Exploring Structured Thematic Inquiry in Social Research

Bennie Berkeley

University of the West Indies, St. Augustine, Trinidad.

DOI: 10.4236/oalib.1100889                

Abstract

The overall objective of this paper is to demonstrate the relevance of deduction (with/out falsification) to qualitative research. It provides the reader with a concise synopsis of an alternative approach to qualitative research enquiry. The philosophy is supported by Hyde [1] who believes that both qualitative and quantitative research possess deductive and inductive components. It supports this by proposing that a quasi-deductive approach based on focused probing during structured interviews is pragmatic. It implies that the researcher has already known (from content analysis of secondary sources) what themes are important for understanding a phenomenon, process, structure or system and so seeks to obtain the relevant empirical data to support or add to them. This approach is an adaptation to a priori coding in which the researcher avoids having to look for themes in grounded theory approaches. There are two major variants or strains of structured thematic inquiry: the simple and the extended. The major difference between them is the depth of interviewing. In the simple variant the data collection ends once the researcher is satisfied that structures or processes are adequately validated from respondents’ accounts of phenomena. In the extended variant the researcher goes in-depth proposing new structural units to the initial structure.

Keywords

Structured Thematic Inquiry, Complementation, Simple Variant, Extended Variant

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Hyde, K.F. (2000) Recognising Deductive Processes in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 3, 82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13522750010322089
[2]	Myers, M. (2000) Qualitative Research and the Generalizability Question: Standing Firm with Proteus. The Qualitative Report, 4, 3-4. http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR4-3/myers.html
[3]	Creswell, J. (2007) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Traditions. 2nd Edition, Sage, California.
[4]	Berkeley, B. (2009) New Directions in Social Science Research: The Institutionalization of Complementary Theory in Sociology. Lambert Academic Publishing, Saarbrucken.
[5]	Bogdan, R.C. and Biklen, S.K. (1982) Qualitative Research for Education. Allyn & Bacon, Boston.
[6]	Chamaz, K. (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Research. Los Angeles, Sage.
[7]	Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Aldine, Chicago.
[8]	Popper, K. (1963) Conjectures and Refutations. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
[9]	Nurselabs (2012) Nursing Management: Guide to Organizing, Staffing, Scheduling, Directing & Delegation. http://nurseslabs.com/nursing-management-guide-to-organizing-staffing-scheduling-directing-delegation
[10]	Weber, R.P. (1990) Basic Content Analysis. 2nd Edition, Sage, Newbury Park.
[11]	Burley, M.B. and Greene, P. Core Drivers of Quality: A Remote Health Example from Australia. Rural and Remote Health, 7, 611.
[12]	Patton, M. (1994) Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. In: Maykut, P. and Morehouse, R., Eds., Beginning Qualitative Research: A Philosophical and Practical Guide, Routledge, London.
[13]	Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Polity, Cambridge.