Creswell spends chapter five discussing five (5) approaches to qualitative research methodologies. Providing concrete, peer-reviewed samples of each method, Creswell covers Narrative-Biographical, Phenomenological, Grounded Theory, Ethnographic, and Case Study examples of research. He then covers the differences in the approaches, references other samples of each methodology, and offers citations for more in-depth research regarding the methodologies.
Response:
This chapter provides a good overview of five (5) potential methodologies for qualitative researchers. . . however Creswell stops at only five and does not offer great insight into the other possible methodologies available for qualitative study.
I do appreciate his extensive use of citations, allow readers the ability to do further reading. For my upcoming semester project I intend to utilize a grounded theory methodology and therefore will do further reading on the topic. Creswell's citations offer me a starting point in the process of better understanding the grounded theory approach to research.
The use of peer-reviewed articles is also a great positive for this chapter. Because these samples are not only genuine research, but also from well-published scholars, they provide insight for novice academics exploring qualitative methods.
Drawbacks
I found Creswell's chapter summary on page 96 did not offer adequate closure to the chapter. Little time was spent discussing the variety of other methods and / or how the presented methodologies have potential overall. Instead, the author made it seem as though none of the methodologies could, should, or would overlap when actually conducting research. This made the presentation by Creswell feel very formulaic, yet the actual information in the sample articles of the Appendix offered a vastly differing view of true qualitative collection. While reading the articles the reader is exposed to the "vastness" (for lack of a better term . . . possibly even "messiness") of qualitative research. Each methodology, at some point or another, bleeds into the other. Could there be true grounded theory without some kind of ethnographic study meshed within the theory? I would find it somewhat difficult. These are "people" after all . . . and the life we live results in our being a "messy" breed.
