Domain Ontology: The New Method of Mapping the Field of Qualitative Research Practices
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18778/1733-8069.20.2.06Keywords:
meta-analysis, qualitative research, domain ontology, dictionary-based content analysis, text miningAbstract
Already in the early 1990s, one could encounter the opinion that the state in which the field of qualitative research finds itself bears the hallmarks of the ‘curse of abundance’. Since then, the phenomenon of proliferation in the field has continued to gain momentum. Due to the dynamic growth of qualitative variants of research methodologies, methods and techniques, as well as the enormous internal diversity of the field, qualitative researchers are struggling to orient themselves in the field of their own research practice. Increasingly, many researchers signal the need to systematize their knowledge of the numerous contemporary variants of qualitative research practice. This article responds to this need. It presents a model of the field of contemporary qualitative research based on the IT concept of domain ontology, developed based on a multidimensional content analysis of five dominant methodological journals presented in the form of a semantic network. The proposed model gives an insight into the essential elements of the field (epistemological approaches, data collection and analysis methods, classified into 369 ontological classes), as well as shows their clusters and inter-class relationships. It indicates the existence of three sub-fields characterized by the presence of different approaches and research methods, which differ in density and the strength of relationships. The ontological model of the qualitative research field is an important step toward the development of a domain qualitative research knowledge base, i.e., an information system organizing methodological knowledge that allows for trend monitoring, knowledge management, and effective use of knowledge in research practice.
Downloads
References
Archibald Mandy, Radil Amanda, Zhang Xiaozhou, Hanson William (2015), Current Mixed Methods Practices in Qualitative Research: A Content Analtextysis of Leading Journals, “International Journal of Qualitative Methods”, vol. 14(2), pp. 5–33, https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691501400205
Google Scholar
Atkinson Paul (2005), Qualitative Research – Unity and Diversity, “Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research”, vol. 6(3), https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-6.3.4
Google Scholar
Bryda Grzegorz (2014), CAQDAS, Data Mining i odkrywanie wiedzy w danych jakościowych, [in:] J. Niedbalski (ed.), Metody i techniki odkrywania wiedzy. Narzędzia CAQDAS w procesie analizy danych jakościowych, Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, pp. 13–40.
Google Scholar
Bryda Grzegorz (2019), From CAQDAS to Text Mining. The Domain Ontology as a Model of Knowledge Representation About Qualitative Research Practices, [in:] P.A. Costa, L.P. Reis, A. Moreira (eds.), Computer Supported Qualitative Research, New Trends on Qualitative Research, Berlin–Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 72–88, https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-31787-4_6 (accessed: 1.09.2023).
Google Scholar
Bryda Grzegorz (2020), Whats and Hows? The Practice-Based Typology of Narrative Analyses, “Przegląd Socjologii Jakościowej”, vol. XVI, no. 3, pp. 120–142, https://doi.org/10.18778/1733-8069.16.3.08
Google Scholar
Bryda Grzegorz, Tomanek Krzysztof (2014), Od CAQDAS do Text Miningu. Nowe techniki w analizie danych jakościowych, [in:] J. Niedbalski (ed.), Metody i techniki odkrywania wiedzy. Narzędzia CAQDAS w procesie analizy danych jakościowych, Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, pp. 191–218.
Google Scholar
Chenail Ronald J. (2009), Communicating Your Qualitative Research Better, “Family Business Review”, vol. 22(2), pp. 105–108.
Google Scholar
Denzin Norman, Lincoln Yvonna (eds.) (1994), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Google Scholar
Denzin Norman, Lincoln Yvonna (eds.) (2005), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research, Third Edit, Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Google Scholar
Denzin Norman, Lincoln Yvonna (eds.) (2011), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research, Fourth Edi, Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Google Scholar
Duevel Casey (2019), SAGE Research Methods, “The Charleston Advisor”, vol. 19(4), pp. 38–41, https://doi.org/10.5260/chara.19.4.38
Google Scholar
Gruber Thomas (1993), A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications, “Knowledge Acquisition”, vol. 5(2), pp. 199–220.
Google Scholar
Helbig Hermann (2006), Knowledge Representation and the Semantics of Natural Language, Berlin–Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.
Google Scholar
Jurafsky Daniel, Martin James (2009), Speech and language processing: An introduction to natural language processing, computational linguistics, and speech recognition, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Google Scholar
Knoblauch Hubert, Flick Uwe, Maeder Christoph (2005), Qualitative Methods in Europe: The Variety of Social Research, “Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung”, vol. 6(3), https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-6.3.3
Google Scholar
Lester Jessica Nina, O’Reilly Michelle (2015), Is Evidence-Based Practice a Threat to the Progress of the Qualitative Community? Arguments From the Bottom of the Pyramid, “Qualitative Inquiry”, vol. 21(7), pp. 628–632.
Google Scholar
Lim Soo-Yeon, Song Mu-Hee, Lee Sang-Jo (2004), The Construction of Domain Ontology and Its Application to Document Retrieval, [in:] T. Yakhno (ed.), Advances in Information Systems. ADVIS 2004, “Lecture Notes in Computer Science”, vol. 3261, Berlin–Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 117–127, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30198-1_13
Google Scholar
Munn Katherine, Smith Barry (2008), Applied Ontology: An Introduction, Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag.
Google Scholar
Newman Mark, Barabási Albert-László, Watts J. Duncan (eds.) (2006), The Structure and Dynamics of Networks, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Google Scholar
Quillian M. Ross (1968), Semantic memory, [in:] M. Minsky (ed.), Semantic information processing, Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 216–270.
Google Scholar
Ravenek Michael John, Rudman Debbie Laliberte (2013), Bridging Conceptions of Quality in Moments of Qualitative Research, “International Journal of Qualitative Methods”, vol. 12(1), pp. 436–456.
Google Scholar
Sandelowski Margarete, Barroso Julie (2003), Classifying the Findings in Qualitative Studies, “Qualitative Health Research”, vol. 13(7), pp. 905–923.
Google Scholar
Short Jeremy C., McKenny Aaron F., Reid Shane W. (2018), More Than Words? Computer-Aided Text Analysis in Organizational Behavior and Psychology Research, “Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior”, vol. 5(1), pp. 415–435, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104622
Google Scholar
Taylor Chris, Coffey Amanda (2009), Editorial – Special Issue: Qualitative Research and Methodological Innovation, “Qualitative Research”, vol. 9(5), pp. 523–526.
Google Scholar
Travers Max (2009), New Methods, Old Problems: A Sceptical View of Innovation in Qualitative Research, “Qualitative Research”, vol. 9(2), pp. 161–179.
Google Scholar
Wang Dashun, Barabási Albert-László (2021), The Science of Science, Cambridge: University Press.
Google Scholar
Wiedemann Gregor (2013), Opening up to Big Data: Computer-Assisted Analysis of Textual Data in Social Sciences, “Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research”, vol. 14(2), https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-14.2.1949
Google Scholar
Wiles Rose, Crow Graham, Pain Helen (2011), Innovation in Qualitative Research Methods: A Narrative Review, “Qualitative Research”, vol. 11(5), pp. 587–604.
Google Scholar
Published
Versions
- 2024-07-10 (2)
- 2024-05-31 (1)
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
![Creative Commons License](http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nc-nd/4.0/88x31.png)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.