Qualitative Research Today: Voices in an International Context

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Cover of Volume 1 of New Trends in Qualitative Research (NTQR) journal
pdf
Published Jul 7, 2020
DOI https://doi.org/10.36367/ntqr.1.2020.1-7

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

Elizabeth M. Pope
University of West Georgia - United States


Catarina Brandão
Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Porto - Portugal


Arceli Rosario
Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies - Philippines


António Pedro Costa
University of Aveiro - Portugal


Abstract

In October 2019, the 4th World Conference on Qualitative Research (WCQR) brought together scholars from different parts of the world in Porto, Portugal. That conference provided an international platform upon which scholars initiated conversations regarding practices and challenges in qualitative research, in both academic and corporate contexts. These conversations concerned practices and challenges that on methodological rigor and ethical practices, with the overall aim for holistic integration and excellent qualitative research. WCQR has also allowed the forming of an international and diverse community of qualitative researchers, that annually come together to discuss experiences, trends and ongoing and future projects. This community remains active between editions, conducting collaborative research, training (namely at a distance), and publishing together. It is a movement that will continue to evolve. This book is also a way of congregating and giving voice to this community.

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

Issue
Vol. 1 (2020): Qualitative Research: practices and challenges (Book Series)
Section
Editorial

How to Cite

Elizabeth M. Pope, Catarina Brandão, Arceli Rosario, & António Pedro Costa. (2020). Qualitative Research Today: Voices in an International Context. New Trends in Qualitative Research, 1, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.36367/ntqr.1.2020.1-7
Copyright
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

openAccess

References

Brandão, C. (2015). P. Bazeley and K. Jackson, Qualitative Data Analysis with NVivo (2nd ed.). Qualitative Research in Psychology, 12(4), 492-494. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2014.992750

Charmaz, K. (2004). Premises, principles, and practices in qualitative research: Revisiting the foundations. Qualitative Health Research, 14(7), 976-993. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732304266795

Cooper, R., Chenail, R. J., & Fleming, S. (2012). A grounded theory of inductive qualitative research education: Results of a meta-data-analysis. The Qualitative Report, 17(52), 1–26. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol17/iss52/3

Costa, A. P., & Amado, J. (2018). Content Analysis Supported by Software (1a). Ludomedia.

deMarrais, K., Moret, L., & Pope, E. M. (2018). “I found a fit”: Doctoral student narratives of coming to a theoretical home in a qualitative research class. International Research in Higher Education, 3(2), 83-98. https://doi.org/10.5430/irhe.v3n2p83

Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L., & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry: A guide to methods. SAGE.

Freeman, M. (2020). Five threats to phenomenology’s distinctiveness. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800420912799

Freitas, F., Leite, C. V., de Souza, F. N., & Costa, A. P. (2020). How the “Help” Feature Can Boost the Self- learning Process of CAQDAS: The webQDA Case Study. In Computer Supported Qualitative Research New Trends on Qualitative Research (WCQR2019) (pp. 166–176). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030- 31787-4_14

Groenewald, T. (2004). A phenomenological research design illustrated. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3(1), 42-55. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690400300104

Humble, A. M. (2012). Qualitative data analysis software: A call for understanding, detail, intentionality, and thoughtfulness. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 4(2), 122–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756- 2589.2012.00125.x

Jackson, K., Paulus, T., & Woolf, N. (2018). The Walking Dead genealogy: Unsubstantiated criticisms of Qualitative Data Analysis Software (QDAS) and the failure to put them to rest. The Qualitative Report, 23(13), 74-91. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol23/iss13/6/

Lincoln, Y. S., Lynham, S. A., & Guba, E. G. (2011). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. In Y. S. Lincoln & E. G. Guba (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (pp. 87-128). SAGE.

Paulus, T.M., Evers, J.C., & de Jong, F. (2018). Reflecting on the future of qualitative data analysis software. The Qualitative Report, 23(13). https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol23/iss13/1/

Paulus, T., Pope, E., Woolf, N., & Silver, C. (2019). “It will be very helpful once I understand ATLAS.ti”: Teaching ATLAS.ti with the Five-Level QDA method. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 22(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2018.1510662

Paulus, T.M. & Wise, A. (2019). Looking for insight, transformation and learning in online talk. Routledge.

Paulus, T. M. & Lester, J. N. (Under contract for 2020). Doing qualitative research with digital tools. SAGE.

Pope, E. M. (2018). An exploratory literature review: Exploring the literature on interfaith dialogue. In N. H. Woolf & C. Silver (Eds.). Qualitative analysis using ATLAS.ti: The Five-Level QDA method (pp. 152-166). Routledge.

Roulston, K., & Bhattacharya, K. (2018). Teaching qualitative inquiry in the era of the big tent: Presenting proliferation and polyphony. International Review of Qualitative Research, 11(3), 251-255. https://doi.org/10.1525/irqr.2018.11.3.251

Roulston, K., Pope, E. M., Paulus, T. M., & deMarrais, K. (2018). Students’ perceptions of learning about qualitative inquiry in online contexts. American Journal of Distance Education, 32(3), 190-201. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2018.1475921

Sandelowski, M. (1986). The problem of rigor in qualitative research. Advances in Nursing Science, 8(3), 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1097/00012272-198604000-00005

Schütz, A. (1945). Some leading concepts of phenomenology. Social Research, 12(1), 77-97. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40982061

Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63-75. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-2004-22201

Silver, C., & Rivers, C. (2016). The CAQDAS postgraduate learning model: An interplay between methodological awareness, analytic adeptness and technological proficiency. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 19(5), 593–609. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2015.1061816

Tagg, C. (2011). Reflecting on the impact of qualitative software on teaching. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 12(1), 1–10. http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1570

Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837-851. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121

Van Manen, M. (2014). Phenomenology of practice: meaning-giving methods in phenomenological research and writing. Left Coast Press.