Second edition published 2016

by Routledge Contents
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint o( the Taylor & Francis Group, al1 informa business
List of Boxes
© 2016 Tay lor & Francis

Preface
The right of Sally Thorne to be identified as author of this work has been asse rted by her

in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Origi n
AII rights reserved. No part of rhis book may be reprinted or reproduced or urilised in any

Ho\\ [
form or by any elecrronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented,
Ackno
ineluding phorocopying and recording, or in any informarion srorage or rerrieval system,
Lim ita
wirhour permission in wriring from rhe publishers.

Foreword to the Finr E

Trademark notice: Producr or corporare names may be trademarks or regisrered rrademarks,
Refere _.
and are used only for identificarion and exp lanarion wirhour intent to infringe.

First edirion published by Lefr Coasr Press 2009

PART 1: INTERPREr.\
Chapter 1.

Library o( Congress Cataloging-il1-Publication Data

Names: Thorne, SaJly E. (Sa lly Elizaberh), 1951­

Title: Interprerive description : qualirarive research for appJied practice / Sally Thorne.

Descriprion : Second edirion. I New York; London : Routledge, (2016) I Series:

Developing quaJirarive inquiry ; 2 I Ineludes bibliographical references and indexo

Idenrifiers: LCCN 2015040853 (print) I LCCN 2016000911 (ebook) I ISBN
9781629582986 (hardback) I ISBN 9781629582993 (paperback) I ISBN
9781315545196 (ConsumereBook)
Subjecrs: LCSH: Educarion-Research. I Educarion-Resea rch-Methodology. I
Chapter 2.

Knowledge management. I BISAC: SOCIAL SCIENCE / General. I SOCIAL SCIENCE

/ Merhodology. I MEDlCAL / N'ursing / Research & Theory.
Classificarion: LCC LBI028 .T46 2016 (p rint) I LCC LB1028 (ebook) I DDC
370.7-dc23
LC record available ar http://lccn.loc.gov/2015040853

ISBN: 978-1-62958-298-6 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-1-62958-299-3 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-315-54519-6 (ebk)

Typeser in Sabon
hy Ryan Kenney

ap cer 3.
Printed and bOllnd in the United Sta tes of America by Pllblishers Graphics,
LLC on sllstainably SOllrced paper.
 \.}~ ...~' . ~~
CHAPTER2 % $
~ ~

~
Cultivating Questions in

the Applied Practice Field

WHAT'S THE QUESTION?

Research questions don't simpJy materialize out of thin airo In the con­
text of such disciplines as those within applied health, they very clearly
derive from the universe of clinicaJ and practical problems for which
the available knowledge is insufficient. Beyond their contextual origins
in the practice setting, research questions also have explicit derivation
within the academic "project" of various disciplines-in other words,
they require a grounding within a reason for inquiry before the specific
new question makes any sense. This disciplinary orientation is what dis­
tinguishes a research question from one that is merely journalistic or
curiosity driven. Indeed anyone can gather data and make claims (as the
internet explosion so powerfully i!lustrates), but only those who have
credibly located themselves within the scholarship of a discipline and/or
the mandate of a professiol1 can legitimately genera te qualitative findings
that will have meaning as a form of empirical disciplinary knowledge.
Although it may seem self-evident that research quality depends upon
the match between the question and the method, the act of generating
questions is itself a complex mental operation . Here we examine some of
the inherent challenges in the process and invite reflection on the nature
of questions in general before entering into a discussion on how one
might frame questions within the interpretive description context.

Where Have We Come From?

In conventional (quantitative) health science, the grounding of new in­
quiry upon existing knowledge is we!l understood; it becomes a signifi­
cant component of what distinguishes a worthy scientific c1aim from a
data-referenced "spin." But qualitative research within the health fields
has at times followed a different path, perhaps because of its distinct his­
tory and tradition within the larger context of health research. 1 trace the
enthusiasm for qualitative health research ro the seminal contributiolls
of social science giants such as Goffman (1961), Sudnow (1967), Strauss
 ,IChaprer 2
( 19 - j, and Kleinman (1980). Inspired by such work, by the middle of
the 1980s, a cadre of pioneering nurse researchers, such as Anderson
(1981), Field and Morse (1985), Leininger (1985), Parse and colleagues
(1985), Chenitz and Swanson (1986a), and Munhall and Oiler (1986)
had begun to advocate for the adoption of this new "paradigm" of sci­
entific progress in which the inherent complexities of human subjectivity
and social behavior could become a central focus of inquiry instead of
simplya contaminant within the research process.
These early qualitative health research proponents typically adopt­
ed a Kuhnian paradigma tic stance in their understanding of "scientific
revolutions" (Kuhn, 1962) and for at least a decade located qualitative
efforts as explicitly contrary to the logical positivism from which quanti­
tative approaches were presumed to derive. Thankfully, our community
of scholarship has evolved on the basis of a deeper understanding of the
philosophical perspectives shaping our epistemological and ontological
disciplinary stances. However, for a time, the world of health research
seemed quite polarized into the two kinds of research, as if they were in­ ';anous ar
herently mutually incompatible and their proponents were incapable of o bjective. <4- _
reading one another's work or understanding shared research problems, ¡he basis DI •
let alone working together to resolve them. This history may help ex­ yielded Sorr. .
plain sorne of the defensiveness that can be detected in earlier qualitative r example.
work (and that still creeps into sorne contemporary reports) and sorne of ba nce th e \\
the choices that were made by various scholars in how they framed and d a im con JI:..
presented their studies.

What Constitutes a Qualitative Question? a ppropria re

li mits of wh~
Qualitative research typically seeks to generate empirical knowledge about rh rough the r _
human phenomena for which depth and contextual understanding would {he eventu al· :
be useful and for which measurement is inappropriate, premature, or po­ ID research. l '
tentially misleading. While quantitative science has generated marvelous ing to thi nk
traditions within which information about groups and populations can reason, mo",[ .
be distilled, qualitative scholars tend to focus upon patterns and themes jo urney. In tb _
representative of individual human experience. To sorne extent, they re­ research' uj:'
flect distinctions between objective and subjective knowledge, between eager to co an ':".
confirming value-neutral truths and depicting experiential reality. seasoned sch
Understanding the difference between the general epistemological -ea rch, the m
stances from within which the methodological traditions derive is im­ m rensive read
portant beca use it ensures that you align the methods by which you seek 'ause, desp ir _
answers with the nature of the questions you are asking in the first place. search reJi e. - ­
You can't draw conclusions about how people "feel" from document­ upon a varie .
ing how they "behave," nor can you sum up people's perceptions of a L strongly re~
 Cultivating Questions in the Applied Practice Field 145
he middle of situation and conclude that unanimity confirms that you have a gener­
_h as Anderson alizable "truth." 50metimes it is difflcult distilling the specific question
_ and colleagues that might be amenable ro research out of a complex set of clinical issues
O iler (1986) or problems that intrigue you. Rather than simply being satisfied with
- · -.ldigm" ofsci­ having named or alluded ro a problem, the act of turning it inro a ques­
:::.an subjectivity tion focuses the mind and forces a kind of precision of thought that will
- -airy instead of serve ro guide your pl'ocess from beginning ro end. And in that context,
an important step of the research process involves clarifying the various
ically adopt­ options you have for isolating a researchable problem and posing it in
f "scientific such a manner that it can draw upon formal research method roward
:.i:ed qualitative finding an answer.
..,- wh ich quanti­ For example, if you were interested in providing better care for pa­
. .UI community tients in chronic pain , you might consider evaluating the equivalence
-c.jta nding of the of various pain measures, experimenting with different prorocols for
- .;.;ld ontological enhancing intervention, ol' exploring the worldviews of those who had
! '-ea lth research lived long enough with the phenomenon ro form opinions about how
¡ rhey were in­ various care options have been subjectively received. Each is a worthy
e incapable of objective, and each requires an entirely different research approach. On
,iilch problems, the basis of each of these, you might be able ro generate a study that
may help ex­ yielded sorne answers, but only about the question you had posed. So,
':' -- 'Ier qualitative for example, by comparing pain measures, you might indirectly help en­
-.s I and sorne of hance the work of those who intervene or give care, but you could not
- -e~- ú amed and claim conclusions about those elements directly.
When we understand the nature of a qualitative question, we can think
through what it is and what it is not and, using our logic, predetermine
appropriate methods by which it might be tackled and the scope and
limits of what we might be fortunate enough ro find. Being able ro think
through the relationship between a problem, a question, a method, and
the eventual research product is an essential skill in becoming proficient
in research. If this is your first attempt, you may find it very challeng­
ing ro think more than one or two steps ahead of yourself, and for this
ulations can reason, most of us require experienced guides ro take us on our first such
and themes journey. In the absence of su eh guidance, you might consider creating a
research "support team" (often other neophyte researchers are equally
eager ro connect and share ideas) or generating a virtual dialogue. While
seasoned scholars often beco me quite comfortable in solo qualitative re­
search, the majority of us learn the tradition best with a combination of
intensive reading, reflecting, conversing, and wrestling with ideas. Be­
cause, despite great advances in software and technology, qualitative re­
search relies completely on the mental agility of the researcher, drawing
upon a variety of strategies to get your mind in shape for the challenge
is strongly recommended.
-+ IChaprer 2
What Constitutes a Disciplinary Question? to be speaking t ~,=
cooperation foste;-_
Beyond serving as a convenient mechanism for organizing universities, aclimate withi n
academic disciplines play an important role in creating communities of standing their heú ­
scholars who can work from a common set of foundational intellectual claims that are im :-
building blocks to drive knowledge development in particular and iden­ Sorne exam plt'_
tifiable directions. While an acad emic department will typically house Nursing is a prof,
a wide range of scholars working on quite different elements of disci­ edge to the resol u
plinary knowledge, the underlying structure, assumptive set, and inten­ ety. While it ma y _
tionality of their academic discipline will create a coherence that allows aries of that disclp
them to, for example, build curriculum, decide whether a thesis is or is EarJy in my caree.
not acceptable, and bring their various scholarly projects into an under­ against women \\ J
standing of a coherent whole. That may seem to oversimplify the current more properly tb
status of academic disciplines that ha ve become marvelously diverse and systems. Fortuna t:
complex, but 1 think it remains an important piece of the puzzle in un­ arship and appli a"
derstanding why, in our interdisciplinary world, disciplines continue to deserving of nur i _
playa vital role . simply beca use a
In the medical science context, we are comfortably familiar with does not imply [ha ­
the value of explicitly capitalizing upon different ori entations toward a involvement wirhW
problem. Where a medical emergency involves multiple organ systems, conceivably inv h :
the competing perspectives of relevant medical subspecialists will en­ Or are there aspe :
sure that the rights of ea eh organ are considered in the development domain of psycho
of solutions. In this context, we appreciate that each angle of vision the discipline in v
" advocates" for a particular perspective, and we genera te dialogue scholarly nursin
among those perspectives to create what are understood to be the best women with ta [[l
solutions. At the same time, we fully appreciate that it is the "whole that topic might h ..
person" who stands to lo~e if the decision is wrong, and we trust each sociology, as an i.:: "
of those subspecialists to critically weigh the conclusions derived from as an instance f :- '
his or her specialty perspective against the whole situation . Thus, we health, as a poten:
appreciate the value that diversified interests and perspectives bring to he phenomenon I
a problem, and we would recognize that much could be lost if we at­ not detect any lin
tempted to homogenize them into a lesser degree of knowledge about rers to the editor. ft'
many specialties held by a single practitioner. relevance as a q ual :--
In the interdisciplinary academic context, the same principie applies, This idea of d i ~
although man y scholars seem to have forgotten this in their enthusiasm ies. As humans bl
to embrace a spirit of cooperation and collaboration. In an earlier era in a re capable of bei D_
which interdisciplinary study was often considered inherently weak and marginally related :
unprincipled, we had problems deriving from the inability to collaborate -rom "being in th
and share (much like what would occur in the fragmented context of Our disciplinary h
medical decision making if the subspecialists refused to engage in re­ lides us into the ID
spectful dialogue). Because of that, much of the current interdisciplinary D etached from our
fervor seems a reaction to that earlier divisiveness . We comfortably study I se our grip on th
together, borrow knowledge, appropriate methods, and (at times) seem a nd wrong ideas. B ..
 Culrivaring Quesrions in rhe Applied Pracrice Field 147
to be speaking the same language. However, while that new spirit of
cooperation fosters sorne excellent new partnerships, it can also crea te
; uniVerSltleS, aclimate within which people pick and choose ideas without under­
l unities of standing their heritage and context, and unwittingly generate intellectual
- . intellectual claims that are impossible to evaluate, judge, or contest.
~_~ and iden­ Sorne examples from my own discipline may illustrate this point.
""'lca lly house Nursing is a professional discipline explicitly mandated ro apply knowl­
:us of disci­ edge to the resolution of human health and illness problems within soci­
_c,. and inten­ ety. While it may sometimes be difficult to explicitly delineate rhe bound­
__ , hat allows aries of that disciplinary orientarion, that doesn't mean they don't exist.
. -Lesis is or is Early in my career, the common disciplinary wisdom was that violence
- ; 0 a n under­ against women was not a problem of specific concern to nurses, and was
.". rhe current more properly rhe doma in of social workers and the judicial/correcrional
.. d iverse and systems. Fortunarely, many nurses pushed that boundary in their schol­
uzzle in un­ arship and application, and the relevance of violence as a health problem
-< r o ntinue to deserving of nursing attention would not be in question today. However,
simply beca use a disciplinary boundary can expand with new knowledge
'n iliar with does not imply that it should be erased. Should nursing therefore justify
- -ns roward a involvement within any aspect of knowledge development that might
- ~an systems, conceivably involve people, since they have the potential to beco me ill?
rs will en­ Or are there aspects of the study of violence that are more properly the
¡¡evelopment domain of psychology, criminology, or policing? A classic example of
.;le of vision the discipline invoking irs boundary occurred years ago when a respected
-.. te d ia logue scholarly nursing journal published a research report on career-oriented
t :, be rhe best women with tattoos (Armstrong, 1991). While a report pertaining ro
. rh e "whole that topic might have been of sorne interest to various disciplines (within
-~ truSt each sociology, as an instance of new behavior trends; within psychology,
rived from as an insrance of peer pressure or poor impulse control; within public
. Thus, we healrh, as a potential infection vector), this particular paper described
::;¡;ves bring to the phenomenon in a non problema tic manner, such that nurses could
!: ,¡osr if we at­ not detect any link to clinical application potential. In subsequent let­
-Iedge about ters ro the editor, readers angrily charged the jourrial with abandoning
relevance as a qua lit y criterion.
-':lp le applies, This idea of disciplinary relevance eros ses all disciplinary boundar­
~" :: enrhusiasm ies. As humans blessed with the gift of infinite curiosity, al! academics
-- ed rlier era in are capable of being intrigued about ideas that are not central (or even
_I,y weak and marginal1y related) to their disciplines. Sometimes the insights derived
o llaborate from "being in the world" in this manner do actually inform and enrich
our disciplinary scholarship. However, abandonment of "the discipline"
_;Igage In re­ slides us into the more fuzzy domain of knowledge for knowledge's sake.
isciplinary Detached from our disciplinary histories and allegiances, we begin to
Iy study lose our grip on the capacity to distinguish good and bad science, right
and wrong ideas. Because of this, the orthopedic surgeon who develops a
481 Chaprer 2
fascination for adolescent linguistic patterns beca use his or her teenagers careful and rigor ~
have started to use foullanguage is no more a credible scientist within already"know n.
that field than would be the local police officer. Our understanding of phenomenon of
the distinct nature of a scientific claim derives at least as much from ously hold to tb
the disciplinary so urce as it does from the relative truth or falsehood of insufficient to j Ll :
the conclusion-even though very good ideas may sometimes arise from At the outsee o :
those without formal grounding in a field precisely beca use they aren't topic. Readers nu
blinded by its assumptions . Thus, we understand that the nature of a for example, ther 1
claim, and the expectations of how it might legitimately be taken up in to have been ge ni'r
society, is contingent on the foundations upon which it was made. for example, ro <:.
In my opinion, this stricture applies not only to topic, but also to meth­ unwilJing to re ad
od, and in the current context to the kinds of methodoJogical choices that it is hard ro d fe.
one will make in order to do credible and valuabJe research. I have made a beca use one's O\\T.
case that appJying disciplinary methods outside of the disciplinary project vestigations or bt .­
for which they were intended tends to create problems-either with the in­ which is now pro
tegrity of the methodological application or with the eventual reJevance of study into a to i "
the results. Similarly, selecting the research questions one will ask simply affects you per ­ n
on the basis of a fascination for a particular method seems ro have missed and personal ther..
the point. As my colJeague Margarete SandeJowski often puts it, we don't and thoughtful de
want to teach people to be grounded theorists or phenomenologists; rather knowJedge. Afrer ­
we must teach them to appJy the methods that are appropriate ro the an­ ers hold a privileL e
swering of real and meaningful research questions within their fields. So, of our inquiries ar .
for example, 1 see a significant difference between working with the the­ products of journ:t
matic analysis elements of grounded theory methodology to discern pat­ to ensure that Our :1
terns within the shared experience of persons with a similar health chal­ larger Context of .
lenge and using narrative analysis to deconstruct the structural elements coherent, and r a-
of someone's i llness story.. Wha t we learn using one method provides us Although, in ar :::
with an appreciation for pattern; what we learn from another gives us worldviews of gu=.
insight into how people engage in "the telJing." The point is that, because murualJy exclusi \- .
different approaches wilJ lead ro different kinds of knowledge, our meth­ fields-including h~
odological selection ought to derive from a deep understanding of what it recognized that orr
is that we are looking for and why it is worth seeking. And that is what a ods so that we can
disciplinary question reveals. ing substantive n ­
cross-method ca pa'
What's Worth Studying Qualitatively? bringing his or her
ingly can be fou n I
The kinds of disciplinary problems or questions for which one might turn researchers. Ca nse
to interpretive description are those for which there is sorne justifiable problems and kn o
rationale for generating or expanding upon existing descriptive knowl­ rive merhod will bt" .
edge. While one might argue that anything that interests us is warth de­ and relevant to rhe ::.
scribing, that seems a rather holJow justification for expenditure of em­ It is rare thar :l
pirical energy, and perhaps ca-opting science toward selfish or frivolous rhat "nothing is kp
ends. The more credible rationaJe comes from an understanding of how be known, but per
 Cultivating Questiolls in the Applied Practice Field 149
·l-¡er teenagers careful and rigorous description, expanding or extending upon what is
_ :: I~ n tist wirhin already "known," would enhance our ability to engage wirh a particular
'erstanding of phenomenon of sorne clinical or pracrical interesr. 1 therefore quite seri­
much from ously hold to the view that individual curiosity, on its own, should be
- ia lsehood of insufficient ro justify a scientific project within a practice discipline.
At the outset of a study it is wise to reflect on what constitures a valid
-e rhey aren't topic. Readers may well have noticed that, within the health literarure
na ture of a for example, there are numerous reports of qualitative studies rhat seem
taken up in to have been genera red for all the wrong reasons. It seems unjustifiable,
m ade. for example, to generate a new qualitative study simply beca use one is
- : also to meth­ unwilling to read what has already been written on the topic. Further,
_ _-al choices rhar it is hard to defend a claim that new investigation is required simply
-:;" ,. l have made a beca use one's own distinct client population was not included in prior in­
lin ary project vestigarions or because the methodological approach differed from that
-:, -ter with rhe in­ which is now proposed. It seems even [ess justifiable to launch a formal
"'ü=ual relevance of study into a topic thar has attracted your attention simply beca use ir
_ ",jil ask simply affecrs you personally; indeed, the fine line between auroethnography
~o have missed and personal rherapeutic work is one that 1 think demands very ca reful
it, we don't and rhoughtful delineation and "Iocarion" wirhin the existing body of
"- ':Jlogisrs; rarher knowledge . After all, as proponents of science, we qualitarive research­
;.:tare ro rhe an­ ers hold a privileged position wirhin rhe world of ideas. If the producrs
- -l' ei r fields. So, of our inquiries are ro have empírical advantage in comparison to rhe
.,... ~'! ",ith rhe the­ products of journalism or creative wriring, for example, ir behooves us
_ ,o discern par­ ro ensure rhar our arguments for the value of each new study within the
healrh chal­ larger context of an evolving body of accessible knowledge are solid,
ural elemenrs coherenr, and reasonable.
provides us Alrhough, in an earlier era, scholars rended to rhink that the distinct
-'· o ther gives us worldviews of qualitative and quantitative research were sufficiently
-: :5 mat, beca use mutually exclusive ro preclude rheir coexistence, researchers in many
__ ge , our meth­ fields-including health and other applied disciplines-have long since
' ~ding of what ir recognized that complex topics demand the application of multiple meth­
- -:: m at is what a ods so that we can move beyond advancing meth'od and toward advanc­
ing substantive understanding (Miller & Crabtree, 1999a). While this
cross-method capacity may occur in collaborative teams, each member
bringing his or her own methodological expertise ro the table, it increas­
ingly can be found in the reperroire available to creative and innovative
::- o n e might turn researchers. Consequently, rhe abiliry ro discern and detect the kinds of
-o me justifiable problems and knowledge development trajecrories for which a qualita­
.....5:-riptive knowl­ tive method will be the most meaningful option has become important
-.5 us is worth de­ and relevant to the discussion wirhin an increasingly wide communiry.
- enditure of e m­ Ir is rare that a qualirative study can be justified with the claim
:: ~ h or frivolous that "nothing is known" about the topic. Very likely, quite a lot \vil!
nding of how be known, but perhaps not within the intellectual circles to which the
 I
50 Chaprer 2

problems rhar m _
Text Box 2.1 rypical circumsran
and preliminary : ­
WHAT HAS BEEN LOST? researchable qu ,\
Bereaved famil y caregivers were interviewed in order ro berter undersrand curiosiry-driven ir.,
rhe experiences of families of persons wirh adva nced cancer where cir­ ing, the process or
cum srances prevenr a desired home dearh. A common rheme arising in mularion of a re e.:
rheir inrerviews was rhe feeling thar rhey had failed rheir loved one in a entific and other \
promise ro care for rhem ar home unril dearh. For rhe mosr pan, families and not known
had enrered rhis experience wirh only a vague idea of what rhe work en­ Forrunately, a '
railed, and were unprepared for rhe physical, emorional, and relarional er does sharpen on ,
impacr of caregiving. In hindsighr, rhey idenrified various conversarions
it. Reading whar :
rhar mighr ha ve helped rhem considerably during rhe early srages ro berter
cired abour rhe \',L
undersrand rhe narure of rhe challenge rhey were facing and rhe available
resources, porenrially allowing rh em ro fulfill rhat promise. inherent in rhe ar
erarion of accessib ,
Topf, L., Robinso n, c., & Bottorff, ]. L. (2013). When a desired home death does demonstrare a l oo -~
not occur: The consequences of broken promi ses. }ournal of Palliative Medicine, background reso ur.:- ,
16(8),875-880. thar something e r
yo ur homework ro
orher attemprs ro ,:
aurhor is making reference. That which is worth studying qualirarively rhis obligarion is
is argued most credibly when the nexr logical question in advancing dis­ ideas of orhers be
ciplinary knowledge is one for which relevant themes a nd patteros have good research p r
nor been well documented, for which rhe subjective or experiential ele­ wondering abou- "
ments of the phenomenon are nor yet fully reported, or for which rhe
links between known elements and the larger experiential contexr have
nor been effectively made. ¡\nd for good measure, what is worth srudying
Framing a Resea rc
quite often turos out ro be that which has meaning within rhe m a ndate
rhar has been granted ro the discipline by the sociery rhar supports ir. The syntactic form ~
earc h question i
GENERATING QUESTIONS IN INTERPRETIVE DESCRIPTION p rocess and influ ep ~ ~
irs objecrives. 1 \\'
Having considered rhe matter of what constitutes a qualitarive research : rage and thar, a l:
question and the intellectual herirage upon which such quesrions can uspend the final w
be builr, we ruro specifically ro rhe topic of how ro extract direcrion q uestion until a w i e
for identifying, articularing, and framing research questions that wilJ be An example mJ
consistenr with the disciplinary objects and methodologicaJ possibilities rhe oprima) form f
offered by imerpretive description. emence. If you had :
xrend our currenr
Finding a ResearchabJe ProbJem onditions become
.' ith the conceprual
In my experience, thoughtful members of applied disciplines generalJy considering, for exa -
have little difficulty generating lists of clinical curiosities and practice Jescribe rhe popular
 Culrivating Questions in che Applied Praccice Field 151
problems that might prove amenable to formal mquiry . However, in
rypical circumstances, these may initia11y be articulated as very loose
and preliminary formulations for ideas that could potentially lead into
researchable questions, but not withour some considerable effort. While
curiosiry-driven inquiry has its place within the scheme of human leam­
-~:- undersrand
~ where cir­ ing, the process of moving general inquisitiveness into the scientific for­
,: arising in mulation of a researchable problem takes us into the literature (both sci­
,!. one in a enrific and orherwise) to see what established scholars consider known
- ?.ln . families and not known about this and related concepts or ideas.
\\"ork en­ Fortunately, a formal critical literature revie"" by a thoughtful inquir­
- ~ relational er does sharpen one's grasp of the larger field and what can be said about
versarions ir. Reading what others ha ve written typically gets you increasingly ex­
- ' f es ro berrer cited abour the value of knowledge and much wiser about the potential
_ ~e available inherent in the various options for developing ir. With the rapid prolif­
erarion of accessible knowledge, it is incumbent upon the researcher to
death does
demonstrate a logic trai! through which decisions pertaining to review of
background resources has been constructed. Thus, you don't get to c1aim
that something constitutes a researchable problem unril you ha ve done
your homework ro build the case thar ir isn 't already fu11y known despite
other attempts to study it and that ir is, in fact, worth knowing. Because
ualitatively this obligation is a hallmark oE a11 formal research, immersion into the
yancing dis­ ideas of others becomes an inherent part of rhe process of formulating a
'a trerns have good research problem on the basis of what may ha ve begun as simply
_., per iential ele­ wondering about a c1inical maner. We'lI say more about the literature
- :o r which the review process in the next cha pter.
o ntext have
< "'-ort h studying Framing a Research Question
.... . he mandate
The syntactic form that transforms the researchable problem into a re­
search question is of critical importance, since ir wil! shape your enrire
p rocess and influence the degree to which your research project achieves
irs objectives. 1 would recommend that careful attention be put to this
stage and that, although draft versions can catalyze the process, you
uestions can suspend the final wording of both the problem statement and the formal
_ . a dc r direction question unti! a wide range of options have been considered.
. _ ._ ~ rhar will be An example might best illustrate the complexity involved in writing
(be optimal form of what often ends up looking like an incredibly simple
entence. If you had determined that it was justifiable and important ro
xtend our current understanding of how some persons with disabling
nditions become models of health promotion, you might experiment
\ ith the conceptual labels to which you were anchoring your question,
~ dnes generally o nsidering, for example, the implications of choosing rerminology to
. -5 a nd practice describe rhe popularion (such as "handicapped," " chronically ill," or
521 Chapter 2

"mobility-challenged") and the descriptor (such as "wel!ness," "optimal

health," or "quality of life"). By reviewing recent writings or attending Text Box 2.2
professional meetings on the topic, you might familiarize yourself with the
political, disciplinary, or ideological implications associated with the vari­ How CAN W E
ous choices, allowing you ro select terminological options that wil! most
In order ro be ':,
effectively communicate what you think you are doing and for whom. following a l­
You might then work on the various options for linking those con­ series of foc u' _
cepts within the grammatical form of the actual question, experimenting ing on behal " .
with strong associations (correlation? cause?) or softer ones (association? these focus r
relationship?). Further, you might play with considerations of what the rhe res pon
question looks like if grounded in different interrogative sentence forms. cians, and th ,
These can begin with a question (such as "what," "how," or "when") counes provi de _
or an auxiliary verb (such as "would," "can," or "do"). Sínce many of of facilitatin~ .
us become fixated upon certain initial framings of our ideas (sometimes ing employee­
ClrCUmstances
the words that first entered our mind when we beca me conscious of our
more Iikely ro ' .
interest in the idea, or a neat turo of phrase that we ha ve heard or read in
relation to the topic), it can be very helpful to solicit the input of others Corbiere, M. , R
at this stage, as their way of thinking might offer up alteroative formula­ Lecoffire, T. ( ~
tions we hadn't thought of. For most of us, this intel!ectual sharing takes ployees wirh
its initial form in the graduate seminar and, with any luck, continues
with valued colleagues and students throughout a research career.
From this process, you should be able to generate a selection of good with multiple q u
options for consideration before selecting the ideal question. From the additional hidder
aboye example, one can see that there wil! be profound differences be­ don 't, we run rh!" !'
tween such options as "How do mobility-challenged persons define well­ o f a good que ti ­
ness?" and "What strategies and resources do highly functioning persons rion you have p -:
with disability idenrify .as being most conducive to a positive qua lit y of complexiry of rh ­
life?" An experienced researcher wil! be able to rapidly project the mind ~apacity to ma in.t:.
forward from each of these questions to identify what it would imply for conclusions yo u r =
al! phases of the research process and for the eventual product. For the ~'O ll produce. So a.:'
neophyte, it wil! be important to reflect on what the question implies as he right resear b _
far as such matters as: Who would 1 be studying in order te learo this?
What would 1 have te find out from them in order te begin te answer Clarifying Ques
this question? How would 1 gather that kind of data? What categories
or groupings of information does my question imply 1 am seeki ng? What - somewhat fa,- c­
would it matter if 1 were able ro answer this question? .l menable to inteT"
Typically, a reflective process such as this accomplishes two valuable :0 those questi ru .
ends. First, it does help you nail down a research question that is suffi­ ~o menon, and OID" :
ciently wel! articulated to sustain a logical and coherent (not to mention m ea ns cannot be ' _
manageable) study. Second, it opens up your awareness to the actual scope .n -depth consider ' ­
and boundaries of the question you have posed-what it is and what it ;o re we can lan ,
is not (Agee, 2009). Since many of us enter applied disciplinary research ::scription as im"...­
 Culrivaring Quesrions in rhe Applied Pracrice Field 153
t'lln ess," "optimal
ilflgS or attending Texr Box 2_2
yo urself with the
How CAN WE HELP?

In order ro better undersrand rhe complex process of rerurning ro work

following a sick lea ve for depression, Corbiere and his ream conducred a
series of focus groups wirh union represenrarives experienced in advocar­
experimenting
-.1 . ing on behalf of such individuals. On rhe basis of rhe dara arising from
~ ~ - ~ i1es(association? these focus groups, rhey found disrincr considerarions associared wirh
-,u 10 ns of what the rhe response of employers and supervisors, colleagues, generaJ physi­
cians, and rhe union and employee him- or herself. From rhe rich ac­
-ow, " or "VI,hen") counts provided by rheir srudy participanrs, rhey were able ro disrill a ser
- ~ .• ). Since many of of faciliraring facrors rhar rhey felr show considerable promise for help­
ing employees and employers overcome rhe numerous challenges rhese
:: id ea s (sometimes
circumsrances present and rhereby creare rerurn-ro-work plans rhar are
-e conscious of our more likely ro be successful.
e h eard or read in
in p ut of others Corbiere, M., Renard, M., St-Arnaud, L., Couru, M-F., Negrini, A., Sauvé, G., &
-e rn a tive formula­ Lecomte, T. (2015). Union perceptions of factors related ro return ro work em­
._:ua l sharing takes ployees with depression. Joumal al Occupational Rehabilitation, 25, 335-347 .

.r \' luck, continues

-"'."'-i'a.rch career.
. -.e lection of good with multiple questions, it can be painful ro "let go" of sorne of the many
::ues t ion. From the additional hidden agendas we have when we enter a study. However, if we
d differences be­ don't, we run the risk of confusing agenda with interpretation. The power
rso ns define well­ of a good question-and of truly understanding the nature of the ques­
tion you have posed-is that it keeps your logic focused even when the
complexity of the field makes the analytic process feel confusing. And this
capacity to maintain c1arity of purpose is what will ensure that the final
conclusions you repon are credibly grounded in the empirical data that
you produce. So although it may seem trivial, the value of really generating
rhe right research question cannot be underestimated.

Clarifying Questions Amenable to Interpretive Description

A somewhat facetious way of explaining which kinds of questions are
amenable to interpretive description is that the approach is best suited
ro those questions that beg an inductively derived description of a phe­
~ .:<s[i o n that is suffi­ nomenon, and one that deserves an interpretive lens. However, what that
[ (no t to mention means cannot be fully appreciated until we engage in a somewhat more
5 l:O the actual scope in-depth consideration of what description and interpretation entail be­
,ir i[ is and what it fore we can land on a beginning sense of what it is that would qualify a
. ', ri nlinary research d escription as interpretive?
54/ Chaprer 2

What is a Description? in advancing ir. :

hoping to re ir
In the research sense, the term "description" is used to explain studies in the know l d __
whose purpose is itemizing or documenting something that requires differ on the re _
it-telling what it is that one observed (Sandelowski, 2000). The term description, " \\
explicitly differentiates this kind of inquiry from that which seeks to honesty and m ..
test a theory or prove a relationship and merely reports to us, using a generated wi tlu"
set of inquiry conventions compatible with the intent, what can be seen wil! remain ar .
when one examines a phenomenon. Qualitative description is typically ro the awaren
understood to differ from that which is quantitative in terms of its which new q u
degree of reliance on objective (especially numeric) data as opposed to Eestations of eh
those that are only accessible through human subjectivity. However,
this can be something of a false dichotomy, and it may sometimes be
more useful to draw the distinctions between the form of logic (de­ What Is an Im 1.

ductive or inductive) upon which the method relies (Neergard et al.,

2009). In general, qualitative description builds findings on the basis
of inductive reasoning, while quantita tive description builds them by
deducing. Deductive reasoning moves from the more general toward
the specific, so that one might begin with a theory and use descriptive empirica! as pe- :
techniques to confirm its applicability within a particular specific in­ o rher (Garren. :::
stance. An example of this might be directed forms of qualitative con­ J nderpinnings :
rent analysis, in which existing theories predetermine the categories Jiries" we see . :
into which data will be organized (Hseih & Shannon, 2005). Inductive d iscovered b :
reasoning works the other way, building from specific observations of
a thing toward broader generalizations about pattern or theoretical
constructions of ir. By its very nature, then, qualitative description will
be open and explorato~y, in contrast to the more narrow and focused
description that would be sought in the context of the more quantita­
tive sense of the termo And although it is worth noting that applied
qualitative researchers don't rely on inductive reasoning alone (Berg­
dahl & Bertera, 2015; Lipscomb, 2012), its prominence throughout
the analytic process of qualitative inquiry is appropriately understood
as its defining feature.
According ro Sandelowski (2000; 2010), descriptive research has
often been depicted as the least impressive or valuable form of both
quantitative and qualitative research. Perhaps beca use of the quantita­
tive tradition in which strong findings require experimental approaches,
qualitative researchers in the health field ha ve be en reluctant ro depict
their work as "mere" description. Rather, they have often portrayed
their work as phenomenology, grounded theory, narrative, or ethnogra­
phy in arder to ascribe to it so me "epistemological credibility" (Thorne,
Reimer Kirkham, & MacDonald-Emes, 1997) or what Wolcott has de­
picred as methodological "posturing" (1992). Like Sandelowski (2010),
 Cultivaring Quesri ons in rhe Applied Pra crice Field 155
in advancing interpretive description as a methodological option, 1 am
hoping ro revitalize an enthusiasm for description as a powerful resource
~xpl a in studies in the knowledge development armament. While om approaches may
- o:: ~at requires differ on the relevance of disciplinary grounding to a good "qualitative
O) . The term description," we are both working roward a better level of intellectual
nlch seeks to honesty and methodological integrity in the scholarly products that are
- -.0 us, uSlOg a generated within our traditions. For the health field, description is and
.H ca n be seen will remain an extremely important element in bringing phenomena
:;~ 'on is typicaJly ro the awareness of our colJeagues, in creating an empirical basis from
.' rerms of its which new questions can be generated, and for taking note of the mani­
. - o pposed ro festations of the complex and messy world of human health and illness.
: ~;' . However,
,om etimes be
What Is an lnterpretation?
......, of logic (de­
re-rga rd et al., When we use the term "interpretation," we are explicitly locating our
=S o n the basis studies of human social phenomena within a nondualistic philosophi­
..ulds them by cal tradition (erotty, 1998) . In so doing, we distinguish our work from
.:- . ne ra l roward dualistic research approaches derived from assuming the rational and
empirical aspects of the mind stand in inherent opposition to one an­
other (Garrett, 2013). Instead, we draw inspiration from philosophical
underpinnings that capitalize on the perspective that many of the "re­
e categories alities" we seek ro study don't exist "out there" as objective entities ro
-J. Ind uctive be discovered but rather are more usefully undersrood as "socially con­
ervations of structed" through the subjective persons who experience them (Mot­
r theoretical tier, 2005) . This "interpretive turn" grew out of a tradition generated
.. __ _.;cription will by such thinkers as Paul Ricoeur (1981a), Martin Heidegger (1982),
-, a n d focused and Hans-Georg Gadamer (1989), which focused attention upon the
- Iore quantita­ analysis of constructed meaning within subjective and intersubjective
":r: rha t applied
experience. Research drawing on these ideas involves cultivating the
-g alone (Berg­
skill of apprehending experience as reflected in the perspective of oth­
, ~ throughout
ers, while simultaneously accounting for the (ve ry real) cultural and so­
. - ~y undersrood
cial forces that may have shaped that perspective.'Because the point of
such research is not simply ro interpret action through the motivations
that are accessible ro subjective consciousness but to concentrate on
the experiential context within which those actions evolve and become
-he quantita­
!" meaningfuJ, inquiry involves a dialectic that has come to be known as
approaches, the "hermeneutic cirele."
::.a nt to depict Although many qualitative health researchers have drawn heaviJy on
·:~u portra yed the insights of these authors (as they do on the excellent work of the
0-. o r ethnogra­ full range of social science methodologists ), it remains important ro re­
~_ .: .~rry " (Thorne, member that these approaches ro inquiry were developed ro address the
'o leOtt has de­ very specific intellectual chalJenges that were at the forefront of thinking
. .~ws ki (2010), of distinct disciplinary groups at particular points in time. Because of
- I(haprer 2
rhis, ful! adherence to the methodological requirements of many of these instances and in -.
foundational sources draws one into a different sort of conversarion, clinical reasonm
and sometimes away from the one rhar generated the health research further ilIumina ¡~
question in the firsr place. So, for example, although an appreciarion for toward whar \\. _
the dialectic between power and oppression can be an exciring focus of & MilIer, 199 a _
intellectual curiosity, it may be more suitable for developing grand theo­ In rhis way, U' ­
rizing rhan for trying to resolve the day-ro-day problems of marginalized rhat is consiste m
members of sociery. Thus the "interpretation" that has evolved within tions rhat mig hr
the qualirative health field, while informed and stimulated by these mar­ a disciplinary 1 n
velous alternarive "standpoints" from which to examine problems, still systematic ana l
relies upon the more practical, analytical "so what might this mean?" putting that an~.
form of interpretation that extends description beyond documentation all of its inhere n ~ .
and into sense-making (Benner, 1994). Norman Denzin has elaborated challenges the
an action research merhod, "interpretive interactionism," as an explicit phenomenon und_ ­
approach ro interrogaring the interrelationship between what he calls insights derived
"priva te lives and public responses ro personal troubles" (1989, p. 10). found into a forrr .
His approach begins and ends with the biography of the researcher and which one cust
genera tes thick description and epiphanies that contribute ro a better To achieve thi­
understanding of how we socially construct power, knowledge, hisrory, ideally be articul:rr
and emotion (p. 19). 5ince this technique capitalizes on "auro-reflection" yond generic qua ­
(ro use Denzin's term) and theoretical deconstruction, it too is limited in tion syntax on rht
the utility it wilI have as the guide to methodology for the majority of mensions of the :
applied qualitative inquiries. strategicalIy avoi ­
aligned with Co m ­
as phenomenol
What Makes a Description Interpretive?
grounded theof\' ~
In the a pplied world of ~he practice disciplines, knowledge in a firmly interpretive descnr­
antirealist tradition would be problema tic. We need ro accept, for ex­ formal causatio n •
ample, that pain exists, even as we recognize the powerfulIy social nature a rion), for these _
within which it is felt, understood, and expressed. Thus, what the inter­ Rather, when w ­
pretive description approach considers "interpretive" takes inspiration a im of interpreti\c
from the formal interpretive hermeneutic tradition without becoming a disci plines, we are _
full-fledged adherent. lt recognizes that the applied research mind tends ata Sources avail
not ro be satisfied with "pure" description, but rather seeks ro discover [he answer to it m _
associarions, relationships, and patteros within the phenomenon that knowledge. There -~ ­
has been described. As 5andelowski puts it, research is not "mere cel­ q uestion mighr 1
ebration, as opposed to interpretation, of data" (2010, p. 83). When
we qualitatively describe a clinical case, for example, we do so not sim­ • What situatioro.
ply for the documentar)' value of having recorded it, but beca use of the progressive co
inherent assumption that there may be other cases out there that bear • What perspe.n . _
grant workers c­
sorne meaningful similarity, and that by making this one accessible, we • H ow can we t .­
move one step closer to useful general knowledge. In health research, stances prevl?m ~
for example, we therefore inherently work within the world of studying cancer?
 Culrivating Questions in the Applied Practice Field 157
~ many of rhese instances and integrating what we learn about them with our reflective
! co nversation, c1inical reasoning process, searching for underlying meanings that might
_ !:.t':a lth research further i1luminate what is happening and develop a deeper appreciation
- _?p reciation for toward what would ultimately be the optimal c1inical response (Crabtree
... '\:Liring focus of & Miller, 1999a) .
:- ~lg grand rheo­ In this way, interpretive description reflects a kind of mental attirude
marginalized that is consistent with at least a significant propon ion of the applied ques­
- evolved within tions rhat might be amenable to qualitative description filtered through
v these mar­ a disciplinary lens. It suggests thar there is inherent value in careful and
_ .tlÍo blems, still systematic analysis of a phenomenon and an equally pressing need for
~ _~:-. ¡ [his mean?" putting that analysis back into the context of the practice field, with
: documentation all of its inherent social, political, and ideological complexities. Thus, it
- l-.as ela bora ted challenges the scholar to look below the self-evident within the practice
_- as an explicit phenomenon under consideration-to document patterned and thematic
.­- w hat he calls insights derived from examples of an entity and ro reconfigure what is
- 1989, p. 10). found into a form that has the potential to shift the angle of vision with
e researcher and which one customarily considers ir.
To achieve this aim, interpretive description research questions should
ideally be articulated in such a manner that they extend our reach be­
yond generic qualitative description, which might typically reflect ques­
tion syntax on the order of: What is happening here? What are the di­
mensions of the concept? or What vanations exist? They should also
strategically avoid the language signifiers thar have come ro be so firmly
aligned wirh conventional qualitative merhodological traditions, such
as phenomenology's classic What is the ¡ived expenence of ... ? or
grounded theory's What is the basic social process of . .. ? Of necessity,
e 10 a firmly interpretive description questions must also avoid language that implies
ept, for ex­ formal causation or explanatory pretensions (predicrion, control, evalu­
_" social narure ation), for rhese become the domain of a much differenr kind of inquiry.
:bat the inter­ Rarher, when we frame a research question in a form that reflecrs the
aim of interpretive description in the applied contexts of our various
disciplines, we are aiming to uncover that which is accessible through the
data sources available. And we are positioning our question such that
the answer ro it might tit back within the framework of our disciplinary
knowledge. Therefore, the syntax of an inrerpretive description research
question might loo k more like one or more of these examples:

_ -o so not sim­ • What situations in daily life pose a chal/enge for caregivers of persons with
progressive cognitive i111pairment?
: beca use of the • What perspectives and experiences of persons providing ser vices to ml­
- -he re that bear grant workers could inform our understanding of the chal/enges they facd
e 3ccessible, we • How can we better understand the experience of families when cirCU111­
eal th research, stances prevent a desired home death for a family member with advanced
cancer?
Id of studying
581 Chapter 2
• What is the geographical, physical, and social context o( olde/' rural citi­
zens seeking assistance with chronic disease management?
CHAPTER 3
• What moves a (amily physician to specialize in HIV/AIDS care?
• What (actors do pediatric practitioners believe influence thei/' practices
and decisions in re/ation to autism spectrum disorder screening?
• How do young people seeking help on sexual assault use social media? Scaffolding a ~
• How do unions understand (actors surrounding return-to-work experi­
ence (or employees who have been absent (rom work due to depression?
• What (actors influence assistive technology access and service provision
(or individuals with disabilities (ron! a particular cultural subgroup in the
community?
• In what way might be/ie(s, attitudes, and prior experience shape first-year Scaffolding a stu d\' _
teacher education students' appreciation (01' social determinants o( learn­ i
build out your d e g,·
ing skills?
a significant impa cr :
• What attitudes, belie(s, and perceptions do patients report in relation to
low back pain and the perceived threat associated with it? feels something lik ~ ' .
• How do persons with multiple sclerosis interpret and explain the influence up a tent for the ni " :
o( exercise on their (atigue? should you position :
open? You may ha 'e" _
Achieving the alignment between a question and the methodological tools near the campfire ) a
with which it will be answered is the most fundamental of research skiJls erations (angle of un
and, unfortunately, one with which so many qualitative researchers have into account, you d :
encountered difficulty. Interpretive description is designed to mimic the specific implication, .
interpretive mental attitude that is the hallmark of the reasoning processes rocks tha t you can 'c r"
of the applied practice disciplines in framing a question that makes logi­ of nesting insects in ­
cal sense. On the basis of such a question, the remainder of the study is lead you to rethin k \
projected forward using a similar perspective through the steps of decision the specific spot, YO~
making around the formal methodological traditions for sampling, data that may puncture r _
collection, and data analysis generated on behalf of descriptive qualita­ to buffer natural bum
tive inquiry. Using this approa.ch, the researcher is invited to work within the perimeter of th [
the pressing problems of his or her own disciplinary field and ro genera te of drainage. Only r ht'~
credible and defensible new knowledge in a form thar will ultimately be that each peg is in 'o­
meaningful and relevant ro the applied practice contexto taut. This exercise e:
fully appreciare th e ir
in sequence. When d;;:
nigh t, the carefuJn e ~
in the soggy sleepin
camping experien e.
To find your way
pretive description r
\-vhat you represent, a­
you need to SOrt OUt
the project; what as
"facts" you are con j
(Opic; and whar it is th :
interpretive descripti ._.