&1.#>*52=*=2?.$.98;=&1.#>*52=*=2?.$.98;=
(85>6. !>6+.; 8@&8;=2,5.
%=;.70=1.7270=1.182,./8;*.7.;2,#>*52=*=2?.$.<.*;,1%=;.70=1.7270=1.182,./8;*.7.;2,#>*52=*=2?.$.<.*;,1
.<207.<207
.;2552<-
*9.55*'72?.;<2=B
3.;25.552<06*25,86
*?2-*;="1
*9.55*'72?.;<2=B
<=5-*?2-1*;=B*188,86
8558@=12<*7-*--2=287*5@8;4<*=1==9<7<>@8;4<78?*.->=:;
"*;=8/=1.201.;->,*=28786687<#>*7=2=*=2?.#>*52=*=2?.869*;*=2?.*7-2<=8;2,*5
.=18-85802.<86687<*7-=1.%8,2*5%=*=2<=2,<86687<
$.,866.7-.-"2=*=287$.,866.7-.-"2=*=287
552<*;=%=;.70=1.7270=1.182,./8;*.7.;2,#>*52=*=2?.$.<.*;,1.<207
&1.
#>*52=*=2?.$.98;=
1==9<-828;0
&12<8@&8;=2,5.2<+;8>01==8B8>/8;/;..*7-89.7*,,.<<+B=1.&1.#>*52=*=2?.$.98;=*=!%')8;4<=1*<
+..7*,,.9=.-/8;27,5><28727&1.#>*52=*=2?.$.98;=+B*7*>=18;2C.-*-6272<=;*=8;8/!%')8;4<8;68;.
27/8;6*=28795.*<.,87=*,=7<>@8;4<78?*.->
%=;.70=1.7270=1.182,./8;*.7.;2,#>*52=*=2?.$.<.*;,1.<207%=;.70=1.7270=1.182,./8;*.7.;2,#>*52=*=2?.$.<.*;,1.<207
+<=;*,=+<=;*,=
%>998;=270=1.,182,./8;;.<.*;,1><270*0.7.;2,:>*52=*=2?.-.<2072<7..-.-=8*<<2<==1.;.<.*;,1.;<
@2=11.59/>50>2-*7,.*7--.<,;29=287<*+8>==1.*99;8*,127;.<.*;,1&1.7*6.D0.7.;2,E,*7+.;*=1.;
8+=><..=.;6272702=<*99;89;2*=.7.<<08.<+.B87--2<,><<287<*+8>=,86+27270.5.6.7=<8/8=1.;
=;*-2=287*5:>*52=*=2?.-.<207<*7-,87<2-.;<=1.0.7.;2,*99;8*,1*<*<=*7-*587.6.=18-8580B.<92=.
2=<271.;.7=G.A2+252=B=1.<=;.70=18/=1.0.7.;2,-.<2078//.;<*?2.@8/-.<,;29=2?.;.<.*;,1-*=*/8;
27=.;9;.=*=287=1*=27,5>-.<9.;<87*56.*72706*427027;.<.*;,1*7-2<9*;=2,>5*;5B@.55<>2=.-/8;
,8>7<.5270*7-8=1.;<8,2*5<,2.7,.<&1.<=;.70=1<+.7.F=<*7-5262=*=287<8/=1.0.7.;2,-.<207*;.
;[email protected]=8*<<2<==1.;.<.*;,1.;<27=1.2;<.5.,=2878/*0.7.;2,:>*52=*=2?.;.<.*;,16.=18-8580B*7-
/>;=1.;=1.9;8/.<<287*552=.;*=>;.@2=127,;.*<.-[email protected].*7->7-.;<=*7-2708>7<.52709;8/.<<287*5<
+.7.F=/;86=1.0.7.;2,-.<207+.,*><.8/2=<.A958;*=8;B7*=>;.27=8;.*5@8;5-.A9.;2.7,.<*<9.;,.2?.-
+B=18<.@1852?.=1.6
.B@8;-<.B@8;-<
:>*52=*=2?.;.<.*;,10.7.;2,:>*52=*=2?.;.<.*;,1+*<2,:>*52=*=2?.;.<.*;,1G.A2+252=B27:>*52=*=2?.
;.<.*;,1
;.*=2?.86687<2,.7<.;.*=2?.86687<2,.7<.
&12<@8;42<52,.7<.->7-.;*;.*=2?.86687<==;2+>=287!87,866.;,2*5%1*;.524.7=.;7*=287*5
2,.7<.
,[email protected]=<,[email protected]=<
&1*74B8>/8;=1.*-?2,.
&12<18@=8*;=2,5.2<*?*25*+5.27&1.#>*52=*=2?.$.98;=1==9<7<>@8;4<78?*.->=:;?852<<
The Qualitative Report 2023 Volume 28, Number 6, 1759-1768
https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2023.5474
Strengthening the Choice for a Generic Qualitative Research
Design
Jeri L. Ellis and David L. Hart
Capella University, USA
Supporting the choice for research using a generic qualitative design is needed
to assist the researchers with helpful guidance and descriptions about the
approach in research. The name “generic” can be rather obtuse. Determining its
appropriateness goes beyond discussions about combining elements of other
traditional qualitative designs and considers the generic approach as a
standalone methodology. Despite its inherent flexibility, the strength of the
generic design offers a view of descriptive research data for interpretation that
includes personal meaning making in research and is particularly well suited for
counseling and other social sciences. The strengths, benefits, and limitations of
the generic design are reviewed to assist the researchers in their selection of a
generic qualitative research methodology and further the professional literature
with increased knowledge and understanding. Counseling professionals benefit
from the generic design because of its exploratory nature into real world
experiences as perceived by those who live them.
Keywords: qualitative research, generic qualitative research, basic qualitative
research, flexibility in qualitative research
Introduction
With qualitative research constantly evolving and increasing in the number of
submissions for dissertations, journal articles, and manuscripts (Anderson, 2017; Bellamy et
al., 2016; Brown, 2019; Caelli et al., 2003; Cooper & Endacott, 2007; Kahlke, 2014, 2017;
Levitt et al., 2017; Percy et al., 2015), such growth in the counseling profession (Hays et al.,
2016; Prosek & Gibson, 2020) has prompted discussion about clarification of the various types
of qualitative methodological approaches. The rationale for choosing a qualitative approach is
not in question but increasing numbers of researchers are relying on the concept of flexibility
and openness in the generic approach as justification for its use (Chenail et al., 2011; Cooper
& Endacott, 2007). When research questions lead to a qualitative lens that offers flexibility in
designing the study, the generic approach has become a strong choice in counseling and other
social sciences (Caelli et al., 2003; Florczak, 2017; Kahlke, 2014; Levitt et al., 2017; Percy et
al., 2015; Willgens et al., 2016).
As faculty mentors for dissertations in the counselor education and supervision
profession, we have found generic studies to be preferential over other qualitative methods by
more than half. So, what is it that makes this a preferred method? Counseling topics include
many exploratory areas where little research is found. Seeking depth of experiences with
individuals who live through them could very well be phenomenological research, but the
generic approach offers researchers the opportunity to develop questions and ideas for topics
that can be differentiated at a higher level of inquiry (Bellamy et al., 2016; Prosek & Gibson,
2020). The intention of generic methods includes representation of a broad range of ideas,
beliefs, and experiences, thus making the choice practical for counselor educators as they seek
1760 The Qualitative Report 2023
to know more about people’s lives through what occurs in the real world and not bounded by
internal psychological meanings (Aguas, 2021; Bellamy et al., 2016; Caelli et al., 2003; Percy
et al., 2015). Quite often generic qualitative methodology is used as a last resort rather than a
standalone preference like phenomenology or case study research (Kahlke, 2014). When
research questions are more exploratory in nature or when there are limitations in obtaining
data, a generic approach, however, can be useful (Kahlke, 2014).
In our experience, there have been inquiries as to the academic rigor in using a generic
method (Abutabenjeh & Jaradat, 2018; Hays et al., 2016). Support for the strength of the
generic qualitative design is discussed hereafter. Defining the generic method and comparing
it to phenomenology provides some discussion about the benefits of generic qualitative
methods as an intentional choice. First, generic qualitative is defined, then compared to
phenomenological research. Then, the benefits and limitations support that a generic approach
is not “a last resort,” but a soundly considered research methodology well suited to the
counseling profession.
Generic Qualitative Methodology Defined
A qualitative research method is selected to collect real world data in words without
pre-set answers and then interpret the meaning individuals associate with the given social or
individual concern using interviews (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Silverman, 2016). The term
“naturalistic” is often used to acknowledge the focus on settings of generic research where
interest lies in the meaning made by the research participants of the phenomena under study
(Kahlke, 2014). Among the various qualitative research designs are the traditional approaches
of ethnography, case study, narrative, grounded theory, generic, and phenomenology (Chenail
et al., 2011; Percy et al., 2015). However, the qualitative form of the generic approach and
attention to its growing evolution in recent years is warranted.
The commonality to all types of qualitative research is using words and language as
data to express information, definitions, uncovered realizations, and affirmations of subtleties
in the human experience (Daher et al., 2017; Levitt et al., 2017; Percy et al., 2015). The generic
qualitative approach is a design to discover and explore firsthand experiences described by
individuals within a real-world context (Chenail et al., 2011; Kahlke, 2014; Levitt et al., 2019;
Percy et al., 2015; Willgens et al., 2016). Multiple authors have commented on the need for
more clarity on using the generic qualitative approach over the years (Aguas, 2021; Aronson,
1994; Bellamy et al., 2016; Cooper & Endacott, 2007; Merriam, 1998, 2009), such as Caelli et
al.’s (2003) article with the clever title wording “clear as mud.” Most recently, Kostere and
Kostere (2021) supported the need for a better definition of this method in a text to include
specific identifiable procedures and the presentation of the researcher’s theoretical orientation
in dissertations. Still, their definition lacks specificity beyond emphasis on qualitative
methodology using qualitative procedures to explore people’s practical experiences (Kostere
& Kostere, 2021, p. 3). What makes generic qualitative methodology unique?
Building upon work published by Caelli et al. (2003), Kahlke (2014), Percy et al.
(2015), and others, justification for selecting generic qualitative design has shown to be
appropriate when the purpose is to understand the perceived experiences and unique
perspectives about those experiences from the participants involved in the study. A generic
approach does not focus on a cultural context for interpretation from which meaning is made
(Hays & Singh, 2012). Even so, Percy et al. (2015) stated that generic qualitative inquiry is
useful when trying to determine participants’ subjective beliefs and opinions about their
external experiences, or experiences that are part of their living in the world, which is what
makes it distinct from other methods.
Jeri L. Ellis and David L. Hart 1761
Looking broadly into topics of interest offers opportunities for research that is creative,
adaptable, and even unconventional (Kahlke, 2018). Kahlke (2014) described the generic
approach with descriptive and interpretive facets to assist researchers in selecting a
methodology but adding more naturalistic details in the present context of exploration. A
generic qualitative research design is one approach to conduct research on the nuances of
complex phenomena by engaging with the population of study and providing detailed
descriptions of the qualitative process and findings from their points of view (Chenail et al.,
2011; Daniel, 2019).
When topics are exploratory in nature, small sample sizes with depth are what generic
research provides that allows for increased descriptions of subtleties in the research design and
analysis (Kahlke, 2017). However, even larger sample sizes provide for breadth of discovery,
but not always depth in the research topic (Brown, 2019). Additional discussion about the
meanings identified and thematized adds to the qualitative richness of the generic methodology
when researchers draw conclusions from the participants’ perspectives (Daher et al., 2017).
A generic qualitative approach for gathering and analyzing data provides the inquirer
with a sense of flexibility (Kennedy, 2016; Percy et al., 2015). Such freedom to include
characteristics of other qualitative designs while not being completely grounded in them allows
for inquiry of broad experiential phenomena. Qualitative designs analyze and gain an
understanding about specific areas of interest based upon how people experience the world and
their place in it (Chenail et al., 2011; Daher et al., 2017). A generic qualitative approach in
research attends to experiences that are more descriptive and perhaps limited in research rather
than those that are of a lived experience that phenomenology explores with more depth of
experiences (Percy et al., 2015).
Comparison with Phenomenology
In our experience, the most common challenge when selecting which qualitative
approach is most suitable is differentiating a generic approach from phenomenology (Percy et
al., 2015). Phenomenology is a methodology that explores the thing that makes participants
human through their lived experiences in an area of interest (Aguas, 2021; Finlay, 2011).
Whereas a generic qualitative approach explores the perceptions of participants about a
phenomenon, the phenomenological method explores the “embodied experience” (Finlay,
2011, p. 16). By design, phenomenology asks a broad general question about the real world
lived experiences of individuals and how those experiences affected their lives.
Though Husserl’s (1962) philosophical ideas created the basis for phenomenology, its
distinctive focus is on the essence of the phenomenon (Prosek & Gibson, 2021). The
descriptions provide vivid content of the experience across multiple participants rather than
meaning making to the individual (Giorgi, 2009). It was Van Manen (1990) who established
hermeneutical phenomenology with four themes to guide researchers in their reflections on the
ways in which we act, think, behave, and live in the world. Lived space is the experience of a
place, lived body is the way our physical self feels, lived time is the temporal experience rather
than clock time, and lived relations relates to our experiences of others (Finlay, 2011, p. 20).
Altogether, the importance of mind, body, self, and others is inherent in studies that explore
physical engagement in the world (Aguas, 2021).
Much of the literature emphasizes flexible foundations in using a generic qualitative
approach, which stretches traditional research boundaries typically confined to other
epistemological and ontological orientations, such as phenomenology (Chenail et al., 2011;
Kahlke, 2014; Levitt et al., 2019). The phenomenological approach offers a way that
participants can describe their lived internal experiences in a time and space where they can
feel heard, satisfied, and even relieved of experiential loneliness (Moustakas, 1994). By design,
1762 The Qualitative Report 2023
Moustakas intended to allow phenomena and the participants living through them to speak for
themselves. At its beginning, Moustakas (1994) was not heavily structured in his interview
process with research participants, beginning with a social conversation to establish comfort in
the interview venue. Afterwards, the “co-researcher” (participant) was asked to focus on the
phenomenon being explored and to describe meaning and depth of experiences that pertained
to that event or experience. Such questions consisted of “What were the feelings experienced?”
or “What thoughts stood out for you?” Finally, questions were asked about the effects of the
phenomenon in question on the individual’s life, including questions such as “How did the
experience affect you?” or “What changes did you notice?” According to Moustakas (1994),
textural themes are those that describe phenomenal or material qualities of an experience, or
“what” occurred, whereas structural themes represent meanings of the experience, or “how”
their lives were affected. Common themes were assessed, and, in the end, textural and structural
descriptions were recognized, and meanings and essences were considered (Moustakas, 1994).
More recently, Creswell (2018) maintained that phenomenology is a form of inquiry
that asks two primary questions: “What have been experiences about the phenomenon in
question?” and “What factors have impacted your experiences of that phenomenon?” Giorgi
(2009) emphasized the need to “direct” participants as opposed to “leading” them so that the
researcher’s phenomenon of interest can be addressed. After all, the researcher is concerned
about details and content in terms of their relevance to the experience being researched (Giorgi,
2009). In addition, phenomenology’s focus is on the lived experiencing of the participant’s
phenomenon in their internal impressions and cognitive processes about the activity (Van
Manen, 1990), whereas the generic qualitative approach lends its attention to what the
experiences are about, and the content of the conscious experience as perceived by the
participants (Aguas, 2021; Percy et al., 2015).
While phenomenology explores the lived experience of an identified phenomenon, such
as what it is to be mourning and in grief, generic qualitative methodology explores the ways
the experience is described and perceived in the real-world context (Willgens et al., 2016).
Such focus on individual perceptions of their experiences allows the researcher in a generic
qualitative approach to stay close to the data and its analysis using participants’ actual words
(Kahlke, 2014; Sandelowski, 2010). We have found that in counseling and other social
sciences, the constructivist nature of such an approach promotes unique research that is not
easily generalizable but provides richness in its findings as highlighted by Brown (2019). In
qualitative research, there can be more elaborate descriptions, observations, and narratives that
phenomenology may not capture. The generic approach allows for questions that can include
specificity to broaden the data for analysis and description (Kahlke, 2014, 2017; Percy et al.,
2015). The generic qualitative approach, therefore, affords the researcher flexibility, as it
infuses the narratives with broad descriptions and does not adhere to the bounded philosophies
of the more traditional research designs.
Benefits of Generic Qualitative
It has been suggested that the generic qualitative research design is most appropriately
applied when other research designs are ill-equipped to align with the research topic being
investigated (Percy et al., 2015). We contend that the wide variety of research topics in
counselor education and supervision particularly benefit from using rigorous qualitative
procedures but designing that research with generic methodology in mind. However, many
researchers contend that this tendency to view studies broadly is by design, thereby
intentionally refusing to align with any single design (Kahlke, 2014). As a result, “generic
qualitative studies can draw on the strengths of established methodologies while maintaining
the flexibility that makes generic approaches attractive to researchers whose studies do not fall
Jeri L. Ellis and David L. Hart 1763
neatly within a particular established methodology” (Kahlke, 2014, p. 39). Subsequently, this
inherent flexibility results in preventing a generic qualitative design from fading from the
research methods horizon, as reminded by Caelli et al. (2003).
Determining the appropriateness of the generic qualitative research methodology goes
beyond what some have described as combining elements of other qualitative methods. Some
researchers maintain that because the generic qualitative approach is not clearly defined by
traditional boundaries, it possesses elements of other qualitative designs (Kennedy, 2016).
Also, because it maintains a sense of flexibility that other designs do not, it is not viewed as
having the foundation on which to build a credible study (Caelli et al., 2003). However,
considering that the generic qualitative approach consists of few characteristics that
differentiate it from others, it is time to realize that conducting a generic qualitative research
study includes a similar merit, a certain trustworthiness, transferability, and credibility like
other established qualitative designs such as phenomenology or a narrative design, and can
stand as a fully acceptable and respected methodology in today’s world of research, a
contention that has been challenged in the past (Kahlke, 2014).
Rigor (trustworthiness) is just one area where qualitative researchers often find
themselves defending their choice in methodology (Anderson, 2017). Kahlke (2018) proposed
strong conventions around our methodology so that flexibility and adaptability are perceived
as effective and valuable reporting to ensure high quality that distinguishes rigor. Despite the
general acceptance that all qualitative research assumes multiple realities, a generic design is
still bound to theory, quality data collection, and data analysis (Anderson, 2017; Caelli et al.,
2003). What motivated the researcher to study the topic involves a need for congruence to align
the assumptions of methodology and theory and obtain a credible and trustworthy analysis
(Bellamy et al., 2016; Rose & Johnson, 2020).
Whereas phenomenology is used to gather information about the lived experiences of
participants, by design it typically asks questions so that the interviewee’s agenda can be
recognized (Creswell & Poth, 2018). A narrative design, for example, claims to acquire a rich
understanding of experiences through a thorough review of the participants’ stories providing
the necessary data via narrative interviews and even oral histories (Levitt et al., 2017). The
generic qualitative design is expressive as interviewees are asked specific questions on the
topic of interest while attending to an external rendition of personal experiences and actual
activities described in contextual settings (Cooper & Endacott, 2007; Kennedy, 2016).
Some researchers contend that the literature about the generic qualitative approach that
exists in higher education journals lacks complexity (Kennedy, 2016). In counseling, a recent
article failed to even identify generic methodology at all (Prosek & Gibson, 2020). Many such
professionals in the field of research go further to claim that generic qualitative approaches
lack thoroughness in their philosophical assumptions (Percy et al., 2015). Those assumptions
present ontological, epistemological, axiological, and methodological questions that must be
answered in any research study (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Levitt et al., 2019). An ontological
stance explores the nature of reality for the notion being examined. Epistemology poses the
question “what is the relationship between the researcher and the concept being studied?” An
axiological question asks of values and/or biases on the part of the researcher. Finally, a
methodological assumption is that the qualitative researcher maintains inductive reasoning
skills and implements an acceptable research design to guide the study. Whereas the generic
qualitative design is now clearly recognized as a format that can enlighten researchers about
the perceptions of an individual’s reality, the relationship between the researcher and that
which is being researched, the roles and values present in the study, and the method used during
the research process (Levitt et al., 2017, 2019). Due to the increasing popularity of the generic
qualitative design, many dissertation writers and researchers alike continue to share significant
and informative results yielded by this research choice.
1764 The Qualitative Report 2023
Limitations of Generic Qualitative
Counseling qualitative researchers tend to ask questions about topics of meaning,
experiences, and perspectives, with questions that are important across methodologies,
traditions, and experiences (Rose & Johnson, 2020). When these issues are addressed through
qualitative research methodologies, they are subjective. Humans make meaning of their
experiences in life, which allows for interpretation to make sense of the data (Anderson, 2017;
Rose & Johnson, 2020). There often becomes a perceived need to justify qualitative analysis
through a sense of objectivity and responsibility, which in a generic design means the
researcher is influenced by reading, discussions, and subjective beliefs (Brown, 2019; Rose &
Johnson, 2020). Trustworthiness continually comes to the forefront of discussions around any
type of qualitative research, but certainly around the generic approach that promotes
exploration and flexibility (Bellamy et al., 2016; Rose & Johnson, 2020).
Kahlke (2014) presented an extensive review of some challenges noted in literature. At
times presented as a positive option, what has been termed “method slurring” (Chenail et al.,
2011; Kahlke, 2014) is one issue commonly noted with generic qualitative research where the
design may include combining components from multiple methods (Bellamy et al., 2016). Of
significant concern, comments that challenge the credibility of generic research have been
refuted over time with extensive description of the appropriateness for its selection according
to the research question and approach to answer it most pragmatically (Bellamy et al., 2016;
Cooper & Endacott, 2007; Kahlke, 2017). Credibility needs to be addressed in every research
study and for generic qualitative research, Caelli et al. (2003) presented key areas for
consideration: theoretical position, correspondence of methods to the methodology, lens used
for data analysis, and research strategies to provide trustworthiness and rigor. Numerous
authors have explored the issue and found that due to the uniqueness of each research question
and various strategies, indicators of rigor and trustworthiness will continue to be reviewed and
assessed (Creswell & Miller, 2000; Daniel, 2019; Florczak, 2017; Percy et al., 2015).
Conclusion
To facilitate the interview, multiple questions or prompts can be used to allow
participants to elaborate on previously identified experiences (Kahlke, 2014; Kennedy, 2016;
Levitt et al., 2017). This approach in the generic method allows for impressions or perceptions
deemed significant to the interviewee to be identified and described. Consequently, holistic
experiences from the aspects of all senses are potentially explored in the phenomenological
approach when thick descriptions are captured to get at the essence of what is occurring in the
phenomenon from those who lived it (Finlay, 2011). On the other hand, the generic qualitative
format provides an opportunity for the researcher to ask exploratory questions about a
phenomenon, thereby gathering data about how people perceived their experience of the
phenomenon (Brake & Kelly, 2019).
The generic qualitative approach does not always adhere to the characteristics of a
single established methodological tradition; however, it provides researchers with an ability to
explore a phenomenon or experience according to descriptions of attitudes, beliefs, and
opinions as well as the facts thereof (Bellamy et al., 2016). Some researchers suggest that the
characteristics of the generic qualitative and phenomenological approaches are very similar
and even overlap considerably so that the differences are indistinguishable (Chenail et al.,
2011). It is apparent that from questions about the strength and benefits of choosing a generic
approach, a solid rationale must be presented to ensure the selection of the methodology fits
the research topic and purpose (Hays et al., 2016). Not only must the methodology fit in this
way, but there must be specific points highlighted to show how such a choice furthers
Jeri L. Ellis and David L. Hart 1765
professional literature in a way that increases knowledge and understanding. Generic
qualitative has little research specifically noting its strengths (Kahlke, 2017), so even this
article acknowledges limitations, though with more academic discussion of what some consider
to be limitations may be additive to researchers’ perceptions of the methodology. In fact, Brake
and Kelly (2019) noted that a generic approach is especially appropriate when there is little
foundational literature on the topic. Ongoing discussions about the methodology aligned with
the phenomena will strengthen selections for qualitative research in general.
Particularly noting the absence of significant contributions to the professional literature
specifically on generic methodology, more articles that clarify and present purpose and
foundations of the research present information that allows for significant consideration when
designing a research study. Qualitative research adds to subjective truth about phenomena but
together creates a rich context through which an in-depth understanding is developed (Caelli
et al., 2003; Florczak, 2017). Truth is exposed through various questions and methods to find
meaning from multiple sources. Generic qualitative research allows for enough flexibility to
explore multiple realities that exist but vary depending on environment and culture (Bellamy
et al., 2016; Florczak, 2017). Some of the flexibility comes in the analysis of data (Brake &
Kelly, 2019). More than just asking for participants to tell their story, as in phenomenology
(Florczak, 2017), generic methodology provides for more specific questions in addition to the
research question, so the data provides descriptions of meaningful details about the outward
experience.
Emphasis on providing detailed descriptions of the qualitative process and findings
(Daniel, 2019) is reiterated to note the advantage of utilizing generic methodology, particularly
by including the philosophical underpinning (Caelli et al., 2003; Daniel, 2019; Levitt et al.,
2019). All qualitative research gains rigor by identifying bias and expressed philosophical
assumptions expected with other qualitative approaches (Caelli et al., 2003). In generic
qualitative research, it is essential to identify any assumptions or bias to demonstrate the
researcher’s point of view using a strategy like reflectivity that allows the researcher to
understand their position in the research (Creswell & Poth, 2018). To that point, Brown (2019)
encouraged a reflexive approach in the work between researcher and participants to reduce the
role differential innate to the experience. Additionally, caution is encouraged by Chenail et al.
(2011) as reported findings are offered within the context of the research.
Kennedy (2016) proposed a specific model to help novice researchers discern the
appropriateness of generic qualitative research for their studies. The generic qualitative
research design serves as a guide for many studies and is consistently incorporated into a
variety of research studies by researchers and students alike (Kahlke, 2014; Kennedy, 2016;
Levitt et al., 2019). Therefore, some researchers promote generic qualitative research as a
standalone and valuable framework for studies about human experiences. There is limited
information available, however, so it becomes clear that authors often write about what generic
qualitative research is not. It is often vague, applicable in various settings, and does not adhere
to the philosophic assumptions of other traditional qualitative designs (Levitt et al.,
2017). Even though Eliot and Timulak (2021) provided steps for research using the generic
qualitative method, they emphasized the meaning of data that arises from the narratives of real-
world participants close to the research. Still, the choice to follow a generic qualitative
methodological approach embeds a philosophical footing that is intentional, or surely needs to
be (Josilowski, 2019; Kennedy, 2016). Identified as “generic,” this qualitative approach
promotes research as nonspecific, basic, or common. However, is it time to give this approach
a more appropriate name? We welcome your input.
1766 The Qualitative Report 2023
References
Abutabenjeh, S., & Jaradat, R. (2018). Clarification of research design, research methods, and
research methodology: A guide for public administration researchers and practitioners.
Teaching Public Administration, 36(3), 237-258.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0144739418775787
Aguas, P. P. (2021). Fusing approaches in educational research: Data collection and data
analysis in phenomenological research. The Qualitative Report, 27(1), 1-20.
https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2022.5027
Anderson, V. (2017). Criteria for evaluating qualitative research. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 28(2), 125-133. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21282
Aronson, J. (1994). A pragmatic view of thematic analysis. The Qualitative Report, 2(1), 1-
3. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/1995.2069
Bellamy, K., Ostini, R., Martini, N., & Kairuz, T. (2016). Seeking to understand: Using generic
qualitative research to explore access to medicines and pharmacy services among
resettled refugees. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, 38(3), 671-675.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11096-016-0261-1
Brake, A., & Kelly, M. S. (2019). Camaraderie, collaboration, and capacity building: A
qualitative examination of school social workers in a yearlong professional learning
community. The Qualitative Report, 24(4), 667-692. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-
3715/2019.3779
Brown, N. (2019). “Listen to your gut”: A reflexive approach to data analysis. The Qualitative
Report, 24(13), 31-43. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2019.4119
Caelli, K., Ray, L., & Mill, J. (2003). ‘Clear as mud’: Toward greater clarity in generic
qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(2), 1-13.
https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690300200201
Chenail, R. J., Duffy, M., St. George, S., & Wulff, D. (2011). Facilitating coherence across
qualitative research papers. The Qualitative Report, 16(1), 263-275.
https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2011.1052
Cooper, S., & Endacott, R. (2007). Generic qualitative research: A design for qualitative
research in emergency care? Emergency Medicine Journal, 24(12), 816-819.
https://doi.org/10.1136/emj.2007.050641
Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory
Into Practice, 39(3), 124-130.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design (4
th
ed.). Sage.
Daher, M., Carre, D., Jaramillo, A., Olivares, H., & Tomicic, A. (2017). Experience and
meaning in qualitative research: A conceptual review and methodological device
proposal. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 18(3), Art. 9.
Daniel, B. K. (2019). Using the TACT framework to learn the principles of rigour in qualitative
research. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 17(3), 118-129.
Eliot, R., & Timulak, S. (2021). Essentials of descriptive-interpretive qualitative research.
American Psychological Association.
Finlay, L. (2011). Phenomenology for therapists: Researching the lived world. John Wiley &
Sons.
Florczak, K. L. (2017). Adding to the truth of the matter: The case for qualitative research.
Nursing Science Quarterly, 30(4), 296-299.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0894318417724466
Giorgi, A. (2009). The descriptive phenomenological method in psychology: A modified
Husserlian approach. Duquesne University Press.
Hays, D. G., & Singh, A. A. (2012). Qualitative inquiry in clinical and educational settings.
Jeri L. Ellis and David L. Hart 1767
Guilford.
Hays, D. G., Wood, C., Dahl, H., & Kirk-Jenkins, A. (2016). Methodological rigor in Journal
of Counseling & Development qualitative research articles: A 15-year review. Journal
of Counseling & Development, 94, 172-183. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12074
Husserl, E. (1962). Ideas: General introduction to pure phenomenology. Collier Books.
Josilowski, C. S. (2019). Teachers’ perceptions of the home-school collaboration: Enhancing
learning for children with autism. The Qualitative Report, 24(12), 3008-3021.
https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2019.3408
Kahlke, R. M. (2014). Generic qualitative approaches: Pitfalls and benefits of methodological
mixology. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 37-52.
https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691401300119
Kahlke, R. M. (2017). The qualitative quality conversation. Medical Education, 51, 5–7.
https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13224
Kahlke, R. (2018). Reflection/commentary on a past article: Generic qualitative approaches:
Pitfalls and benefits of methodological mixology. International Journal of Qualitative
Methods, 17, 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918788193
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.
https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2016.2444
Kostere, S., & Kostere, K. (2021). The generic qualitative approach to a dissertation in the
social sciences: A step by step guide (1
st
ed.). Routledge.
Levitt, H. M., Morrill, Z., & Collins, K. M. (2019). Considering methodological integrity in
counselling and psychotherapy research. Counselling & Psychotherapy Research, 20,
422-428. https://doi.org/10.1002/capr.12284
Levitt, H. M., Motulsky, S. L., Wertz, F. J., Morrow, S. L., & Ponterotto, J. G. (2017).
Recommendations for designing and reviewing qualitative research in psychology:
Promoting methodological integrity. Qualitative Psychology, 4(1), 2-22.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/qup0000082
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Jossey-
Bass.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementations (3
rd
ed.).
Jossey-Bass.
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Sage.
Percy, W. H., Kostere, K., & Kostere, S. (2015). Generic qualitative research in psychology.
The Qualitative Report, 20(2), 76-85. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2015.2097
Prosek, E. A., & Gibson, D. M. (2020). Promoting rigorous research by examining lived
experiences: A review of four qualitative traditions. Journal of Counseling &
Development, 99, 167-177. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12364
Rose, J., & Johnson, C. W. (2020). Contextualizing reliability and validity in qualitative
research: Toward more rigorous and trustworthy qualitative social science in leisure
research. Journal of Leisure Research Urbana, 51(4), 432-
451. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2020.1722042
Sandelowski, M. (2010). What’s in a name? Qualitative description revisited. Research in
Nursing and Health, 33, 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20362
Silverman, D. (Ed.). (2016). Qualitative research (4
th
ed.). Sage
Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive
pedagogy. State University of New York Press.
Willgens, A. M., Cooper, R., Jadotte, D., Lilyea, B., Langtiw, C. L., & Obenchain-Leeson, A.
(2016). How to enhance qualitative research appraisal: Development of the
Methodological Congruence Instrument. The Qualitative Report, 21(12), 2380-
1768 The Qualitative Report 2023
2395. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2016.2361
Author Note
Jeri L. Ellis graduated from the University of Cincinnati and trained in qualitative
methodology for her Ed.D. in Counselor Education and Supervision in 2007. Her background
includes clinical mental health counseling, school counseling and practice as a hospital
chaplain. She joined Capella University in 2010 in the Counselor Education unit and works as
the Program Coordinator of the Ph.D. in Counselor Education and Supervision. Dr. Ellis
teaches and mentors qualitative dissertations among her various duties. As a Licensed
Professional Counselor, Dr. Ellis also maintains a small counseling practice. Correspondence
can be addressed to [email protected].
David L. Hart completed his Ph.D. in Counseling Studies at Capella University in 2014
where he trained in qualitative methodology. Dr. Hart has been a Licensed Professional
Counselor and National Certified Counselor in practice for 23 years. He joined Capella as a
part time faculty member in 2015 and mentors’ qualitative dissertations. Correspondence can
be addressed to [email protected].
Acknowledgements: Thank you for the advice.
Copyright 2023: Jeri L. Ellis, David L. Hart, and Nova Southeastern University.
Article Citation
Ellis, J. L., & Hart, D. L. (2023). Strengthening the choice for a generic qualitative research
design. The Qualitative Report, 28(6), 1759-1768. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-
3715/2023.5474
