(30%?,64>,>4@0&0:9<>(30%?,64>,>4@0&0:9<>
*96?70 #?7-0< 9A(9<>4.60
=4>,8C60,<0<080<4.%?,64>,>4@08;?4<C,8/>30*'=4>,8C60,<0<080<4.%?,64>,>4@08;?4<C,8/>30*'
"9/0691,>,8,6C=4="9/0691,>,8,6C=4=
,A8" 0880/C$3
,:066,)84@0<=4>C
/50880/C.,:066,?84@0<=4>C0/?
9669A>34=,8/,//4>498,6A9<5=,>3>>:=8=?A9<5=89@,0/?>;<
$,<>91>30%?,8>4>,>4@0%?,64>,>4@097:,<,>4@0,8/4=>9<4.,6"0>39/969240=97798=
&0.97708/0/$4>,>498&0.97708/0/$4>,>498
0880/C"=4>,8C60,<0<080<4.%?,64>,>4@08;?4<C,8/>30*'"9/0691,>,
8,6C=4=
(30%?,64>,>4@0&0:9<>
3>>:=/949<2
(34=9A(9<>4.604=-<9?23>>9C9?19<1<00,8/9:08,..0==-C>30(30%?,64>,>4@0&0:9<>,>#')+9<5=>3,=
-008,..0:>0/19<48.6?=49848(30%?,64>,>4@0&0:9<>-C,8,?>39<4D0/,/7484=><,>9<91#')+9<5=9<79<0
4819<7,>498:60,=0.98>,.>8=?A9<5=89@,0/?
=4>,8C60,<0<080<4.%?,64>,>4@08;?4<C,8/>30*'"9/0691,>,=4>,8C60,<0<080<4.%?,64>,>4@08;?4<C,8/>30*'"9/0691,>,
8,6C=4=8,6C=4=
-=><,.>-=><,.>
(34=,<>4.60A,=/0=4280/>9,==4=>>30[email protected]<0=0,<.30<48/0>0<74848241,2080<4.;?,64>,>4@0<0=0,<.3
,::<9,.34=,::<9:<4,>019<>304<48>08/0/<0=0,<.39</4==0<>,>498(30,<>4.604=48>08/0/>99110<
.6,<4F.,>49891>30,::<9,.3,8/-?46/=?:98,0664&,C,8/"466E=.,6619<=>,8/,</4D0/2080<4.
;?,64>,>4@048;?4<C2?4/06480=(30,<>4.60>,50=>30<0=0,<.30<>3<9?23,:<9.0==91=0610@,6?,>498>9
/0>0<7480,6428708>A4>3>30F@0;?,64>,>4@0><,/4>498=+34602080<4.;?,64>,>4@048;?4<C3,=-008:9=4>0/
>9-0,80,=C<9?>0890B:0<408.080.0==,<C4>E=<064,8.098>3070>39/,8/>996=91><,/4>498,6
;?,64>,>4@070>39/969240=;?4.56C.,860,/>30[email protected]<0=0,<.30<>9,7?//40/>309<0>4.,670==(34=
,<>4.609110<=,-9460<:6,>02080<4.,8,6C=4=70>39/>9-0?=0/A308>30,::<9,.34=2080<4.;?,64>,>4@0
48;?4<C60,@482,.60,<,8/.98.4=0=>,8/,6980:,>319<>30[email protected]<0=0,<.30<(3010,>?<0/79/064=>30
*'70>39/.<0,>0/-C=0748,6,?>39<<&96,8/$0<==98(30*'79/064=,.9284>498
-,=0/,8,6C=4=70>39/A4>3=0@08=>0:=@,<4,>498=:0.4F.,>498,-=><,.>49848>0<8,6@0<4F.,>4980B>0<8,6
@0<4F.,>498/0798=><,>498,8/.98.6?=498(34=,<>4.60=9?23>>9.98><4-?>0>9>30.<4>4.,6/4=.?==49891
>3019?8/,>498912080<4.;?,64>,>4@048;?4<C,8/9110<=,8,8,6C=4=70>39/48,6428708>A4>3>30
1?8/,708>,6=91,2080<4.;?,64>,>4@0,::<9,.3
0CA9</= 0CA9</=
080<4.%?,64>,>4@08;?4<C*'%?,64>,>4@08,6C=4=9284>498,=0/8,6C=4=%?,64>,>4@0
"0>39/9692C,>,8,6C=4=
<0,>4@097798=!4.08=0<0,>4@097798=!4.08=0
(34=A9<54=64.08=0/?8/0<,<0,>4@097798=>><4-?>498#98.9770<.4,6'3,<064508>0<8,>498,6
!4.08=0
.589A60/20708>=.589A60/20708>=
(30,?>39<A4=30=>9,.589A60/20>30><0708/9?=.98><4-?>498>9>30-9/C91,.,/074.589A60/20
-<9?23>19<>3-C<&96,8/'$0<==98"$3966($<910==9<91/?.,>498,6$=C.39692C'.399691
/?.,>498977?84.,>498G85G:482)84@0<=4>C,8/19<34=.98>48?0/,==4=>,8.048>30/0@069:708>
91>30*'70>39/91,8,6C=4=
(34=39A>9,<>4.604=,@,46,-6048(30%?,64>,>4@0&0:9<>3>>:=8=?A9<5=89@,0/?>;<@964==
The Qualitative Report 2016 Volume 21, Number 8, How To Article 1, 1369-1379
Is it any Clearer?
Generic Qualitative Inquiry and the
VSAIEEDC Model of Data Analysis
Dawn M. Kennedy
REALTOR University, Chicago, Illinois, USA
This article was designed to assist the novice researcher in determining if a
generic qualitative research approach is appropriate for their intended
research or dissertation. The article is intended to offer clarification of the
approach and builds upon Caelli, Ray, and Mill’s (2003) call for standardized
generic qualitative inquiry guidelines. The article takes the researcher
through a process of self-evaluation to determine alignment with the five
qualitative traditions. While generic qualitative inquiry has been posited to be
an easy route, no experience necessary, it’s reliance on the method and tools
of traditional qualitative methodologies, quickly can lead the novice
researcher to a muddied theoretical mess. This article offers a boilerplate
generic analysis method to be used when the approach is generic qualitative
inquiry, leaving a clear and concise stand-alone path for the novice
researcher. The featured model is the VSAIEEDC method created by seminal
author Dr. Roland Persson. The VSAIEEDC model is a cognition-based
analysis method with seven steps: variation, specification, abstraction,
internal verification, external verification, demonstration and conclusion. This
article sought to contribute to the critical discussion of the foundation of
generic qualitative inquiry and offers an analysis method in alignment with
the fundamentals of a generic qualitative approach. Keywords: Generic
Qualitative Inquiry, VSAIEEDC, Qualitative Analysis, Cognition-Based
Analysis, Qualitative Methodology, Data Analysis
It has been proposed in the literature that generic qualitative inquiry is an easier
approach to a qualitative research project and maybe suitable for qualitative student
dissertations (McLeod, 2001). Although McLeod (2001) underlined reasons for his argument
of facility, such as flexibility and no requirement of expertise in a particular approach,
generic qualitative inquiry is anything but uncomplicated (Caelli, Ray, & Mill, 2003).
Generic qualitative inquiry, by virtue of its lack of allegiance to a particular methodology,
may leave the novice researcher without a clear starting point. The lack of academic literature
on generic qualitative inquiry, and more importantly the lack of a standard analysis
boilerplate, was the impetus for this article. The five qualitative research traditions as defined
by Creswell (2009) are (a) ethnography, (b) grounded theory, (c) case study, (d)
phenomenology, and (e) narrative. Each of these five traditions adhere to a specific
methodology and each methodology is based upon the researcher’s world view; how the
researcher defines his ontology, epistemology and axiology. As Creswell (2009) suggested
each particular methodology, from positivism to phenomenology, are merely points in a
continuum of knowing. Where then does generic qualitative inquiry, which espouses no
particular view on the creation of knowledge or the existence of truth, fall in that continuum?
This article explores the role of generic qualitative inquiry in the research continuum and
suggests a meaningful way to approach and analyze data generated from the generic
qualitative approach.
1370 The Qualitative Report 2016
The Five Research Traditions
Merriam (2009) asserts that qualitative researchers are primarily interested in
“understanding how people interpret their experiences, how they construct their world and
what meaning they attribute to their experiences” (p. 5). Merriam also stated that, in essence,
every qualitative study starts as a basic generic qualitative inquiry and that the chosen
methodology (informed by a theoretical framework) is merely an additional “dimension” to
the understanding of an experience and its construction. Therefore, to better understand what
generic qualitative inquiry is, perhaps the best place to start is defining what it is not. The five
recognized qualitative approaches are: ethnography, grounded theory, case study,
phenomenology and narrative research. Percy, Kostere, and Kostere (2015) offered a
simplified definition of four methodologies and their different end goals:
Ethnography- an investigation of the social-cultural experience within a
network or social group.
Case Study- an investigation of a singular case or bounded system using
multiple sources of data and multiple methods of collection.
Grounded Theory- an inquiry used to generate data to develop an explanation
or theory of a process developed over time.
Phenomenology- an investigation of the lived experiences (cognitive
processes) of some phenomena; a focus on the internal context not the external
content of those experiencing the phenomena (pp. 76-77).
Finally, narrative research – an inquiry to discover the personal life stories of an individual or
group combined with the researcher’s perspective in a collaborative and narrative chronology
(Creswell, 2009).
Generic Qualitative Inquiry Defined
Percy et al. (2015), then offered this definition of a generic qualitative inquiry:
“Generic qualitative inquiry investigates people’s reports of their subjective opinions,
attitudes, beliefs, or reflections on their experiences, of things in the outer world” (p. 78).
This definition offers clues into the appropriate use of a generic qualitative inquiry: (a) the
research centers on subjective opinion (how the participant made sense of this particular
experience) and (b) the focus of the research is external. Worthington (n.d.) posited that
generic qualitative inquiry must be about more than opinions, beliefs and attitudes as those
can be measured in a quantitative study. To add further confusion to the definition, Caelli et
al. (2003) stated that without a methodological underpinning generic qualitative research can
often become a diluted effort wherein methods used are not congruent with an assumed
methodology. Herein lies the problem with borrowing methods from various methodologies.
To define or describe generic qualitative inquiry, and to determine whether or not, and
subsequently how, the researcher should use it, students must take themselves through a
process of awareness. To simply state generic inquiry is easy because students don’t need to
take the time to learn and understand the various research traditions (McLeod, 2001) is
misleading and does an injustice to the researcher and the participants. Creswell (2013)
asserted that to determine the appropriate research design, a researcher must view,
Dawn M. Kennedy 1371
The process of research as flowing from philosophical assumptions, to
interpretive lens, and on to the procedures involved in studying social or
human problems. Then, a framework exists for the procedures—the approach
to inquiry, such as grounded theory, or case study research, or others. (p. 44)
Appropriate Uses of a Generic Qualitative Inquiry Approach
While Caelli et al. (2003) posited that generic qualitative inquiry has no allegiance to
a particular methodology or philosophical viewpoint, Merriam (2009) asserted that in order to
conduct qualitative research, one must lay a conceptual foundation in accordance with one’s
view of the world. Researchers must examine their conceptual foundation before deciding on
a generic approach. The Caelli et al. (2003) concept of non-allegiance does not negate the
necessity of a philosophical viewpoint but merely stated that generic qualitative inquiry is
appropriate for more than one world view and that the researcher is not bound to follow
certain methodological frameworks. Creswell (2013) categorizes the facets of a philosophical
viewpoint thusly: (a) ontology- how does the researcher view the concept of truth/reality (b)
epistemology- how does the researcher view how knowledge is created or known (c)
axiology- how does the researcher position himself/herself in the study and (d) methodology-
how does the researcher view the process of research.
The philosophical viewpoint, or the guiding set of beliefs, fundamental to qualitative
inquiry is that knowledge and reality are constructed, multiple realities exist, the researcher
creates knowledge through subjective analysis of participants in a naturalistic setting, and in
the case of generic qualitative inquiry, embraces a methodology without limitations (Caelli et
al., 2003; Creswell, 2009, 2013; Merriam, 2009; Percy et al., 2015). These fundamental
beliefs frame the interpretive lens, placing the researcher at a point in the continuum of
knowing, and are identified by Creswell (2013) as: (a) postpositivism, (b) social
constructivism, (c) postmodernism, (d) pragmatism, (e) feminist theories, (f) critical theory,
(g) critical race theory, (h) queer theory, and (i) disability theory. Creswell (2013) posited
that certain methodologies are better suited for certain lenses or frameworks, for example,
postmodernism may be best served with the methodology of ethnography or grounded theory.
Until the researcher understands his/her own philosophical viewpoint and interpretive lens,
only then should a methodology be chosen. Ergo, generic qualitative inquiry should not be
used simply because the student researcher is not versed in a methodology or because the
student has been told it is a less demanding qualitative research option.
Choosing a methodology that aligns with one’s assumptions and interpretive lens is
essential to quality research (Caelli et al., 2003; Richards & Morse, 2013). Generic
qualitative inquiry may be viewed as appealing as it fits well with many interpretive
frameworks but is not bound by the rules of a methodology (and its subsequent methods) or
the precise definition of constructionism. Caelli et al. (2003) posited that “basic or generic
approaches to qualitative research have become quite common, even though few and
disparate guidelines for their implementation or evaluation have been proposed” (p. 2).
Herein lies the problem for the novice researcher, without a set of instructions for how to
build and implement a research design, a generic qualitative inquiry can quickly become a
muddied effort.
Caelli et al. (2003) asserted that, at minimum, a generic qualitative inquiry should be
inclusive of four characteristics: “(a) the theoretical positioning of the researcher, (b) a
congruence between methodology and methods, (c) strategies to establish rigor, and (d) the
analytical lens of the researcher” (p. 5). The researchers’ theoretical positioning refers to the
belief system comprised of ontology, epistemology and axiology; the researchers’ views of
reality and knowledge creation, as well as their value framework. Congruence between
1372 The Qualitative Report 2016
methodology and methods refers to aligning the methodology (the tradition) with the methods
used for inquiry and analysis. For example, a phenomenological study, which seeks to
discover the lived experience of participants within a phenomenon, would not use artifacts
(such as in a case study) in its research process nor would it analyze the data through cross-
case analysis. Generic qualitative researchers, who may espouse no particular methodology,
are then challenged to align methods with theoretical positioning and their analytical lens.
Strategies to establish rigor in a generic qualitative inquiry may include addressing personal
biases or assumptions, creating a system to test saturation, ensuring a detailed reporting of the
research procedures, or participant validation of the researchers’ interpretation of the data
(Caelli et al., 2003; Cooper & Endacott, 2007). The strategies for rigor are also influenced by
the theoretical positioning and analytical lens of the researcher. Whereas theoretical
positioning is related to the researcher’s beliefs and motivation for the study, the analytical
lens, or interpretive lens, is related to how the researcher interacts with the data. The
researcher’s biases, assumptions, and presuppositions all influence how the data will be
analyzed and interpreted (Caelli et al., 2003; Creswell, 2013).
Percy et al. (2015) posited that generic qualitative research is appropriate for mixed
methods research, or when the theoretical positioning of the student encompasses a belief that
knowledge and reality can exist outside of the lived experience of the participants as well as
being constructed through social interaction. In their prescriptive article Percy et al., also
posited that generic qualitative research may be used when the information desired cannot be
gathered through another methodology or cannot be easily integrated into a quantitative
study. In addition, Percy et al., suggested a generic qualitative approach when the researcher
has a priori knowledge or a categorical set of pre-understandings. The researcher believes that
some aspect of the research problem can be known prior to the study. This puts a generic
qualitative inquiry at the center of the knowing continuum; some objective reality and
knowledge may exist outside of the research and some knowledge and reality may only be
subjectively constructed within the social interaction of the researcher and participant.
Simplistically, the researcher knows his or her theoretical positioning, brings his or her
truth/reality to the study, and is open to newly constructed knowledge as he/she interacts with
the study participants and the data generated. The goal of the research is to describe the
phenomenon or process, and therefore a generic descriptive study is appropriate as it is not
bound by specific methods to generate knowledge.
If a researcher accepts that generic qualitative inquiry is in the center of the knowing
continuum it could be stated it is well suited for the researcher with the lens of pragmatism or
postpositivism. Creswell (2013) offered that postpositivism is results oriented with rigorous
data collection and analysis while pragmatism is outcome focused and data collection and
analysis may be from multiple sources and through multiple methods which best address the
research problem. Circling back to the work of Percy et al. (2015) these two interpretive
lenses both focus on a priori knowledge integrating with newly constructed knowledge and
therefore the use of semi-structured open-ended questions is a valid means of data collection
in a generic qualitative study. A student researcher, with limited time and financial resources,
and a desire to explore a priori knowledge, may choose the more flexible pragmatic approach.
It is important to note that an accepted view of pragmatism is that it involves the researcher’s
desire to affect change and relate knowledge to action (Goldkuhl, 2012). Data collection in a
pragmatic approach allows the researcher to utilize multiple methods of inquiry including
interviewing, reviewing archival documents, and/or observing the participants in a
naturalistic setting. Following collection of the data, where does the student begin in the
analysis process without a prescriptive set of guidelines to deconstruct and analyze the data?
Dawn M. Kennedy 1373
Analysis Methods in Generic Qualitative Inquiry
Each of the five research traditions have their own set of methods or tools to analyze
data. Phenomenology is closely related to generic qualitative inquiry due to its descriptive
nature and the examination of a process or phenomenon (Worthington, n.d.). However, while
phenomenology seeks to discover the shared essence of meaning of a process or
phenomenon, generic qualitative inquiry seeks to uncover the individual meaning of a
process or phenomenon from the perspective of the participants. While Jick (1979) espoused
the concept of utilizing whatever methods best answer the research question, novice
researchers may get lost in the vast array of methodological tools and lose congruence with
their analytical lens or theoretical positioning.
Kennedy (2015) asserted that the VSAIEEDC model of analysis is appropriate when
conducting generic qualitative research. As a researcher, the student is not borrowing from a
methodology, which according to McLeod (2001) he/she has not had the time to comprehend
or assimilate. The VSAIEEDC process is a cognition-based model which follows seven steps
to analysis allowing for reflexivity and rigor. Cooper and Endacott (2007) emphasized
reflexivity and rigor as two key elements necessary in generic qualitative research. Again
rather than borrowing a method, or constructing via piecemeal from multiple methodologies a
plan for reflexivity and rigor, the VSAIEEDC model offers a prescriptive approach to generic
data analysis.
The VSAIEEDC Model
Seminal author, Roland Persson (2006) described the VSAIEEDC model as generic
analysis. A generic analysis to correspond to a generic qualitative inquiry. Persson originally
developed the VSAIEEDC model for use in researching the gifted and talented but its
premise is applicable generically. The model entails the following seven steps: “(a) variation
(b) specification (c) abstraction (d) internal verification, (e) external verification, (f)
demonstration, and (g) conclusion” (p. 38). The central theme for the VSAIEEDC model is
that all analysis is cognition based in a comparison of recurring patterns (Persson, 2006).
Persson explained his concept thusly: “all analytical behavior is based on pattern recognition.
It is by comparison we automatically—for we are thus hardwired—evaluate new information
with already stored information in order to ‘make sense’ of what we see, hear or experience”
(2006, p. 32). Persson was emphatic that the seven steps of the VSAIEEDC model were
iterative and that the process followed in VSAIEEDC allowed for greater rigor and validity
through the “full exhaustion of information” (p. 33).
Persson (2006) asserted the validity of this generic model as other qualitative analysis
methods integrated cognition-based principles. Kennedy (2015) likened the model to other
seven steps methods such as the Moustakas modified van Kaam method. Again, if all
methodologies fall somewhere within the continuum of knowing (Creswell, 2009) then the
use of an analysis method based on cognition (how we know) can align with several
interpretive lenses, such as pragmatism and postpositivism. Persson (2010) indicated that his
generic VSAIEEDC model begins with variation within the data; what is the same and what
is different. Specification is defined as a process wherein characteristics within groups of data
are identified (constant comparison analysis), abstraction wherein commonalities are
externalized (drawn out from the data) and depicted by coding within specific data groups
(Persson, 2010, p. 544). The verification processes within this method included internal
verification, a comparison process to determine if the codes are logical and feasible based on
the knowledge of the researcher’s interaction with the data, a fit between the larger emerging
data (Persson, 2010) and any a priori knowledge (Kennedy, 2015). External verification was
1374 The Qualitative Report 2016
related to theoretical corroboration typically conducted through tying back data to existing
theory. The acronym VSAIEEDC related to a step within the verification steps which Persson
described as exploration, defined as “a visual overview of the reduced data in search of
frequency related regularities or irregularities” (p. 34). The demonstration step involved
conceptualizing frequencies and irregularities (such as a co-occurrence analysis) in a
graphical or charted form. Finally, conclusion, within the VSAIEEDC model entailed
reaching the point of data saturation, coming to an endpoint of abstraction (nothing more is
drawn from the continual iterative levels of analysis) and the formation of the perceived
results of the study (Persson, 2006).
The VSAIEEDC Model in a Generic Qualitative Inquiry Research Design and Analysis
Plan
While Percy et al. (2015) asserted that generic inquiry may be appropriate when no
other form of inquiry fits the research content, study focus or data to be gathered, researchers
must understand why their study falls into this quandary. If the data desired and generated
does not fit within the five traditions, researchers must ask why? It is in conceptualizing and
verbalizing the impetus for the study that researchers can discover where they land on the
continuum of knowing. For example, Percy et al., indicated that a researcher with a priori
knowledge, pre-determined themes or categories of pre-understanding, would chose generic
qualitative inquiry, due to the belief that knowledge can exist and be generated both
objectively and subjectively; that while multiple realities may exist, reality can be known
outside of the participants’ personal experience. Percy et al. added, “Actually, researchers
considering any study of people’s subjective ‘take’ on actual external happenings and events
should consider generic qualitative inquiry as their approach” (pp. 78-79). This assertion
supports the concept that there can exist an individual reality within an observed external
reality (happening, event, or phenomena) which leads to the conclusion that generic
qualitative researchers fall in the center of the continuum of knowing.
Understanding where one’s world view fits into the realm of research approaches is
the first step in a quality analysis. Conceptualization and verbalization of the motivation for
the study is critical to determining the interpretive lens. Caelli et al. (2003) explained the
necessity of understanding and proclaiming one’s reasoning for choosing any approach,
generic or otherwise, “Disciplinary allegiances must be made explicit then for two reasons:
(1) as a signal to the researcher’s theoretical positioning, and (2) as an indication of the
possible disciplinary-related methodological interpretations and associated methods of the
author(s)” (p. 6). A postpositivist, postmodern, or pragmatic approach most closely align with
a generic qualitative inquiry which espouses a view of objective and subjective realities and a
deeper understanding, not merely a description, of the interaction of those realities within an
event, happening or phenomenon.
As Caelli et al. (2003) posited, certain methods may be utilized in a generic approach
which do not invoke a methodology such as member checking, memoing or journaling. The
VSAIEEDC model leaves to the researcher which methods of external and internal
verification they may choose to use but remains true to its generic roots of cognitive
processing of repeated patterns. The theoretical allegiance to the concept that all analysis is
cognition-based establishes a level of rigor within a generic qualitative inquiry. The
methodology and methods are in congruence when a generic analysis method is applied to a
generic qualitative inquiry. This concept of congruence was asserted by Morse, Barrett,
Mayan, Olson, and Spiers (2002) to be the first and primary goal of rigor.
These concepts of congruence, rigor, saturation and abstraction lay the foundation for
a solid generic qualitative inquiry research plan. The VSAIEEDC method offers a
Dawn M. Kennedy 1375
prescriptive guideline for a generic qualitative research analysis plan. Variation is an
overview of what is immediately known from the data- what is the same, what is different.
Specification initiates grouping based upon a set of recurring patterns. Abstraction entails a
labeling or coding of like data through frequency analysis. The verification steps may be
inclusive of self-journaling throughout the process to ensure that researcher bias does not
infer preconceived meanings to emerging patterns, member checking, theoretical and
thematic analysis (how does the data verify existing published research or moving back and
forth between each data set in constant comparison), demonstration may be inclusive of word
frequency analysis and co-occurrence analysis between themes. Conclusion is the process
wherein further levels of abstraction return no additional patterns and evaluation and
synthesis of the data lead to a foundation to present results (Persson, 2006). Kennedy (2015)
in her use of the VSAIEEDC model of analysis, in a generic inquiry with pre-existing
themes, leaned heavily upon thematic and theoretical analysis utilizing the tools of frequency
analysis, constant comparison, and cross-occurrence; however, the VSAIEEDC is not
exclusive of other analysis forms such as inductive analysis wherein themes are generated
from the patterns of discourse. VSAIEEDC may be utilized for framework analysis, cluster
analysis or vignette analysis. The end goal of the research, action oriented, theoretical
development, empowering voices, substantiation of a funding request, defines the generic
analysis tools utilized within the model; however, the model’s seven steps still guide and
inform the analysis plan.
This article has firmly defined the generic qualitative approach and has grounded the
approach in the center of the continuum of knowing. The extant literature suggests that those
students whose beliefs fall within the center of the knowledge continuum typically approach
research from postmodern, postpositivist, or pragmatic analytical/interpretive lens. The
theoretical positioning also guides this methodology and its analysis. Specifically, student-
researchers’ axiology, how they value the facets of the process of knowledge and truth
creation, will influence the use of the VSAIEEDC model. A step-by-step template for
conducting analysis within the researcher’s analytical lens and theoretical positioning is
shown in Table 1.
Table 1: VSAIEEDC Analysis Template for Postpostivist, Postmodernist, and Pragmatic Perspectives
Analysis Steps
Postpositivist
Postmodernist
Pragmatic
Variation
Scan the interviews/data for
immediate perceptions of
what is the same and what is
different within the data
Scan the interviews/data for
immediate perceptions of
what is the same and what is
different within the data
Scan the interviews/data for
immediate perceptions of
what is the same and what is
different within the data
Specification
Looking closer at the
similarities and differences
separates them into natural
categories that are
theoretically supported or
theoretically-laden
Deconstruct the data;
identify categories that
emerge from within the
variation and similarities
The pragmatist begins with
an end in mind, typically
solving a problem or
creating an action plan.
Align data into pre-
determined categories (what
fits-what doesn’t) or create
categories which align with
practical application of the
research
Abstraction
Identify words, descriptions,
and phrases that represent
each category and reduce
them to a conceptual
representation- example: “I
dread work every day”
becomes “work avoidance”
Evaluate words,
descriptions, and phrases
and intervene with an
examination of the social
processes in play; from the
examination create a
comprehensive
characterization of the data
Identify words, descriptions,
and phrases and evaluate
them for resolvability and to
assist in furthering the
study’s purpose; transform
the words and phrases to
align with the study’s intent
1376 The Qualitative Report 2016
which integrates the multiple
perspectives of the study
participants
Internal verification
Negotiate with self in
determining if the
representations are logical
and feasible; categories are
causal and/or predictive in
nature-examine reasoning
for personal bias
Negotiate with self in
determining if the
representations are logical
and feasible- the categories
represent fragments of
individual reality and are
integrated into a constructed
meaning -examine reasoning
for personal bias
Negotiate with self in
determining if the
representations are logical
and feasible-the end
categories would result in
supporting the proposition
(the researcher’s impetus for
the study and beliefs
regarding action for
resolvability)-
examine reasoning for
personal bias
External verification
Corroborate findings with
existing theory; is inclusive
of multiple data derived
from multiple sources
Findings relate to existing
theory or published reports;
is inclusive of multiple data
derived from multiple
sources or methods; member
checking is a valid strategy
for verification (Morse et al.,
2002)
Findings are relevant to
practitioner issues and have
support in practice;
relevance and rigor co-exist
(Cho, Mounoud, & Rose,
2012) with precise defined
published or created data
and useful application
Demonstration
Theory-driven approach
lends itself to content
analysis; demonstrations
may include charted or
graphed demographic data,
word frequency analysis, co-
occurrence analysis, cross-
comparison analysis, and
cluster analysis (Namey et
al., 2007)
The emergent nature of
postmodernism lends itself
to thematic versus
theoretical analysis; include
charted or graphed code co-
occurrence analysis,
hierarchical cluster analysis,
theme cross-comparison, or
grouping themes within
themes
Demonstration of the
analysis of findings in a
pragmatic approach reflect
actionable circumstances in
an attempt to resolve the
research and practical
problem; demonstrations
may include charted or
graphed demographic data,
word frequency analysis, co-
occurrence analysis, cross-
comparison analysis and
explanatory analysis or
modeling
Conclusion
Evaluate the performed
analysis and its result-
determine if additional
analysis will yield more
information
Evaluate the performed
analysis and its result-
determine if second or third
level (a deeper analysis of
emergent information)
analysis will yield more
information
Evaluate the performed
analysis and its result-
determine if analysis and
findings are relevant and
resolvable or if additional
analysis or quantitative
analysis is needed to support
action steps
Note: The demonstration recommendations are not inclusive of all available analysis techniques nor do they
presume to be the only techniques appropriate for a particular study.
Implications and Recommendations
The problem for novice student-researchers, particularly dissertation authors, is a lack
of concentrated study and experience within a specific qualitative methodology. This absence
of experience leads mentors and students alike to propose a generic qualitative approach.
However, the generic approach has its own theoretical position at the center of the continuum
of knowing. Generic qualitative research is not a light version of phenomenology or case
study and treating it as such leads to research with many areas of incongruence and possibly a
lack of validity and credibility (Caelli et al., 2003; Percy et al., 2015). The findings from the
Dawn M. Kennedy 1377
research conducted for this paper resulted in several recommendations which include closely
examining one’s theoretical positioning, reflecting on the impetus of the study, determining
one’s analytical/interpretive lens, and only then determining if a generic qualitative inquiry is
appropriate. Once it is determined that a generic qualitative inquiry is appropriate for the
research study and the researcher, it is recommended rather than borrowing from
methodologies the student-researcher presumably does not understand, through lack of study
or experience, the student-researcher instead uses a generic cognition-based analysis method.
It is recommended that the VSAIEEDC model, and its methods, lead to alignment with the
theoretical positioning of a generic qualitative researcher, are incongruence with the
methodology of generic qualitative research, have implicit strategies for rigor, and serve
several analytical lenses within the continuum of knowing. This researcher recommends
using the model, along with the template in Table 1, to effectively produce a generic
qualitative research paper or dissertation.
Conclusion
This article provided a synthesis of the limited extant literature specific to generic
qualitative inquiry and demonstrated how the VSAIEEDC generic analysis model aligned
with generic qualitative inquiry. The overarching goal was to provide novice student
researchers with a deeper understanding of generic qualitative inquiry and to provide a
framework for determining if generic qualitative inquiry is the best suited approach to their
study. Caelli et al. (2003) asserted that generic qualitative inquiry will most likely become
more common and, “Without a body of literature and critical discussion, novice qualitative
researchers, their supervisors, clinical researchers, and manuscript and grant reviewers will
not have the methodological foundations to move forward in their work” (p. 9). This article
sought to move forward the critical discussion of the underpinnings of a generic qualitative
approach and offered a method in congruence with the generic qualitative methodology.
A secondary goal of this article was to assist the novice researcher, who may have
been given a recommendation to pursue the generic qualitative approach, in lending a starting
point in finding their theoretical positioning, in clearly articulating their interpretive lens and
world view, and in understanding why a generic qualitative approach should be taken. A third
goal was to offer a boilerplate for analysis of data generated from a generic inquiry which
would keep the novice researcher’s method and methodology in congruence, enhancing both
quality and rigor in the research process.
References
Caelli, K., Ray, L., & Mill, J. (2003). 'Clear as mud': Toward greater clarity in generic
qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(2), 1-27.
Cho, L. C., Mounoud, E., & Rose, J. (2012). Dealing with the opposition of rigor and
relevance from Dewey’s pragmatist perspective. M@n@gement, 4, 368-390.
doi: 10.3917/mana.154.0368
Cooper S., & Endacott, R. (2007). Generic qualitative research: A design for qualitative
research in emergency care? Emergency Medicine Journal, 24, 816-819.
doi:10.1136/emj.2007.050641
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches (3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Goldkuhl, G. (2012). Pragmatism vs. interpretivism in qualitative information systems
1378 The Qualitative Report 2016
research. European Journal of Information Systems, 21, 135-146.
doi:10.1057/ejis.2011.54
Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 602-611. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2392366
Kennedy, D. M. (2015). Nonprofit real estate association CEOs peer networks: A qualitative
inquiry of social support within the job demands-resources model (Doctoral
dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.
3732421)
McLeod, J. (2001). Qualitative research in counselling and psychotherapy. London, UK:
Sage.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (3rd ed.).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Morse, J. M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2002). Verification strategies
for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International Journal of
Qualitative Methods, 1(2), 1-19. Retrieved from
http://www.iiqm.ualberta.ca/en/InternationalJournalofQualitati.aspx
Percy, W. H., Kostere, K., & Kostere, S. (2015). Generic qualitative research in psychology.
The Qualitative Report, 20(2), 76-85. Retrieved from
http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol20/iss2/7
Persson, R. S. (2006). VSAIEEDC - a cognition-based generic model for qualitative data
analysis in giftedness and talent research. Gifted and Talented International, 21(2),
29-37. Retrieved from http://www.diva-
portal.org/smash/get/diva2:33782/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Persson, R. S. (2010). Experiences of intellectually gifted students in an egalitarian and
inclusive educational system: A survey study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,
33, 536–569. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ893883.pdf
Richards, L., & Morse, J. M. (2013). Read me first for a user’s guide to qualitative methods
(3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Worthington, M. (n.d.). Differences between phenomenological research and a basic
qualitative research design [pdf document]. Capella University dissertation research
materials. Retrieved from
http://a1149861.sites.myregisteredsite.com/DifferencesBetweenPhenomenologicalRes
earchAndBasicQualitativeResearchDesign.pdf
Author Note
Dawn M. Kennedy holds a Ph.D. in Organization and Management with a leadership
specialization from Capella University. Dr. Kennedy currently teaches graduate courses for
REALTOR University, an authorized degree granting private university. Dr. Kennedy has
been conducting qualitative research within the scope of her career as a Chief Executive
Officer of trade associations and trade councils. Correspondence regarding this article can be
addressed directly to: [email protected]
The author wishes to acknowledge the tremendous contribution to the body of
academic knowledge brought forth by Dr. Roland S. Persson MFA, PhD, FCollT, Professor
of Educational Psychology, School of Education & Communication, Jönköping University,
and for his continued assistance in the development of the VSAIEEDC method of analysis.
Copyright 2016: Dawn M. Kennedy and Nova Southeastern University.
Dawn M. Kennedy 1379
Article Citation
Kennedy, D. M. (2016). Is it any clearer? Generic qualitative inquiry and the VSAIEEDC
model of data analysis. The Qualitative Report, 21(8), 1369-1379. Retrieved from
http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol21/iss8/1
