Thread by @drvicclarke

1/ A thread on the Big Q/small q qualitative distinction & why I find it so helpful for "mapping" different approaches to qual research. It's what informs @ginnybraun & my writing on qual research & @drnikkihayfield & my shaping of the qual res methods curriculum @PsychUWEBristol

2/ First point is it's not our distinction - it comes from this chapter by Kidder & Fine (although I LOVE Michelle Fine's writing on qually I have to say that students don't generally find this chapter that helpful in developing their understanding) - onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.100…

3/ Big Q/small q captures 2 conceptualisations of qually research - 1) small q=the use of techniques for collecting & analysing qualitative data within the typically disciplinary dominant quantitative/scientific framework. So typical small q practices include a "tidy" & more

4/ structured approach to interviews (same questions in the same order 4 every participant), concern for researcher "bias" or "influence" & finding ways to contain this - using multiple data coders who independently code the data using a fixed codebook, measuring the level of

5/ coding agreement, determining final coding through consensus. These practices are about ensuring the "accuracy" & "reliability" of coding. Such practices are not uncontroversial - Morse for eg criticises the superficial coding that results from this - journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10…

6/ @ginnybraun & I have written about the way such coding practices rely on a conceptualisation of themes as topic summaries - coding is a process of allocating data to these predetermined topics & each "theme" summarises the main points made on the topic: tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.108…

7/ But our primary critique is that small q rarely seems to be practiced knowingly - with an awareness of at least some of the different possibilities for qual & a deliberative choice to go small q. Even approaches designed to combine eg positivism & constructivism like Hill's

8/ Consensual Qualitative Research or Guest et al's applied thematic analysis don't seem fully knowing to us. Such an approach to qual seems to reflect the disciplinary dominance of quant & a desire to seek a foothold for qual by speaking the preferred language of the discipline

9/ There are 2 papers by @LaraVarpio that capture beautifully how quant research values have shaped the language & concepts of qual & such concepts (eg saturation, member checking) continue to be lauded as good practice for all qual. First - onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.111…

10/ Second, this paper tackles the constructs of generalisability and researcher "bias" - onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.111…

11/ @LaraVarpio & colleagues persuasively argue that clinging to such constructs hampers the flourishing of qual research - we agree! So what's the alternative? Big Q qualitative! This term captures qual research that is about collecting & analysing qual data underpinned by qual

12/ research values. Now at this point you can start having debates about whether there is one set of qual research values (paradigm) or whether there are several. The ever brilliant Anna Madill argues qual is not a singular paradigm: psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-35…

13/ This gentle intro to different paradigms in qualitative research (by nursing researchers Grant & Giddings who write brilliantly accessible stuff for student readers - I keep saying check out the qual nursing lit - it's ace!) - makes a similar argument: tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.517…

14/ In our qual textbook - @ginnybraun & I argue one paradigm
w/ different camps but this argument can roll on & on! The Big Q/small q distinction is for me more important. So what does Big Q look like? How can I spot it in the wilds of qual research? uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/succ…

15/ @ginnybraun & my reflexive thematic analysis is an eg of Big Q qualitative (ditto IPA & other phenomenological methodologies, narrative research, some grounded theory approaches, discourse analysis...) - we view knowledge as always partial & situated, knowledge production as

16/ a subjective process, the researcher inescapably "influences" the research - researcher subjectivity shifts from being something to worry about & try to contain to an essential resource for doing research & creating knowledge. So interviews are "messy" rather than "tidy" - we

17/ centre & "follow" the participant's sense-making. Because coding & interpretation can never be reliable or accurate - meaning isn't fixed in data - coding practices are fluid & organic, prioritising depth of engagement & time for the "slow wheel of interpretation" to turn.

18/ In reflexive TA & many other Big Q approaches themes (or categories) are the endpoint of our interpretive work not the starting point. We're telling stories about our data not finding the essential truths lurking within it. But to add a wrinkle of complexity there is a lot...

19/ A LOT of qual out there that seems to have elements of small q & Big Q - discussing frameworks like constructivism/tionism & using codebooks & measuring intercoder agreement. We call this confused Q because the researchers do seem confused about what their Q is...

20/ Although small q doesn't work for us & we & others have many criticisms of it, my main point here is that the qual research community needs to get better at knowing what its Q is & making deliberative choices around research. Our argument is principally for knowing practice

21/ rather than a particular kind of practice. We think the quality of qualitative research across the board will improve if we know our Q & enact & practice that Q consistently & coherently. We think this is integral to "methodological integrity" that Levitt et al call for.

22/ Finally some shameless self-promotion - look out for the definitive account of our Big Q reflexive TA approach published this month!!! Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide is available to preorder now!! uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/them…