Analytical Pluralism in Qualitative Research: A Meta-Study

References*

• *References marked with an asterisk were included in the meta-study.
   Google Scholar
• Ashworth, P 1996, ‘Presuppose nothing! The suspension of assumptions in phenomenological psychological methodology ’, Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 1–25.
   Google Scholar
• Bakhtin, M 1984 [1963], Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics ( C Emerson, Trans.), University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
   Google Scholar
• Bhaskar, R 1989, Reclaiming reality: a critical introduction to contemporary philosophy, Verso, London.
   Google Scholar
• Biesta, G 2010, ‘Pragmatism and the philosophical foundations of mixed methods research’, in A Tashakkori & C Teddlie (eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioural research, 2nd edn, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 95–118.
   Google Scholar
• *Burck, C 2005, ‘Comparing qualitative research methodologies for systemic research: the use of grounded theory, discourse analysis and narrative analysis ’, Journal of Family Therapy, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 237–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chamberlain, K 2000, ‘Methodolatry and qualitative health research ’, Journal of Health Psychology, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 285–296.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chamberlain, K 2011, ‘Troubling methodology ’, Health Psychology Review, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 48–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chamberlain, K, Cain, T, Sheridan, J & Dupuis, A 2011, ‘Pluralisms in qualitative research: from multiple methods to integrated methods ’, Qualitative Research in Psychology, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 151–69.
   Google Scholar
• Coyle, A 2010, ‘Qualitative research and anomalous experience: a call for interpretative pluralism ’, Qualitative Research in Psychology, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 79–83.
   Google Scholar
• Cresswell, JW 2007, Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches, 2nd edn, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Ellingson, LL 2009, Engaging crystallization in qualitative research: an introduction, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
   Google Scholar
• *Frost, N 2009, ‘“Do you know what I mean?”: the use of a pluralistic narrative analysis approach in the interpretation of an interview ’, Qualitative Research, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 9–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frost, N & Nolas, SM 2013, ‘The contribution of pluralistic qualitative approaches to mixed methods evaluations’, in New directions for evaluation, special issue: mixed methods and credibility of evidence in evaluation, vol. 138, pp. 75–84.
   Google Scholar
• Frost, N, Nolas, SM, Brooks-Gordon, B, Esin, C, Holt, A, Mehdizadeh, L & Shinebourne, P 2010, ‘Pluralism in qualitative research: the impact of different researchers and qualitative approaches on the analysis of qualitative data ’, Qualitative Research, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 441–60.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Frost, NA, Holt, A, Shinebourne, P, Esin, C, Nolas, S-M, Mehdizadeh, L & Brooks-Gordon, B 2011, ‘Collective findings, individual interpretations: an illustration of a pluralistic approach to qualitative data analysis ’, Qualitative Research in Psychology, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 93–113.
   Google Scholar
• Frost, NA & Nolas, SM 2011, ‘Editorial: exploring and expanding on pluralism in qualitative research in psychology’, Qualitative Research in Psychology, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 115–9.
   Google Scholar
• Guba, EG & Lincoln, YS 1989, Fourth generation evaluation, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
   Google Scholar
• *Honan, E, Knobel, M, Baker, C & Davies, B 2000, ‘Producing possible Hannahs: theory and the subject of research ’, Qualitative Inquiry, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 9–32.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, B & Stefurak, T 2014, ‘Dialectical pluralism: a meta-paradigm and process philosophy for ‘dynamically combining’ important differences’, QMiP Bulletin, no. 17, pp. 63–9.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, M, Long, T & White, A 2000, ‘Arguments for ‘British pluralism’ in qualitative health research’, Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 243–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kincheloe, JL 2001, ‘Describing the bricolage: conceptualizing a new rigor in qualitative research ’, Qualitative Inquiry, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 679–92.
   Google Scholar
• Kincheloe, JL 2005, ‘On to the next level: continuing the conceptualization of the bricolage ’, Qualitative Inquiry, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 323–50.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kincheloe, JL & Berry, KS 2004, Rigour and complexity in educational research: conceptualizing the bricolage, Open University Press/McGraw-Hill Education, Maidenhead, UK.
   Google Scholar
• *King, N, Finlay, L, Ashworth, P, Smith, JA, Langdridge, D & Butt, T 2008, ‘“Can’t really trust that, so what can I trust?”: a polyvocal, qualitative analysis of the psychology of mistrust ’, Qualitative Research in Psychology, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 80–102.
   Google Scholar
• Lincoln, YS, Lynham, SA & Guba, EG 2011, ‘Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited ’, in NK Denzin & YS Lincoln (eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research, 4th edn, Sage, London, pp. 97–128.
   Google Scholar
• *Lyons, AC & Cromby, J 2010, ‘Social psychology and the empirical body: rethinking the relationship ’, Social and Personality Psychology Compass, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Paterson, BL, Thorne, SE, Canam, C & Jillings, C 2001, Meta-study of qualitative health research: a practical guide to meta-analysis and meta-synthesis, Sage, London.
   Google Scholar
• *Robinson, OC & Smith, JA 2010, ‘Investigating the form and dynamics of crisis episodes in early adulthood: the application of a composite qualitative method ’, Qualitative Research in Psychology, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 170–91.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H, Schegloff, EA & Jefferson, G 1974, ‘A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation ’, Language, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 696–735.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Savage, J 2000, ‘One voice, different tunes: Issues raised by dual analysis of a segment of qualitative data ’, Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 1493–500.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seale, C 1999, ‘Quality in qualitative research ’, Qualitative Inquiry, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 465–78.
   Google Scholar
• *Simons, L, Lathlean, J & Squire, C 2008, ‘Shifting the focus: sequential methods of analysis with qualitative data ’, Qualitative Health Research, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 120–32.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, JK & Deemer, D 2000, ‘The problem of criteria in the age of relativism ’, in NK Denzin & YS Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of qualitative research, 2nd edn, Sage, London, pp. 877–96.
   Google Scholar
• Tracy, SJ 2010, ‘Qualitative quality: eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research ’, Qualitative Inquiry, vol. 16, no. 10, pp. 837–51.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walsh, R & Koelsch, LE 2012, ‘Building across fault lines in qualitative research ’, The Humanistic Psychologist, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 380–90.
   Google Scholar
• *Wickens, CM 2011, ‘The investigation of power in written texts through the use of multiple textual analytic frames ’, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 151–64.
   Google Scholar
• Willig, C 2013, Introducing qualitative research in psychology, 3rd edn, Open University Press/McGraw-Hill Education, Maidenhead, UK.
   Google Scholar
• Yardley, L 2000, ‘Dilemmas in qualitative health research ’, Psychology & Health, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 215–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar