Abstract
Trends toward convergence on common methodologies and standardized templates restrict the diversity of qualitative methods in organizational research. Considering that graduate education is a critical process in the socialization of researchers into the norms and dominant practices of their discipline, graduate students’ socialization into research methodologies is vital for understanding methodological convergence. The purpose of our study was to understand how graduate students’ socialization shapes their methodological and paradigmatic preferences. Showcasing methodological bricolage as an alternative to qualitative templates, we constructed a research design that combined thematic, discourse, and narrative analyses to investigate graduate students’ reflections throughout a qualitative methods course introducing alternative research paradigms. Our findings highlight the role of institutional, disciplinary, and personal influences as well as identity work in researchers’ socialization and trace alternative trajectories by which socialization and methodological identity construction processes may unfold. We offer a sketch of methodological socialization and suggest that its understanding should be central to nurturing paradigmatic and methodological plurality in qualitative research. We conclude with implications for future research and for research methods training.
Keywords
It seems beneficial for a carpenter to come prepared with as many tools as possible to a job site, why would a researcher not do the same? We have these tools available for use, it seems logical to use the hammer to pound the nail in instead of insisting on only using a screwdriver and then looking for a screw to replace the nail.
Qualitative research is an umbrella term covering a wide range of approaches varying in their epistemological foundations and empirical procedures (Bansal et al., 2018; Cunliffe, 2010; Morgan & Smircich, 1980). If utilized, this diversity of research approaches has the potential to facilitate deeper and broader insights into organizations (Alvesson & Gabriel, 2013; Bansal & Corley, 2011; Piekkari et al., 2009). However, evidence of trends toward restricting the diversity of qualitative methods through the growing use of standardized methodological templates in qualitative organizational research and convergence on a few common methodologies implies limited use of the power of this diversity (Cassell, 2016; Cornelissen, 2017; Langley & Abdallah, 2011; Symon et al., 2018). Observing these trends, this special issue aims to foster an understanding of this methodological convergence and of how to promote a diversity of approaches (Köhler et al., 2019).
In this article, we contribute to this goal of understanding the convergence of qualitative research into standardized templates and common methodologies, which thwarts the diversity of qualitative research methods; we do this by investigating how graduate students are socialized into paradigms and methodologies of qualitative research. We start from the premise that research methods embody methodological “conventions…[that] might be described as the rules of the game of empirical science” (Popper, 1934/1985, p. 140) and that reproduce the worldviews of communities of scholars (Knorr Cetina, 1991; Mannheim, 1936), including shared assumptions of what represents appropriate research practices (Kuhn, 1970). Such norms and practices related to publication processes, widely shared journal and institutional rankings, and the standardization of PhD training incite researchers’ convergence on methodological templates that may become dominant forms of qualitative inquiry (Alvesson & Gabriel, 2013; Cornelissen, 2017).
In this article we build on the literature that has explored socialization experiences of graduate students (e.g., Austin, 2002; Gardner, 2010; Weidman et al., 2001) to illuminate how graduate students’ socialization shapes their acquisition of paradigmatic ways of thinking about research and their uptake of alternative methods and qualitative templates. In the following, we synthesize relevant prior theory and research on research paradigms and templates, socialization and control of doctoral students including their identity development, and qualitative methods training. We then present the methodology and results of the study; and conclude with a discussion of our study’s contribution to the understanding of methodological convergence as well as its implications for future research and for doctoral training to foster a diversity of qualitative research approaches.
Theoretical Framework
Paradigms of Inquiry and Qualitative Templates
Kuhn (1970) popularized the term “paradigm,” defined as a coherent tradition of research involving conceptual, theoretical, instrumental, and methodological commitments that shape a scientific community’s practices and beliefs. Research paradigms embody metatheoretical assumptions about reality and knowledge that shape researchers’ framing of research questions, methodological viewpoints, and choices regarding data collection, data analysis, and writing of research accounts (Burrell & Morgan, 1979; Cunliffe, 2010; Deetz, 1973; Morgan & Smircich, 1980). 1 As such, paradigms serve as a discipline’s collective standards for how to conduct and evaluate research (Kuhn, 1970).
While the specific labels and categories defining paradigms have evolved over time, a common way to organize philosophical traditions currently operating in social sciences research is to classify them into four loosely bounded paradigmatic families (Crotty, 1998; Glesne, 2015; Symon et al., 2018): positivism, interpretivism, critical (inquiry), and poststructuralism. 2 Our formulation is consistent with the way paradigms were taught in the course from which data were collected for this study. As these paradigms are historically situated (Lather, 2006) the term “postpositivism” is used to refer to paradigms that came after positivism (e.g., interpretivism, critical, and poststructuralism; Schwandt, 2007). 3 In Table 1 we outline the key characteristics of these paradigms (for a detailed comparative discussion of these paradigms’ tenets and foundations, see, e.g., Crotty, 1998; Duberley et al., 2012; Lather, 1991; Sipe & Constable, 1999; Symon et al., 2018).
Four Social Science Paradigms and Some of Their Key Characteristics.
Building on pioneering work on paradigms (Burrell & Morgan, 1979; Morgan & Smircich, 1980), organizational research has seen a greater variety of theoretical perspectives and qualitative research approaches, enriching possible ways of studying organizational issues (Buchanan & Bryman, 2007; Cunliffe, 2010). Nonetheless, positivism remains the dominant paradigm in the social sciences at large as well as in management and business research, particularly in the United States, whereas other research paradigms have received relatively scant attention (Bansal & Corley, 2011; Gioia & Pitre, 1990; Harley, 2015; Joullié, 2016).
The coexistence and use of approaches rooted in different paradigms have the potential to enrich and advance organizational research agendas (Cassell, 2016; Greckhamer & Cilesiz, 2012; McKenna et al., 2011; Piekkari et al., 2009). To use gender studies to illustrate paradigms’ distinct contributions, positivist research provided evidence for gender-based compensation inequality (Castilla, 2008; Elvira & Graham, 2002); interpretivist research explored women’s emotional struggles about returning to work after pregnancy (Millward, 2006) and experiences of female breadwinners (Meisenbach, 2010); critical research exposed how structural conditions may shape women’s entrepreneurial success (Dy et al., 2018); and poststructuralist research deconstructed the male-female binary to show how it reinforces gender inequality (Knights & Kerfoot, 2004) and unmasked how “helping women” suppresses gender conflict in organizations (Martin, 1990).
Paradigms gain and maintain hegemony in a discipline irrespective of whether they may be “better” than their contenders (Ritzer, 1975). Once a paradigm attains dominance in a discipline, it is difficult for alternative paradigms to gain scholars’ acceptance and allegiance because knowledge communities are ideologically conservative and averse to change (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2013; Keat & Urry, 1975; Kuhn, 1970). Additionally, assessments of “legitimacy” or “validity” function as major gatekeepers (Scheurich, 1996) to discredit competing paradigms (Ritzer, 1975). Thus, in order to be recognized as legitimate, knowledge must be produced according to the standards of a discipline’s accepted paradigm(s) (Greckhamer et al., 2008). 4
The prominence of positivism in organizational studies normalizes dominant positivist quality criteria to evaluate qualitative research (Cornelissen, 2017; Symon et al., 2018). Lacking the codified techniques and common language available for quantitative research, qualitative researchers may turn to positivist qualitative research or to qualitative approaches appealing to positivist norms of rigor and validity for knowledge construction and presentation, particularly if they aim to publish in elite U.S. journals (Cassell, 2016; Mingers & Willmott, 2013; Pratt, 2008). Thus, the institutionalization of standards of the dominant paradigm stifles methodological diversity and propels qualitative researchers to design, conduct, and write up qualitative research that resembles quantitative research, thereby nurturing convergence toward standardized templates (Alvesson & Gabriel, 2013; Cassell, 2016; Cornelissen, 2017). When research complies with those dominant expectations, “even when the data are qualitative…the ethos of positivism, in the numerous guises of neo-positivism, tends to hold sway” (Mingers & Willmott, 2013, p. 1058). By the same token, this stimulates “erosion” of well-accepted methods (Greckhamer & Koro-Ljungberg, 2005) toward codified techniques, molds, and templates.
While qualitative methodological templates adhering to positivist norms have facilitated acceptance of qualitative research in the positivist climate of organizational research (Langley & Abdallah, 2011), critics emphasize that dominant templates curtail the full power and richness of qualitative research and that templates or formulaic methodologies (i.e., standardized, scripted, codified approaches that claim to follow strict procedures) do not account for unexpected outcomes, ambiguities, or uncertainties inherent in qualitative research and dismiss the subjective role of researchers (Alvesson & Gabriel, 2013). Trends toward qualitative researchers’ convergence on a narrow set of increasingly common templates result in narrow expectations “of what qualitative research methods should look like, what they should entail, and how they should be written up” (Köhler et al., 2019). Such standardization marginalizes alternative perspectives (Symon et al., 2018) and threatens the diversity of qualitative research traditions (Cassell, 2016), which may ultimately jeopardize the field’s creativity, advancement, and sustainability (Cornelissen, 2017; Mingers & Willmott, 2013).
Disciplinary Socialization of Researchers Through Graduate Training
Research and knowledge are embedded in sociocultural structures that shape the norms and worldviews of communities of scholars, which (often in the form of disciplines) dictate what activities their members will engage in and the kinds of knowledge they will recognize, value, and produce (Knorr Cetina, 1991; Kuhn, 1970; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Mannheim, 1936). Reproduction of these research communities by training future scholars is the essential task of graduate education in traditional PhD programs (Campbell, 2003; Ferrales & Fine, 2005; Fine & Wohl, 2018).
Making newcomers into members of a community through a process of socialization involves acquisition of the habits, beliefs, dispositions, and motives that enable individuals to occupy social roles and to participate in their work context (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). Socialization of graduate students as neophytes to their disciplines into their roles as graduate students and into their future roles as faculty researchers has been of continued interest to higher education researchers (Austin, 2002; Weidman et al., 2001). Weidman and colleagues (2001) synthesized theory and research on the experiences of graduate students into an influential model of how graduate students transition into professional researchers.
Socialization into academic disciplines involves reproduction of the discipline’s values and dispositions toward research and of its criteria to validate and legitimize “good” research and “worthy” knowledge (Baker & Lattuca, 2010; Gopaul, 2015). Traditional PhD programs are critical for the socialization of researchers into disciplinary norms through their formal activities (e.g., courses, graduate assistantships, research collaborations) and informal activities (e.g., social events, rituals, interactions with faculty and peers) that acclimate students to the community’s values, norms, and expectations (Austin, 2002; Fine & Wohl, 2018; Gardner, 2007; Weidman et al., 2001). Additionally, this period of socialization is bolstered by students’ increasing involvement in the disciplinary community beyond their institution (Baker & Lattuca, 2010; Gardner, 2010; Weidman & Stein, 2003).
Socialization as Identity Building
Socialization includes processes of identity formation and change (Becker & Carper, 1956; Pratt et al., 2006; Van Maanen, 1976). 5 Identities are meanings that individuals attribute to themselves to answer the interrelated questions of “Who am I?” and “How should I act?” (Alvesson et al., 2008) and are at the core of individuals’ self-definitions in organizations (Brown, 2015). Individuals’ efforts to answer these questions and to form, maintain, strengthen, repair, or revise notions of their identity have been defined as identity work (Brown, 2015; Svenningsson & Alvesson, 2003), which includes coming to terms with (and, within limits, to influence) the social identities pertaining to one’s self (Watson, 2008). The notion of identity juxtaposes individual agency and creation of self with the historical and sociocultural shaping of identities (Alvesson & Willmott, 2002; Ybema et al., 2009); therefore the institutional setting in which identity work takes place is key.
The development of professional identity consistent with disciplinary and institutional norms through institutional and interactional forces is a key intended outcome of doctoral training (Adler & Adler, 2005; Baker & Lattuca, 2010; Egan, 1989; Ferrales & Fine, 2005). As graduate students develop expertise in their discipline’s knowledge and are socialized into the community’s standards, they become (and come to see themselves as) warranted members of their respective scientific communities (Baker & Lattuca, 2010). This involves embracing an identity of an academic who has certain research interests, acts according to the norms of the discipline, and judges their own conduct by these norms (Stone, 2006; Weidman et al., 2001; Weidman & Stein, 2003).
Socialization as Control and Self-Control
Kuhn (1970, p. 165) considered the training of researchers “a narrow and rigid education, probably more so than any other except perhaps in orthodox theology.” Indeed, socialization into a community of scholars involves overt and covert forms of disciplining as well as sophisticated forms of reproduction (Bourdieu, 1988) that favor uniformity and coherence while discouraging dissent and alternative worldviews (Campbell, 2003; Egan, 1989; Green, 2005; Weidman et al., 2001).
6
This socialization instills in individuals a habitus that structures their practices and the meanings they associate with their practices (Wacquant, 1990), thereby defining not only how individuals conduct research and produce knowledge but also their competencies and identities (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2014)
Institutions exert discipline largely by structuring interests and incentives (Clemens & Cook, 1999). Graduate programs are shaped by larger institutional structures such as criteria for faculty recruitment, promotion, and tenure; academic rewards; and publication requirements and journal rankings (Gendron, 2008; Harley, 2015; Weidman et al., 2001). Incentive structures of doctoral programs at U.S. universities—and those following the U.S. model (Pelger & Grottke, 2015)—are heavily built around dominant models of research, which stifles intellectual diversity (Alvesson & Gabriel, 2013; Egan, 1989; Gardner, 2010). Incentives for compliance include progression in the program, faculty recognition and student status differences, mentoring and coauthorship opportunities, and recommendations needed for career progression (Campbell, 2003; Egan, 1989; Roksa et al., 2018; Weidman et al., 2001).
Students may submit to disciplining mechanisms by accepting, and even internalizing, normative expectations and their faculty’s ideology (Gopaul, 2015; Raineri, 2015; Weidman et al., 2001), which stimulate the pursuit of dominant research sanctioned by the community. In this process, identity work may function as a means for covert control (Alvesson & Willmott, 2002) as organizational identities “limit the full range of human expressions and structure particular experiences” (Deetz, 1995, p. 26). Thus, socialization may involve self-disciplining whereby individuals come to “perceive their efforts as autonomous despite evidence that it is under organizational control” (Michel, 2011, p. 325). This form of self-discipline does not suppress individuals’ agency but rather involves their internalization of ideals, rules, and norms that they eventually come to use to regulate themselves and their behavior (Bevir, 1999; Schutz, 2004).
Socialization of Researchers in Qualitative Research Methods
Socialization of graduate students takes place primarily in graduate programs, complemented by broader disciplinary socialization through conferences, journal submissions, the job market, and professional associations, all of which shape values related to research (Adler & Adler, 2005; Prasad, 2013). Positivist quantitative research dominates research and researcher training, particularly in management and business in the United States, where students’ exposure to qualitative methods and to alternative paradigms is limited (Easterby-Smith et al., 2008; Lowery & Evans, 2004; Pratt & Bonaccio, 2016). Formal research methods courses are vital for transmitting values and epistemological commitments underlying research methods (Breuer & Schreier, 2007) and are thus a key part of methodological socialization.
Graduate methodological training has tended toward a preoccupation with techniques, procedures, and steps of research, and therefore toward standardization (Stone, 2006). By the same token, qualitative methods courses oftentimes focus on methods, research designs, and techniques (Eisenhart & Jurow, 2011) that “can be taught in the sense of recipes with specific steps to be carried out” (Breuer & Schreier, 2007, p. 3). This promotes methodological templates over an understanding of epistemological and theoretical foundations underlying research methods. Also, instructors of qualitative methods frequently teach from a preferred paradigm and thereby reproduce dominant approaches while marginalizing others (Breuer & Schreier, 2007; Roulston & Bhattacharya, 2018; Waite, 2014; Wolgemuth, 2016).
The literature implies that the socialization process of graduate students should involve the formation of doctoral students’ methodological preferences. Yet the scant empirical research that has explored research methods training of graduate students has focused on instruction or content knowledge and we lack research on graduate students’ methodological socialization. Some scholars teaching methodological and paradigmatic plurality reported pedagogical challenges such as representing multiple paradigms within time constraints and getting students to grapple with this plurality (Gunzenhauser & Gerstl-Pepin, 2006; Kuby & Christ, 2018; Roulston & Bhattacharya, 2018; Waite, 2014; Wolgemuth, 2016). A few empirical studies reflected students’ perspectives on qualitative methods training; however those relied on brief onetime reflections on a qualitative component of general research methods courses offered to master’s-level practitioner students (Cassell, 2018; Davis & Lester, 2016) or on doctoral students’ intellectual reasoning strategies when describing paradigms early on in a qualitative methods course (Schnelker, 2006). Cassell’s (2018) study of MBA students’ experiences with conducting a qualitative interview as part of a six-hour research and consultancy skill module in a research methods course showed how the course helped students learn managerial skills. Findings from the other studies (Davis & Lester, 2016; Schnelker, 2006) concentrated on three key themes: students felt unsettled by new and unfamiliar information, their arguments were rife with misconceptions, and their reasoning relied heavily on personal experiences rather than on theory.
Study Purpose
Our theoretical framework suggests that understanding how socialization experiences in graduate training shape doctoral students’ preferences for research paradigms and methodological approaches is vital for understanding trends toward methodological convergence. Therefore, we aimed to understand the role of graduate students’ methodological socialization, that is, how students acquire paradigmatic ways of thinking about research as well as how this process shapes their uptake of alternative methods and qualitative templates. The following research questions guided our study: (a) How do students’ experiences with socialization in their graduate program and prior education shape their preferences for research paradigms and methodologies? (b) How are students’ prior socialization and personal history relevant to the formation of their preferences? and (c) How do students’ accounts of learning about qualitative methods illuminate the processes of methodological socialization?
Methodology
Empirical Setting and Data Collection
We collected the data for this study in two sections of a doctoral-level introductory qualitative research methods course taught by Sebnem over a ten-week quarter with weekly class meetings at a highly research-intensive U.S. university. The course was offered by a College of Education and enrolled (primarily PhD) students from across the university, including from the sciences and social sciences. The course’s primary goal was to introduce alternative research paradigms for qualitative research, with a focus on the design and evaluation of such studies and on issues faced by researchers using qualitative methods, rather than on teaching techniques, procedures, or templates for conducting qualitative studies (in part because subsequent qualitative methods courses focusing on data collection and data analyses were available). The first part of the course focused on introducing the four main social science research paradigms discussed above, while the remainder of the course infused these paradigms into the topics of qualitative research design, data collection, data analysis, validity, and ethics.
As one of the course assignments, students submitted journal entries consisting of one- to four-page reflections per week about how readings and class discussions shaped their understanding of theoretical issues in qualitative research. These journals constituted solicited diaries (Bartlett & Milligan, 2015; Zimmerman & Wieder, 1977), an established form of data that reflect participants’ experiences and carries phenomenological value (Allport, 1942; van Manen, 1990). For the purposes of our study, students’ journals reveal their reflections on the formation of their preferences for research paradigms and methodological approaches.
After the conclusion of the courses, we secured Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval to use anonymized student journals as data. All 38 students enrolled in one of the two sections constituted the study’s participants. Due to IRB provisions, we did not collect any information about participants outside of the journals; demographic background or program affiliation information is limited to what students included in their reflections. 8 This is not a limitation, as we were interested in issues students deemed relevant in their self-reflections rather than in how “objective” categories may explain their methodological preferences.
Bricolage Research Design
In the spirit of this feature topic, we used a bricolage research design as an antithesis to methodological templates. Lévi-Strauss (1966) introduced the French term bricolage to describe a science of the concrete as a way of reasoning that is localized, contextual, and based on intimate knowledge of objects of study. 9 The notion of bricolage was appropriated by qualitative methods scholars to conceptualize a flexible and open-ended multiperspective, multimethod, and multidisciplinary approach to qualitative research as a contrast to structured, prescriptive qualitative research methods (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Hammersley, 2004; Kincheloe, 2001, 2004, 2005). By enabling researchers to examine phenomena through drawing on multiple theoretical and methodological approaches that are appropriate to the context, bricolage can increase the rigor of analyses by addressing the complexity inherent in qualitative research and thereby enhancing researchers’ understanding of and findings regarding phenomena under investigation (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Kincheloe, 2001; Rogers, 2012).
A bricolage research design reflects researchers’ repertoire of tools, resources, and skills and their choices to combine methods based on their assessment of methods’ fit with the research context and potential to create new insights (Kaomea, 2016; Kincheloe, 2001, 2004, 2005). It is an emergent construction that evolves as the research process unfolds (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Kincheloe, 2001). Organizational scholars have defined bricolage as creative use of existing resources to solve problems (Baker & Nelson, 2005; Duymedjian & Rüling, 2010), which also describes our process of drawing from our “toolbox” to identify suitable analysis methods. Through our engagement with the data, we chose to combine three modes of analysis that enabled us to investigate multiple facets of the phenomenon of socialization and to construct three layers of complementary findings: thematic analysis, discourse analysis, and analysis of lived experiences.
We began by reading all student journals to familiarize ourselves with the data. Then, we moved to explore common threads in students’ reflections on their experiences with, evaluations of, and preferences for paradigms or approaches across student journals. For this purpose, we found thematic analysis to be a suitable first approach. 10 Thematic analysis is a well-established approach for identifying, analyzing, and presenting patterns and themes in qualitative data (Bernard & Ryan, 2010; Braun & Clarke, 2006). Our analysis was driven by our theoretical interest in understanding graduate students’ socialization into qualitative research methods, specifically the sociocultural contexts and structural conditions underlying students’ reflections. Given the lack of prior literature on methodological socialization of doctoral students, we took an inductive approach to thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) to identify themes relevant to the research focus of methodological socialization. For this purpose, we took students’ statements as constituting their reality, focused on “what” they wrote about that reality (Riessman, 1993), and analyzed the data for how aspects of socialization as well as any other influences students mentioned as relevant shaped their preferences for research approaches.
After familiarizing ourselves with our data and jotting down initial ideas relevant to our study focus, we independently reviewed the entire data to generate initial codes that captured different types of socialization influences, conceptualized these codes into potential themes, then tentatively labeled and described each theme including its differences from similar themes (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Ryan & Bernard, 2003). Next we jointly reviewed the fit between codes and themes we had identified individually, the data they represented (i.e., which participant statements were allocated to themes), and the definitions and criteria for inclusion in each theme (Braun & Clarke, 2006). After we discussed discrepancies and questions, we used an iterative joint review process to combine our themes, their definitions, and the statements representing them, agreeing on a single set of themes that captured three dimensions of institutional and disciplinary socialization pressures that shape students’ affinity toward research paradigms. In this process we also benefited from our interdisciplinary effort by combining and contrasting insights from our different disciplinary perspectives.
During our thematic analysis, we became increasingly attuned to what we perceived as instances of students’ presentation of self and identity construction. For example, some students used “we” to refer to a community of qualitative or postpositivist researchers, and one student referred to herself as “Miss Interpretivism.” Based on these observations of students’ self-presentation we considered that what individuals include or exclude in their narratives is a reflection of their identity (Riessman, 1993) and accordingly decided to explore how students engaged in identity work in their reflections as part of socialization into alternative research paradigms.
Thematic analysis is limited in that, unlike discourse-oriented methods, it “does not allow the researcher to make claims about language use, or the fine-grained functionality of talk” (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 97). Thus, we added a second, discourse-oriented layer of analysis to explore our data more fully regarding methodological socialization by analyzing student reflections as performative artifacts and social constructions. In this analysis, we were not interested in constructions of nonresearcher types of identity (e.g., mother) unless they were brought to bear on students’ methodological identities (which we define to include paradigmatic identities). Rather, we emphasized how students constructed their methodological identities and focused on identifying discourse-building blocks that were related to students’ identity-related expressions of methodological and paradigmatic preferences (Gee, 2005).
After agreeing on our purpose and analysis procedures, we went through multiple cycles of independent analysis followed by joint discussions to conduct a systematic analysis (Gee, 2005; Greckhamer & Cilesiz, 2014). We began with separate analyses to identify data elements that we deemed reflective of participants’ identity work and added annotations to explain what aspect or process of identity work we considered to take place in each instance. After reviewing each other’s analysis, we discussed our interpretations of data elements signifying identity work, disagreements, or conflicting insights; prioritized major findings regarding aspects of identity work; and settled on our final joint analysis. Keeping the focus on our study purpose, we articulated two key aspects of discourse that point to the relationship between methodological socialization and identity work in terms of methodological and paradigmatic preferences.
Also, while continuing the thematic and discourse analyses, we noticed patterns pointing to intriguing dynamics in students’ methodological preferences (e.g., regarding appreciation or lack thereof for postpositivist paradigms). For example, we noticed a student’s conflict in being intimidated by the idea of doing qualitative research while also consistently expressing interest in doing postpositivist qualitative research. We also noticed some students who seemed to accept postpositivist paradigms early on but then reversed course. As we recognized these patterns in individuals’ narratives, we homed in on individual students’ narratives of how socialization, including exposure to course content, shapes the development of methodological or paradigmatic preferences. Also, Sebnem brought her background in studying lived experiences as a lens to the study, amplifying our emphasis on narratives. While thematic analysis and discourse analysis enabled us to gain important insights about students as a composite, such analyses tend to fragment individual narratives by focusing on certain themes or discourse-building blocks across cases and to impair an understanding of evolution, continuity, and contradiction within individual accounts (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Thus, we added a third layer of analysis in which we viewed students’ journals as narratives of lived experiences and aimed to preserve their context and richness (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000; Riessman, 1993).
Narrative analysis involves identifying events, tensions, (dis)continuities, patterns, and narrative threads (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000; Riessman, 1993). Given our theoretical interest in students’ socialization into research methodologies and paradigms, we analyzed each participant’s journal chronologically to trace their preferences for research paradigms and methodological approaches over the course of the quarter. We specifically analyzed their narratives for turning points to identify patterns defining changes in (or persistence of) participants’ views on paradigms and how they came to develop affinity or aversion to specific paradigms or approaches. For each participant’s journal, we aimed to identify whether there was an identifiable type of progression and to determine how to conceptualize and define that trajectory, whether any turning points regarding paradigm preference were present, and whether there was any resolution regarding their evaluations of paradigms and their preferences. After analyzing all participants’ narratives individually, we jointly condensed common paths of progression across students’ narratives into three tentative trajectories. We then returned to individual narratives to check (a) if we could place specific narratives into one of three types, (b) if we needed to redefine or reconsider the trajectories, and (c) if we could clearly discern any other trajectories. A majority of participants’ journals resembled one of these trajectories somewhat cohesively while the remaining ones lacked a clear pattern or were not consistently self-reflective; thus, we maintained these three trajectories. Below we define each trajectory and present concise examples of student “profiles” that we crafted following Seidman (2006). Profiles represent participants’ descriptions of their experiences and are constructed from selected verbatim statements from students’ journals, with deletions indicated by ellipses and insertions placed within brackets.
In sum, we conducted our three layers of analyses concurrently; as we continued the earlier layers of analysis after we added a new layer of analysis. We moved backward and forward among the layers of separate analyses, which enabled us to utilize different analytical approaches and develop complementary sets of findings. Additionally, our insights from narrative analysis helped us interpret the results of thematic and discourse analyses.
Researcher Reflexivity
Our subjectivity as researchers is inevitable because we are an integral part of the social world we study (Harding, 2004; Peshkin, 1988). A candid reflection on our own position is critical for our study’s trustworthiness (Hibbert et al., 2010; Symon et al., 2018). This is particularly the case for this study because graduate students’ methodological socialization is a process we experienced as students and continue to be involved in as faculty members who teach and advise doctoral students, especially on qualitative research methods.
Accordingly, we briefly describe how our experiences and identities may have shaped our study with regard to methodological choices, analyses, and interpretations (Berger, 2015; Cunliffe, 2004; Dowling, 2006). We are an education scholar and a management scholar who completed our PhD studies at a leading U.S. public research university. Sebnem’s socialization in the College of Education facilitated knowledge of and appreciation for multiplicity of approaches. Thomas completed his PhD in a positivist research environment in the College of Business but made a personal effort to study a wide range of methodologies by tapping into other departments. Though through different paths, we both came to favor students’ training in and researchers’ use of diverse paradigmatic and methodological approaches in a multilingual fashion.
Neither of us uses a single paradigm as default for our work; we both have conducted research from the perspective of each of the four paradigms mentioned above. While we appreciate research from all paradigms, including positivism, we are skeptical toward overreliance on qualitative templates because we believe it jeopardizes the diversity and richness of qualitative research. We design our research with the aim of achieving coherence among the purpose and research questions, phenomenon of focus in the study, paradigmatic assumptions, and methodological choices (Yanchar & Williams, 2006). Our key assumptions that guided us in this study are essentially interpretivist and based on a constructionist epistemological position. Our choice of research questions and our analysis were aimed to understand and present the perspectives and experiences of participants.
The qualitative methods course in which we collected our data was aimed at fostering understanding of and appreciation for all four paradigmatic positions as encompassing different possibilities of conducting qualitative research. This course goal was aligned with our belief that qualitative methods training should not be focused on procedures and techniques (Breuer & Schreier, 2007; Hammersley, 2004). As the course instructor, Sebnem was committed to treating all paradigmatic positions as evenhandedly as possible throughout the course. For example, she included definitions and standards of validity from the position of each paradigm as well as different paradigmatic views on the context in which qualitative research is viewed, evaluated, and funded. Also, despite our aim for plurality, the paradigms taught in the course could be considered Euro-American-centered (Scheurich & Young, 1997) and said to exclude other approaches such as postcolonial and indigenous, which may be considered separate paradigms.
Findings
The product of bricolage is neither predictable nor final (Duymedjian & Rüling, 2010; Kincheloe, 2004), so the findings in a bricolage study are akin to a collage in which the parts present different perspectives (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). Accordingly, we organize our findings from our three modes of analysis (thematic, discourse, and narrative analysis) into three sections that include our interpretations and data excerpts: (a) institutional and disciplinary socialization shaping students’ methodological preferences; (b) elements of students’ identities that, as part of their socialization, shape or are shaped by their developing views on qualitative research; and (c) typical trajectories of evolving methodological preferences during the academic quarter. Although our findings were derived from analyzing the entire corpus of data, sample quotes, and narrative excerpts are presented as data evidence to warrant and illustrate our findings; aiming to balance interpretations and evidence, the selection of quotes focused on highly illustrative (not necessarily the most common or unique) cases (Pratt, 2008; Wolcott, 2001; Wood & Kroger, 2000).
Institutional and Disciplinary Socialization
To begin with, we identified three dimensions of institutional and disciplinary socialization pressures that appeared significant as students developed affinity toward research paradigms: disciplinary politics and legitimacy considerations, influence of faculty, and students’ insecurity regarding the prospect of conducting qualitative research. These pressures are interrelated as disciplinary forces of socialization are manifested institutionally, transmitted by faculty, and ultimately passed on to students in the form of insecurity.
Disciplinary Politics and Legitimacy
We found that participants’ perceptions of pressures stemming from their wider discipline played a significant role in their preferences for different paradigms and approaches. Awareness of political dynamics in their discipline led students to (rightly or wrongly) interpret how these may impact their future career prospects based on the research approaches they chose. Their reflections conveyed beliefs that one’s choice of paradigm is constrained by norms, standards, and expectations of the research community rather than being a practical decision driven by their research interests; the first excerpt below illustrates this. The second excerpt more generally illustrates students’ developing awareness of how disciplinary forces may be important for their future career paths: I am not a poststructuralist existing outside of a time and space and who does not need to have my research approved/accepted in some way. (Participant 28) I think that the dichotomy [between qualitative and quantitative research] exists to incorrectly group research, but I also think that it is political: In my experience at universities, there is clearly a style of research that is favored or valued over the other. It is a tool that is used in the hiring process and perhaps even in the tenure process. Moreover, these institutions are training the future researchers, which in itself perpetuates the notion that this dichotomy exists and a certain type of research is more valuable. (Participant 30) It’s overwhelming to think of deciding whether to do quantitative research, and be accepted and respected among my peers, or qualitative, where I might be able to find answers to “burning questions” I have in my field of study. (Participant 29) [Reading] offered advice similar to what I had heard from other scholars, [reading] had a certain air of trepidation to it [and] made me think that going into a qualitative research project might not be the best idea until I have finished my dissertation, and gained a certain degree of acceptance within my field. (Participant 22) I have to come back to the idea of what makes some qualitative research different from a personal journal, newspaper article, or magazine article…I still find myself thinking that some qualitative research is fun, interesting, but not scientific at all compared to what I just read [in my science classes]. (Participant 17) How is [qualitative] research different from journalism?…As I analyzed the interview transcript, I felt like I was doing much the same thing that I used to ask my journalism students to do, and this bothered me. How am I more than a journalist as I do this work? (Participant 37) I am sure grounded theorists have more success with the grant-bestowers at the NSF, and perhaps I should try to see this as a way in for qualitative research as a whole. Maybe we do have to market ourselves as quantitative wannabes before our research can be taken seriously. (Participant 16) Note that I am not using the word “paradigm” but rather “ideology” because I definitely believe that this is more than an approach in understanding knowledge…it is more about politics of science and power. I even thought how it would be interesting to do a content analysis of research papers published in the last decade that were “qualitative” in spirit, but were written very “quantitatively” so that they could be published. (Participant 23)
Faculty Influence
In traditional PhD programs focusing on research competencies, advisors, supervisors, and other faculty members serve as role models, collaborators, evaluators, and gatekeepers in students’ socialization. As we expected, our participants’ evaluations of and socialization into paradigms, and ultimately their own research orientations, appear to be heavily influenced by values imparted by their faculty advisor(s) and mentors through direct communication and through giving (or withholding) approval, or by faculty’s (un)availability and (dis)interest in supporting students’ interests. Our analysis suggests that not only are students tuned to faculty’s values (e.g., the first quote), but they may also feel pressured to comply with these values by their methodological choices due to faculty power over students’ fates (e.g., the second quote). After some time in my current program, I came to realize that some of my faculty are strongly opposed to qualitative research and view it as a waste of time. In their eyes, only quantitative work can attract grant money and academic honors, and anything smelling remotely of subjectivity is banned (Participant 16) I think they [students in a work group] felt that faculty skepticism and an overall lack of value for alternative approaches to research and end products could stand between them and graduation, which, for graduate students, is the goal. Clearly, these attitudes do not support training of graduate students in the use of alternative methods, approaches, and creative end products (Participant 7)
Insecurity and Fear of the Unknown
Reflecting the dominance of positivism in the social sciences discussed above, we found that at the beginning of the course most participants had equated science with positivism. This was true even though students’ attachment to this belief appeared to differ based on their disciplinary backgrounds, current disciplinary and graduate program socialization, current profession, and personal views. Also, the introductory qualitative research course was most participants’ first encounter with the notion of paradigms and epistemology. As they were exposed to multiple paradigms of qualitative inquiry, participants expressed what we interpreted as feelings of anxiety about conducting qualitative research due to the marginal status of postpositivist paradigms in their socialization. Divergence between some participants’ prejudices about qualitative research (e.g., being “easier” than quantitative research) and expectations of the course content (e.g., as technical rather than philosophical) voiced in their reflections may have compounded the issue.
We noted consistent indications that participants struggled with understanding postpositivist paradigms. More specifically, many participants appeared to be intimidated and challenged by the idea or the “daunting task” (Participant 17) of doing qualitative research, especially doing so from a postpositivist paradigm. It follows that they may be more comfortable with qualitative approaches that are informed by positivism or that mimic positivism in the form of templates. The following quotes illustrate how students may be overwhelmed (first quote) or lack self-confidence (second quote) in conducting postpositivist qualitative research. Positivist research is the type of research with which I have experience and am comfortable. I suppose at this point, I feel about postpositivist research the same as I do about vegetarianism; it’s a great humanistic and humane idea, but it’s just too much trouble to implement in my life right now…postpositivist research, seems so overwhelming to me…just seems to take so many mental faculties I don’t really even want to endeavor it. (Participant 4) I can barely work independently on a quantitative research project even after completing the entire quantitative series. The idea of performing an analysis…or observations that might be…the next qualitative study…is not something I feel equipped to do. (Participant 7)
Socialization and Identity Work
We found socialization into research paradigms and methodologies to be intertwined with students’ identity in two key ways. First, students’ reflections suggest that their identities, in part, shaped their affinity for or aversion to certain paradigm(s). Second, considering research paradigms for their research entailed central elements of identity work, that is, performative acts of constructing, asserting, or claiming identities (Gee, 2005; Svenningsson & Alvesson, 2003). Students evoked elements of their identities to position themselves vis-à-vis qualitative research, communicated identification with research methods or paradigms while defining their research directions, and generally engaged in “identity talk” (Snow & Anderson, 1987, p. 1348).
Drawing on Disciplinary, Professional, and Personal Identities in Paradigm Choice
First, we found that identities students bring into graduate school contribute to how they respond to exposure to various research paradigms. This suggests that participants’ professional and disciplinary identities and previous socialization (e.g., higher education, work experience) are salient in their considerations of qualitative research paradigms. Elements of disciplinary or professional identities conjured by participants in connection with a certain paradigm included (a) concurrence of their current thinking with a paradigm’s assumptions (e.g., Participant 8 warmed up to the critical paradigm after discovering their favorite learning theorist’s Marxist roots) and (b) overlap between a research paradigm and their professions’ theories or practices (e.g., students who are used to conducting interviews as part of their professional practice). The following quotes illustrate connections made by students: I more than likely fit into the interpretivist approach…I have been trained to utilize my interpersonal skills through being cooperative, listening, and understanding multiple viewpoints (Participant 36) My research will be in American Indian education. As a result, I have an interest in critical theory, as it challenges power structures and deals with issues of both suppression and emancipation (Participant 20) I aspire to be objective in my research, however…I believe my experience of being raised by teenage parents and migrant farm worker grandparents and the process of transforming myself to a fully invested graduate student will influence my research perspective. (Participant 11) My interest in ethnography is growing. [The participant includes descriptions of growing up in a household affected by poverty, alcoholism, abuse, and abandonment.] My point in writing all of this is that it would be quite enlightening to become immersed in some of the cultures we are not familiar with so that we can gain a greater sense of empathy and will be moved to action…I think ethnographic research could open eyes and minds toward a greater sense of what social justice really is. (Participant 9)
Identity Work Toward Becoming Qualitative Researchers (or Not)
In our analyses, we also observed instances of identity work in students’ reflections as they positioned themselves vis-à-vis qualitative research. We noted that as participants reflected on the process of learning qualitative research and paradigms, they worked on building identities as researchers, as qualitative researchers (or not), and/or as qualitative researchers with specific paradigmatic orientations.
To begin with, identity work included references to students’ present and/or future selves as “researchers” and “scientists.” Students’ awareness and crafting of researcher identities is in line with the overarching purpose of their graduate training to become researchers. Additionally, identity work included articulations of aspired future identities. For example, the excerpts below reflect participants’ aspired identities as dedicated and influential (qualitative) researchers. The primary purpose of this course for me is to become the dedicated researcher that I aim to be. (Participant 8) Although my proclivity toward qualitative inquiry is not fully appreciated…my ability to develop a solid research question with the support of relevant theory and literature will enable me to push my field of study forward. (Participant 11) I certainly see where quantitative researchers are coming from…Perhaps positivist researchers think we are just complaining so we don’t have to go through writing down the nitty-gritty. Then again, maybe they are just insisting that we write down the nitty-gritty, hoping we won’t go to all the trouble so they preserve the status quo. After all why wouldn’t they want to? (Participant 4; emphases added) I have decided I could never do postpositivist research because there are too many underlying beliefs and assumptions to which I find fault…In my opinion, having a firm belief in absolute truth inhibits viewing truth and reality as being constructed and accepting this construction as truth. (Participant 27)
These findings regarding paradigms and identity offer two important insights. First, they illustrate that research methods training is more than learning methods and rather should be viewed as a process of socialization in which students work on particular researcher identities; considering, accepting, or refusing paradigms are a vital part of this identity work. Second, students’ affinity to research paradigms appears to be also (in no small part) a matter of compatibility with one’s identity, at times involving experimenting with conflicting identities, which may underlie the paradigm fluidity displayed by some.
Typical Trajectories of Paradigm Considerations
Analyzing students’ journals as reflections on lived experiences using a narrative approach, we traced changes and sought to identify any common patterns in students’ reflections regarding research paradigms over the course of the quarter. Consistent with the literature that highlighted the dominance of positivism in graduate research training in the social sciences in the United States, our participants’ reflections indicated that they too entered the course predominantly with prior socialization into positivism. When confronted with the notion and the diversity of paradigms of inquiry, most students at least considered the merits of other paradigms and deliberated whether any would be suitable for their work and circumstances. Specifically, our analysis captured three types of narratives that represent continuous trajectories of participants’ views on paradigms. We describe these three trajectories below and present brief student profiles to illustrate how prior socialization, individuals’ characteristics, and the course together shaped the dynamics of students’ perspectives on research. While these trajectories echo themes presented earlier, they also illustrate how participants’ considerations of paradigms involved considering, questioning, reconsidering, coming to terms, accepting, rejecting, and regressing.
Trajectory 1: Resistance to Postpositivism
This trajectory represents the path of students who, after being exposed to different paradigms, concluded that they were most comfortable with positivism (including positivist qualitative research) and felt certain their future research would fall into this paradigm. This trajectory starts from a strong orientation toward and prior socialization into positivism. For students following this trajectory, being introduced to alternative paradigms and approaches (for the first time) was the “complication” or turning point in their experiences, because the new information contradicted their preconception that positivism equals science; they resolved this complication by choosing to remain in the positivism camp. Reflections of students following this trajectory may indicate understanding and consideration of other paradigms, and even some degree of appreciation, but ultimately for intellectual and/or pragmatic reasons they remained situated in positivism. We illustrate this trajectory with the profile of a participant who remained positivist, even as they considered using qualitative methods; this seemed to be due to a lack of mentoring opportunities, fear of challenges of qualitative research, and concerns of legitimacy.
Profile of Participant 22
Critical Race Theory struck a particular chord with me this week as it is very applicable within the realm of sport studies…to discuss the current day existence of racism [Week 4]. I identify myself within the positivist and sometimes interpretivist paradigms…In recent conversations with my advisor about my dissertation we have actually concluded that I will need to conduct various interviews. The interviews will fall more within the paradigm of positivism…The interviews will lead to the development of a survey that I will then use to measure one of my variables…Since my advisor is very much a positivist researcher, he has little knowledge of interviewing [Week 6]. After this week’s readings I think I have a decent view of what it will take for me to become a “qualitative” researcher though I do have some fear and trepidation about pursuing the avenue in the future…[The reading] made me think that going into a qualitative research project might not be the best idea until I have finished my dissertation, and gained a certain degree of acceptance within my field. It just seemed that it was much more consuming of time, energy and mental capacity than “quantitative” research [Week 10].
Although this participant’s statements reflect an understanding of different paradigms, based on students’ explicit statements as well as on apparent misunderstandings and/or prejudice toward postpositivist paradigms reflected in their journals, we inferred that students following this trajectory tended to lack a solid grasp of the tenets of postpositivist paradigms. Even though we did not view their stances toward postpositivist paradigms as deliberate resistance, it appeared to us that some students approached the course content through a positivist lens and judged it by positivist norms because their prior socialization to positivism filtered their receptivity to the content of the qualitative methods course. We illustrate a case of nonreceptivity to and limited understanding of postpositivist research with the profile below. With respect to qualitative approaches, this participant articulated an affinity toward grounded theory, indicating that its more standardized and scripted technique was compatible with their training. Some other students similarly expressed a preference for methods that have the qualities of templates or believed them to be more acceptable forms of qualitative research.
Profile of Participant 6
My research background is limited especially within postpositivist research. I have had the opportunity to complete one course in qualitative methods and complete [a six-course series] in quantitative methods…In my belief, good research has applicability…[and] a measure of clarity…I also believe that quality research should function as a vehicle for outreach to the community [Week 2]…Context, and controlling for bias, can be everything in the validity of research…Lack of standardization is present and could be a concern…[the class discussion] helped me realize that I am not the only one that struggles in differentiating between certain postpositivism methodologies [Week 3]. Primarily concerns [about critical paradigm] include entering a research question with a clear bias [Week 4]. In collecting data there are many ways one can accomplish that. This is new to me as someone who is used to following prescribed collection methods in positivist research [Week 8]. Grounded Theory…[is the] one that I believe I am most likely to utilize [Week 9].
Trajectory 2: Inertia to Embracing Postpositivism
The second trajectory captures the experiences of participants who started with a positivist orientation, showed receptivity to course content, were able to grasp and appreciate some or all postpositivist paradigms, and seriously considered postpositivist paradigms, but ultimately expressed a sense of security with and hesitance about “departing” from positivism. For students following this trajectory, the complication was that their socialization discouraged them from pursuing their interests and moving toward fully accepting postpositivist paradigms. A key turning point in their experiences was their consideration of compromises, delays, second thoughts, and self-doubts. The plot of this trajectory revolved around tensions and uncertainty, seeking compromises to reduce the tensions, with or without resolutions. Students following this trajectory may yet overcome the inertia and embrace postpositivist paradigms if they are provided opportunities for doing so (or they may settle on positivist persuasions). The following profile illustrates the trajectory of students deliberating on their understanding of paradigms and seeking a compromise between doing postpositivist research and remaining grounded in positivism. It also exemplifies how students may experiment with different paradigmatic attachments as part of their identity work and use their reflections as a platform for comparing their provisional selves against internal and external standards (Baker & Lattuca, 2010).
Profile of Participant 10
In my coursework, qualitative or postpositivist research has been presented almost in passing…throughout my graduate studies, it has been drilled into my head that publishing any valuable research requires the use of quantitative methods. I really struggled with this because my background in psychology makes it difficult for me to think only in terms of numbers and observed outcomes [Week 2]. In terms of the paradigm to which I am currently drawn, last week I was certain that it was interpretivism but this week I am not so sure…Because I feel that creating change is vital, I find myself more drawn to critical inquiry and yet, I know that this paradigm has its own drawbacks [Week 3]. I decided that critical inquiry is not quite what I thought it was nor is it representative of my thinking [Week 4]. Up to this point, I have found little interest in poststructuralist research, but perhaps that was the result of the limited understanding I had regarding this research paradigm. Now I find myself intrigued by the manner in which it raises our awareness of contradictions in our way of thinking and our way of life…[but] I don’t like it because it pushed me out of my comfort zone. These are theories that I had never considered before taking this class and in some ways, these ideas are very intimidating. As I continue my search to pinpoint the research paradigm with which I most identify…I find myself drawn to a different paradigm [Week 4]. The positivist paradigm has been so ingrained into my way of thinking that I am having difficulty moving beyond it and considering research from a more abstract stance [Week 5]. I feel like I am on a roller coaster ride [Week 7]. Although several weeks ago, I decided that the interpretivist paradigm was not a good fit for me, I realize that I continue to be drawn to this paradigm [Week 8]. Although I have concluded that I embrace more of a mixed method study approach, I have gained a more thorough understanding of qualitative research and the theoretical paradigms that comprise it [Week 10].
A key feature of the “inertia” trajectory is that even though participants following this path show an understanding of and interest in pursuing postpositivist research, at some point in their narratives they regress to positivist thinking. This regression to positivist thinking seems to coincide with the discussion of validity in the course. We found this striking because although participants indicated that a postpositivist paradigm(s) was, at least partially, compatible with their thinking, they fell back to positivism when contemplating what counts as science or as legitimate and valid knowledge; this indicates strongly engrained positivist thinking. Considering that the course content included discussions of validity from the perspective of each paradigm covered, it appears that students following this trajectory may interpret course content selectively based on more deeply rooted values. We illustrate this process with the profile of Participant 2, who quite easily developed an affinity toward interpretivism despite her science background. However, after gaining some critical distance to positivism and even trying on the identity of interpretivism, this participant eventually regressed to positivist standards and thereby her “positivist roots” for emotional detachment and objectivity in research. We believe this pinpoints positivism’s enduring influence on students’ ideas of what constitutes “scientific” and “valid” research, which could not be overcome by the emphasis on paradigm plurality in this course.
Profile of Participant 2
I was trained as a scientist…I was taught that the further from “pure science” a method of scholarship was, the less valid and accurate its findings would be…However, on a human level, I could see and appreciate the power of people’s stories…Furthermore, in my final undergraduate year, I studied History and Philosophy of Science, and learned that the scientific method was just one paradigm of many, and…was flawed and destined to be subjective [Week 2]. I found that I related most to interpretivism, and even found myself “playing that role” in the group…and I was labeled “Miss Interpretivism” [Week 4]. I am beginning to feel that this type of research [an interpretivist study involving women’s voices] is much more true to my nature, particularly as a woman, and it is exciting to see how that perspective can be valued and credible as research. It is like I am coming home [Week 5]. Despite my growing comfort with the postpositivist paradigms in general, I discovered, to my surprise, that in the context of issues of validity, I was regressing to my positivist roots, in that it was really hard for me to allow a conception of postpositivist research practices as valid in the same terms as positivist research. I feel a real hypocrisy in stating that, since I still do believe in the importance and strengths of postpositivist, qualitative research, but somehow it feels dishonest to try to justify validity of these methods in terms of positivist precedents [Week 9]. I found it upsetting to consider [the research ethics] cases [that were personally relevant to her as a mother]…I worry that…[emotion] may get in the way of being a good researcher at times. Maybe the trick is to…make sure that any research I take part in, is in an arena where I will be able to leave my emotions a little more distant [Week 10].
Trajectory 3: Acceptance of Postpositivism
The third trajectory we identified describes the experience of students who quite readily accepted postpositivism and/or expressed affinity to specific postpositivist paradigms. Students following the acceptance trajectory appeared to hold worldviews that predisposed them to be comfortable with the tenets of a postpositivist paradigm, to be dissatisfied with the dominance of positivism, and/or to take issue with the politics of science underlying the dominance of positivism. Students on this trajectory gravitated toward a postpositivist paradigm (perhaps due to an intellectual predisposition or their personal or professional background) and/or expressed a desire to understand multiple paradigms (for some, including positivism). This trajectory starts with understanding or recognizing (when pointed to) the dominance of positivism, which does not necessarily mean accepting or complying with it and may even involve being discontented with it; the trajectory continues with resolution through settling on (an) alternative paradigm(s). However, the complicating turn in this trajectory may come later in form of the possible negative consequences of “noncompliance” with the field’s norms.
To illustrate this trajectory, below we present Participant 7’s profile, which exemplifies students who were predisposed toward postpositivism and/or who valued theoretical viewpoints that were critical of positivism. This student’s experience demonstrates the trajectory of acceptance in that, throughout the course of the quarter, they expressed an openness to postpositivism. They reflected upon their view of the field’s political dynamics, of repercussions of deviating from its methodological norms, and of the relationship between method and power; the participant even indicated an awareness of pressures toward conventionally structured research (i.e., templates).
Profile of Participant 7
I really didn’t think that I had much interest in postpositivist research prior to these readings. It seemed rather wistful and ungrounded to me…having already taken the full quantitative series of research classes…my perspective was that since positivist research was clearly so strong and always reliable, how could qualitative research be anything aside from a weaker and less viable alternative? [Week 4]. After reading about [critical research]…I might need to re-think why I feel as if I belong and fit into the critical theory paradigm…I found that approach to be as oppressing as the alleged marginalization and the cure to be, in some cases, as debilitating as the disease…Since I a) spend a great deal of time working with my own students on issues of social stratification and unequal resource distribution, b) feel very strongly about poverty and the marginalization of the poor worldwide, and c) am frequently advocating for the rights of the poor, I had to stop and wonder if I also am misguided and act irrationally and arrogantly [Week 5]. No matter how supportive I and my colleagues are of qualitative research, however, it will have to adhere to a certain level of universal guidelines if it and researchers who use qualitative methods are to be taken seriously…[Week 7]. [The reading] gave me pause to consider once again what I would like to do professionally after I complete my degree…because most of the research that is done in sociology is quantitative (no matter what our readings say), I wondered what a future in research might look like for me…[Week 8]. [Guidelines] to increase the chances that qualitative work would be funded, accepted, and published…returns to force qualitative researchers to follow conventional/traditional ways of structuring research. Of course, the rules, regulations, and conventions were crafted and have been enforced primarily by the majority men who have always had a choke hold on research…Where, then, does this leave women (majority and minority), racial and ethnic minorities, and those without economic resources? Further, what does this domination by quantitative researchers, practices, and methods mean for the growth of alternative ways of research, alternative ways of knowing, and, ultimately, for alternative final products? [Week 9].
The profile of Participant 23 further illuminates a trajectory of acceptance that emerges from reflecting upon and understanding the politics of knowledge production, dominance of positivism, and legitimacy battles in disciplines. This profile also exemplifies the possibility of exercising individual agency in the context of disciplinary socialization, as the student indicated leaving a discipline because of dissatisfaction with the dominance of positivism. This student’s reflections included statements to the effect that the “current system” encouraged positivist work that we coded as examples of disciplinary and external control of graduate students in our thematic analysis (see above). However, when we analyzed this student’s narrative, we recognized these constraints as the context of the student’s agency toward acceptance of postpositivism. Upon reflection, this insight resonated with Thomas’s personal experiences of contemplating transferring to another PhD program that afforded more freedom to study organizational phenomena from postpositivist perspectives (before connecting to faculty and resources in other colleges to continue his self-development as a multiparadigm scholar).
Profile of Participant 23
I was a psychology major in college [Week 9]. [A course reading published by NSF] reveals issues of power in science…scientific quality of research is still being judged in terms of its proximity or its applicability in positivistic paradigm…and “recommends” a positivist perspective in doing qualitative research without going more in depth to understand epistemological differences between those paradigms (their souls)…This article [referring to a critical piece on misuse of qualitative methods] felt like oxygen after the NSF document, allowing breathing little bit! Maybe there is still some hope for having an open mind for doing nonconventional research? [Week 5]. While reading the articles, I thought about how it is challenging to do qualitative research in today’s world…the current IRB procedures as well as funding agencies employ a very authoritarian ideology in this regard and their criteria do not necessarily match the “spirit” of qualitative research…are we really free as researchers in the way we think, do research, and publish in today’s world? [Week 6]…The whole social psychology subdiscipline is currently dead…Study of the social has become ironically asocial…Last, and not the least, I would have been a social psychologist if I could do what I wanted to do in that discipline—thanks to the current system, I had to change my academic field, and move to another discipline [Week 9].
Upon further consideration of these narratives in light of the literature, we found that the trajectories we identified and presented above resemble Gergen and Gergen’s (1997) typology of generic narratives of self (stability, regressive, and progressive narratives) that individuals use to link experiences to construct a certain description of themselves with respect to an evaluative dimension, here with respect to their paradigmatic orientation. The resistance trajectory resembles the “stability narrative” in which “the status quo is being preserved” (Sonenshein, 2010, p. 499). The inertia trajectory contains a “regressive narrative” in which students who were initially receptive to alternative paradigms regressed to positivist notions of validity and science to evaluate alternative paradigms. The acceptance trajectory resembles a “progressive narrative” in which individuals’ identity shifts toward desirable change (here acceptance of postpositivist paradigms). The resemblance to narratives of self led us to conclude that the trajectories we identified not only contain elements of identity work (as we targeted in our analyses) and budding methodological identities, but they are indeed narratives of self.
Discussion
Methodological Socialization and Identity
Increasing use of qualitative organizational research has been overshadowed by concerns that the power and diversity of qualitative methods are curtailed by a trend toward convergence on a limited set of methodologies and standardized templates (Cassell, 2016; Cornelissen, 2017; Köhler et al., 2019; Symon et al., 2018). Our study highlights the methodological and paradigmatic choices of graduate students as socially situated in research communities and as shaped by socialization in graduate research training that involves identity work by students. It implies that graduate research training transcends learning methods and functions as a key structure for the reproduction of dominant methodological approaches and convergence toward qualitative research templates. Our findings offer a sketch of methodological socialization, which includes students’ construction of methodological identities associated with paradigmatic and methodological choices and interwoven with their existing identities. Our findings also illuminate how processes of socialization and methodological identity work may unfold in students’ lived experiences. These findings support the idea that understanding methodological socialization is vital for nurturing a landscape of qualitative research in which paradigmatic and methodological plurality as well as reflective qualitative research thrive.
First, our findings suggest that students’ affinity to research paradigms is not merely (or even primarily) an intellectual decision driven by research interests or by students’ assessments of paradigms’ contributions, but rather is shaped by disciplinary and institutional norms, including faculty’s values as well as students’ insecurities about the legitimacy of postpositivist research. Thus, methodological socialization involves the transmission of dominant disciplinary values and norms regarding research paradigms and approaches, and mirrors key sources of influence in the overall socialization process (Ferrales & Fine, 2005; Weidman et al., 2001). Students’ narratives reflected a relatively high degree of awareness of and pragmatism toward those socialization pressures as indicated by students’ strategic compliance with expectations. Their awareness may stem partly from the fact that the course presented multiple alternative paradigms as options for doing qualitative research.
Second, our findings shed light on how methodological socialization is accompanied by students’ identity work toward becoming (certain kinds of) researchers through the construction of methodological identities that are defined through paradigmatic and methodological choices. Methodological identities are delimited by options available to students. This matters because who we are is “intimately connected to who we are not” (Ybema et al., 2009, p. 306) and identity work involves using “anti-identities” (Stanske et al., 2020) (e.g., “I am not a poststructuralist” above); offering diverse methodological and paradigmatic options would enable students to experiment with provisional selves (Ibarra, 1999). Our findings also suggest that graduate students’ identity work involves weaving prior disciplinary, professional, and personal identities into their developing methodological identities. This affirms that fit between students’ existing and developing identities is important for a smooth socialization (Baker & Lattuca, 2010).
Third, our findings illustrate three socialization and identity work trajectories of students who are exposed to multiple qualitative paradigms and approaches. These trajectories broadly reflect constructions of self-narratives (Gergen & Gergen, 1997) and illuminate graduate students’ experiences as they negotiate the meaning of the diversity of qualitative research paradigms, interpret external expectations and pressures, and develop their evaluations of and preferences for (and against) specific paradigms. While our discourse analysis highlighted the roles of identity construction and previous identities, our narrative analysis showed that in the context of a multiparadigm course, students may take different trajectories even if they sense similar pressures from their environment. This suggests that graduate students’ methodological socialization and methodological identity work involve an interplay of individual agency and social structure, as supported by the socialization and identity building literature (Beech, 2011; McAlpine et al., 2014). Parallels between participants’ trajectories and narratives of the self (Gergen & Gergen, 1997) pinpoint the fact that these journals served as a platform for students’ identity work and thus accentuate their pedagogical value as a tool for methodological identity construction.
Methodological Bricolage
Using methodological bricolage as an antithesis to methodological templates has enabled us to capitalize on the diversity of qualitative methods to create an innovative research design. Methodological bricolage embodies the view that researchers should “actively construct [their] research methods from the tools at hand rather than passively receiving the ‘correct,’ universally applicable methodologies” and based on “this belief in active human agency [a bricoleur] refuses standardized modes of knowledge production” (Kincheloe, 2005, pp. 324–325). Furthermore, building on the conceptual foundations of bricolage in qualitative research (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Kincheloe, 2001, 2005), our study contributes to the literature as the first empirical organizational research study designed as a methodological bricolage. Our study exemplifies bricolage not only by combining three analysis methods but also by following principles of bricolage and making transparent the intentionality of our methodological choices. Our detailed descriptions of our research design illustrate methodological bricolage as a mindful and deliberate engagement with and proactive assembly of analytical moves to address the particular purposes and challenges of our study (Pratt et al., 2022 [this issue]). While methodological choices are unique to a bricolage study and are shaped by bricoleurs (Kincheloe, 2004), detailed descriptions can help other researchers to build on the innovative methodology.
Our research process engages several key principles of methodological bricolage. To begin, bricolage is actively designing a coherent multimethod study customized to answer specific research questions. It is an emergent process that evolves as it unfolds (Hammersley, 2004) and is an effective way to transcend standardized methodologies or templates (Kincheloe, 2005; Pratt et al., 2022). Our research design was iterative, as continued engagement with our data and research questions during analysis led us to additional interpretations and suitable analytical approaches. This iterative process included consideration and discontinuation of a method, introduction of new methods, exploiting unexpected outcomes, and continual self-reflection. Adding thematic analysis, narrative analysis, and discourse analysis as layers entailed iterations of analyses that enabled interactions among them and enabled us to explore socialization from different vantage points, draw deeper insights, and combine the strengths of each method (Kincheloe, 2004) in a way that leverages synergies among those methods (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000).
Second, bricoleurs should make deliberate choices and convey them transparently. This requires resourcefulness on the part of researchers such that they understand the assumptions of and have experience with a wide “stock” of methods (Kincheloe, 2004; Lévi-Strauss, 1966). Our combined experience and comfort with a wide range of qualitative methodologies as well as our understanding of their underlying philosophical assumptions gave us the versatility to consider, select, and use different approaches to analyzing our data and answering our research questions. Above we explained our use of each method, our rationale for methodological choices, and how our engagement with the data informed our choices.
Third, bricoleurs combine or rearrange existing resources for a new purpose. We began with the innovative use of student reflections as data to study methodological socialization. Knowing and appreciating that viewing data from different perspectives brings out different interpretations (Kincheloe, 2004), we viewed our data as elaboration of themes, as discourse, and as narratives of lived experiences, and accordingly stitched together (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Kaomea, 2016) three suitable analysis methods to generate a comprehensive multifaceted description of methodological socialization.
Fourth, bricoleurs’ choices reflect their experiences (Kaomea, 2016; Kincheloe, 2001) and they should engage in self-reflexivity on their principles for selection of research methods, on their own assumptions underlying research, and on how their experiences shape their choices (Hammersley, 2004; Kincheloe, 2004). To convey our self-reflexivity, we have described our methodological choices, analysis processes, the study context, and the philosophy and characteristics of the course. Reflecting on how our experiences may shape our study enabled us to benefit from our familiarity with the subject (Berger, 2015).
Finally, the centrality of interdisciplinarity to bricolage and its potential for innovation have been emphasized since the original conceptualization of methodological bricolage (Kincheloe, 2001, 2005). Likewise, combining independent analyses by multiple researchers strengthens bricolage studies (Pratt et al., 2022). Our study engaged in both practices as we co-designed the study as researchers from different disciplines and conducted each analysis separately before discussing and combining them. Needless to say, acquiring the wide repertoire and versatility necessary to engage multiple methods in dialogue (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000) is a major endeavor (Kincheloe, 2004). Our study implies that fostering understanding and appreciation of multiple paradigms and approaches in graduate school would enable researchers to conduct bricolage studies and research that is generally more reflective.
Reflections on the Rigor of Our Study
Our study also showcases how bricolage research can attain and demonstrate rigor. Assessments of the quality of qualitative research include a number of “big-tent” criteria (Tracy, 2010, 2019). By establishing the worth of our topic, its significant contribution, and our ethical conduct, we already addressed the broader criteria. In the following we focus in more detail on how we establish rigor and trustworthiness of our bricolage study through meaningful coherence, credibility, resonance, and sincerity.
Demonstrating meaningful coherence (Tracy, 2010) while drawing upon their repertoire of tools (Kincheloe, 2001, 2004, 2005) is particularly important for bricoleurs, who need to demonstrate their integrity by showing that the analytical moves they assembled fit together (Pratt et al., 2022). We have drawn on our repertoire of qualitative methodologies and on key methodological literature to choose methods that are appropriate to our study’s purposes and data. Understanding the assumptions of our methods, conducting multiple iterations of independent analyses, describing and justifying our methodological choices enabled us to design a coherent bricolage study and establish our competence as bricoleurs (Pratt et al., 2022).
We strived for credibility (i.e., plausibility; Tracy, 2010) by representing participants’ reflections on their experiences as authentically as possible. Our descriptions including direct quotes as well as sample participant profiles (Seidman, 2006) were intended to give more voice to students and to present their experiences more fully. Likewise, presenting our findings as separate layers that complement one another rather than fusing them into a single set enabled us to offer a more authentic description of students’ experiences. Our claims of fidelity to the data and benevolence (Pratt et al., 2022) are enhanced by our intimacy with the research setting. Further, our study has resonance (Lincoln, 1995; Tracy, 2010) by pointing to possibilities of social action toward centering marginalized research agendas in students’ socialization into research methods and by giving voice to graduate students.
Our intimacy with the research context calls for sincerity (Tracy, 2010) by reflecting on our subjectivity and how it shaped our methodological choices (Berger, 2015; Kaomea, 2016; Kincheloe, 2001, 2004). Using our previous experience with bracketing from phenomenological research—that is, consistently studying one’s own subjectivity and presuppositions (e.g., Ashworth, 1999)—was a step toward curbing our subjectivity (Berger, 2015; Peshkin, 1988). We engaged in further reflexivity by benefiting from peer consultation by anonymous reviewers as well as our ORM editor and by revisiting our analyses after a time lapse (Berger, 2015).
Limitations and Future Research Directions
Our study has some limitations that point to opportunities for future research. To begin with, our study was limited to student reflections from a quarter-long introductory qualitative methods course at a highly research-oriented university taught by an instructor who emphasized paradigmatic diversity. Qualitative methods courses are oftentimes taught from the perspective of a single paradigm rather than emphasizing paradigmatic diversity (Breuer & Schreier, 2007; Roulston & Bhattacharya, 2018; Waite, 2014). Thus, our findings from a multiparadigm course may be a conservative representation of how strongly institutional influences in methodological socialization work toward methodological convergence—especially because students had a motive to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the course content in their journals to fulfill a course requirement. Future research would benefit from similar studies in different institutional contexts as well as from studies comparing student experiences across multiple institutional contexts, course designs, and instructors.
Relatedly, a comprehensive review of the spectrum of current practices in teaching qualitative research methodology would be an important contribution for understanding methodological socialization. To our knowledge, the only relevant study on teaching practices—which consisted of a survey of faculty and review of course syllabi—was conducted nearly three decades ago (Glesne & Webb, 1993). Studies investigating qualitative methods training by reviewing program curricula and inclusion and exclusion of different methodologies in qualitative methods course syllabi could determine the breadth and depth of paradigmatic and methodological diversity taught to future researchers.
Although U.S. models of PhD education (Djelic, 2008; Pelger & Grottke, 2015) and research and publication expectations (Alvesson & Gabriel, 2013; Cassell, 2016; Pratt, 2008) are increasingly adopted by universities globally, curricula and structures of doctoral programs in other countries are likely to differ from those of our study’s highly research-oriented U.S. university. Exploring the methodological socialization of doctoral students trained in other settings (e.g., in a European apprenticeship model; Djelic, 2008) could reveal how conducive different training models may be to diversifying students’ methodological and paradigmatic commitments.
Also, our study was based on graduate students’ experiences with an introductory qualitative methods course. This may have been the sole exposure of some students to alternative paradigms during their graduate training, while others may have had continued exposure through advanced qualitative methods training or other means. Professional socialization continues throughout one’s career (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979), and as narrative researchers always do, we walked into the midst of students’ stories (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000). As students’ socialization and identity work continue to unfold, their trajectories may develop differently, perhaps resembling those from a wider repertoire of narrative genres of the self (see Gergen & Gergen, 1997). For example, we might observe narratives that represent (a) “tragic” narratives when scholars who embrace alternative paradigms later experience difficulties in publishing their research or finding a job; (b) “comedy-melodrama” narratives by researchers who end tensions encapsulated in the inertia trajectory by accepting and pursuing work in a postpositivist paradigm; or (c) “happily ever thereafter” narratives by scholars who were accepting of postpositivist paradigms and go on to build stable and rewarding careers on the same path. In short, our study offers a point of departure for future narrative research to explore what further or longer-term exposure to paradigms of qualitative research might entail.
Implications for Qualitative Methods Training
Socialization of graduate students toward a diverse repertoire of research paradigms and approaches is crucial for overcoming methodological convergence; this is because graduate students are future faculty and researchers, peer reviewers and journal editors, and university administrators who will conduct and evaluate research. Also, because graduate students are liminals not yet fully vested in their academic disciplines’ norms (Beech, 2011; Raineri, 2015; Weidman et al., 2001), graduate training is a promising setting for initiatives aimed at creating, accepting, and sustaining a landscape of qualitative research that does not narrowly rely on templates or suppress alternative research agendas enabled by diverse research traditions.
Obvious venues to address this are research methods courses and curricula. Our findings imply that the prevalence of positivist socialization hinders the uptake of alternative paradigms and that most students may need to “unlearn” deeply engrained positivist thinking. Therefore, to enable students to build methodological identities that may shape their long-term research activities, PhD program curricula should offer a diverse range of paradigmatic and methodological possibilities as well as possibilities of methodological bricolage. A series of qualitative methodology courses would likely be more effective than a single course. Also when students are introduced to alternative paradigms in a program is important; students taking a qualitative course as an afterthought after completing “essential” quantitative (positivist) courses may be too firmly socialized into positivism to benefit from the course and accept alternative paradigms. Socialization that is inclusive of alternative paradigms may benefit from implementing a spiral curriculum (Bruner, 1960), in which paradigmatic and methodological diversity would be introduced early on and revisited several times with increasing complexity and building on previous learning throughout a PhD program.
Exposure to paradigmatic diversity also should transcend methods courses and extend into substantive PhD seminars (e.g., strategic management, organizational behavior, and human resources). The shortage of faculty members who have the expertise and commitment needed to teach paradigmatically diverse content may be a challenge, but may be overcome by sharing resources inter- or intra-institutionally (e.g., cross-enrollment, graduate student and faculty exchange arrangements, external speaker series; Pratt & Bonaccio, 2016). Our findings underlining the role of personal background and identity in students’ uptake of alternative research paradigms also support the position that departments that purposely diversify their students and faculty can enjoy a wider range of intellectual perspectives (Golde, 2015; Weidman & Stein, 2003). Thus, sustained and deliberate attention to diversity in doctoral student admissions and in faculty hiring (which ironically requires a diverse graduating class of doctoral students) would be conducive to boosting paradigmatic and methodological diversity.
Finally, attempts to promote methodological diversity in graduate training should involve the entire discipline (Easterby-Smith et al., 2008; Symon et al., 2018), including “epistemological gatekeepers” such as editors and peer reviewers (Cassell, 2016). Possible initiatives to recognize and nurture doctoral students’ emerging interests in diverse qualitative methodologies include establishing graduate student awards or dissertation fellowships, increasing the frequency of journal special issues inviting methodological diversity (in addition to this feature topic issue by ORM), and offering professional development opportunities that particularly target graduate students at conferences or through such platforms as the Center for the Advancement of Research Methods and Analysis (CARMA; Madden et al., 2016) dedicated to underrepresented methodologies. Also, mentoring programs may connect graduate students with faculty with expertise in underrepresented paradigmatic and methodological approaches to serve as role models for students’ identity-building efforts and to support intellectual diversity.
Footnotes
Authors’ Note
Both authors contributed equally to this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Notes
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
