Ophthalmology for the Myopic Methodologist: A Review of Five Ways of Doing Qualitative Analysis

My first impression of this text is to compare it to a poem that I find useful in conveying messages to students about triangulation, mixed methods, and a multi-disciplinary approach to building knowledge: It was six men of Indostan To learning much inclined, Who went to see an Elephant (Though all of them were blind), That each by observation Might satisfy his mind. The First approached the Elephant, And happening to fall Against his broad and sturdy side, At once began to bawl: "God bless me!-but the Elephant Is very like a wall!" The Second, feeling of the tusk, Cried: "Ho!--what have we here So very round and smooth and sharp? To me 't is mighty clear This wonder of an Elephant Is very like a spear!" The Third approached the animal, And happening to take The squirming trunk within his hands, Thus boldly up and spake: "I see," quoth he, "the Elephant Is very like a snake!" The Fourth reached out an eager hand, And felt above the knee. "What most this wondrous beast is like Is very plain," quoth he, "T'is clear enough the Elephant Is very like a tree!" The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear, Said, "E'en the blindest man Can tell what this resembles most; Deny the fact who can, This marvel of an Elephant Is very like a fan!" The Sixth no sooner had begun About the beast to grope, Than, seizing on the swinging tail That fell within his scope, "I see," quoth he, "the Elephant Is very like a rope!" And so these men of Indostan Disputed loud and long, Each in his own opinion Exceeding stiff and strong, Though each was partly in the right, And all were in the wrong! (Saxe, 1872) Much like each of the blind men of Hindustan, my first impression is partly right, but mostly wrong. Frederick J. Wertz, Kathy Charmaz, Linda M. McMullen, Ruthellen Josselson, and Rosemarie Anderson, the authors of Five Ways of Doing Qualitative Analysis, are neither blind nor wrong. Combining their individual and unique methodological insights provides the reader with a much clearer picture of the elephant in the room: sixth author Emalinda McSpadden's narrative response to a prompt asking graduate psychology students to describe "a situation in which something very unfortunate happened and how the person responded" (Wertz et al., 2011, pg. 103). Employing their own expertise in a specific form of qualitative analysis, the authors compare and contrast insights and results related to "the Teresa texts" (the name given to McSpadden's narrative before the decision to include her as a co-author). Wertz views the narrative through the lens of phenomenological psychology, Charmaz via grounded theory, McMullen from a discourse analysis perspective, Josselson employs the gaze of narrative research, and last but certainly not least, Anderson looks at the data through intuitive inquiry. Early on, the authors outline specific goals for the text, "to provide a broad knowledge base that can serve as the foundation for understanding and employing the typical procedures used in our five specific approaches," "to provide readers with a concrete, detailed, and intimate experience as they enter the qualitative movement by following each of us through our analytic practices," and "to contribute original insights into how these different approaches relate to historically exemplary qualitative research and how they compare with each other, in order to promote a better understanding of their common features as well as their distinctive purposes and strengths" (Wertz et al., 2011, pp. 4-5). To gain a more intense exposure to these goals and other introductory thoughts and perspectives, prospective readers can always surf over to the book's Guilford Press web site located at http://www.guilford.com/cgibin/cartscript.cgi?page=pr/wertz.htm&dir=research/ res_qual to read Chapter One in its entirety. …