Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Clarke, NJ; Willis, MEH; Barnes, JS; Caddick, N; Cromby, J; McDermott, H; Wiltshire, G (2015)
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Languages: English
Types: Article
Recent interest in analytical pluralism—the application of more than one qualitative analytical method to a single data set—has demonstrated its potential to produce multiple, complex, and varied understandings of phenomena. However, tensions remain regarding the commensurability of findings produced from diverse theoretical frameworks, the practical application of multiple methods of analysis, and the capacity of pluralism to contribute to knowledge in psychology. This study addresses these issues through a critical interpretation of existing qualitative studies that utilized analytical pluralism. Using a meta-study design, we examined the use of theory, application of methods, and production of findings in studies that had adopted qualitative analytical pluralism. Following comprehensive database searches, ten articles were included in the analysis. Epistemological and ontological considerations, the influence of decisions made in the practical application of pluralism, and approaches to interpreting findings produced from multiple analyses are discussed, and implications for future research are considered.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Biesta, G 2010, 'Pragmatism and the philosophical foundations of mixed methods research' in A Tashakkori & C Teddlie (eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioural research, (2nd ed.), pp. 95-118, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
    • *Burck, C 2005, 'Comparing qualitative research methodologies for systemic research: The use of grounded theory, discourse analysis and narrative analysis', Journal of Family Therapy, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 237-262.
    • Chamberlain, K 2000, 'Methodolatry and qualitative health research', Journal of Health Psychology, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 285-296.
    • Chamberlain, K 2011, 'Troubling methodology', Health Psychology Review, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 48-54.
    • Chamberlain, K, Cain, T, Sheridan, J & Dupuis, A 2011, 'Pluralisms in qualitative research: From multiple methods to integrated methods', Qualitative Research in Psychology, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 151-169.
    • Coyle, A 2010, 'Qualitative research and anomalous experience: A call for interpretative pluralism', Qualitative Research in Psychology, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 79-83.
    • Cresswell, JW 2007, Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches, (2nd ed.), Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
    • Ellingson, LL 2009, Engaging crystallization in qualitative research: An introduction, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
    • *Frost, N 2009, '`Do you know what I mean?': The use of a pluralistic narrative analysis approach in the interpretation of an interview', Qualitative Research, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 9-29.
    • Frost, N & Nolas, SM 2013, 'The contribution of pluralistic qualitative approaches to mixed methods evaluations', New Directions for Evaluation, Special issue: Mixed methods and credibility of evidence in evaluation, vol. 138, pp. 75-84.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article