LDRS 810

Ester Todd
09/08/2023
Analytical Memo #3
Synthesis
In week three, we learned about the many approaches to qualitative research through a variety of lectures
and readings. We also covered the key features of the five traditions of qualitative inquiry: narrative,
phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, and case study. We also learned about action research,
appreciative inquiry, and mixed methods research.
Choosing and identifying the approach to qualitative inquiry in a study is important because it
provides transparency to readers, reviewers, and stakeholders regarding the philosophical and
methodological underpinnings of the study. This clarity is essential to the credibility and trustworthiness
of the research, as well as an important ethical consideration (as discussed in last week’s module).
Because different research approaches require distinct research designs and data collection methods,
identifying the approach also helps researchers themselves in making decisions about how to gather and
analyze data, select participants, and frame research questions.
Creswell & Poth provide a systematic overview of the five traditional approaches, providing the
definitions, history, key features, a “how-to” or procedural guide, and challenges of each approach. Each
approach has its own strengths and weaknesses, and researchers must determine which one is most suited
for their purpose. Creswell & Poth provide a guide to assessing the fit of these approaches to the research
focus in Figure 4.1, writing that narrative research is well suited for research focused on the life of an
individual as it details the stories people to understand the meaning-making processes of individuals or
groups (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Phenomenological research is helpful for researchers who want to
“understand the essence of the experience,” the unique perspectives, and the subjective realities of
participants (Creswell & Poth, 2018, p 67). Grounded theory research is a systematic approach from
empirical data, collected to build theories that are “grounded” in the views of participants. Ethnographic
research approaches are appropriate for research that explores cultural or social settings in an effort to
understand the culture, practices social dynamics of a group, and “shared patterns.” Finally, case studies
can be used for in-depth exploration and understanding of a case (or multiple cases) including a variety of
data sources such as interviews, observations, and documents (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Of these five
approaches, case study and narrative are the ones that I delved into the deepest this week, noting that both
of these approaches use multiple methods for data collection, holding in common interviews and
documents. In addition, both of these approaches seek to identify common themes throughout the data
analysis process.
A different, non-traditional approach is called action research, which is defined as “having a
particular process in which the action researcher works through a series of stages in their inquiry”
(Townsend, 2012, p 10). Action research projects are systematic and collaborative, conducted to address
specific issues or problems in a practical setting through cycles of action and reflection. Action research
can be applied in a variety of disciplines and contexts, including education, health care, community
planning, etc. There is no one-size-fits-all plan for this approach as it is situational to the context.
Townsend notes that a variety of process models have been developed for action research, but they all
hold a cycle in common: planning, action, and monitoring (Townsend, 2012). One such model is the
action research spiral; Figure 2.2 details this spiral cycle starting with planning, action, observing,
reflection, and then developing a revised plan (Townsend, 2012 p 13). Townsend also discusses a second
model built out on this first model, adding more details in a way that allows for flexibility and
highlighting that “action research might begin with a broad ‘general idea’ that this idea is fluid and that
reconnaissance is a repeated activity” (2012, p 17).
The final topic from this week’s module is appreciative inquiry, another nontraditional approach
that focuses on a “cooperative search for the best in people, the organizations, and the world around
them” (Cooperrider & Whitney, 1999 as quoted in Dr. Goertzen’s Lecture). This approach shifts the
approach from the traditional problem focus to being a positive and strength-based perspective. For this,
the 4D method was introduced: discovery of the “best of what is,” dreaming of the
organization/group/community at its best, design proposals and processes, and delivery/destiny of the
plans and actions (Bushe, 2011, pp 1-2). The primary difference that stands out to me between
appreciative inquiry and the other approaches discussed in this module is the outlook on problem-based
vs. strength-based. While the traditional approaches seek to understand and describe phenomena, AI
focuses on generating ideas, solutions, change, and building up what is already working.
Application
One of the most interesting topics for me this week was action research. I immediately latched
onto this concept because I have used it in my daily work for a while now, and am delighted to give it a
name and delve into additional resources. Townsend provided a graphic of the cycle for the action
research cycle, which immediately surprised me because it is VERY similar to what we call the “Planning
P” in emergency management practices. Similarly, the look, think, act process developed by E.T Stringer
as quoted in the lecture by Dr. Goertzen piqued my interest enough to delve into some of Stringer’s work,
including his book Action Research, to learn more about how this topic may impact my work in
emergency preparedness and business continuity planning. These fields require continuous evolution on
behalf of the organization and its planning processes, and the researcher (myself) must continually engage
in the look, think, act process. I look forward to learning more about this research approach as it applies to
qualitative research, but also as I engage in this process in my work.
Additionally, I found the appreciative inquiry method interesting as it applies to organizational
and leadership development. Busche notes that AI does not merely focus on the strengths and engagement
of individual competencies, as much of the strengths-based movement has done. Instead, “appreciative
Inquiry not only focuses on the best of what is but engages all stakeholders in a process of re‐imagining
what could be and taking ownership for what will be” (Busche, 2011, p 7). This past summer I completed
an internship with the Leadership Development Program in my workplace, and one of the things we did
was discuss individual strengths. I completed the Strengths-Finder assessment and discussed the results.
This type of leadership development focuses on positive psychology and resilience. However, it does not
tie in the focus on assessment and a structured inquiry process to aid in organizational development. I do
believe that AI will continue to be especially relevant as organizations and leaders continue to focus on
strengths, particularly with diversity and inclusion being emphasized for the strengths of unique
contributions of individuals from different backgrounds.
References
Bushe, G.R. (2011) Appreciative inquiry: Theory and critique. In Boje, D., Burnes, B. and Hassard, J. (e
ds.) The Routledge Companion To Organizational Change (pp. 87103). Oxford, UK: Routledge.

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among
five approaches (4th ed). SAGE.
Townsend, A. (2012). Action research : The challenges of changing and researching practice. McGraw-
Hill Education.