Comprehensive Exam Study Guide For Berbary EDPR 7/8561
It is very important that you understand the seven components of the “capital Q” Qualitative
process and the connections that are made between them. Therefore, in order to prepare for the
exam, you need to be able to name and describe each component, discuss the importance of each
to qualitative research, briefly consider all of the options within each component, and understand
how to best align the components to create epistemologically congruent qualitative designs. As
you study, use your class notes, class charts, our readings, your class assignments, your
doctoral dictionary, and each other to prepare. Keep in mind that I expect that in your exam
you will reference by name major authors, theorists, and/or researchers that we have read
in class. I am not as concerned with the date of publications as I am that you know major players
and theorists in qualitative research and macro social theory.
For Review
The seven components are:
1. epistemology
2. macro social theory
3. methodology
4. methods
5. analysis/interpretation
6. representation
7. conclusion back to theory/literature
Remember that you don’t need to solidify these components in a linear/chronological way
starting with epistemology, BUT you have to be able to articulate each component and your
expectations for the components BEFORE you head into the field. Often, rather than starting
with epistemology or theory, our process instead begins with an experience that we have had or
an interest that we have. We can brainstorm purpose statements for our research, considering our
use of “to understand, to critique, to deconstruct” and considering the
epistemological/theoretical/methodological framework that best fits with the intentions of our
research (see epistemological chart St. Pierre and Lather). We should simultaneously consider
the seven components and use trial and error to develop a rigorous and cohesive research design.
As we move forward from purpose, we should begin to fill in our components making sure that
each one compliments that which comes before and after it.
For your comprehensive exam you will be asked to unpack the seven components in relation to a
specific research purpose. You do have limited time so be sure to manage yourself wisely. I’d
much rather you discuss each component briefly than get caught at the end without all seven
aspects clearly laid out. With that said, lay them out first, then go back and unpack each of them
to the extent that you can within the given timeframe. You will be graded on cohesion,
congruency, depth, effort, and overall development of the components and their details. As you
unpack, consider including aspects of the following:
Berbary 2011 2
1. Epistemology: How we know what we know
objectivism, constructionism (social constructionism vs. constructivism), subjectivism
We learned three major epistemologies: Objectivism, Constructionism, and Subjectivism. For
each, be sure to be able to discuss the general truth claims, the relationship between
subject/object, understanding of bias/subjectivity, how knowledge is “known,” and each stances’
perception of the ability to capture reality. Consider what major theories connect to each and
how each epistemology connects to other components such as methodology, analysis, and
representation.
2. Macro Social Theory: The lens of our research
post-positivism, phenomenology, symbolic interactionism, critical theory, feminism(s)-liberal,
social, radical, Black, Chicana, post-structural, cultural, critical race theory, gay and lesbian
theory, post-modernism, post-colonialism, queer theory, post-structuralism
We learned a number of theories from phenomenology to post-structuralism. For your exam, you
should be able to briefly discuss at least three theories that fall under constructionism and
subjectivism. You should be able to briefly discuss key players and general tenets of each theory.
Also know how each theory connects to epistemology and whether they are grounded in the
purpose of understanding, emancipating/critiquing, or deconstructing/exposing. You should be
able to articulate what each theoretical lens allows you to “see” and how it asks you to “do”
qualitative research. Finally, you should understand how each theory makes methodology look
“different”—for example, a critical ethnography will do something different than a poststructural ethnography.
3. Methodology: Rationale for methods
grounded theory, phenomenology, action research, ethnography, narrative inquiry, case study,
collective memory work, auto-ethnography
You should review the various methodologies that we explored from grounded theory to autoethnography. Be sure to understand how each methodology connects to specific epistemology,
theory, and methods. Also be sure you understand how the combinations of theory and
methodology can change the purpose from understanding, to critiquing, to deconstructing.
4. Methods: Data collection procedures
participant observation, non-participant observation, various interview types (see below),
personal journals, artifact collection
You should review the various data collection methods that we reviewed making sure that you
can name and describe the process of each AND recognize the methodologies with which they
Continued on next page 
Berbary 2011 3
best fit. We discussed interviews (in-depth, semi-structured, unstructured, photo-elicited,
narrative, life story, life history, phenomenological, focus groups, etc.), participant observation,
non-participant observation, artifact collection, informal interviews, and personal
(reflexive/reflective) journals. Be sure you understand the specific methods of data collection
and why they connect to specific methodology/purposes etc. Remember that some
methodologies use multiple methods. DO NOT INCLUDE structured interviews or surveys.
5. Analysis/Interpretation: Making sense of your data
traditional/post-positivist categorizing vs. rhizomatic/narrative contextualizing
Remember that this happens at the same time as data collection. Our epistemologies, theories,
and methodologies will change the ways that we do data analysis. You should understand how
these other components affect data analysis choices concerning either the use of more postpositivistic categorizing analysis OR more post-structural/narrative contextualizing analysis. Be
sure to be able to explain when/why you would choose one over the other based on
purpose/epistemology/theory etc. and what the different analysis processes will “do” with data
(reducing data into discrete categories/fragmenting/considered emergent vs. rhizomatic, shows
complexity, multiplicity, and context/considered identified).
6. Representation: Presenting your research to an audience
traditional vs. creative analytic practice
You should be able to discuss traditional representation vs. creative analytic practice (CAP) and
how they will look if used to represent data (researcher interpretation with data quotes as
evidence vs. contextualized creative genre with researcher voice in background). You should be
aware of which one you’d choose based on epistemology, theory, methodology, analysis, and
intent. Understand how each philosophically connects to researcher authority (whose voice is
first, do you claim “I” vs. “the researcher”), notions of evidence vs. contextualize narrative, and
truth claims of capturing reality (ex. CAP troubles the notion of being able to represent the
Truth).
7. Conclusion: Connecting back out to theory and literature
Be sure that you can explain what your conclusion will do in terms of “finalizing” your research
process. This will differ based on your purpose, theory, and methodology. For example,
Grounded Theory will conclude with the construction of a model that describes the
behaviors/experiences of participants. Phenomenological work will present themes that describe
the shared experiences of participants and conclude by connecting those themes/experiences
back to the literature or theory surrounding that phenomenon. Critical Race Narrative inquiry
will try to create community change by concluding with tangible acts such as policy changes
or the creation of community materials such as narrative pamphlets or videos about “Race in
Memphis.” Post-structural ethnography will conclude by connecting representations back to
larger social theories in order to try to make the reader “think differently” about participants’
experiences. Here you need to consider both purpose AND theoretical/methodological intent.
Continued on next page 
Berbary 2011 4
TWO PRACTICE ACTIVITIES:
A. Definitions and Explanations
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
Please list AND define each of the seven (7) components of the qualitative process,
beginning with epistemology and ending with conclusion.
Name three (3) epistemological stances and describe their general truth claims (consider
the relationship between subject/object, understanding of bias/subjectivity, how
knowledge is “known,” and perceived ability to capture reality).
List one (1) epistemological stance often used in current qualitative research. Name and
discuss at least three (3) theoretical perspectives that fall under that stance. What will
using this theoretical lens ask you to look at? How does it ask that you “look” out on the
world? Be sure to discuss key players and general tenets of each theory.
Name and describe two (2) qualitative methodologies AND their coinciding methods.
Be sure to address the specific epistemologies, theories, and methods to which each
methodology best connects and WHY.
Discuss the process of two (2) general types of qualitative analysis (categorizing vs.
contextualizing)—address how they align with theory and intent/truth claims of research.
Discuss two (2) types of qualitative representation (traditional vs. CAP) and discuss the
use of researcher voice, participant quotes, and general truth claims concerning capturing
reality.
B. Designing Qualitative Research: Component Connections
Based on the inquiry purpose statement below create the best research design for that inquiry,
specifically detailing each of the seven (7) research components that we learned in class.
Discuss your design from epistemology through conclusion, unpacking each of the seven
components in the following format:
1. Name the component: Name the option you choose within that component
(A) discuss the component’s importance to the qualitative process
(B) discuss some of the different options that exist within that component (ex.
briefly discuss the 3 options within epistemology)
(C) describe/unpack the option you choose within that component for your
specific inquiry
(D) explain why that option best connects to your overall design
You should follow this outline for each component 1-7 by numbering each component on your
paper and then discussing A-D to your best possible ability.
INQUIRY: TO UNDERSTAND
The purpose of this study is to understand the ways in which Latino individuals seek hearing
health care services so that a model of health seeking behavior can be developed.
Continued on next page 
Berbary 2011 5
ANSWER: As you attempt to hash out the seven components, look for hints in the inquiry and
purpose statement. For example, based on the inquiry “to understand” we are probably thinking
of an interpretivist theory or methodology. Also that fact that they want a model makes me think
of grounded theory. We know that grounded theory falls under interpretivism and that is is
specifically connected to symbolic interactionism. From there we can follow up the rest of the
design. I’d do the following design:
I. TO UNDERSTAND
1. Epistemology: Constructionism
a. Epistemology generally is important to qual research because it…..
b. Other options include objectivism and subjectivitism. Objectivism
is….Subjectivitsm is….
c. I choose constructionism. The tenets of constructionism are…..
d. I choose constructionism for this design because……
2. Theory: Symbolic Interactionism
a. Theory is generally important to qualitative research because it…
b. Theories that fall under constructionism epistemology include……(name a few
theories and provide general tenets/key players)
c. I choose symbolic interactionism. Symbolic interactionism is…..(tenets/key
players)
d. I choose this theory because…….
3. Methodology: Grounded Theory
4. Methods: Semi-structured interviews
5. Analysis: Categorizing Analysis
6. Representation: Traditional representation
7. Conclusion: Create a model of use and connect it back to theory
Once I figured out my basic design, I would then go back and fill in all of the details so that each
component is detailed in ways that show that I understand the component, recognize the various
options within that component, know the connections among the components that I’ve chosen,
and fully unpack each component A-D.
References
Bentz, V. M., & Shapiro, J. J. (1998). Mindful inquiry in social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Berbary, L.A. (2011). Post-structural writerly representation: Screenplay as creative analytic practice,
Qualitative Inquiry, 17(2), 186-196.
Charmaz, K. (2003). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S.
Lincoln (Eds)., Strategies of qualitative research (2nd ed.). (pp. 249-291). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Chase, S.E. (2005). Narrative inquiry: Multiple lenses, approaches, voices. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S.
Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed., pp. 651-679). Thousand
Oaks CA: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J.W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and
qualitative research (3rd. ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Continued on next page 
Berbary 2011 6
Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches.
Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
deMarrais, K. (2004). Qualitative interview studies: Learning through experience. In deMarrais, K., &
Lapan, S. (Eds.). Foundations for research: Methods of inquiry in education and the social
sciences (pp. 51-68). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Esterberg, K. G. (2002). Qualitative methods in social research. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Ezzy, D. (2002). Qualitative analysis: Practice and innovation. London: Routledge.
Gamson, J. (2003). Sexualities, queer theory, and qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln
(Eds.). The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (pp. 540-568). Thousand Oaks
CA: Sage Publications.
Janesick, V.J. (2003). The choreography of qualitative research design. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln
(Eds). Strategies of qualitative research (2nd ed.). (pp. 46-79). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Jones, S.H. (2005). Autoethnography: Making the personal political. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln
(Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp.763-791). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Kincheloe, J.L. & McLaren, P. (2003). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In N.K.
Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.). The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (pp.
433-475). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2003). Racialized discourses and ethnic epistemologies. In N.K.Denzin & Y.S.
Lincoln (Eds.). The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (pp. 398-432).
Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications.
Lather, P. (2004). Critical inquiry in qualitative research: Feminist and post-structural perspectives:
Science “after truth.” In deMarrais, K., & Lapan, S. (Eds.). Foundations for research: Methods of
inquiry in education and the social sciences (pp. 203-215). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Olesen, V.L. (2003). Feminism and qualitative research at and into the millennium. In N.K. Denzin &
Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.). The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (pp. 332-377).
Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications.
Parry, D., & Johnson, C. W. (2007). Contextualizing leisure research and encompassing complexity in
the lived leisure experience: The need for creative analytic practice.
Leisure Sciences,
29(2), 199-130.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Richardson, L.& St. Pierre, E.A., (2005). Writing a method of inquiry. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln
(Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed., pp. 651-679). Thousand Oaks CA:
Sage Publications.
Stake, R. E., (2003). Case studies. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds). Strategies of qualitative research
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Schwandt, T.A. (2007). The Sage dictionary of qualitative inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tedlock, B. (2003). Ethnography and ethnographic representation. In N.K. Denzin &
Y.S. Lincoln
(Eds.), Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry (2nd ed.). (165-213). Thousand
Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Wolcott, H. F. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and interpretation. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Wolcott, H. F. (2001). Writing up qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Continued on next page 