Please Answer One Of The Two Prompts Noted Below Your Posts ✓ Solved

Please answer one of the two prompts noted below. Your posts

Please answer one of the two prompts noted below. Your posts this week should demonstrate critical reflection upon the assigned readings.

1. This week we focused on developing an understanding for some different qualitative methods. What are two or three assumptions that are made specific to qualitative research? Be specific in your description of each one. When considering some of the various qualitative methods that are out there, what challenges might they pose to a study's validity, reliability, and generalizability?

2. A tremendous amount of research is conducted each year through secondary analysis. What is secondary analysis and what are the advantages and disadvantages of using secondary data? Give an example of a study that was done using secondary data analysis and summarize the findings briefly. Be sure the study is peer-reviewed. Finally, what are some additional questions that you have about the different qualitative methods that are out there? Use this as an opportunity to gain some clarity on the research methods discussed this week?

Paper For Above Instructions

Qualitative research rests on particular assumptions about how social reality is produced, understood, and known. In this reflection I address the first prompt and articulate core assumptions that guide qualitative inquiry, followed by an analysis of how those assumptions shape concerns about validity, reliability, and generalizability. Drawing on foundational texts in qualitative methodology (Creswell & Creswell, 2017; Patton, 2015; Denzin & Lincoln, 2018) and on discussions of trustworthiness and reflexivity (Guba & Lincoln, 1989; Seale, 2018), this paper clarifies how researchers justify qualitative claims and situate them within the boundaries of transferability rather than universal generalization. The aim is to connect theoretical assumptions to practical concerns in qualitative design and analysis (Creswell & Creswell, 2017; Flick, 2018).

Assumption 1: Reality is socially constructed and context-bound. Qualitative researchers typically view social reality as produced through interactions between people within specific contexts, rather than as a fixed, independent entity awaiting discovery. Meanings emerge through social processes, language, and culture, and knowledge is inseparable from the situational context in which it is produced. This perspective foregrounds the importance of thick description and contextual detail so readers can judge transferability rather than universal generalizability. The emphasis on situated meaning aligns with constructivist and interpretive paradigms and is supported by standard texts in qualitative inquiry (Creswell & Creswell, 2017; Denzin & Lincoln, 2018). It also invites researchers to acknowledge how their own interpretations shape the analytic process (reflexivity).

Assumption 2: The researcher is an instrument in the research process and must engage in reflexivity. In qualitative work, the researcher’s perspectives, biases, and interactions with participants are not separate from the data; rather, they participate in the construction of meaning. Reflexivity requires researchers to disclose their positionality, monitor how their presence influences responses, and continuously examine how interpretations are shaped by their own assumptions (Patton, 2015; Seale, 2018). This assumption undergirds practices such as reflective journaling, memoing, and collaborative validation with participants, all of which contribute to the trustworthiness of findings (Guba & Lincoln, 1989; Flick, 2018).

Assumption 3: Research occurs in naturalistic settings with emergent design. Qualitative studies typically take place in real-world contexts rather than under tightly controlled laboratory conditions. Designs are often flexible and evolve as the researcher engages with data; sampling strategies may shift in response to emerging findings (theoretical sampling is common in grounded theory). This assumption recognizes that data collection, analysis, and interpretation unfold together in a dynamic process, rather than following a fixed, linear plan. Methodological texts emphasize the importance of documenting the analytic trajectory and maintaining an audit trail to support dependability and credibility (Creswell & Creswell, 2017; Charmaz, 2014; Denzin & Lincoln, 2018).

These three core assumptions—constructivist, reflexive inquiry; researcher as instrument; and naturalistic, emergent design—shape how qualitative researchers think about validity, reliability, and generalizability. In qualitative work, validity is often conceptualized as credibility: the degree to which findings accurately reflect participants’ meanings within their context. Reliability is reframed as dependability: the stability of data collection and analysis processes over time, supported by audit trails and transparent documentation. Generalizability, traditionally understood as broad applicability, is reframed as transferability: the extent to which findings provide useful insights in other contexts when readers judge the applicability based on thick description and contextual similarity (Guba & Lincoln, 1989; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Qualitative researchers bolster these qualities through triangulation, prolonged engagement, member checks (when appropriate), and transparent analytic procedures (Flick, 2018; Patton, 2015).

These assumptions influence the interpretation of different qualitative methods such as ethnography, phenomenology, and grounded theory. Ethnography foregrounds cultural immersion and description of everyday practices within a setting, often requiring long-term fieldwork and attention to social routines; phenomenology centers on capturing the lived experiences of individuals and how they interpret those experiences; grounded theory emphasizes theory generation from data through iterative coding and constant comparison. Each approach relies on the shared assumptions above but also introduces distinct challenges for credibility, dependability, and transferability. For example, ethnography may yield rich, transferable context but may limit generalizability across cultures; phenomenology highlights subjective experience but may limit breadth; grounded theory seeks generative theory but can be sensitive to researchers’ coding schemes. These tensions are discussed across qualitative texts and are routinely addressed through explicit methodological decisions, audit trails, reflexivity, and transparent reporting (Creswell & Creswell, 2017; Charmaz, 2014; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Denzin & Lincoln, 2018).

In sum, the core assumptions of qualitative research—reality as constructed in context, the researcher's embedded role, and the naturalistic, emergent design—shape how researchers conceptualize trustworthiness and the validity of their conclusions. Rather than seeking universal generalizability, qualitative inquiry emphasizes context-rich, credible understandings that illuminate how meanings arise in specific settings. Recognizing these assumptions helps researchers select appropriate methods, engage in rigorous validation practices, and communicate the conditions under which findings are likely to transfer to similar contexts (Guba & Lincoln, 1989; Seale, 2018; Creswell & Creswell, 2017).

References to standard qualitative methodology works inform this synthesis. For readers seeking deeper theoretical grounding, key sources include Creswell & Creswell (2017), Patton (2015), Denzin & Lincoln (2018), Flick (2018), Charmaz (2014), and Seale (2018), among others (Guba & Lincoln, 1989).

References

• Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. SAGE.
• Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice (4th ed.). SAGE.
• Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2018). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (5th ed.). SAGE.
• Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth Generation Evaluation. Sage.
• Flick, U. (2018). An Introduction to Qualitative Research (6th ed.). SAGE.
• Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory. SAGE.
• Heaton, J. (2004). Reworking Qualitative Data. Routledge.
• Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2016). Designing Qualitative Research (6th ed.). SAGE.
• Seale, C. (2018). Researching Society and Culture (3rd ed.). SAGE.
• Silverman, D. (2020). Doing Qualitative Research (6th ed.). SAGE.