This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Holloway, I. Articles by Todres, L. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

The Status of Method: Flexibility, Consistency and Coherence

ihollowa{at}bournemouth.ac.uk

Les Todres

Bournemouth Universityltodres{at}bournemouth.ac.uk

Many elements of qualitative research are shared between the variety of approaches, and often the overlap of epistemology, ethics and procedures encourages a generic and flexible view of this type of inquiry. This article argues that there is an essential tension between flexibility on the one hand, and consistency and coherence on the other. Such tension may encourage qualitative researchers to consider the intentions and philosophical underpinnings of the different approaches in greater depth in order to arrive at an epistemological position that can coherently underpin its empirical claims. This article is intended to encourage a more thoughtful engagement with different qualitative approaches by highlighting distinctive elements of three of the most common approaches. We suggest that the researcher be contextsensitive and flexible as well as considerate of the inner consistency and coherence that is needed when engaged in qualitative research.

Key Words: coherence • consistency • ethnography • flexibility • grounded theory • methodology • method-slurring • phenomenology • qualitative research

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				E. Carr Using ethnography (or qualitative methods) to investigate medication errors: A critique of a published study Journal of Research in Nursing, September 1, 2004; 9(5): 388 - 388. [PDF]