The Qualitative Paradigm

7/28/2019 The Qualitative Paradigm

1/22

The Qualitative Paradigm:

An Overview of some basic Concepts,Assumptions, and Theories of Qualitative Research

By Lisa Joniak, Ph.D.

A paradigm may be viewed as a set ofbasic beliefs (or metaphysics) thatdeals with ultimates or first principles. It represents a worldview thatdefines, for its holder, the nature of the world, the individuals place in it,and the range of possible relationships to that world and its parts, as, forexample, cosmologies and theologies do. The beliefs are basic in thesense that they must be accepted simply on faith (however well argued);there is no way to establish their ultimate truthfulness. If there were, the

philosophical debates reflected in these pages would have been resolvedmillennia ago.

(Denzin 1994, p. 107)

Authors Note: This paper serves as the starting point for a course in qualitativeresearch. The author provides a general overview of the qualitative paradigm andthen goes on to discuss four major theories used in qualitative inquiry.

What is Qualitative Research?

Over the past few decades a methodological revolution has spawned in

the social sciences (Denzin 1994). The field of quantitative research has made

way for a more interpretative approachthe qualitative approach. As Denzin and

Lincoln explain:

Where only statistics, experimental designs, and survey research oncestood, researchers have opened up to ethnography, unstructuredinterviewing, textual analysis, and historical studies. Where Were doingscience was once the watch-word, scholars are now experimenting with

the boundaries of interpretation, linking research to social change, delvinginto characteristics of race, ethnicity, gender, age and culture tounderstand more fully the relationship of the researcher to the research. Invarious disciplines in various guises, this implicit critique of the traditionalworldview of science and quantitative methods is taking place. All of thesetrends have fallen under the rubric of qualitative research. (Denzin 1994,p.ix)


2/22

This is not to suggest that qualitative research is new, even though it is still

learning to fly. Qualitative studies have been traced back to the earlier part of the

20th Century (Lindlof 1995, p. 8).1 Deemed as soft scientists, qualitative

researchers fought to have their methodology recognized and appreciated by the

social scientific world (Denzin 1994; Lindlof 1995; Silverman 2000). Paving the

way for the tremendous development in qualitative inquiry, was the growing

dissatisfaction by academics to form a deeper understanding of their subject than

mere numbers and statistical models could provide (Lindlof 1995, p. 9).

According to Lindlof, unlike quantitative researchers, who perform tests of

prediction and control, qualitative inquirers strive to understandtheir objects of

interest (Lindlof 1995, p. 9). It is through the researchers insight that qualitative

research achieves its ultimate goalunderstanding, or as it is sometimes called,

verstehen. That special something that qualitative research provides comes

out, not only in its product (verstehen), but also in howit was created. Pauly

explains:

The something that qualitative research understands is not some set oftruisms about communication but the awful difficulties groups face inmapping reality. The qualitative researcher is an explorer, not a tourist.Rather than speeding down the interstate, the qualitative researcherambles along the circuitous back roads of public discourse and socialpractice. In reporting on that journey the researcher may conclude thatsome of those paths were, in fact, wider and more foot-worn than others,that some branched off in myriad directions, some narrowed along theway, some rambled endlessly while others ran straight and long, andsome ended at the precipice, in the brambles, or back at their origin.(Pauly 1991, p. 7)

By taking the longer, more scenic path, qualitative researchers open up a

colorful, deep, contextual world of interpretations.


3/22


4/22

and contradictions that the essence of qualitative inquiry emerged. Denzin and

Lincoln broadly define qualitative research:

Qualitative research is multimethod in focus, involving an interpretive,

naturalistic approach to its subject matter. This means that qualitativeresearchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to makesense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bringto them. Qualitative research involves the studied use and collection of avariety of empirical materialscase study, personal experience,introspective, life story, interview, observational, historical, interactional,and visual textsthat describe routine and problematic moments andmeanings in individuals lives. Accordingly, qualitative research deployswide range of interconnected methods, hoping always to get a better fix onthe subject matter at hand. (Denzin 1994, p. 2)

Thus, qualitative research can be used differently by a multitude of disciplines,

studying just about anything. Since qualitative research is made up of complex,

context-dependent variables, it may be helpful to examine and compare

qualitative inquiry with quantitative (or non-qualitative) study. Treise (Table 1)

provides a useful outline comparing many of the qualitative characteristics and

assumptions with the non-qualitative approach:

TABLE 1-Comparison of Qualitative and Non-Qualitative Approaches

Qualitative Approach Non-Qualitative Approach

1. Assumes multiple and dynamicrealities, contextual

1. Assumes single, stable reality,divisible/fragmentable

2. Seeks understanding throughverstehen

2. Seeks external facts and causesexplanation; systematic association of

variables; prediction3. Natural setting, uncontrolledobservation

3. Controlled observation,experimentation

4. Data precedes theory 4. Theory precedes data

5. Data are valid, real, rich, deep,thick

5. Data are hard, reliable, thin,replicable

6. Process-oriented 6. Outcome oriented

7. Findings not generalizable 7. Generalizability claimed


5/22

8. Holistic orientation 8. Particularistic orientation

9. Said to be grounded, discovery-oriented, exploratory, expansionist,descriptive [The theory is grounded inthe data.]

9. Said to be ungrounded, verification-oriented, confirmatory, reductionist

10. Inductive approach 10. Deductive approach11. Researcher is the instrument 11. Relies on questionnaires, attitude

scales

12. Uses insight and sensitizedconcepts

12. Uses statistical measures and tests

13. Meaning is central concept 13. Little or no role for interpretedmeaning

14. Works with research participant 14. Recruits research subjects

15. Dynamic nature of researchprecludes step-by-step instruction

15. Research methods are welldocumented and structured

(Treise 1999)2

Treises chart nicely lays out some of the fundamental differences between

qualitative and quantitative approaches. Here we can clearly see sharp

differences in ontology and epistemology between the qualitative and non-

qualitative camps. In the next section, we will examine the ontological and

epistemological assumptions of qualitative research.

Qualitative Ontology & Epistemology

As Treises matrix shows, qualitative researchers assume multiple and

dynamic realities that are context-dependent. Therefore, qualitative researchers

embrace an ontology that denies the existence of (or at least the efficacy of

arguing for the existence of) an external reality. By external reality, we mean one

that exists outside and independent of our interpretations of it (Searle 1995, p.

154). As such, qualitative researchers value participants own interpretations of

reality. These individual interpretations are deeply embedded in a rich contextual

web that cannot be separated and generalized out to some mass population.


6/22

Holstein and Gubrium maintain the importance of context when examining a

subject, participant or even ones self:

If we are to study lives, including selves in social interaction, we must

study them from within the social contexts they unfold, not separate fromthem. Human beings dont settle their affairs with meaning once and forall. Rather, they continually engage the interpretive process, including theinterpretation of what they mean to themselves.The methodologicaldirective here is to document the articulation and emergence of meaningin rich detail as it unfolds, not in lifeless analytic categories and statisticaltables. (Holstein 2000, p. 33)

Thus, qualitative inquiry assumes that reality is socially constructed by every

unique individual, from within their own unique contextual interpretation.

Maintaining an internal, socially-constructed ontology effects the epistemic

foundations of qualitative research.

Denzin and Lincoln demonstrate how a paradigms ontology invariably

affects its epistemology:

The epistemological question. What is the nature of the relationshipbetween the knower or would-be knower and what can be known? Theanswer that can be given to this question is constrained by the answeralready given to the ontological question; that is, not just anyrelationshipcan now be postulated. (Denzin 1994, p. 108)

That is, ones views on the nature of reality, in turn, affect how they come to gain

knowledge of their reality. Since, qualitative researchers embrace internal reality,

they cannot embrace an objective epistemology. Therefore, qualitative

researchers, valuing participants own interpretations of reality, maintain that

knowledge emerges from achieving a deep understanding of the data and the

context it is embedded in. But how do we know that what we think we know is


7/22

really what we know? Lets examine the trustworthiness criteria for qualitative

research.

Trustworthiness Criteria for Qualitative Inquiry

Qualitative research endures attacks on its unique and distinct approach

to examining the world and seeking understanding from it. The present section

looks at alternative paths to producing research that merits attention, respect and

acceptance. Lincoln and Guba lay out the charges often thrown against

naturalistic studies, including qualitative research:

The naturalistic inquirer soon becomes accustomed to hearing chargesthat naturalistic studies are undisciplined; that he or she is guilty ofsloppy research, engaging in merely subjective observations,responding indiscriminately to the loudest bangs or brightest lights.Rigor, it is asserted, is not the hallmark of naturalism. Is the naturalistinevitable defenseless against such charges? Worse, are they true?(Lincoln 1985, pp 289-290)

Lincoln and Guba give a definitive no to both questions posed above. They start

by explaining that traditionally in the social sciences there have been four criteria

used to evaluate the merit of research: internal validity, external validity, reliability

and objectivity. Critics of qualitative research have long argued that there is no

merit to qualitative studies because they do not achieve internal and external

validity. Perhaps, some have refuted, that is because validity criteria are

inappropriate measures for evaluating qualitative work. Deniz and Lincoln explain

the traditional notions of validity and offer up the concept of trustworthiness as a

replacement:


8/22


9/22


10/22

Covering these five steps is not a necessary condition for achieving credibility,

but is a sufficient condition for credibility. Next, lets look at Lincoln and Gubas

transferability guidelines.

Transferability is very different from its conventionalist counterpart

external validity. Lincoln and Guba explain:

[T]he naturalist cannot specify the external validity of an inquiry; he orshe can provide only the thick description necessary to enable someoneinterested in making a transfer to reach a conclusion about whethertransfer can be contemplated as a possibility.Clearly, not just anydescriptive data will do, but the criteria that separate relevant from

irrelevant descriptors are still largely undefined.The naturalist inquirer isalso responsible for providing the widest possible range of information forinclusion in the thick description(1985, p. 316)

Lincoln and Guba stress that it is not the qualitative researchers responsibility to

provide an indexof transferability; it is his or her responsibility to provide the data

base that makes transferability judgments possible on the part of potential

appliers (Lincoln 1985, p. 316). In fact, it is impossible for a researcher to know

whether or not his or her data is transferable to some other study in the future

because he or she is ignorant of the specific context in which the subsequent

study is taking place. Therefore, qualitative researchers must provide the tools

(data) for future researchers to determine whether or not transferability applies.

Dependability and confirmability are primarily achieved through the use of

audit trails. In an inquiry audit, the auditor examines both the dependability of the

process and the confirmability of the product (Lincoln 1985, p. 316-318). Finally,

Lincoln and Guba wisely note that the procedures they outline for achieving

credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability are merely one way of


11/22

achieving trustworthiness, not the way. Thus, researchers should resist regarding

these criteria as prescriptions of how qualitative inquiry mustbe done, instead

utilize and build on these guides as the context and phenomena require.

Theories of Qualitative Research

The theories presented here are by no means the only theories qualitative

researchers employ.5 Producing an exhaustive list of theories qualitative

researchers utilize would be a daunting task, perhaps an impossible one given

the complexity and multidimensionality of the qualitative process. The present

section looks at four theories that mesh well with the basic tenants and

assumptions of the qualitative paradigm: symbolic interactionism, semiotics,

phenomenology, and ethnomethodology.6 While examining each of these

theories, take note at how each one is interconnected with the others and how all

of the theories fit into the qualitative paradigm.

Symbolic Interactionism

Simply put, symbolic interactionism is a theory about how meanings are

produced by agents through their interactions with symbols. According to Blumer,

symbolic interactionism:

does not regard meaning as emanating from the intrinsic makeup of thething that has meaning, nor does it see meaning as arising through acoalescence of psychological elements in the person. Instead, it seesmeaning as arising in the process of interaction between people. Themeaning of a thing for a person grows out of the ways in which otherpersons act toward the person with regard to the thing. Their actionsoperate to define the thing for the person. Thus, symbolic interactionismsees meanings as social products, as creations that are formed in and


12/22

through the defining activities of people as they interact. This point of viewgives symbolic interactionism a very distinctive position, with profoundimplications(1969, pp. 4-5)

The symbolic interactionists view of meanings, namely as socially constructed

realities, meshes well with the ontological and epistemological assumptions of

the qualitative paradigm. Symbolic interactionists believe that there are no

objective or inherent meanings embedded in a text, but that meanings are

socially constructed creations. Through our interactions with texts we create

meaning. Thus, like the qualitative researcher, the symbolic interactionist

believes that the only knowable world is the one we interpret and interact with.

Both the qualitative researcher and the symbolic interactionist embrace internal

reality (and deny the existence or the efficacy of arguing for the existence of an

external reality) and share understanding (through multiple, creative, and

contextual interpretations and insight) as the ultimate goal or product of epistemic

inquiries.

Holstein and Gubrium recount that there are two branches of symbolic

interactionist thought:

Over the years, two streams of symbolic interactionist thinkingthe so-called Chicago and Iowa schoolstook this in different directions. Blumer(1969), who taught at the University of Chicago, became the central figureof the more process-oriented Chicago school, while Manford Kuhn (1960,1964) and his associatesat the University of Iowa were the leadingproponents of the more structured Iowa school. (2000, p. 32)

Lets take a look at Blumers, Chicago-style symbolic interactionism because, as

qualitative researchers, we are primarily interested in the process, the how, of


13/22

meaning creation. Blumer asserts that symbolic interactionism rests on three

simple premises:

1. Human beings act toward things on the basis of the meanings that the

things have for them.

Whatever those things may be, tables, persons, or representations via the

television, the meaning we ascribe to those things comes from what those things

mean to us, not in the things themselves.

2. The meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the socialinteraction that one has with ones fellows.

We are not islands. We do not stand alone in our interactions and meaning

creation. An essential component to our meaning creation process is our

interaction not only with the things, but with our social systemfriends, family,

culture, organizations, workall play a role in shaping how we act towards

things. Mead describes the social self:

The unity and structure of the complete self reflects the unity and structureof the social process as a whole; and each of the elementary selves ofwhich it is composed reflects the unity and structure of one of the variousaspects of that process in which the individual is implicated. In otherwords, the various elementary selves which constitute, or are organizedinto, a complete self are the various aspects of the structure of thatcomplete self answering to the various aspects of the structure of thesocial process as a whole; the structure of the complete self is thus areflection of the complete social process. The organization and unificationof a social group is identical with the organization and unification of anyone of the selves arising within the social process in which that group isengaged, or which it is carrying on. [Morris, 1967 #140, p. 144]

Thus, if we are to discover how one creates meaning and interacts with different

symbols, we must not only examine the individual, but also the social structures


14/22

that individual belongs to. Now, on to Meads third and final premise for symbolic

interactionism:

3. These meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretative

process used by the person in dealing with the things he encounters.(Blumer, 1969, p. 2)

This meaning making process is continual. That is, human beings do not simply

interpret meaning for a particular thing and move on. Instead, we revisit that

thing, our interpretation, and how it fits within our worldview and adjust our

interpretative meanings accordingly. Holstein and Gubrium contend that Blumer

is cautioning us in this third premise:

The caution is explicitly directed at those symbolic interactionists who,while they would accept the first two premises, are remiss on the third,employing highly structured methods that dont permit the interpretiveprocess to continually show through. Blumer urges us to view the humanbeing in social interaction as incessantly involved in meaning-making. Themethodological directive here is to document the articulation andemergence of meaning in rich detail as it unfolds, not in lifeless analyticcategories and statistical tables. (2000, p 33)

Thus, the meanings we create are not set in stone. Again, this corresponds well

with the epistemological assumptions of the qualitative paradigm. Qualitative

researchers seek understanding of phenomena, within its unique context. If that

context should change, the researcher is obligated to reevaluate his or her notion

of the phenomena and adjust her understanding of it accordingly.

Semiotics

Symbolic interactionism examines the creation of meaning through

interaction with symbols; semiotics takes that examination to the level of science.

Semiotics, according to Denzin and Lincoln, provides a set of assumptions and


15/22

concepts that permit systematic analysis of symbolic systems (Denzin 1994, p.

466). Like symbolic interactionism and the qualitative paradigm, semiotics

embraces the view that meaning is not inherent in any sign (or text). Lindlof

explains the ontological assumptions of semiotics:

Semiotics, in particular, has encouraged a view of texts as inherentlyambiguous and unstable. The meaning of an interpersonal ortechnologically mediated text depends on its relationships to other texts,the competencies and interests of its interpreters, and the culturalconditions in which it is produced and read. The notion that meanings arecontinually constructed lies at the center of interpretive approaches incommunication. This argument implies something very important: that howwe describe the world constitutes whatwe describe. (Lindlof 1995, p. 24)

Thus, semiotics maintains that the construction of meanings depends, in part, on

the context of the sign in relation to the interpreter and the culture in which both

are situated. Visually, the process looks like the following:

Signwhich, in turn affects context

meaning

Agent/

Interpretercontext

Culture/

Society

Here we see a sign (a smiley face), which is essentially incomplete until it has

an interpretant or a context that an agent (or interpreter) creates meaning (or

content from the sign (embedded in its interpretant) (Denzin 1994, p. 466). Now,


16/22

just as we learned in symbolic interactionism, agents are not islands; they do not

stand alone. Interpreters work, live and create meaning within a particular culture

or society. In fact, many individuals create meaning in several different societies.

For example, one agent who belongs to the National Organization for Women

(NOW) and the Catholic Church may view the text of abortion differently within

the two distinct contexts. Thus, the culture one is immersed in affects the context

in which an agent creates meaning about the sign. The creation of meaning by

the agent is a mental activity, which, as we shall see in the next section, depends

on a primitive phenomenology (Denzin 1994, p. 467).

Phenomenology

The philosophy of phenomenology seeks to define the basic nature of the

signs we interpret (Lindlof 1995, p. 32). Many report that the work of Husserl

served as cornerstone for the interpretative theory of phenomenology

(Moustakas 1994); (Lindlof 1995). Husserl argues that human consciousness

orders the ways by which we apprehend the physical nature of the world (Lindlof

1995, p. 32). Moustakas elaborates:

Husserls phenomenology is a Transcendental Phenomenology. Itemphasizes subjectivity and discovery of the essences of experience andprovides a systematic and disciplined methodology for derivation ofknowledge. Husserls approach is called phenomenology because itutilizes only the data available to consciousnessthe appearance ofobjects. It is logical in its assertion that the only thing we know forcertain is that which appears before us in consciousness, and that veryfact is a guarantee of its objectivity. (1994, p. 45)

Here, we see a slight ontological shift from reality being completely loose and

interpretative to phenomenological assumptions of objectivity. By carefully


17/22

following the systematic strategies, phenomenologists contend that agents can

scientifically comprehend the essence of lived experience (Lindlof 1995, p.

236).

Lindlof delineates the three steps need for reaching understanding of

human experience. First, the analyst must become aware of all the

preconceptions (including biases, prejudices, and other prior personal

conceptions) he or she holds about the object of study (Lindlof 1995, p. 236).

Owning up to ones subjective baggage aids in the deconstruction of the text

(Lindlof 1995, p. 236). Next, the researcher must bracket the text, confronting it

without his or her preconceived notions, only on its own terms (Lindlof 1995, p.

236). This step allows the analyst to view the object in its reduced state. Finally,

the researcher builds data clusters about the text and synthesizes these groups

into a cohesive structure (Lindlof 1995, p. 236). By grouping and synthesizing,

phenomenologists contend that essence of an object is brought to the surface

(Lindlof 1995, p. 236).7 Lindlof notes that the three-step strategy employed by the

phenomenological studies can also be utilized in ethnomodological research,

which leads us to our final theory.

Ethnomethodology

The field of ethnomethodology grew out of the seeds of phenomenology

(Denzin 1994, p. 264). Both ethnomethodology and phenomenology are built on

the principles of eidetic science. According to Lindlof, an eidetic science defines

essential objects and relationships of society not through consensual meanings,

but through the things themselves (Lindlof 1995, p. 35). For example, if


18/22

ethnomethodologists want to understand the true essence of beauty they might

begin by conducting interviews with people on what constitutes beauty, but

ultimately would strip these interpretations away to examine the essence of

beauty itself in order to account for their existence as and entity in human

discourse (Lindlof 1995, p. 35). Lindlof explains the basis of ethnomethodology:

In simple terms, ethnomethodology seeks to understand how the taken-for-granted character of everyday life is accomplished. The methodologyin the term refers not to scientific methodology, but to the methods peopleuse to construct sensible, orderly ways of doing things.Ethnomethodologists are fascinated with how appearances are ableto sustain participants complete belief in their reality. (Lindlof 1995, p. 36).

Thus, ethnomethodology looks at both participants and the essence of the

phenomena under study in constructing understanding into how agents engage

in a text and create meaning from that object.

All four theories stress the importance of context in meaning creation and

interpretation. As such, symbolic interactionism, semiotics and phenomenology

and ethnomethodology embrace an internal ontology, which assumes the only

reality that exists is the one we interpret through our interactions with symbols,

culture and ourselves. Finally, all four theories accept a similar epistemic stance

of knowledge creation. Knowledge is not gained through discovery of objective

truths, but created through understanding of a phenomena/text/object within a

particular context. Moreover, understanding is not immutable, but rather fluid in

nature.

Conclusion


19/22

The goal of the present analysis was to outline the major tenants,

assumptions, and theories of the qualitative paradigm. Qualitative research has

endured many criticisms from the conventional, non-qualitative camp and has

clawed its way to the status it currently enjoys, though resistance and complete

acceptance have yet to be achieved. In recent years there has been a surge in

qualitative studies, as more and more researchers turn an interpretative ear to

the ideas and ways of qualitative science (Denzin 1994; Lindlof 1995). Future

trends in qualitative research are interdisciplinary in nature. Qualitative

researchers are teaming up with other disciplines, methodologies and theorists,

exemplifying the dynamic, complex nature of reality through their investigations

of it. In fact, there is a growing acceptance of multi-paradigmatic research,

combining both qualitative and quantitative elements. One can conclude that it is

indeed an exciting time to be a qualitative researcher.


20/22

Denzin, N. K. a. Y. S. L., Ed. (1994). Handbook of Qualitative Research.

Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.

Holstein, J. a. J. G. (2000). The Self We Live By: Narrative Identity in a

Postmodern World. New York, Oxford University Press.

Lincoln, Y. a. E. G. (1985). Establishing Trustworthiness. Naturalist Inquiry.

Newbury Park, CA, Sage.

Lindlof, T. R. (1995). Qualitative Communication Research Methods. Thousand

Oaks, Sage.

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological Research Methods. Thousand Oaks,

CA, Sage.

Pauly, J. (1991). A Beginner's Guide to Doing Qualitative Research. Journalism

Monographs 125.

Searle, J. (1995). The Construction of Social Reality. New York, The Free Press.

Silverman, D. (2000). Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook.

Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.


21/22

Treise, D. (1999). A Slightly Exaggerated Comprison of Some Characteristics

and Assumptions of Qualitative and Non-qualitative Approaches to the

World.

1Denzin and Lincoln outline five developmental stages of qualitative inquiry. See

theirHandbook of Qualitative Research, pages 1-3.

2

This chart served as a handout in a graduate seminar the author took with Dr.

Debbie Treise in spring 1999. The author continues to use this helpful and simple

handout as a guide to the principles and assumptions of qualitative research and

here shares it with other qualitative enthusiasts.

3Lincoln and Guba do not present these criteria in a chart; however, the author

finds comparison tables useful guides and has taken the liberty to construct one

here.

4For a more detailed discussion please see Lincoln and Gubas chapter on

Establishing Trustworthiness in Naturalistic Inquiry.

5Denzin and Lincoln list several other theories (they call them research

strategies) including: ethnography, life history, oral history, case study,

participant observation, field research/study, naturalistic study, ecological

descriptive study, descriptive study, microethnography, interpretive research,

action research, narrative research, historiography, and literary criticism. Again,

even this list, the authors note, is not exhaustive.


22/22

6One might wonder why the author chose to examine these four theories in this

particular order. The theories work from the general to the specific, but, in a way,

also work from the specific to the general. First, symbolic interactionism looks at

meaning creation, semiotics does the same thing but from a more detailed,

scientific way. Phenomenology looks at the mental connections that can be made

when we create meanings and ethnomethodology provides a structured view for

examining these connections. Thus, from one perspective, these theories move

from the general to the specific. On the other hand, symbolic interactionism is

interested in generally specific meanings, while semiotics usually looks at how

those meanings, in general, are created. Phenomenology examines specific

mental connections agents make in their meaning creation process, while

ethnomethodology tackles questions dealing with the interaction process in

meaning creation (which, of course brings it full circle with symbolic

interactionism). The four theories presented here weave through the qualitative

paradigm like a web. There are very few areas of black and white and many

grays.

7To be honest, the author thinks the phenomenological strategy is unattainable.

It is dubious to think that one can simply make a list of ones prejudices and then

cut them away (like a chunk of fat) from his or her interpretations. Since this

essay serves merely as a report and not as a critical piece, the author will not

delve further into this epistemic can of worms.

Documents

The Qualitative Paradigm