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

Journal Article 1: Miller, S., & Fredericks, M. (2016). The nature of “evidence” in qualitative research methods. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(1), 39-51.

Abstract: The article is an attempt to show that a continuing issue in qualitative research methods is describing and justifying how qualitative data become “evidence” for a claim. Several models from the field of Confirmation Theory are developed and described within the context of a qualitative research example. It is argued that for the qualitative research case, the meaning and application of what constitutes evidence is best viewed in terms of a primary logical distinction.

Journal Article 2: Wiles, R., Crow, G., & Pain, H. (2011). Innovation in qualitative research methods: A narrative review. Qualitative Research, 11(5), 587-604.

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.

Journal Article 3: Eizenberg, E., & Shilon, M. (2015). Pedagogy for the new planner: Refining the qualitative toolbox. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 43(6), 1118-1135.

Abstract: Planning researchers and practitioners are adapting to new and evolving planning cultures that require new skills and techniques. This paper examines the introduction of qualitative research methods, traditionally developed as part of anthropology, sociology, and psychology disciplines, to planning students. We present an analysis of qualitative research methods’ courses that were instructed to planning students. The paper portrays three principles of planning discipline that are in tension with a more constructive interpretation of the socio-spatial realities. We then offer several pedagogical inputs to qualitative methodology education for planners and how it could contribute to new and developing planning environments.

Journal Article 4: Cunliffe, A. L. (2010). Crafting qualitative research. Organizational Research Methods, 14(4), 647-673.

Abstract: The purpose of this article is to revision Morgan and Smircich’s typology, taking into account the changes in organization and management theory over the intervening 30 years. Developments in metatheoretical perspectives, organization theory, research methods, and ways of theorizing mean our choices about qualitative research have become more complex. In addition, the 1980 typology was based on a now contested subject–object distinction. I replace this continuum with three problematics--intersubjectivism, subjectivism, and objectivism--and examine the ontological, epistemological, and methodological assumptions of each. I offer examples and resources for qualitative researchers, arguing that considering our metatheoretical positioning provides a basis for building crafted, persuasive, consistent, and credible research accounts.