Yes you can use secondary sources in an interpretivist study. There are pros and cons of course. Pro - the data collection process is much easier. Con - the data that is collected may not cover all that you want to as the original purpose of the data collected was not for your specific study.
Hi Bianca! I'm so glad you found this useful. This is a good reference to get started off with - Ponterotto, J. G. (2005). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A primer on research paradigms and philosophy of science. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 126-135. doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.126
Thank you very much this was helpful. My question is can I adopt interpretivism philosophy and abductive approach to provide a better explanation and not just rely on the interpretations?
Hi Wala! I'm glad you found this tutorial helpful! All data is "interpreted", irrespective of the philosophical stance. Even data in a positivist study, with its math and experiments, is interpreted by the researcher. So, the philosophical stance of interpretivism does not equal the research act of interpreting. We subscribe to interpretivism when we need to take context into consideration to solve our research problem. So, your research problem will dictate which philosophical stance you need to adopt. As for which strategy (deductive or abductive) to adopt, that is also based on the problem you would like to solve. There is not a hard and fast rule that states if you subscribe to interpretivism you have to adopt a deductive or abductive approach. If your study requires you to provide tentative explanations or to make sense of a situation because there is not an appropriate explanation in existing literature, then abduction can be quite useful. But, if that is not what you are doing then another approach would be more appropriate.
Thank you for a great tutorial! It might be a silly question but can I use two philosophical paradigms in my research e.g. Constructivism and critical? Thank you.
Hi! Thank you for your question! And no, it is not a silly question at all. Each philosophical stance has its own underlying assumptions. These underlying assumptions influence how you behave as a researcher. For example, Constructivism requires you to look at the social construction of reality by people, while Critical theory requires you to look at power relations and structures in *addition* to social constructions of reality. One requires you to *understand* the world, the other requires you to *change* the world. So, as a researcher, you need to ask yourself: “what is the purpose of my study / what is it that I want to achieve”, and then determine the most appropriate philosophical stance that will support that goal. In other words, we choose one philosophical stance to eliminate having conflicting views of what our purpose is and what data we need to collect, analyse and interpret to fulfil that purpose. Hope this helps! 😊
![Megan Thee Stallion - Mamushi (Remix) [feat. TWICE] [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5c0_u9PsrsQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you so much Dr J for these tutorials, they are very helpful
You are most welcome!! 🥰 I am so glad you are finding it of value.
Thank you Dr. J. It was really helpful.
I am glad you found it helpful!!
Can we do interpretivism research without conducting any interviews, that is based only on secondary sources?
Yes you can use secondary sources in an interpretivist study. There are pros and cons of course. Pro - the data collection process is much easier. Con - the data that is collected may not cover all that you want to as the original purpose of the data collected was not for your specific study.
Thank you for sharing! very helpful. Could you kindly share sources that can be sited on the info shared?
Hi Bianca! I'm so glad you found this useful.
This is a good reference to get started off with - Ponterotto, J. G. (2005). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A primer on research paradigms and philosophy of science. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 126-135. doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.126
@@drjthesising1017 Thank you for sharing!
@@biancatheron6374 Any time! :-)
Thank you very much this was helpful. My question is can I adopt interpretivism philosophy and abductive approach to provide a better explanation and not just rely on the interpretations?
Hi Wala! I'm glad you found this tutorial helpful!
All data is "interpreted", irrespective of the philosophical stance. Even data in a positivist study, with its math and experiments, is interpreted by the researcher. So, the philosophical stance of interpretivism does not equal the research act of interpreting.
We subscribe to interpretivism when we need to take context into consideration to solve our research problem. So, your research problem will dictate which philosophical stance you need to adopt.
As for which strategy (deductive or abductive) to adopt, that is also based on the problem you would like to solve. There is not a hard and fast rule that states if you subscribe to interpretivism you have to adopt a deductive or abductive approach.
If your study requires you to provide tentative explanations or to make sense of a situation because there is not an appropriate explanation in existing literature, then abduction can be quite useful. But, if that is not what you are doing then another approach would be more appropriate.
@Br Olsos - Thank you very much! Your feedback is very much appreciated 🥰
Thank you for a great tutorial! It might be a silly question but can I use two philosophical paradigms in my research e.g. Constructivism and critical? Thank you.
Hi! Thank you for your question! And no, it is not a silly question at all.
Each philosophical stance has its own underlying assumptions. These underlying assumptions influence how you behave as a researcher. For example, Constructivism requires you to look at the social construction of reality by people, while Critical theory requires you to look at power relations and structures in *addition* to social constructions of reality. One requires you to *understand* the world, the other requires you to *change* the world.
So, as a researcher, you need to ask yourself: “what is the purpose of my study / what is it that I want to achieve”, and then determine the most appropriate philosophical stance that will support that goal.
In other words, we choose one philosophical stance to eliminate having conflicting views of what our purpose is and what data we need to collect, analyse and interpret to fulfil that purpose.
Hope this helps! 😊
@@drjthesising1017 Yes, that helps a lot...thank you for this!
@@debbiesteel6423 You are most welcome 😃
This is 1 months study you have made crystal clear in 10 minutes!!! Thank you so much! Can you do one on Pragmatism?
You are most welcome!😊 I have yet to create a tutorial on Pragmatism, but it is on my future content list.
Do you have an email address? I really can use some help on an assignment. Just trying to make sure I have a clear understanding.
Hi Donta - you can contact me on my LinkedIn handle Linkedin.com/in/jeannefredericks. Looking forward to hearing from you!
Well structured. They would have been perfect if you just slowed down a bit.
Thank you for your feedback! 🥰 I will most definitely apply it in my future videos.
@@drjthesising1017 👌 Used your video in my research lecture today.
@@TheCyberklutz That's fantastic!!