170 likes | 381 Views
Claims to Innovation in qualitative research methods: A narrative literature review. Rose Wiles NCRM Hub University of Southampton. Context. Increasing interest in methodological innovation in social sciences (and arts and humanities) Innovation (impact) important for individuals’ careers
E N D
Claims to Innovation in qualitative research methods:A narrative literature review Rose Wiles NCRM Hub University of Southampton
Context • Increasing interest in methodological innovation in social sciences (and arts and humanities) • Innovation (impact) important for individuals’ careers • Expectations of funders and publishers led to increase in claims to innovation • Innovation central to ensuring competitive and high impact research - the future of disciplines • Importance of identifying methods to address new social and economic challenges and patterns of social interaction • Is innovation part of ‘progress narrative’ of QR (Alasuutari, 2007) or encouraging ‘fads’ (Travers, 2009)
What is methodological innovation? • Varying definitions but key elements: • Should be rooted in genuine attempt to improve some aspect of the research process (not just gimmickry or innovation for innovation sake) • Can comprise developments to established methods as well as new methods • Should be some level of dissemination, acceptance and take-up in the research community • (Travers, 2009; Coffey and Taylor, 2008)
Researching Methodological Innovation • Questions for research on methodological innovation • What is innovation? What’s the difference between a development and an innovation? • Why innovate? What motivates innovation? • How does the social science community respond to innovations: how are they diffused, how do they become mainstream? • What difference do particular innovations make? What are the benefits?
Study 1: Exploring claims of innovation • What claims for innovation in qualitative research have been made 2000-2009? • Where is innovation being claimed: • in what types of method, • in which disciplines and geographical locations. • On what basis is the claim to innovation made? • What are the motivations given for developing these ‘innovations’? • To what extent are they taken up?
Method • Systematic review of innovation claims in social science journals 2000-2009; narrative review of claims conducted • 14 journals selected • Journal contents searched using innovat*, new, novel and emerg* in the title or abstract • Focus on authors’ self-definition of innovation • 57 papers identified • Papers reviewed and categorised • Narrative analysis of claims • Citation search to explore take-up
Author profiles Disciplines Locations
Findings: motivations for innovating • Morally or ethically-driven motivation (n=22) • Responses to practical challenges (n=18) • Theoretically-driven motivation (n=17)
Findings: innovation stage – are these new innovations? • Exploring the stage of development of the innovation being claimed; what was being claimed about the ‘newness’ of the innovation? • Three categories identified from claims • Inception (n=32) • Adaptation (n=6) • Adoption (n=19)
Narratives of claims 3 broad narratives about the nature of the innovation claims • ‘Pushing boundaries’ claim • ‘Solution’ claim • ‘Pioneering’ claim
Narratives of claims • ‘Our claims for the validity of our methodology rely on combining standard theoretical foundations with an explicit voice from practice … it is this combination which grounds our claim to novelty’ [Dodson et al, 2007] • ‘our purpose in this article is to identify and suggest resolution for two core problematics of grounded theory’ [Wasserman et al, 2009] • ‘it is generally recognised that cyberspace offers a new and exciting frontier for social research. It is yet to be seen how blogging can be utlised as a research technique. The aim of this article is to make an important first step in building this knowledge base’ [Hookway, 2008]
Findings: benefits • Importance of innovations being evaluated but no evidence from papers … • In most cases, direct claims for benefits made which accorded with the motivation for the innovation • few failures identified • Some reported additional benefits
Take-Up • Citation search undertaken using Google Scholar. • Most papers had 0-3 citations • 9 papers had 12+ citations (highest = 40 for paper on ethnotheatre). • Higher citation rate for: • Papers in the adoption category • Papers on online and software methods/tools • A paper on validity • 3 papers on ethnography – auto-ethnography and ethnotheatre)
Conclusion • Supports the finding that researchers are increasingly claiming innovation (over-claiming?) • limited evidence of wholly new methods; majority appear to be adaptations or transfer from other disciplines (developments?) • Study highlights e-research, participatory and creative methods as sites of innovation; innovations at interface with arts-based approaches dominate • Evaluation of these innovations appears to be limited; what are the benefits of these methods? • Take-up appears limited; little indication these innovation becoming mainstream • Unanswered questions? How are innovations developed, how are they disseminated, how do they become mainstream, how do the social science community respond to them ……
Reference Wiles, R., Crow, G. & Pain, H. (2011) Innovation in qualitative research methods: a narrative review Qualitative Research 11,5: 587-604