Although qualitative inquiry has developed into a popularized and very useful way of conducting research within the health sciences, there has been a relatively disproportionate amount of literature devoted to “who“ is represented in such inquiries. It is most often assumed that the end text should present an objective, value-free, and accurate representation of the participants and therefore exclude by all means the researcher’s presence from the study. Although this might hold grounds for some inquiries, it is not necessarily the norm of a qualitative research. In this article, the author argues that the representation of the researcher in qualitative inquiries is inevitable, and the exclusion, or not, of the researcher from the text is a mere conventional agreement founded on a paradigmatic consensus. He concludes with the notion that there is a correlation between issues of representation and the researcher’s stated epistemological and ontological assumptions.
Abma, A. T. (2002). Emerging narrative forms of knowledge representation in the health sciences: Two texts in a postmodern context. Qualitative Health Research, 12, 5-27.
2.
Agar, M. (1980). The professional stranger: An informal introduction to ethnography. New York: Academic Press.
3.
Altheide, D. L., & Johnson, J. M. (1994). Criteria for assessing interpretative validity in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 138-157). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4.
Angen, J. M. (2000). Evaluating interpretative inquiry: Reviewing the validity debate and opening the dialogue. Qualitative Health Research, 10, 3-3, 378-395.
5.
Annells, M. (1996). Grounded theory method: Philosophical perspectives, paradigm of inquiry and postmodernism. Qualitative Health Research, 6(3), 379-393.
6.
Atkinson, P., & Hammersley, M. (1998).Ethnography and participant observation. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 110-136). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7.
Ayer, J. A. (1971). Language, truth and logic. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
8.
Badger, T. G. (2000). Action research, change and methodological rigour. Journal of Nursing Management, 8, 201-207.
9.
Barthes, R. (1975). The pleasure of the text. New York: Hill & Wang.
10.
Barthes, R. (1987). Image music text: Selected essays. London: Fontana.
11.
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine.
12.
Blumenfeld-Jones, D. (1995). Fidelity as a criterion for practising and evaluating narrative inquiry. In J. Hatch & R. Wisniewski (Eds.), Life history and narrative (pp. 25-35). London: Falmer.
13.
Boyle, S. J. (1994). Styles of ethnography. In J. M. Morse (Ed.), Critical issues in qualitative research methods (pp. 159-185). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14.
Carter, K. (1993). The place of story in the study of teaching and teacher education. Educational Researcher, 22, 5-12.
15.
Cheek, J. (1996). Taking a view: Qualitative research as representation. Qualitative Health Research, 6, 492-505.
16.
Clandinin, J. D., & Connelly, M. F. (1998). Personal experience methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (pp. 150-178). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17.
Coles, R. (1989). The call of stories: Teaching and the moral imagination. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
18.
Cook, T., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field setting. Chicago: Rand McNally.
19.
Davies, D., & Dodd, J. (2002). Qualitative research and the question of rigor. Qualitative Health Research, 12, 279-289.
20.
Denzin, N. (1997). Interpretative ethnography: Ethnographic practices for the 21st century. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21.
Denzin, N. K. (1998).The art and politics of interpretation. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (pp. 313-371). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1998). Introduction: Entering the field of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (pp. 1-34). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23.
Derrida, J. (1974). Of grammatology (G. C. Spivak, Trans.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
24.
Duhem, P. (1962). The aim and structure of physical theory (R. Wiener, Trans.). New York: Atheneum.
25.
Finlay, L. (2002). Outing the researcher: The provenance, process and practice of reflexivity. Qualitative Health Research, 12, 531-545.
26.
Fox, N. J. (1992). The social meaning of surgery. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
27.
Gadamer, H. G. (1994). Truth and method (2nd ed.). New York: Seabury.
28.
Geertz, C. (1988). Works and lives: The anthropologist as author. Stanford, CT: Stanford University Press.
29.
Glaser, B. (1992). Emergence vs forcing: Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociological Press.
30.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine.
31.
Goldman, A. (1986). Epistemology and cognition. London: Harvard University Press.
32.
Grayling, C. A. (2001). Wittgenstein: A very short introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
33.
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
34.
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
35.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1998). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (pp. 195-220). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
36.
Gutting, G. (2001). French philosophy in the twentieth century. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
37.
Hall, A. W., & Callery, P. (2001). Enhancing the rigor of grounded theory: Incorporating reflexivity and rationality. Qualitative Health Research, 11, 257-272.
38.
Hammond, M., Howarth, J.,& Keat, R. (1991). Understanding phenomenology. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
39.
Henwood, L. K., & Pidgeon, F. N. (1993). Qualitative research and psychological theorizing. In M. Hammersley (Ed.), Social research: Philosophy, politics and practice (pp. 78-92). London: Open University and Sage.
40.
Hertz, R. (1997). Reflexivity and voice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
41.
Hesse, E. (1980). Revolutions and reconstructions in the philosophy of science. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
42.
Huckin, T. (2002).Textual silence and the discourse of homelessness. Discourse & Society, 13(3),347-372.
43.
Husserl, E. (1931). Ideas: General introduction to pure phenomenology (W. R. B. Gibson, Trans.). London: Allen and Unwin.
44.
Jasper, M. (1994). Issues in phenomenology for researchers of nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 19(2), 309-334.
45.
Johnson, L. J. (1997). Generalizability in qualitative research: Excavating the discourse. In J. M. Morse (Ed.), Completing a qualitative project: Details and dialogue (pp. 191-226). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
46.
Johnson, M. (1995). Coping with data in an ethnographic study. Nurse Researcher, 3(2), 22-33.
47.
Johnson, M., Long, T., & White, A. (2001). Arguments for British pluralism in qualitative health research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 33(2), 243-249.
48.
Koch, T. (1994).Establishing rigour in qualitative research: The decision trial. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 19, 976-986.
49.
Krieger, S. (1991). Social science and self: Personal essays as an art form. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
50.
Kuhn, S. T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
51.
Lane, P., McKenna H., Ryan, A., & Fleming P. (2001).Focus group methodology. Nurse Researcher, 8(3), 45-59.
52.
Lather, P. (1992). Critical frames in educational research: Feminist and post-structural perspectives. Theory Into Practice, 31(2), 87-99.
53.
Lecompte, M., (2002). The transformation of ethnographic practice: Past and current challenges. Qualitative Research, 2, 283-299.
54.
Lee, S. D. (2001). The morning tea break ritual: A case study. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 7, 69-73.
55.
Le Roy, E. (1901). Un positivisme nouveau. Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale, 9, 142-176.
56.
Lewis, W. M., & Kelemen, L. M. (2002). Multiparadigm inquiry: Exploring organisational pluralism and paradox. Human Relations, 55(2), 251-275.
57.
Lyotard, J. F. (1992). The postmodern explained to children. London: Turnaround.
58.
Morse, J. M. (2002). A comment on comments. Qualitative Health Research, 12, 3-4.
59.
Morse, J. M., & Singleton, J. (2001).Exploring the technical aspects of “fit” in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 11, 841-847.
60.
Muecke, A. M. (1994).On the evaluation of ethnographies. In J. M. Morse (Ed.), Critical issues in qualitative research methods (pp. 187-209). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
61.
Mulhall, A. (2003). In the field: Notes on observation in qualitative research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 41(3), 306-313.
62.
Nagel, T. (1997). The last word. New York: Oxford University Press.
63.
Patton, Q. M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
64.
Pihlström, S. (1998, August). Narrativity, modernity, and tragedy: How pragmatism educates humanity. Paper presented at the 20th World Congress of Philosophy, Boston.
65.
Polit, F. D., & Hungler, P. B. (1999). Nursing research: Principles and methods. Philadelphia: Lippincott.
66.
Popper, K. (1945). Open society and its enemies. London: Routledge.
67.
Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.
68.
Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective knowledge. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
69.
Quetelet, A. (1968). A treatise on man and the development of his faculties. New York: Burt Franklin.
70.
Ray, M. N. (1994).The richness of phenomenology: Philosophic, theoretic and methodologic concerns. In J. M. Morse (Ed.), Critical issues in qualitative research methods (pp. 117-133). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
71.
Robson, C. (1993). Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner researchers. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
72.
Rolfe G. (2000). Research, truth & authority: Postmodern perspective on nursing. London: Macmillan.
73.
Rolfe, G.(2001).Postmodernism for healthcare workers in 13 easy steps. Nurse Education Today, 21, 38-47.
74.
Rolfe, G. (2002a). Faking a difference: Evidence-based nursing and the illusion of diversity. Nurse Education Today, 22, 3-12.
75.
Rolfe, G. (2002b). Reflexive research and the therapeutic use of self. In D. Freshwater (Ed.), Therapeutic nursing: Improving patient care through self awareness and reflection (pp. 179-194). London: Sage.
76.
Rorty, R. (1980). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
77.
Sandelowski, M. (1986).The problem of rigor in qualitative research. Advancesin Nursing Science, 8, 27-27.
78.
Sandelowski, M. (1995). On aesthetics of qualitative research. Image: The Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 27(3), 205-209.
79.
Sarantakos, S. (1998). Social research (2nd ed.). London: Macmillan.
80.
Smith, M. L. (1998). Biographical method. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 184-260). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
81.
Sokal, A. (1996). A physicist experiment with cultural studies. Lingua Franca, 6(4), 62-64.
82.
Stake, E. R. (1998). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 86-109). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
83.
Stewart, D., & Mickunas, A. (1974). Exploring phenomenology: A guide to the field and its literature. Chicago: American Library Association.
84.
Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. New York: Falmer.
85.
Thorne, S. (1997). The art (and science) of critiquing qualitative research. In J. M. Morse (Ed.), Completinga qualitative project: Details and dialogue (pp. 117-132). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
86.
van Manen M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. Albany: State University of New York Press.
87.
Wolcott, H. F. (2002). Writing up qualitative research... better. Qualitative Health Research, 12, 91-103.
