3.5 Qualitative Research Methodology
3.5.3 Phenomenology as a Viable Qualitative Methodology
A phenomenological study is a qualitative discourse that “…describes the common meaning for several individuals of their lived experiences of a concept or a phenomenon,” Creswell (2012, p. 76). Phenomenologists arrange their inquiry by first establishing a phenomenon of human interest and then proceed to obtain knowledge of that phenomenon by eliciting details of people’s experience(s) by virtue of their interaction with the identified phenomenon. The underlying intention is to establish a noetic (“how did you experience the phenomenon?”) and noematic (“what is the value that may be derived from your experience of the phenomenon?”) correlation (Langdridge (2008); (Groenewald, 2004)).
Chan et al. (2013) further explains that phenomenological research is based on the ideology that a better understanding of a phenomenon is obtained by analysing the experiences of the phenomenon by the subjects of a study. The phenomenological strategy is to ask the interviewee an initial question that opens up a channel of communication to enable a deeper inquisition of the subject matter.
The objective here is to acquire general knowledge that is based on the interviewee’s experience and learned perspective of the phenomenon. In order to conduct phenomenological research, the researcher should however have some knowledge on the presence of the phenomenon as well as an intuitive list of respondents who will have sufficient experience in the phenomenon. Basically, the researcher should have an interest in the phenomenon and knowledge of the parameters that define the phenomenon.
The discourse on phenomenology, coupled with the researcher’s epistemological viewpoint that reality is constructed by virtue of an individual’s subjective experience of a phenomenon, has resulted in a plausible argument for the use of phenomenology in the current study. However, the main methodological aspects of phenomenology need to be established in order to ensure that the phenomenological inquiry is based on sound theoretical principles. From an
the methodological aspects of phenomenological research by contextualising the operational elements according to the expectations of logical positivism, which has assumed the role of the de facto methodology for research in the era of modernism.
From a positivist perspective, the initial step of data collection is sampling, which emanates from the notion that the sample needs to be identified so that observations regarding the sample may be statistically generalisable to the population at large. The critical questions that drives this process is: Is each element of the sample representative of each element in the population? And, how many elements are required in the sample so that observations can be statistically inferred onto the population?
However, in phenomenological research, representativeness is not the main criterion that drives the methodology. While there is a quest for general knowledge of the phenomenon, this is acquired more from a ‘depth’ rather than a ‘breadth’
perspective. The main criterion that drives the identification of respondents for the study is the answer to question: Do you have the experience that I’m looking for?
In terms of the sample size, Smith et al. (1997) is of the opinion that there is “…no right answer to the question of sample size” (p. 56) and unlike logical positivism, the sample size is determined by the richness of the evolving data collection process. Englander (2012), concurs with this assessment of the issue of sample size and makes the point that because the study is qualitative, the sample size does not really matter. There is however a ‘veiled’ agreement that the more interviews you conduct, so will your understanding of the phenomenon improve. In this regard, the actual sample size could be anything from 3 to 20 respondents. The maximum number suggested is based on the assumption that at some stage, there will be a convergence of the information gathered so that no new information becomes available in which case a point of data saturation has been reached. The main sampling strategy for qualitative research is purposive (Huberman et al., 2013, p.
31) and these samples are not necessarily pre-specified and identification of potential respondents for the study can evolve during the course of data collection.
With regards to the data collection instrument, unlike logical positivism where the data collection instrument is seen as a device of measurement, in
phenomenological research, the data collection instrument is a device used to elicit meaning. The research instrument represents an opportunity to become acquainted with the phenomenon via the interpretation of the person/interviewee, without being overly concerned about the individual/demographic traits of the person. As Chan et al. (2013) explains, the ultimate goal of phenomenological research is to gain an intimate understanding of the lived experience of the interviewee. An ideal strategy would be to make use of open-ended questions to elicit the experiential data as well as a semi-structured interviewing technique so that general knowledge regarding the phenomenon is obtained from the interviewee. The underlying strategy is to enhance the prospect that the interview questions are developed around the research aims.
With regards to the analysis of the interview data, the dictates of qualitative research analysis come to the fore. As suggested by Huberman et al.
(2013, p. 14), “…qualitative data analysis is a continuous, iterative enterprise.
Issues of data condensation, display, and conclusion drawing/verification come into play successively as analysis episodes follow each other” as illustrated in Figure 3.2. This process is conceptually similar to that followed by quantitative research where there is a preoccupation with data condensation via the calculation of means and standard deviations, data display via correlation tables and regression printouts and conclusion drawing via the reliance on significance levels and experiment/control group differences. However, in quantitative research, the activities are carried out in more of a sequential manner. In qualitative research, the transition between activities is more iterative (as illustrated in Figure 3.2).
3.6 The Main Phenomenon of the Study
The current study’s design may be perceived as an evolutionary one. Based on the knowledge gleaned from the literature review, it has been established that the agile methodology, specifically the scrum-oriented version of the methodology, seems to have been established as the de facto standard for software development.
However, embedded in this knowledge is also the awareness that practitioners are using customised versions of agile methodology for software development. A significant imperative that follows is the attainment of knowledge with regards to the issues that underpin the customization of agile methodology from a South African perspective. The idea is to uncover the essence of the software craft knowledge (also referred to as “software crafting” in Boehm (2006, p. 13)) that prevails in South Africa so that this knowledge can be used to ‘fuel’ the development of a practitioner-informed, agile based software methodology guiding framework. One of the challenges associated with achieving the afore-mentioned imperative is to implement a research strategy that can be defended from a philosophical and methodological perspective. In order to achieve this, reference is made to a paper by Barry Boehm, titled “20th and 21st Century Software
Figure 3.2: An Iterative Model of Qualitative Data Analysis (Huberman et al., 2013, p. 14)
Engineering”, where Boehm presents a discourse on the current trends as well as a prognosis for the direction of research and practice in the field of software engineering (see Boehm, 2006). Boehm structured the paper by using a strategy whereby the discourse was presented according to the dictates of the philosopher, Georg Hegel, who hypothesised that:
…increased human understanding follows a path of thesis (this is why things happen the way they do); antithesis (the thesis fails in some important ways; here is a better explanation); and synthesis (the antithesis rejected too much of the original thesis; here is a hybrid that captures the best of both while avoiding their defects).
This Hegelian perspective of thesis, antithesis and synthesis provides an ideal philosophical framework that defines the current study. The assertion is corroborated by the study’s plan which in essence consist of a thesis (establish a trend with regards to the current practice of agile based software development projects in South Africa), antithesis (ascertain reasons for the customisation of agile based methods and elicit suggestions for an improvement to the agile methods) and a synthesis (propose a framework that is based on agile methodology that incorporates the suggestions from practitioners on how agile methodology can be improved within the South African context).
Hegel’s philosophical outlook, as explained in Stern (2002), is strongly aligned to phenomenology. According to Dowling (2007) and Kafle (2013), phenomenology is a term that has a dual context. It is regarded as a philosophy as well as research methodology. From a philosophical perspective, phenomenology (considered to be a branch of epistemology) has a focus on the cognition that occurs as people construct knowledge on the basis of reflection and experience of their
“lifeworld” (Langdridge, 2008, p. 1128) . From a research methodology perspective, Leedy and Ormrod (2005, p. 139) define a phenomenological study as “…a study that attempts to understand people’s perceptions, perspectives and understandings of a particular situation”. One of the core objectives of the current study is to acquire an understanding of software practitioners’ perspectives on the phenomenon of software development. The preceding narrative, regarding the
Hegelian perspective on knowledge acquisition, the essence of phenomenology as a research methodology and the objective of knowledge acquisition regarding the phenomenon of software development by practitioners in South African, provides rational testimony to support a gravitation of the study’s methodological underpinning towards phenomenology.