Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Journal Article 1: Costello, L., McDermott, M., & Wallace, R. Netnography: Range of practices, misperceptions, and missed opportunities. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16, 1–12.

Abstract: This is the first article to describe how broadening of the term netnography in qualitative research is leading to misperceptions and missed opportunities. The once accepted need for human presence in netnographic studies is giving way to nonparticipatory (passive) approaches, which claim to be naturalistic and bias-free. While this may be tenable in some environments, it also removes the opportunity for cocreation in online communities and social media spaces. By contrast, participatory (active) netnographers have an opportunity to conduct their research in a way that contributes value and a continuity of narrative to online spaces. This article examines the ways in which netnographies are being used and adapted across a spectrum of online involvement. It explores the ways in which netnographies conform to, or depart from, the unique set of analytic steps intended to provide qualitative rigor. It concludes by advocating for active netnography, one which requires a netnographic “slog” where researchers are prepared for the “blood, sweat, and tears” in order to reap rich benefits.

Journal Article 2: Walsh, L., Holton, J. A., Bailyn, L., Fernandez, W., Levina, N., & Glaser, B. (2015). What grounded theory is…A critically reflective conversation among scholars. Organizational Research Methods, 18, 581–599.

Abstract: Grounded theory (GT) is taught in many doctoral schools across the world and exemplified in most methodological books and publications in top-tier journals as a qualitative research method. This limited view of GT does not allow full use of possible resources and restrains researchers’ creativity and capabilities. Thus, it blocks some innovative possibilities and the emergence of valuable theories, which are badly needed. Therefore, understanding the full reach and scope of GT is becoming urgent, and we brought together a panel of established grounded theory scholars to help us in this endeavor through a reflective conversation.

Journal Article 3: Finlay, L. (2012). unfolding the phenomenological research process iterative stages of “seeing afresh.” Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 53, 172–201.

Abstract: Phenomenological researchers generally agree that our central concern is to return to embodied, experiential meanings aiming for fresh, complex, rich description of phenomena as concretely lived. Yet when it comes to deciding how best to carry out this research in practice debates abound. Some approaches to phenomenology emphasize description; others interpretive layers. Some insist on a rigorous, scientific method; others seek more poetic, artistic flourish. In this article, the author offers preliminary thoughts about what unites seemingly divergent phenomenological research approaches. She suggests that the essence of the phenomenological research approach encompasses five mutually dependent and dynamically iterative processes: (a) embracing the phenomenological attitude, (b) entering the lifeworld (through descriptions of experiences), (c) dwelling with horizons of implicit meanings, (d) explicating the phenomenon holistically, and (e) integrating frames of reference. The author argues that studies that focus on experience are not necessarily phenomenological. The line being contested is the extent a study goes beyond subjectivity and into the broader realm of lifeworld experience.