Writing a Qualitative Study
“Writing and composing the narrative report brings the entire study together” (213). In this chapter, the author begins with four writing issues: reflexivity and representation, audience, encoding, and quotes. Then he takes each of the five approaches to inquiry and assesses two writing structures: the overall structure and the embedded structure. Finally, he compares the narrative structures for the five approaches in terms of four dimensions.
Please review P.213 – P.214 for the Questions for Discussion of this chapter.
“…qualitative writing has been shaped by a need for researchers to be self-disclosing about their role in the writing, the impact of it on participants, and how information conveyed is read by audiences” (214). Several writing strategies are introduced in the beginning of this chapter as the followings.
Reflexivity and Representations in Writing
“…qualitative researchers today are much more self-disclosing about their qualitative writings than they were a few years ago” (214). The author consider that our writing is a reflection of our own interpretation based on the cultural, social, gender, class and personal politics that we bring to research. Indeed, writings are co-constructions, representations of interactive processes between researchers and the researched (Gilgun, 2005).Moreover, the concern about the impact of the writing on the participants is increased. Weis and Fine (2000) discuss a “set of self-reflective points of critical consciousness around the questions of how to represent responsibility” in qualitative writings. And followings are the major questions that should be mainly considered by all qualitative researchers about their writings:
- Should I write about what people say or recognize that sometimes they cannot remember or choose not to remember?
- What are my political reflexivities that need to come into my report?
- Has my writing connected the voices and stories of individuals back to the set of historic, structural, and economic relations in which they are situated?
- How far should I go in theorizing the words of participants?
- Have I considered how my words could be used for progressive, conservative, and repressive social policies?
- Have I backed into the passive voice and decoupled my responsibility from my interpretation?
- To what extent has my analysis (and writing) offered an alternative to common sense or the dominant discourse?
Reflexivity means that the writer is conscious of the biases, values, and experiences that he or she brings to a qualitative research study. The author thinks it is combined by two parts. The first part is the writer’s own experiences with the phenomenon being explored and the second part is how is the researcher’s interpretation of the phenomenon shaped by these past experiences.
Audience for Our Writings
“A sense of an audience peering over the writer’s shoulder needs to pervade the writing and the written text” (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000). How the findings are presented depends on the audience with whom one is communicating (Giorgi, 1985). A small example for this strategy please see page 217.
Encoding Our Writings
“A closely related topic is recognizing the importance of language in shaping our qualitative texts” (217). Richardson’s (1990) study of women in affairs with married men illustrates how a writer can shape a work differently for various audiences. Details of the research and how this research inspired Creswell’s thoughts are mentioned in p. 217 – p.219.
Quotes in Our Writings
“In addition to encoding text with the language of qualitative research, author bring in the voice of participants in the study” (219). And the author also found that Richardson’s (1990) discussion about three types of quotes most useful. The first one is short eye-catching quotations; second one is combination of embedded quotes and briefly quoted phrases within the analyst’s narrative; the third one is a type of quote that is the longer quotation used to convey more complex understandings. These three types’ characteristics are shown on this book at pg. 219.
Overall and Embedded Writing Structures
Creswell notes that there are two writing structures a qualitative researcher must consider when writing their report – the overall writing structure, and the embedded structure. By overall, he means the general feel, narrative and design of the report, and by embedded, he means the rhetorical structure, and the use of language and figurative devices to explore the details of the story.
A chart outlining the overall and embedded writing structures for the five approaches is on pgs. 221 – 222.
The overall writing structure in narrative research is rather flexible. It can mimic an actual narrative, following the chronology of a story, or be closer to a dissertation, with an introduction, literature review and the like. It can focus on brief episodes or themes, or raise questions that are answered throughout the report. (223)
The embedded structures in narrative research will tie into the general strategy. Narrative like reports may use the progressive-regressive method, which starts at a key event and works backwards and forwards. They key event may be an epiphany that serves as a culmination of the story. Other embedded structures may be the use of dialogue, transitions or foreshadowing. (225)
Those who are writing about phenomenology stick to a tighter overall structure. The organization helps readers better understand sensitive topics and experiences. Three models are discussed on pgs. 226-227, but all three models involve describing the research process and presenting data. The embedded structure is used to further help the reader understand the phenomena in question. A writer can present the essence of an experience through a short paragraph, invoke a discussion to educate the reader, explain their personal inspiration for choosing the study, or using significant statements and a table of meaning to get the details across. (228) The goal is that the reader should come away with the feeling that, “I understand better what it is like for someone to experience that.” (227)
The overall structure in grounded theory is to best explain how the author developed the theory. Each element is discussed in detail on p.229, but much of the writing in each section (literature review, methodology, findings, etc.) must describe the evolution of the study as the author came closer to understanding the theory. The report must include the relationships among categories, key concepts and open coding and diagrams. (230) Much of the report involves writing and revising, allowing ides to emerge as the theory develops.
The embedded structures within a grounded theory report are based on the extent of data analysis. One structure may involve an analysis of key stages or categories in the theory, or another may focus on the relationships and follow a logic diagram to present the theory in a visual model. (231) Another tactic is use emotions or moods in discussion, ask questions, and use unexpected definitions, all to lead a reader into the topic. (232)
The author goes on to explain the different styles of writing ethnographies and states that many ethnographies are written as realist tales, confessional tales, and impressionistic tales.
• In a realist style of tale, a writer provides direct, matter-of-fact portraits of studied cultures without much information about how the ethnographers produced the portraits.
• A confessional tale takes the opposite approach and the researcher focuses more on his or her fieldwork experiences than on the culture.
• The impressionistic tale has elements of both realist and confessional writing and presents a compelling and persuasive story.
You can find more details on this on pages 192-193
Creswell then explains the embedded rhetorical structure of ethnographies. According to him, ethnographers use embedded rhetorical devices such as figures of speech, also known as “tropes.” Some of these tropes are metaphors, synecdoches, storytelling, and irony. Another important note that Creswell mentions is the importance of using “thick description” in writing qualitative research. To see an example of this go to page 194.
For case studies, Creswell mentions that he is reminded by Merriam (1988) that “there is no standard format for reporting case study research.” But he still goes on to mention an approach suggested by Stake (1995). On pages 195-196, there is an outline of this approach and I suggest for anyone who is doing a case study to take a look at this.
When it comes to embedded rhetorical structure, Creswell suggests “approaching the description of the context and setting for the case from a broader picture to a narrower one.” (196)
He also suggests that researchers need to be cognizant of the amount of description to use in their case study versus the amount of analysis and interpretation or assertions; and that this is basically up to the writer to decide.
Finally turn to pages 197-198 to see a very short conclusion of Creswell’s comparison of narrative structures.