Qualitative research as methodical hermeneutics.

TLDR

Qualitative research remains underrepresented in mainstream psychology journals, remaining marginal despite recent growth. The author argues that this marginalization stems from the absence of a coherent, unifying methodology that can establish the credibility of qualitative methods. He proposes a hermeneutical framework that groups qualitative methods into three types and applies four propositions—hermeneutic circle, abduction/deduction/induction, iterative cycling for validity, and reflexive disclosure—to demonstrate and enhance the validity of interpretations. The study compares this abduction-based framework with other contemporary formulations and demonstrates its compatibility with descriptive phenomenology, conversation analysis, and thematic analysis.

Abstract

The proportion of publications of qualitative research in mainstream psychology journals is small. Thus, in terms of this important criterion, despite its recent rapid growth, qualitative research is marginalized in psychology. The author suggests that contributing to this situation is the lack of a coherent and unifying methodology of qualitative research methods that elucidates their credibility. He groups the many qualitative research methods into 3 main kinds, then applies to them 4 propositions offered as such a methodology: (1) Qualitative research is hermeneutical, entailing application of the method of the hermeneutic circle to text about experience and/or action. (2) Implicit in the use of the hermeneutic circle method is the activity of educing and articulating the meaning of text, an activity that modifies and interacts with C. S. Peirce's (1965, 1966) logical operations of abduction, theorematic deduction, and induction. (3) The cycling of these 4 moments enables demonstration, achieved rhetorically, of the validity of the understandings resulting from the exegesis of the text under study. (4) This demonstrative rhetoric is enhanced when researchers disclose reflexively those aspects of their perspectives they judge to have most relevant bearing on their understandings. The author compares abduction as formulated here with other recent uptakes of it. As an installment on the generality of the methodology, he explores its fit with the descriptive phenomenological psychological method, conversation analysis, and thematic analysis.