participants, gathering data, and analysing data, are not as in the case of
quantitative research, restricted to any particular stage of the research.
It is also important to note that the qualitative paradigm is constantly in flux and
changing. In an effort to answer the unanswered philosophical questions related to
the representation of the ‘other’, i.e. the research participant, qualitative research has
evolved in discovery and rediscovery. As qualitative researchers strive to make sense of
the social world and create new knowledge or revisit what they know, new spaces, new
possibilities and new formations are created for qualitative research design (Denzin and
Lincoln, 2000).
In order to develop a research design that could be used as a conceptual tool in
the research process, it is necessary to first gain an understanding of the elements of a
qualitative research design. This is the topic of the next section.

FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENTS OF A QUALITATIVE RESEARCH DESIGN

The following elements can be identified:
• The research approach guiding the study;
• The research question to be answered;
• The research strategy or reasoning to be implemented;
• The research setting to be studied; and
• The methods to be used to gather and analyse the data.

However, to do scientific research of the highest quality it is not only important to

understand the identified elements but to grasp the importance of the interrelatedness
of these elements in the research design and the relationship between them. As is clear
from Figure 1, the design is situated between the research question and the theoretical
approach, the research strategy, research setting and the methodology of the research
(Punch, 2009). This means as depicted that the research questions should be clearly
related to the research approach and the research strategy to be followed. The research
setting (sample) chosen and the methods of data gathering and analysis must enable the
researcher to answer the research question(s) and to deal with possible threats related
to the quality of the research (Maxwell, 2005). Differently stated, researchers bring their
own specific beliefs to a particular study. This often includes training in a particular field,
knowledge of substantive topics, a particular standpoint, and theoretical approaches or a
conceptual framework. Depending on their orientation researchers have an idea or way of
reasoning on how the study should proceed in order to answer the research question as
truthfully as possible. The researcher will then decide who or what should be studied to
obtain the best possible answer to the research question. Finally, a decision will be made
on how the study will be done, in other words which methods will be used to gather and
analyse the data.
Although all the elements of the research design are interrelated in practice the first
part of the design forms a closely knitted unit focussing on clarifying what the researcher
wants to find out (Babbie, 2007). There is a direct relationship between the research

E. Schurink 805
question(s) the theoretical framework and the proposed research strategy. Differently
stated, the research question is informed by the theoretical concepts, models and research
strategies that can be applied to gain an understanding of the phenomena under study
while decisions about what theory and knowledge are relevant depend on the research
question. Similarly the second part of the research design forms an integrated unit
focussing on the best way to do the research (Babbie, 2007). Thus, the chosen research
setting and the methods of data gathering and analysis should enable the researcher to
answer the research questions truthfully (Maxwell, 2005).

Figure 1: An interactive model of a research design

ONTOLOGY

Theoretical framework Research strategy

Research question

The research setting Methodology

EPISTEMOLOGY

In the next sections of this article a more in-depth discussion of each of the components
of a qualitative research design will be provided.

Theoretical framework
The theoretical framework of an empirical study refers to the system of concepts, assumptions,
expectations, beliefs and theories that informs the research and is therefore a key part of the

806 Journal of Public Administration • Vol 44 no 4.2 • November 2009

design (Maxwell, 2005). The function of the theoretical framework is to inform the rest of
the design, to guide researchers in assessing and refining their goals, develop realistic and
relevant research questions, and to guide their methodological approach. For researchers it
is essential to firstly examine the foundations of their thinking. Alternative answers exist to
each foundational question. Different beliefs of ontology meaning how one sees reality, and
epistemology, that is how the researcher thinks social phenomena should best be studied,
will influence the way that he/she will go about doing the research.
The same phenomenon could thus be investigated, analysed and interpreted differently
depending on the researcher’s belief of what social reality is (ontology) and how social
phenomena can best be known (epistemology) (Potter, 1996). The first relevant question
that the researcher should therefore ask when designing a study is: “How do I see
social reality?”
In this regard basic assumptions are made: Human behaviour could be explained
from the outside by means of observation through the use of general scientific laws
(erklaren). Or, humans are different from things; human behaviour therefore could only
be understood from an insider’s point of view (emic) and by gaining insight into the
meaning (verstehen) that the research participant gives to his/her lifeworld. Qualitative
research aims to understand actors’ subjective meanings and interpretations to explain
their behaviour (see Schwandt, 2007).
However, how this insight will be gained depends on the world-views or sets of
basic beliefs of a researcher on the way he/she believes the research question could
be answered most truthfully. That is to generate truthful, and in the case of qualitative
research trustworthy descriptions and explanations of the world. Following from this
there are two basic answers namely the belief that reality should be seen objectively as
an external reality ‘out there’ requiring the researcher to maintain a detached, objective
position when studying it. Or the belief that there is no truth ‘out there’ and that reality
is subjective and could only be constructed through the empathetic understanding of the
research participant’s meaning of his/her lifeworld.
Kavale (1996: 41) explains the difference between these ontological viewpoints
aptly by saying: “The conception of knowledge as a ‘mirror of reality’ is replaced by the
conception of the ‘social construction of reality’ where the focus is on the interpretation
and negotiation of the meaning of the social world.”
Behind these ontological beliefs lie different theories of epistemology or theory of
knowledge and perception. There are basically three different research perspectives or
approaches in qualitative research, namely: Objectivism, Realism and Constructionism
(http://bgpinqmr.group.shef.ac.uk/workshop/FacilitatorsGuide2.pdf). As is clear from Table
1 each of these research perspectives has its own ontology, epistemology, methodology
and methods of data collection and analysis.
Objectivism
This perspective is predominant in the quantitative paradigm, however qualitative
researchers (most notably realists4 ) believing that the real world should be discovered
by means of a systematic methodological approach and that knowledge arises from

E. Schurink 807
 Table 1: Evolving research perspectives3
Methods of

808
Report/
Perspective Ontology Epistemology Methodology data collection
writing style
and analysis
Description of
Interpretation arises day-to-day events
The lifeworld of
from the observation For example: experienced in the
research participants For example classic
of the researcher. Participant field, realist tales in
Objectivism could be discovered ethnography and
With the right Observation and an authorial, supreme
in an objective phenomenology.
methods meaning Interviewing. voice to represent
manner.
can be discovered. and interpret the
other’s story.

The researcher
Data is gathered by
The real world Knowledge provides insights
means of participant
could be discovered arises from the into the behaviour
observation,
by means of a understanding expressed and
Realism Grounded theory. human documents
systematic, interactive of symbols and the meanings and
and interviewing,
methodological meaning (symbolic interpretations that
and analysed
approach. interactionism). participants give to
systematically.
their life-worlds.

Newer forms of Interviewing, The story must be

There is no real world
Those who ethnography: participant lifelike, evocative
or truth out there
are personally auto-ethnography, observation, human believable, and
only a narrative truth,
Constructivism/ experiencing it collaborative documents, personal possible to enable
reality can thus only
subjectivism construct knowledge enquiry (PAR), narratives, lived readers to put

Journal of Public Administration • Vol 44 no 4.2 • November 2009

be known by those
through a process of personal –reflexive experience, poetic themselves in the
who experience it
self-conscious action. ethnography, representations and place of other/have
personally.
narrative inquiry. fictional texts. empathy.
observation and interpretation could also be regarded as objectivists (See Schwandt,
2007). This approach is based on the belief that there is an external reality that should be
studied objectively. Objectivity in this sense refers to the ability to know things as they
really are.
Objectivists believe that this is possible if specific methods are followed because
following them will place the necessary check on subjectivity and restrain personal
judgement and emotions. Method thus plays a key role in enabling the researcher to
understand the meaning that people give to every day life experiences in a detached manner.
Paradigms associated with objectivism are classic ethnography and phenomenology.
Realism
Interpretivists believe that the method of verstehen should be centralised to reach an
interpretive understanding and explanation that will enable the social researcher to
appreciate the subjective meaning of social action. The assumption is thus made that
reality should be interpreted through the meaning that research participants give to
their lifeworld. This meaning could only be discovered through language5. Paradigms
associated with interpretivism include symbolic interactionism, analytical induction and
grounded theory (see Schwandt, 2007).
Constructionism
Constructionists believe that there is no truth “out there”, but only a narrative reality that
changes continuously. Reality can therefore only be socially and personally constructed
and the participant should be actively involved in this process. Reality is thus seen as the
result of constructive processes. Paradigms associated with this include newer forms of
ethnography, for example, auto-ethnography, collaborative enquiry (PAR), appreciative
inquiry (AI), personal-reflexive ethnography and narrative inquiry.
From the above, it is clear that the theoretical framework used in designing qualitative
research will depend on the researcher’s ontology. If he/she believes that scientific truth
can best be discovered and the research question best be answered by studying the
phenomenon objectively, the research will be designed according to the theoretical and
methodological approaches of classic ethnography or phenomenology. On the other
hand, if the researcher believes that the real world should be discovered and the research
question answered by means of a systematic, interactive theoretical and methodological
approach, grounded theory or analytical induction will be used. In the same way, the
researcher’s decision to do an auto-ethnographic study will be underlined by his/her
belief that the research question could best be answered by constructing knowledge
through a process of self-conscious action such as writing a self narrative of some
lived experiences.

Research strategy
The research strategy applied by a researcher flows from the research approach taken. It
is the logic of the approach or the reasoning process used to link the research question(s),

E. Schurink 809
methods and evidence (Schwandt, 2007). The research design is driven by the strategy
(Punch, 2009). The main question when deciding on a strategy is weather it will enable
the researcher to answer the research question truthfully. Researchers should change
their strategies when they do not obtain sufficient data (Charmaz, 2007). In practice the
following strategies as identified by Creswell (2007) or combinations of it are mostly used
in qualitative research:
• Biography
• Ethnography
• Phenomenology
• Grounded theory
• Case study
Biography6
Biography refers to both product and process (Schwandt, 2007). This approach is based
on the assumption that the lifeworld of a person can best be understood from his or her
own account and perspective, and “…thus the focus is on individual subjective definition
and experience of life” (Schwandt, 2007:22). However, since an individual is part of a
social and cultural world, the biographic approach seeks to interrelate these worlds. Older
forms of biography include life stories and life histories mainly flowing from an objectivistic
perspective. As such, the researcher needs to do the following (Cresswell, 2007).
• Collect extensive information from and about the participant;
• Have a clear understanding of historical, contextual material; and
• Have a keen eye for determining the particular stories or angles that “work” in writing
a biography.

This strategy is used by the researcher to report on and document the participant’s
life and his or her experiences as told to the researcher (solicited documents), or
found in documents and archival material (unsolicited documents), narratives and
autobiographies.
More recently (1995-2000) authors like Carolyn Ellis and Arthur Bochner (1996) have
started to experiment with novel forms of expressing lived experience, including literary,
poetic, auto-biographical, multi-voiced, conversational, critical, visual performative, and
co-constructed representations that flow from a constructivist perspective.
Despite the different perspectives taken in biographical research these research
strategies have one common aim namely the reconstruction of the history of a life (the
unfolding of an individual’s experiences over time and in a specific culture). The methods
of data collection applied here are primarily personal interviews and personal docu­ments­
(letters, diaries, etc.) with a detailed picture of an individual’s life being the product of the
research.
Ethnography7
Ethnography originally stems from the objectivistic paradigm and is characterised by
observation (participant observation) and description of the actions of a small number

810 Journal of Public Administration • Vol 44 no 4.2 • November 2009

of participants and the meanings that they attached to their actions. The most prominent
feature of ethnographic studies is describing and interpreting cultural behaviour (see
Schwandt, 2007).
The aspirant researcher should be acutely aware of the fact that ethnographic
fieldwork is not a straightforward, unproblematic strategy whereby the researcher enters
the field, collects the data and leaves the field unscathed. In fact, this type of fieldwork
should rather be compared to a journey into a minefield riddled with potential moral
and ethical pitfalls. According to Punch (1994: 84–85), ethnography is “…definitely not
a soft option, but rather represents a demanding craft that involves both coping with
multiple negotiations and continually dealing with ethical dilemmas”. Such pitfalls can, as
a rule, not be identified beforehand, but have the potential to totally alter the nature of
the research. Punch (1994) emphasises that this research strategy requires the qualitative
fieldworker to become involved in prolonged immersion in the life of a group, community
or organisation in order to discern people’s habits and thoughts as well as to decipher
the social structure that binds them together. The process of gathering data in the field
therefore requires time, a deep personal involvement and commitment, the ability to
withstand tedious situations of prolonged drudgery and discomfort, skills to resolve
conflict situations on the spot, and courage to face and deal with uncomfortable if not
dangerous situations.
In traditional ethnographic research qualitative researchers wrote “objective” accounts
of field experiences mirroring positivism. “They were concerned with offering valid,
reliable, and objective interpretations in their writings. The ‘Other’ whom they studied
was alien, foreign, and strange” (Denzin and Lincoln, 2005:15). The process has been
described as being typically of an ethnographer who similar to the American Lone Ranger
would enter a strange territory and report back on his experiences to the “West” or the
“middle class” (Seale, 2002). It is clear that the emphasis was put on the researchers’
integrity rather than on applying rigorous procedures.
This traditional period has however largely fallen into disrepute because of accusations
against ethnographers of supporting objectivism, complying with imperialism, believing
in monumentalism (i.e. ethnography would create a museum-like picture of studied
cultures) and believing in timelessness (i.e. that what was studied would never change).
An important aspect of classic ethnography, which is still found today, is its interpretive
methodology, which maintained the centrality of the narrated life history approach. This
approach was established by the Chicago school, which the life story and the “slice-of-
life” approach. This led to the production of texts that gave the researcher the power to
represent the subject’s story (Denzin and Lincoln, 2005).
Recent developments in ethnography stem from a constructivist perspective and
have been fuelled by the postmodern period (1990-1995). New ways of composing
ethnography were explored and researchers experimented with different types of research
accounts to represent the “other” (see, or example, Ellis and Bochner (1996) and Ellis
(2004). Furthermore, as Denzin and Lincoln (2005) state, the tendency had arisen to
abandon the concept of the aloof observer. Consequently, theories were written in
narrative terms as “tales of the field”, and the search for grand narratives was replaced

E. Schurink 811
by more local, small-scale theories fitted to specific problems and particular situations.
Action, participatory and activist-orientated research came forward.
Phenomenology8
This strategy stems from the objectivistic paradigm and aims to describe what concepts
and structures of experience give form and meaning to the person involved (Schram,
2006). The researcher utilising this approach brackets9 his/her own assumptions and
perceptions of how everyday events are experienced in order to first gain an understanding
of his/her observations. The main aim is to gain an understanding of the essence of the
experiences of the research participants (Moustakas, 1994). The product of the research
is a careful description of the conscious every day experiences and social action of the
research participants.
In order to accomplish a description of lifeworld experiences, researchers should be
able to turn from things to their meaning. The researcher therefore turns away from him
or herself and try to understand how the world appears to others. This is mainly done by
means of naturalistic methods of study, implying that researchers must be able to distance
themselves from their own judgements and preconceptions about the nature and essence
of experiences and events in the everyday world (Schram, 2006). The researcher should
thus assume the attitude of a “disinterested” observer. Researchers using this strategy of
enquiry will mainly utilise participant observation and interviewing as methods of data
collection. Data analysis is undertaken by means of an inductive and recursive process.
Patterns, categories, or themes evolve as data collection proceeds.
A later development originating from phenomenology is Garfinkel’s ethno-
methodology. This approach draws on the resources of the phenomenological paradigm
but flows from a constructionist perspective (Schwandt, 2007:97). By following this design
the researcher tries to understand the meaning of the interactions people experience in
everyday life. A more recent form of ethno-methodology is discourse analysis.
Grounded theory10
Grounded theory originates from the interpretivistic perspective. Much has been written
about grounded theory but in a nutshell, its aim is to develop a substantive theory11 that
is grounded in data (Schram, 2006). Rather than being an actual theory itself, grounded
theory focuses on generating theory based on the study of social situations. Schwandt
(2007:131) emphasises the fact that grounded theory is “…a specific, highly developed,
rigorous set of procedures for producing formal substantive theory of social phenomena”.
A distinction is made between substantive and formal theory. A substantive theory is a
description and abstraction of what goes on in a particular kind of social setting, e.g.
hospital wards with dying patients. Analytic abstractions are used in discussing such
settings, but no claim is made that the abstractions apply to other situations. In formal
theory, abstractions and hypotheses about the relationships among these abstractions are
developed. These hypotheses should then explain phenomena in many kinds of settings.
Formal theory is concerned with a conceptual area of study, such as deviant behaviour
or organisational theory. Ideally, one should begin by developing substantive theory in a

812 Journal of Public Administration • Vol 44 no 4.2 • November 2009

particular area, and then broaden it to formal theory by using several substantive theories
(Schwandt, 2007).
Schwandt (2007) emphasises that in the development of theory, grounded theory
simultaneously employs techniques of induction, deduction and verification. In this way
data generates insights, hypotheses and generative questions that the researcher follows
up through further data generation that leads to tentative answers to questions and the
construction of concepts which are verified by means of further data collection.
According to Creswell (2007), the researcher, applying this strategy, generates an
abstract analytical schema of a phenomenon, i.e. a theory that explains some action,
interaction or process. This means that grounded theory employs the method of constant
comparison where the new data gathered, actions observed and perceptions recorded
of the participants, are constantly compared with that of new participants in order to
generate theory. The researcher thus constantly asks: “How does what I already know
differ from what I have now found?” The aim of this constant comparison method is to
look for similarities and differences in the data. From this process the researcher identifies
underlying uniformities in the indicators or incidents (actions, events, perspectives) and
produces a coded category or concept. These categories are compared with one another
and with new incidents to sharpen the definition of the concept and to look for possible
new categories. Categories are clustered together to form themes. Theories are formed by
proposing plausible relationships between themes. Tentative theories are further explored
through additional instances of data and tested by means of theoretical sampling.
Theoretical saturation is reached when no new categories emerge (Schwandt, 2007).
Strauss and Corbin (1998) comment further that a grounded theory is discovered,
developed and provisionally verified through systematic data collection and the analysis
of data pertaining to that phenomenon. Therefore, data collection, analysis and theory
stand in a reciprocal relationship with one another. The researcher does not begin with a
theory, and then proves it; rather he/she begins with an area of study, and what is relevant
to that area is gradually allowed to emerge. A systematic set of procedures is used for
data collection and analysis. Data is collected by means of interviews with individuals
who have participated in a process about a central phenomenon to “saturate” categories
and detail a theory. Analysis takes place through open, axial and selective coding in
an attempt to deliver a theory or a theoretical model as the product of the research. A
grounded theory is one that is systematically developed from the data inductively derived
from the study of phenomena.
Extending through the post-war years, the 1970s, the mid-1980s, to the work of
many contemporary qualitative scholars grounded theory is part of the moment or phase
coined by Denzin and Lincoln (2005) as modernist. Modernism is characterised by the
interpretation of reality by means of formalised qualitative methods and rigorous data
analysis (e.g. analytical induction and grounded theory). Examples of this perspective
include the symbolic interactionist perspective as reflected in the well-known textbooks
and works of amongst others, Filstead (1970), Bogdan and Biklen (2003), Bogdan and
Taylor (1975), Taylor and Bogdan (1998), Glaser and Strauss (1967) and Lincoln and Guba
(1985). Knowledge is built by analysing symbols and meaning.

E. Schurink 813
Case study12
According to Creswell (2007), a case study can be regarded as an exploration or in-depth
analysis of a “bounded system” (bounded by time and/or place), or a single or multiple
case, over a period of time. The case being studied may refer to a process, activity, event,
programme or individual or multiple individuals. It might even refer to a period of time
rather than a particular group of people.
Different to the other methodological frameworks the case study strategy is more of a
choice of what to study than a methodological one. This becomes clear by looking at its
ability to adapt to all the theoretical approaches and methodological frameworks such as
life history, phenomenology, grounded theory and ethnographic research. However “…
whether you consider case study as a way of conceptualizing human behaviour or merely
as a way of encapsulating it, its strategic value lies in its ability to draw attention to what
can be learned from the single case” (Schram, 2006).
The exploration and description of the case takes place through detailed, in-depth
data collection methods, involving multiple sources of information that are rich in context.
These may include interviews, documents, observations or archival records. As such,
the researcher needs access to, and the confidence of participants. The product of this
research is an in-depth description of a case or cases. The researcher situates this system
or case within its larger context, but the focus remains on either the case or an issue that
is illustrated by it (Creswell 2007).
Schram (2006) refers to three types of case study, all having different purposes:
• The intrinsic case study which is solely focused on the aim of gaining a better
understanding of the particular case.
• The instrumental case study which is used to provide insight into or elaborate on a
theory or to gain a better understanding of a social issue through studying the case.
This case study merely serves the purpose of facilitating the researcher’s gaining of
knowledge about a social issue.
• The collective case study is an instrumental case study extended to a number of cases.
The focus is on further the understanding or theorising of the researcher about a
general phenomenon or condition. Cases are chosen so that comparisons can be made
between cases and concepts and in this way theories can be extended and validated.

In concluding this discussion of qualitative research strategies, it is important to note

that researchers need to think through the implications of their chosen strategy for their
studies. Maxwell (2005: 102) states: “To design a workable and productive study, and to
communicate this design to others, you need to create a coherent design, one in which the
different methods fit together compatibly, and in which they are integrated with the other
components of your design. The most critical connection is with your research questions
… If your methods won’t provide you with the data you need to answer your questions,
you need to change either your questions or your methods”.
Finally, the crucial point as indicated by Mason (1996:33) is: “The big questions about
research strategy, and the logic and principles of your methodology, really do need to be

814 Journal of Public Administration • Vol 44 no 4.2 • November 2009

addressed right from the beginning, so that you are equipped to make further strategic
decisions when the right time comes”.
Research questions
Research questions form the backbone of the research design (Mason 2002:19).
Research questions should be clearly related to the theoretical approach taken, the
research strategy, research setting (sample) chosen and the methods of data gathering
and analysis. The research design should enable the researcher to answer the research
question(s) and to deal with possible threats related to the quality of the research
(Maxwell, 2005). Other factors that may influence the research question include
personal interest and expertise, ethical standards, and other practical considerations
such as available resources.
Mason (1996:15-16) provides the following description of a research question: “A
research question is a question which the research is designed to address … and, taken
together, your research questions should express the essence of your enquiry. Therefore,
you need to have done a great deal of thinking about the essence of your enquiry in the
sense of its ontology, its epistemology, and most importantly its intellectual puzzle13, in
order to be able to formulate research questions sensibly and coherently”.
When constructing a research question it is important to address the intellectual
and theoretical relevancy and contributions of the study. “Research questions should
be clearly formulated (whether or not you intend to modify them or add to them later),
intellectually worthwhile, and researchable (both in terms of your epistemological
position, and in practical terms), because it is through them that you will be connecting
what it is you wish to research with how you are going to go about researching it
“(Mason, 2002:19-20).
A research question usually originates from a research idea. It is an idea or a notion
about what to study. The real challenge, however, is to take an idea and transform it into
a research problem or research question. The decision to address a particular research
question can either be practical, triggered by some need identified in practice (e.g. at
one’s workplace), theoretical or personal. It is important …” to be aware of these goals
and how they may be shaping your research, and to think about how best to achieve
them and to deal with their influence” (Maxwell, 2005:19). The purpose of the research
will indicate whether the answer to the research question requires any of the following
activities: an exploration, description, explanation, evaluation, or a combination of these
types (Auriacombe, 2005). Once a researcher has formulated a research question he/she
is ready to take decisions regarding the research setting and data collection and analysis
phases of the research process.

Research setting
This section deals with the issue where or with whom the data is located. Consequently,
the problem of what/who, or the “unit of analysis” in the study is also dealt with here. Is
it an individual, a group, a work team or an organisational unit? Or is the data archival

E. Schurink 815
by nature, located somewhere in the organisation’s information system? The source of the
data should be carefully described. It is important to note that in qualitative research the
researcher is not only sampling people but also settings, events and processes (Maxwell,
2005:87).
Selecting a research setting will to a large extent be influenced by the researcher’s
theoretical approach, strategy of enquiry and research question. A crucial step when
preparing for collecting data about a particularly social reality is to identify and
decide which boundaries/parameters will be used for data collection and the method
of data analysis envisaged – that is, decide how the sample is going to be framed
and developed.
Different to quantitative sampling which is concerned with representativeness,
qualitative research requires that the data to be collected must be rich in description of
people and places (Patton, 1990:169). As a general guideline for sampling, qualitative
researchers will therefore typically seek out groups and settings where the process to be
studied is most likely to occur (Marshal and Rossman, 1995).
For these reasons the qualitative researcher will use purposive sampling methods
by identifying access points (settings where research participants could be more easily
reached) and selecting especially informative ones. Purposeful sampling is thus a “strategy
in which particular settings, persons, or events are deliberately selected for the important
information they can provide that cannot be gotten as well from other choices” (Bickman
and Rog, 2009:235). The goal of purposive sampling is to sample cases or participants
in such a way that the sample is relevant to understand the phenomenon being studied
and answering the research question as truthfully as possible. Following the typology of
qualitative sampling developed by Patton (1990) the following categories of purposeful
selection are mostly used by qualitative researchers (Punch, 2009):
Snowball or chain reference sampling
Information-rich participants, settings and events are identified by research informants/
members of the same group or subculture.
Theoretical Sampling
According to Glaser and Strauss (1967) theoretical sampling is the process of data
collection for generating theory. Bryman (1988) stresses the fact that qualitative sampling
follows a theoretical rather than a statistical logic. In this regard, Mason (1996: 93-94)
states: “Theoretical sampling means selecting groups or categories to study on the basis of
the relevance to your research questions, your theoretical position...and…the explanation
or account which you are developing”.
Additional events, activities participants and incidents are therefore specifically
chosen to further the development and testing of emerging theoretical constructs.
New cases are continuously analysed and compared to the older ones until theoretical
saturation is reached (Schwandt, 2007). This means that the specific category is well
developed in terms of its properties and no new or relevant data is emerging for the
further development of the category.

816 Journal of Public Administration • Vol 44 no 4.2 • November 2009

Extreme or deviant case sampling
This implies that deviant cases are chosen where the researcher deliberately seeks for
negative instances as defined by the developing theory.
Choosing the setting, population or phenomenon of interest is crucial to the study’s
design and shapes all subsequent decisions (Marshall and Rossman, 1995). Qualitative
research could be site-specific such as a study of a particular programme, process,
organization, place, and region, or could be conducted in various sites. In cases where
a particular setting is decided upon information needs to be provided outlining why the
particular setting is more appropriate than others to be studied. When the study focuses
on a particular group of people, the researcher should present a selection strategy for
selecting that group. Once the initial decision has been taken to focus the study on a
specific site, a phenomenon, or social group, various subsequent selection decisions need
to be taken to ensure the “information richness” of the data.
The qualitative research design allows for far greater flexibility in sampling than
the quantitative research paradigm does. To answer the research question, researchers
therefore may, as they gain more insight and as a theory emerges, redefine their sample.
For example a researcher changing his or her sample during a study of the impact of
downsizing on an organization may start off interviewing employees, but by realising the
negative impact of downsizing on the worker’s family members, may extend the study to
gain an insight into their experiences as well. The size or nature of the sample may change
as new factors emerge that should be included, deviant cases are added to develop the
theory further; and when the need arises to test the theory.

Methodology
This is a theory of how inquiry should proceed (Schwandt, 2007:193). Commitment
to a particular methodological frame of reference will influence and inform the study
in very specific ways (Schram, 2006). Therefore there should be a synthesis between
one’s theoretical framework, research strategy, and methodology and the methods
one chooses to gather and analyse data. For example, if you are a constructionist who
believes that reality can only be known by those who experience it personally and that
social reality should be constructed through a process of self-conscious action, you will
conduct interviews in a different manner and analyse them differently than someone who
believes that the real world could be discovered by means of a systematic, interactive
methodological approach making use of symbols to discover meaning.
According to Mason (1996), the key tasks researchers need to perform during the
research design stage as it relates to methodology are not only to decide upon appropriate
methods and data sources, but also to reach an understanding of the methodological
implications of their choices. Particularly important here is establishing the links between
research questions and research methods. A researcher needs to be clear about how
and why a particular method and data source will assist him or her to address research
questions rather than assuming that a particular method will be emphatically enough to

E. Schurink 817
provide the researcher with the information needed. In addition, the researcher has to
specify what he/she regards as constituting knowledge or evidence relevant to his/her
research questions (Mason, 1996).
Qualitative researchers rely on the following primary methods to gather information:
(i) participant observation of the setting under study/ research participants’ activities,
(ii) interviewing, (iii) using documents (solicited and/or unsolicited and visual), and
(iv) auto-ethnography. You need to indicate and motivate which of these method(s)
you plan to utilise. These methods are all methods in their own right (Marshall and
Rossman, 1995).
Another related exercise researchers need to consider is how the researcher envisages
sorting, organising, indexing and analysing his/her collected data. There are various ways
of making sense of soft data. While it is not the aim of this article to discuss these, it is
important to realise the logical connection between one’s research questions and one’s
selection, data collection and data analysis decisions In this regard. Maxwell (2005:102-
103) emphasises the importance of assessing the compatibility of the research questions
and methods of data gathering and analysis.

CONCLUSION
esigning qualitative research is a unique process. The product of this process
is a conceptual framework that is used as a research tool not only to guide the
researcher in his/her research process but to also to manage the research process
and to do the internal audit14 The writing up of audit trail, natural history or research story
has become increasingly important since the notion of developing criteria of soundness
to meet the approval of all qualitative researchers has today to a large extent been
discarded, or as Schwandt (2007) states, qualitative researchers have gone beyond it.
This does however, not mean that qualitative research has become unscientific and that
anything now goes. In fact doing an audit trail should ensure that the research product is
developed and produced in the tensional field of (theoretical, conceptual, practical and
methodological) creativity and (methodological) rigour in studying phenomena. Therefore,
quality should be located in the tensional field between being rigorous and being flexible
(Flick, 2007).
Since a clear and universal solution to the quality question, or criteria for good
qualitative research has to date not been attainable, researchers started to increasingly
apply strategies to promote quality in the research process. Thus the notion of management
of the research process and transparency with specific reference to the auditing trail and
reflexivity has become an important strategy to ensure quality research.
Continuous reflection on a researcher’s ontology, epistemology, theoretical framework
research questions, methodology, quality of the study and ethical considerations
represents a refinement process whereby the different elements of the research design
are integrated with each other to form the researcher’s conceptual framework for the
study. This framework could be used as a research tool intended to order the researcher’s
thinking, decision making and actions taken during the entire research process. The

818 Journal of Public Administration • Vol 44 no 4.2 • November 2009

researcher’s conceptual framework is the heart of the study and it guides the research
process from the beginning to the end by providing clear links from the literature to the
research goals and questions, informing the research design, providing reference points
for discussion of literature, methodology and analysis of data, and contributing to the
trustworthiness of the study (Goetz and LeCompte, 1984).
Developing the research design as conceptual tool could also assist researchers
in accomplishing the difficult task of writing up the research story since it encourages
them to undertake and record a continuous critical analysis of their thinking and feelings
concerning their research questions; methods; values and biases; and awareness of
their presence in the very situations they want to study as well as of the inter-subjective
dynamics between themselves as researchers and the research they are conducting.
Bogdan and Biklen (1998:50) write in this regard: “How (qualitative researchers)
proceed is based on theoretical assumptions (that meaning and process are crucial in
understanding human behavior, that descriptive data are what is important to collect, and
that analysis is best done inductively), on data-collection traditions (such as participant
observation, unstructured interviewing, and document analysis) and on generally stated
substantive questions. In addition, all researchers bring their own specific backgrounds to
a study. This often includes training in a particular field, knowledge of substantive topics, a
particular standpoint, and theoretical approaches. This shapes what approaches are taken
and what issues are focused on. These markers provide the parameters, the tools, and the
general guide of how to proceed”.
However, what is even more important is that the audit trail could make an important
methodological contribution in that other researchers can learn from it. More specifically,
it could help inexperienced researchers to begin to understand their own philosophy
of social research and to establish congruence between the means of investigating the
situation (methodology), the nature of the situation’s reality (ontology) and the form of the
knowledge (epistemology) suited to the research and thus to gain insight in the research
process and to enhance the quality of their study. In this way a qualitative study can
become a building block of science. Using the research design as a model for research
it could thus help to solve one of the prickliest issues in qualitative research namely the
transferability of a study’s findings.

NOTES
1 According to Mouton (2002) knowledge is regarded as truthful when there is enough evidence to believe that it is an
accurate representation or explanation of a phenomenon.
2 For example Tesch (1990) identifies 28 different approaches; Miller and Crabtree (1992) identify 18 types, using a dif-
ferent system of classification, while many other authors merely assess a single tradition (Strauss and Corbin, 1990;
Moustakas, 1994 and Stake, 2000). Creswell (2007) identifies five traditions of inquiry, selecting those which, according
to him, represent different disciplines, have detailed procedures and, most important, have proved to be popular and
frequently used.
3 An expansion of Schurink’s table (1998).
4 See Schwandt (2007: 256-258).
5 See Schwandt (2007: 314-317) for further explanation.

E. Schurink 819
6 For more information, see Andrews, Sclater, Suire and Tamboukou (2004), Cortazzi (2002), and Plummer (2001).
7 For further information on ethnography see Agar (1996), Atkinson, Coffey and Delamont (2003), Atkinson and
Hammersley (1994), Wolcott (1999), and Zou and Trueba (2002).
8 For further information on phenomenology see Benner (1994), Cohen and Omery (1994), Giorgi (1997), Holstein and
Gubrium (1994), Seidman (1998), and Van Maanen (1997).
9 Bracketing refers to the means by which researchers try not to allow their assumptions, understanding and constructions
to shape their data collection process (Aheren, 2007:130).
10 For further information and clarification, see Bogdan and Biklen (2003), Morse, Noerager Stern, Corbin, Bowers,
Charmaz and Clarke, (2009), Clarke (2003), Glaser (1978, 1992), Piantanida, Tananis and Grubs (2004), and Strauss
and Corbin (1998).
11 See Schwandt (2007) for an explanation of substantive theory.
12 For more information see Starke (2000) and Yin (1994).
13 “Intellectual puzzles can and do take a variety of forms connected to the ontological and epistemological positions
encapsulated in the research, and grounded within the specific context of their research problem. It is also the case that
different theoretical and intellectual traditions in the social sciences are preoccupied with different kinds of intellectual
puzzle, and consequently different kinds of social explanation” (Mason 1996:15).
14 That is, a systematically maintained documentation process of the researcher’s continuous critical analysis of all deci-
sions and actions taken during the entire research process (Flick 2007).

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Andrews, M., Sclater, S.D., Squire, C. and Tamboukou, M. 2004. Narrative research. In Searle, C.,
Gobo, G., Gubrium, J.E. and Silverman, D. (Eds). Qualitative research practice, pp.  109–24.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Agar, M.H. 1996. The professional stranger: An informal introduction to ethnography. 2nd ed. San
Diego: Academic Press.
Aheren, K.J. 2007. Ten tips for reflexive bracketing. In Bryman, A. (Ed). Qualitative research 2
volume III - Issues of representation and reflexivity. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Atkinson, P. and Hammersley, M. 1994. Ethnography and participant observation. In Denzin, N.K.
and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds). Handbook of qualitative research, pp. 248–261. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Auriacombe, C.J. 2005. Writing research proposals for theses and dissertations in Public
Administration: Problematic aspects of foundational skills. Journal of Public Administration,
40(4.2). December 2005 Special Issue.
Babbie, E. 2007. The Practice of Social Research. 11th ed. Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth.
Benner, P. (Ed.). 1994. Interpretive phenomenology. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Berg. B.L. 1998. Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. 3rd ed. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.
Bickman, L. and Rog, D.J. 2009. Applied social research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Bogdan, R. and Biklen, S.K. 1998. Qualitative research for education. An introduction to theory and
methods. 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Bogdan, R. and Biklen, S.K. 2003. Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and
methods. 4th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon/Pearson Education Group. Inc.

820 Journal of Public Administration • Vol 44 no 4.2 • November 2009

Bogdan, R. and Taylor, S.J. 1975. Introduction to qualitative research methods: A phenomenological
approach to the social sciences. New York: Wiley.
Bryman, A. 1988. (Ed.) Doing research in organizations. London: Routledge.
Bryman, A. 2007. Editor’s introduction. In: Bryman, Alan (Ed.). Qualitative research 2. Volume 1.
Collecting data for qualitative research. xxiii-xlv. London: Sage.
Clarke, A.E. 2003. Situational analysis: Grounded Theory mapping after the postmodern turn.
Symbolic Interaction, 26(4), pp. 553–567.
Cohen, M. and Omery, A. 1994. Schools of phenomenology: Implications for research. In Morse,
J.M. (Ed.). Critical issues in qualitative research methods, pp. 136–156. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Cortazzi, M. 2002. Narrative analysis in ethnography. In Atkinson, P., Coffey, A. Delamont, S.,
Lofland, J. and Lofland, L. (Eds). Handbook of ethnography, pp. 384–394. Thousand Oaks:
Sage.
Creswell, J. 2007. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Denzin, N.K., and Lincoln, Y.S. 2000. Strategies of inquiry. In: Denzin, N.K., and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.)
Handbook of qualitative research, pp. 367-378. Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage.
Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. 2005. Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative
research. In Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research.
3rd ed. 1–32. London: Sage.
Ellis, C. 2004. The ethnographic 1: a methodological novel about autoethnography. Walnut Creek,
CA: AltaMira.
Ellis, C. and Bochner, A. P. 1996. (Eds.) Composing Ethnography: Alternative Forms of
Qualitative Writing. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Etherington, K. 2007. Ethical research in reflexive relationships. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(5), pp. 599–616.
Filstead, W.J. (Ed.) 1970. Qualitative methodology. Chicago: Markham.
Flick, U. 2007. (Eds.) Designing qualitative research. The SAGE qualitative Research Kit. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Giorgi, A. 1997. The theory and pratice and evaluation of the phenomenological methods as a
qualitative research procedure. Journal of Phenomenological Studies, 28(2), pp. 235–281.
Glaser, B.G. 1978. Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley: Sociological Press.
Glaser, B.G. 1992. Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley: Sociological Press.
Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. Chicago: Aldine.
Goetz, J.P. and LeCompte, M.D. 1984. Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research.
San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Holstein, J.A. and Gubrium, J.F. 1994. Phenomenology, ethnomethodology and interpretive
practice. In Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research,
pp. 262–272. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Josselson, R.L. 2003. Up close and personal: the teaching and learning of narrative research.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

E. Schurink 821
Kavale, S, 1996. Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks:
Sage.
Marshall, C. and Rossman, G.B. 1995. Designing Qualitative Research. CA: Sage Publications.
Mason, J. 1996. Qualitative researching. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Mason, J. 2002. Qualitative researching. 2nd ed . London: SAGE.
Maxwell, J.A. 2005. Qualitative research design: an interactive approach. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Morse, J.M., Noerager Stern, Corbin, J., Bowers, B.P., Charmaz, K. and Clarke, A.E. 2009. Developing
grounded theory – The second generation. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.
Moustakas, C. 1994. Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Mouton, J. 2002. Understanding social research. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.
Patton, M.Q. 1990. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Piantanida, M., Tananis, C. and Grubs, R. 2004. Generating grounded theory for education practice:
The journey of three epistemorphs. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 17
(3), pp. 325–346.
Plummer,K. 2001. Documents of life 2: An invitation to a critical humanism. London: Sage.
Potter, W.J. 1996. An analysis of thinking and research about qualitative methods. New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Punch, K.F. 2009. Introduction to research methods in education. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Rossman, G.A. 2003. Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative research 2nd ed. Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
Schram, T. 2006. Conceptualizing and proposing qualitative research. Upper Saddle River: Pearson
Education, Inc.
Schurink, E.M. 1998. Deciding to use a qualitative research approach. In de Vos, A.S. Research at
grassroots. 239-251. Pretoria: van Schaik Publishers.
Schwandt, T.A. 2007. The Sage dictionary of qualitative inquiry. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Seidman, I. 1998. Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the
social sciences. 2nd ed. New York: Teachers College Press.
Starke, R. 2000. Case Studies. In Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.). Handbook of qualitative
research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. 1998. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory. 2nd ed. Thousand Qaks: Sage.
Taylor, S.J. and Bogdan, R. 1984. Introduction to qualitative research methods: the search for
meanings. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley.
Taylor, S.J. and Bogdan, R. 1998. Introduction to qualitative research methods: A guidebook and
resource. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Tesch, R. 1990. Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. Hampshire: The Falmer
Press.

822 Journal of Public Administration • Vol 44 no 4.2 • November 2009

The philosophical commitments and disputes which inform qualitative research methodologies: The
Facilitators Guide http://bgpinqmr.group.shef.ac.uk/workshop/Facilitators_Guide_2.pdf.
Van Maanen, M. 1997. Researching lived experience: human science for an action sensitive
pedagogy. 2nd ed. London: Althouse.
Wolcott, H.F. 1999. Ethnography: a way of seeing. Walnut Creek: AltaMira.
Yin, R.K. 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Zou, Y. and Trueba, E.T. 2002. Ethnography and schools: qualitative approaches in the study of
education. Lanham: Rowan and Littlefield.

E. Schurink 823