Abstract
Qualitative research can be used to accomplish a variety of purposes for HRD scholarship, particularly when researchers wish to deeply understand the perspectives and experiences of individuals or groups of people. Given the infinite variety of research aims, there are necessarily multiple approaches to qualitative research. Because many qualitative research methods employ similar data collection strategies, such as interviews and observations, and outputs may appear similar (e.g. a collection of interrelated themes), the important differences among qualitative approaches can become muddy or lost. Making choices about approach, building an appropriate, corresponding design, and describing methods is an ongoing challenge for qualitative researchers in HRD and beyond. This article provides an accessible overview and comparison of select qualitative approaches in HRD, both traditional and emerging, to clarify decision-making in research design, guide methodological alignment, and explore the distinct contribution each approach can make for developing theory and practice in HRD.
Keywords
Qualitative research can be used to accomplish a variety of purposes for HRD scholarship, particularly when researchers wish to deeply understand the perspectives and experiences of individuals or groups of people, or the contexts in which they function. Certainly, scholars have made the case for the value and purpose of qualitative research in HRD (e.g. Lester et al., 2020; Lynham & McDonald, 2011; Storberg-Walker, 2012). Given the infinite variety of research aims, there are necessarily multiple approaches to qualitative research. Additionally, many qualitative research methods employ similar data collection strategies, such as interviews and observations, and outputs may appear similar (e.g. a collection of interrelated themes). The important differences among qualitative approaches can become muddy or lost. For example, a study that aims to build theory may or may not need to employ grounded theory. Similarly, a qualitative study might investigate an experience shared by participants, but phenomenological study must apply particular design qualities, such as bracketing or a reductive analysis process, to elicit the underlying structure or essence of the experience. In contrast, a narrative study might also investigate participants’ shared experience but using interviews purposefully designed to elicit stories and storytelling.
Specific to the field of HRD, Lester et al. (2020) identified 59 qualitative research articles published in the journal Human Resource Development Quarterly (HRDQ) between 1990 and the fall of 2020 (Vol. 30, issue 3). They categorized the types of published qualitative research and identified 24 case studies, 19 basic qualitative studies, and eight phenomenological studies. Since that time, HRDQ has published an additional 19 qualitative studies (Vol 30, Issue 4 through Vol 33, Issue 3, plus three EarlyView articles). Of those 19, there were 10 basic qualitative studies, three phenomenological studies, three case studies, one discourse analysis, one ethnography, and one participatory action research. This represents a greater variety of approaches than in previous years, but does not fully represent the breadth of possibility for qualitative research in HRD.
This limited variety of qualitative approaches suggests an opportunity for HRD scholars to expand their repertoire. Additionally, making choices about an approach, building an appropriate, corresponding design, and describing methods is an ongoing challenge for qualitative researchers in HRD and beyond. The purpose of this article is to provide an accessible overview and comparison of qualitative approaches to clarify decision-making in research design, guide methodological alignment, and explore the distinct contribution each approach can make for developing theory and practice in HRD.
Are Qualitative Methods Right for Your Study?
Qualitative research, and researchers, are “interested in understanding how people interpret their experiences, how they construct their worlds, and what meaning they attribute to their experiences” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015, p. 6). Grounded in the constructivist and interpretivist paradigms, qualitative research seeks to understand people and their lives, rather than predict outcomes or attribute cause and effect, as in a positivist or quantitative paradigm (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011). Interpretivism posits that reality is socially constructed and subjective and aims to generate knowledge through people’s individual viewpoints and the significance ascribed to those viewpoints (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Constructivism views knowledge as constructed by the processes individuals undertake to make sense of their lived experiences (Creswell & Poth, 2018).
From these foundations, it follows that the primary instrument used to collect qualitative research data is the researcher (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). With the goal of qualitative research to understand, human-driven data processes are imperative. From guiding a conversation with research participants in an interview, to the observational skills required when entering a new space or context, to the ongoing construction of meaning in analyses, the researcher is an inextricable architect of and influence on the research process. Given these philosophical and practical foundations, qualitative research is intrinsically subjective with respect to the biases of both participants and researchers (Peshkin, 1988). Yet, when researchers acknowledge bias, they can identify, monitor, and mitigate it as needed; this is not a fatal flaw.
In addition to the centrality of participants’ perspectives, researcher(s) as instrument, and the need for reflexivity, Creswell and Poth (2018) outline a number of other distinguishing characteristics of qualitative research. It is conducted in a natural setting, is context-dependent, and provides a holistic account of the research topic. Qualitative research is subject to emergent design, meaning that design may change or evolve as the research progresses. It incorporates multiple sources of data and data analysis applies both inductive and deductive reasoning.
Issues of research quality, including researcher bias and positionality, are addressed in depth elsewhere (e.g. Anderson, 2017; Rocco, 2010; Storberg-Walker, 2012; Tracy, 2010). Here, I wish to emphasize that good qualitative research adheres to a different but no less rigorous standard of quality than that of quantitative research (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Through that rigor, qualitative research helps us respond to significant questions about people and their experiences and drives the appropriate mindset for engaging in qualitative research. If the aims of a study align with these foundations and priorities, then some form of qualitative method is likely appropriate.
Approaches to Qualitative Research
Once qualitative research is established as an appropriate method, the next challenge is choosing from among the many qualitative approaches. This section presents select, common approaches to qualitative research from the perspective of their use in social science in general. Some, such as case study and phenomenology, are relatively common in HRD as previously described, while others, such as narrative and ethnography, are less so. Like other scholarly topics, qualitative research has its own jargon. For scholars who desire additional depth regarding definitions, terminology, and the interrelation of concepts, a qualitative research encyclopedia or dictionary (e.g. Given, 2008; Schwandt, 2015) may be helpful.
In general, qualitative data collection strategies involve some combination of interviews, focus groups, observations, and documents. Analysis may focus on content or interpretive themes and may be conducted using deductive or inductive reasoning. For a primer on data analysis, see Lester et al. (2020). Specific data collection and analysis techniques may be required for some approaches. In all cases, methodological congruence across purpose, research questions, data collection, and analysis is paramount. Tomaszewski et al. (2020) presents examples of approaches compared across all facets of design.
In the following, I present a brief overview of a variety of qualitative approaches, with examples of how they have been used in HRD research and scholarship. I begin with approaches more common in HRD as previously described, including basic qualitative, case study, and phenomenology, and then present a selection of approaches less commonly utilized, but with relevance to our field. The decision-making guide presented in Figure 1 represents high-level but fundamental criteria associated with the approaches and is intended as a starting point. The primary consideration should be the driving purpose of the study and research questions, as distinguished from the design considerations that follow from one’s choice of approach. Decision points for choosing an approach to qualitative research design.
Basic Qualitative Studies
Merriam and Tisdell (2015) describe a basic study as distinguished by its interest in people’s lived experiences and meaning-making, as with all qualitative research, but without the additional qualities of other types of research design. In some sense, basic studies are defined by applying the fundamentals of qualitative research and nothing else. Examples in HRD include Deer et al.’s (2020) study of women exiting the sex trade and finding legal employment. The study employed interviews and a constant comparative analysis to answer the research question “How do women exiting the sex trade describe their experiences transitioning to legal employment?” (Deer et al., 2020, p. 32). As a second example, Terblanche (2021) conducted a basic study to answer the research question “How should transition coaching be applied as an HRD intervention aimed at facilitating transformative learning during career transitions?” (p. 13). Terblanche’s study used interviews and content analysis to respond to the research question. In both of these examples, the research question is open-ended and can only be answered by understanding participants’ experiences and perspectives.
Case Study
Like basic qualitative studies, a case study seeks to understand lived experiences, but with additional focus and constraints. Yin (2017) presents two distinguishing features of case studies. First, case studies examine “a contemporary phenomenon in depth and within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between the phenomenon and context are not clearly evident” (Yin, 2017, p. 18). The phenomenon is interwoven with its context but contained in a bounded system, through which the researcher can define and delimit the case (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Second, case studies integrate multiple data types and sources to address the full breadth and depth of a research issue (Yin, 2017). Case studies are advantageous because they incorporate thick description of context, process, and other influences and can be used to link causes and outcomes (Flyvbjerg, 2011).
To determine whether a case study is an appropriate approach, researchers should focus on the bounded system. If the bounded system exists and is central to the research topic, then the research is a candidate for case study. When investigating a specific organization, program, community or similar, a single-case design may be a standalone study. For example, Ahn and Hong (2019) studied a single organization for the purpose of understanding “how organizational members perceived a particular environmental issue driving the sensemaking process and to examine how perceptual differences among members generate organizational knowledge” (p. 566). The researchers used in-depth interviews, observations, surveys, and documents to address the research purpose.
Multiple-case designs are also common and are useful for studying various applications of an intervention and presenting different contexts (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015; Yin, 2017). In multiple case studies, researchers must establish a commonality across the cases that allows them to analyze and identify qualities that are replicable or transferable to related circumstances or contexts. For example, Ghosh and Nadkarni’s (2022) multiple-case study incorporated interviews, archival data, and observations to respond to two research questions: “What tensions arise in hybrid multiplex developmental relationships? How do developers and developees address them?” (p. 71). This study focused on the developmental relationships of entrepreneurs and cases were comprised of each core participant’s network of such relationships.
Phenomenology
The focus in the phenomenological approach is on a phenomenon, the “essence or essences of a shared experience” (Patton, 2015, p. 116), that can be distilled from the viewpoints of different people who have had that experience. Therefore, the primary aim of phenomenology is to represent the phenomenon with fidelity to the way people lived it (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Giorgi & Giorgi, 2003). A phenomenological study’s product is then a combination of what and how individuals experienced the phenomenon (Moustakas, 1994) and the key criteria for choosing phenomenology is the emphasis on the essence, or nature, of an experience and its meaning for individuals (Creswell & Poth, 2018).
Phenomenology is a common approach for investigating a broader or more abstract concept. For example, Hurtienne et al. (2022) interviewed millennial workers to respond to the research question “Based on their lived experiences in the workplace, how do millennial employees in a manufacturing environment perceive factors that can impact [employee engagement]?” (p. 141). Here, the phenomenon being investigated is millennial workers’ employee engagement.
As a second example of phenomenology in HRD research, Ghosh et al. (2020) conducted an interpretative phenomenological study of a mentoring experience. Study participants experienced processes of mentoring and being mentored, from which they then sought to make meaning. The study was guided by three research questions:
How do mentoring schemas influence faculty experiences of mutuality in diverse mentoring relationships assigned through a formal mentoring program?
How do mentoring schemas influence faculty experiences of challenges in achieving mutuality in diverse mentoring relationships?
How do mentoring schemas influence faculty experiences of the factors facilitating mutuality in diverse mentoring relationships? (p. 322). Data collection included two semi-structured interviews focused on participants’ experiences of mentoring relationships. The research team used interpretive phenomenological analysis to develop themes that captured the key qualities of the mentoring experiences.
Approaches Underutilized in HRD Research
The approaches in the previous sections are well represented across the qualitative research literature in HRD. Yet, these three approaches represent only a fraction of established types of qualitative research. While by no means comprehensive, the following descriptions are meant to provide a sense of possibility for HRD research that invites further reading and expands our existing, collective methodological tool kits.
Narrative
The narrative approach uses a process of storytelling to reveal the meaning an individual attaches to or makes from an experience (Esin et al., 2014). This approach aims to make visible the relationship between the words an individual uses and their relationship to some social reality (Herman & Vervaeck, 2019). Often, narrative represents processes of identity construction through either the structure or language of the account (Creswell & Poth, 2018). A narrative approach may be applied with a single participant, as in a life history study, or with multiple people who have shared a common experience. Regardless of how a study is framed, the focus of a narrative approach is on the way people articulate their personal stories and the connection between those stories and people’s lived experiences.
For example, Kwon (2021) conducted a discourse analysis, which can be considered one form of narrative inquiry (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Kwon used interviews with participants working in a particular type of organization to respond to the research question “What are the discursive practices of employees with disabilities to construct their positive identity in [deliberately developmental organizations] against ableism?” (p. 184). Of particular importance in this form of narrative inquiry, the interviews were designed to elucidate the language participants used to describe themselves and their preferred identities.
Ethnography
Ethnography’s primary emphasis is on culture within groups of people, which includes patterns of behavior, interaction, language, beliefs, and ideas. Ethnography is appropriate when the research goal is to understand or depict the shared beliefs, ideas, or organizational structures of a cultural group or arising from a group’s shared lived experiences (Creswell & Poth, 2018). As ethnography is derived from methods in the field of anthropology, the researcher’s conception of culture may align with a traditional definition, or apply a narrower or more contemporary perspective (Wolcott, 2008), such as among members of a learning community or employees at a start-up company. Ethnography often employs multiple data types and relies extensively on participant observation, which may require prolonged fieldwork or contact with the culture of interest (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). An ethnographic study’s product is a complete and nuanced representation of a group’s culture that portrays the group’s function regarding the study focus (Creswell & Poth, 2018).
As an HRD example, Keshtiban et al. (2021) used ethnography to study social movement organizations without formal leadership structures. Their study was guided by the research question “What does ‘leadership’ look like in a leaderless organization such as the [Occupy London] social movement?” (p. 3). Using interviews, online documents, and extensive observations, the study presents a comprehensive view of the culture of the social movement with respect to alternative leadership processes.
Autoethnography
Autoethnography is an ethnographic study of one’s self, balancing individual meaning-making with larger cultural implications of the story (Creswell & Poth, 2018). An autoethnographic approach leverages personal storytelling to bring weight and visibility to the value of individual experiences (Eraut, 2011; Grenier, 2015; Grenier & Collins, 2016). Collins (2017) applied autoethnography to investigate the challenges and opportunities embedded in teaching for diversity, equity and inclusion in HRD as guided by the research question “How did one professor perceive the experience of teaching a diversity and inclusion course to HRD undergraduate students at a PWI?” (p. 159). His story balanced his personal experiences and perceptions with clear implications for the field.
Historical research
Featured in a recent special issue of this journal, historical research can be used to explore, or re-explore, the foundations or origins of particular concepts, organizations, groups, or activities. Perriton (2022), in her introduction to the special issue, elucidates approaches to historical research that may be relevant to HRD research. She invited scholars to revisit, expand, and revise current conceptions based on historical study of topics relevant to HRD. As one example, Bohonos and James-Gallaway (2022) applied a historical analysis to the writings of Frederick Douglass, a prominent intellectual in the late 19th century and formerly enslaved African American. Their purpose was to “initiate a discussion on the relevance of the institution of U.S. slavery to the history of HRD” (p. 160).
Action research
Action research aims to solve a problem of practical importance through research. Common in education, action research is conducted to simultaneously try a new practice—take action—and research that action, and is necessarily subject to an emergent research design as the practice unfolds (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). All action research engages practitioners, but participatory action research is distinct in that design and decision-making are driven by practitioners or community members (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). As additional forms of action research to inform HRD practice, Vivona and Wolfgram (2021) advocated for community-based participatory action research and Githens (2015) argued for critical action research as a means to inform the practice of critical HRD.
In HRD, Nelson and Duxbury (2021) engaged in participatory action research with employees at an accounting firm, with which the researchers had an established relationship. The study was initiated and driven by questions of practice the firm wished to address regarding employee recruitment and retention. The study responded to two research questions: “How do the work and career expectations of the two younger generations of accountants in the workforce today (i.e., Generation X and Generation Y) align to the prototypical practices of P2 accounting firms?” and “How do prototypical accounting firms change their retention strategies to better meet the expectations of their Generation X and Generation Y accountants?” (p. 156). The study was guided by a research advisory bord comprised of six representatives of the firm with whom the lead researcher met regularly “to develop to develop research instruments, review findings, and discuss initiatives and planned changes” (p. 160). Data collection utilized interviews, a survey, and outcomes of an appreciative-inquiry workshop.
Grounded theory
As its name suggests, grounded theory is intended to build theory and typically addresses a specific but substantive issue (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015), often of practical importance (Egan, 2002). It does not focus as intently on participants’ lived experience but rather a process, action or a larger picture of some kind, and therefore may require more data than many other approaches (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Grounded theory is also characterized by the constant comparative process of analysis, in which data are simultaneously collected and analyzed so that the analysis process can inform ongoing data collection processes, and theoretical sampling, in which choices about data collection are driven by the aims of the theory being developed. (Suddaby, 2006; Walsh et al., 2015).
In HRD, Lester et al. (2020) indicated a number of studies applied grounded theory’s constant comparative analytic technique but they did not classify any of the studies they reviewed as explicitly grounded theory. This assessment aligns with Suddaby’s (2006) and Alammar et al.’s (2019) assertions that grounded theory is often used in qualitative research without being enacted as a cohesive and complete research design. As an example from the HRD-adjacent field of business ethics, Koleva (2021) used grounded theory to build a model of corporate social responsibility specific to Islamic nations. Her research design employed the hallmarks of grounded theory design, including 63 participant interviews guided by purposive sampling, memoing, and a constant comparative analysis process.
Implications and Conclusions
Grenier (2015) raised the issue of methodological variety in her presentation of autoethnography as a research approach in HRD: I believe the field of human resource development (HRD) is missing out on the opportunity to expand our methodological approaches and ignoring the calls from others to be rebellious and look beyond our standard operating procedures…. I hope to encourage the use of rich, but neglected sources of less traditional approaches to qualitative inquiry (p. 332). Based on Lester et al.’s (2020) analysis of qualitative HRD research and my own continuation of that analysis, Grenier’s encouragement to the field merits reiterating.
In this article, I have addressed basic qualitative studies, case studies, and phenomenology as approaches already prevalent in HRD scholarship, and always worth considering. For less utilized approaches, I presented narrative, ethnography, autoethnography, historical research, action research, and grounded theory. I suggest that each of these approaches has its particular usefulness in HRD research and scholarship, as indicated explicitly by the examples of each. For established scholars, this may be a useful refresher or an opportunity to rethink ongoing or future studies. For doctoral students and new or emerging scholars, I hope these descriptions convey the breadth of possibility for qualitative research in HRD and support informed decision-making in research design. In particular, it would be exciting to see scholars at all levels respond to Grenier’s call.
Certainly, there is more variety than this article can address, including but not limited to arts-based research, Indigenous methods, and many methods grounded in critical, feminist, or emancipatory paradigms, not to mention the ways and reasons one might combine features of multiple approaches. For further reading, Cho et al. (2022) expand on four such innovative approaches. While there is opportunity and value in expanding the methodological variety in qualitative HRD research, I also urge restraint and care. There is nothing wrong with a basic qualitative study. A basic study design is common because it is clear, highly adaptable, and the right starting point for most research and researchers. When I teach qualitative research methods, I regularly find that students want to label their studies as something other than basic when it is unnecessary, and usually inappropriate. If a study does not need to more complex, then one should avoid overcomplicating it.
If a study does need a more targeted strategy, as many of the approaches described here could provide, then methodological alignment is paramount. Figure 1 presented some key decision-making criteria but it is not, in itself, a complete justification for choosing any particular approach. Each qualitative approach must be represented in the research purpose, questions, data collection and analysis, and the ways in which findings are presented. Such methodological alignment is a critical foundation of trustworthy research and meaningful, useful study outcomes. This article’s support for effective qualitative research design helps demystify the multiple approaches, perhaps encouraging greater variety, and support scholars in planning studies that expand and extend HRD research and practice.
Footnotes
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.
