Select Page

Completed Matrix With NarrativeAs you complete the work on your matrix, observe how the approaches are similar and different across and down the cells. You will need to draw on those observations as you develop your narrative this week. As you prepare to develop your narrative, it is also important to organize your references so that you can refer back to the original sources. For this Assignment, you will create a brief narrative summarizing what you have learned, citing your sources. This Assignment will be a helpful guide as you read other qualitative studies for your capstone.To prepare for this Assignment:Review the work that you have done in the last two weeks, making sure that each cell in the matrix is completed.Create your reference list, including books and methodological articles on each area. You can use the ones listed in the Learning Resources and search for your own as well.Write a 2- to 3-page narrative. In your narrative, be sure to respond to the following:Summarize what you have learned about the similarities and differences among the approaches.Describe how what you’ve learned by developing the matrix has allowed you to choose the approach that you plan to use for your research plan in this course.Identify the approach you intend to use for your research question.Describe your rationale for your choice of approach.


Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Week 4 Qualitative Research Methods Matrix With Narrative Analysis
Just from $10/Page
Order Essay



Unformatted Attachment Preview

Qualitative Research Methods Matrix
Basic Qualitative
Disciplinary Roots
Philosophy, history
Focus of Central Research

How can the experience
of [an event,
circumstance, program, a
context] be described or
What is the meaning of [a
process, program, or
event] to the target
individual(s) of interest?
Unique Terminology
Primary Data
Use of the words
“experience,” and
“meaning” in title
and research
Holistic inquiry
documents, reports
and observation
Sampling Issues
Analysis Plan
Choice is a function
of the question
Content analysis
is a good choice
as it is generic
and exploratory
Elo et al., 2014
Merriam, 2009
Saldana, 2016
Submit in Week 2

Qualitative Case
Examination of
specific area of
Historical case study
Psychological case
Ethnographic case
Sociological case
Grounded Theory
Pstchology, medical
What “practical”
knowledge can be
What is the mission, vision
and goals of the organisation?
what leadership qualities are
depicted by the organisation
Natural setting
What measures does the
organisation put in place to
achieve their objectives?
Determining how
the case illustrates
the issue under
What psychological issues are
tackled in the case?
Which theory can be deduced
The researcher
should should be
careful to ensure
that he selects
Emergence of theory,
Focuses on a
of a
Content analysis
Patton, 2014
Hays & Singh,
Harling, 2012
Crawford & Letts,
Jørgensen, 2001
and Realism
and Heuristic
sociology, psychiatry,
management, drama,
education and
from the given events?
Sociology and
social work
How do small retail
merchants approve or decline
customers for credit?
inductive, theoretical
sampling, constant
comparison, open
coding, axial coding,
saturation, memo
documents, open
and axial coding
sampling tends to
be elusive and
of interview
notes, field notes
or documents.
Focuses on
organisation of
various ideas
from analysis of
Barello et al.,
2015, Charmaz,
What is the meaning,
structure, and essence of the
lived experience of this
phenomenon for this person
or group of people?
textural description,
Involves collection
of extensive
information from
the sample,
handling varied
impressions ,
Systemic analysis
Howard & Hirani,
Select individuals
who have directly
experienced the
phenomenon of
Analysis is done
throughout the
research process.
Submit in Week 3
What is my experience of this
phenomenon and the
essential experience of others
who also experience this
phenomenon intensely?
and Narrative
Systems Theory
Social sciences, oral
biographical study,
life history
What contextual elements
determine how researchers
construct, study and report
their findings?
How do participants
conceptualize the research
abiographical study,
focus groups
Casey, Shaw &
Murphy, 2013,
Creswell, &
Poth, 2017
Analysis of a
Creswell, & Poth,
Ethnography and
Interactive and
Highlight indicates example response.
Modified from Patton, M.Q. (2014). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications
Hays, D. G., & Singh, A. A. (2012). Qualitative research paradigms and traditions. Qualitative inquiry in clinical and educational settings, 32-66.
Harling, K. (2012). An overview of case study. Available at SSRN 2141476.
Jørgensen, U. (2001). Grounded theory: Methodology and theory construction. International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences, 1, 6396-6399.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications.
MacDonald, C. (2012). Understanding participatory action research: A qualitative research methodology option. The Canadian Journal of Action Research, 13(2), 34-50.
Mele, C., Pels, J., & Polese, F. (2010). A brief review of systems theories and their managerial applications. Service Science, 2(1-2), 126-135.
Origins of a Conceptual
The Birth of Grit
Book chapter
Chapter 3
Central themes or
How do I craft an
argument for my
topic and methods?
How do I figure out
what I want to
Phase of research

hroughout this book, we argue that good research is built on a
strong conceptual framework. The chapters that follow specifically
focus on how conceptual frameworks shape research design, data
collection, analysis, and writing. But where do good conceptual frameworks come from? How do you figure out what matters to you, and once
you do, how does that get shaped into a framework that can guide your
In this chapter, we trace a conceptual framework from its earliest
incarnations into a final, published form—and beyond. We focus on “Grit:
Perseverance and Passion for Long-Term Goals,” authored by Angela L.
Duckworth, Christopher Peterson, Michael D. Matthews, and Dennis R.
Kelly (2007). This was Duckworth’s first publication on grit, an idea that
would profoundly influence research, policy, and practice in psychology
– 35

and education. It is therefore an ideal case for examining the question of
where ideas come from and how they evolve into conceptual frameworks.
We begin by situating the article within the wider context of Duckworth’s
work, and then introduce an excerpt from the published article. We next
turn to the question of how this work came to fruition. In particular, we
focus on the story of grit as an idea—how its formation emerged from
different lines of inquiry. In particular, we highlight the interplay of thinking and intuition, experience, review of literature, methodological choices,
and data collection and analysis in giving shape to both the central
­concept of grit and the argument for its importance.
   About the Author
Dr. Angela Lee Duckworth is an associate professor of psychology at the
University of Pennsylvania and a 2013 MacArthur Fellow. Duckworth
received a BA in neurobiology from Harvard in 1992 and, as a Marshall
Scholar, a Masters in neuroscience from Oxford. She completed her PhD
in psychology at the University of Pennsylvania. Prior to her career in
research, Duckworth founded a nonprofit summer school for low-income
children which won the Better Government Award for the state of
Massachusetts and was profiled as a Harvard Kennedy School case study.
Angela has also been a McKinsey management consultant and, for five
years, a math teacher in the public schools of San Francisco, Philadelphia,
and New York City.
   Background and Context:
An Overview of the Work in Focus
Angela Duckworth knew that grit was important before she had a name
for it. In her five years as a math teacher, she repeatedly saw s­tudents
succeed or struggle not so much due to their ability, but rather their
­willingness to sustain effort and follow through. Her inability to help some
students travel the last mile proved an ongoing source of frustration and
disappointment. “It was a strong intuition I had from five years of
­classroom experience that many of my students would just give up too
early,” she reflected in her interview with us. “I could just see what was
over the hill but I couldn’t get them to come over the hill with me so
they could see that things were really going to be okay on the other side.
From the very beginning of graduate school, I knew that I wanted to
study persistence.”
Persistence, however, was not the initial focus of Duckworth’s
research. Instead, she began by studying self-control—another quality she
intuited to be critical to students’ success in the classroom, and an ongoing
focus of her research. At the heart of both of these lines of inquiry was a
common, and old, question: What explains why some people achieve
more and others less? And more specifically, what explains it even when
those people inhabit similar social contexts and have similar abilities?
Before she could mount an argument that grit was an important part
of the answer to those questions, she had to define it, and show that it
was distinct from other characteristics, such as ability or “Big Five” personality traits. The article at the center of this chapter is her attempt to do just
that. This work serves three important purposes: to define and explain
what grit is, establish that it is a unique and distinct construct, and make
the case that it matters.
Duckworth’s research falls within a broader body of work that has
steadily gained traction in policy circles in recent years. In education,
research has long focused on a relatively narrow set of outcome measures
to both evaluate programs and identify factors that predict success or
­struggle. Similarly, policy has centered heavily on standardized test scores as
a means to evaluate both schools and teachers. Meanwhile, research on the
workplace has continued to try to unravel the question of what makes some
people successful while others struggle, with most work focused either
­cognitive ability (g) or personality traits (Heckman & Rubinstein, 2001).
Recently, however, social scientists have begun to question this ­narrow
focus, advancing different but related theories about what predicts success
in school and at work. James Heckman, a labor economist at the University of Chicago, has published a string of books and articles since 2000
advancing the argument that “noncognitive” skills such as persistence are
critical to educational and labor market success, and that narrow measures
of achievement are a poor predictor of long-term outcomes (Heckman &
Rubenstein, 2001; Heckman, Stixrud & Urzua, 2006; Heckman, 2014).
Carol Dweck, a psychologist at Stanford, has argued that “mindset”—one’s
beliefs about whether ability is fixed or mutable—is in fact a stronger predictor of success than ability, and that mindset can be taught and learned
(Dweck, 2006). In 2012, the Consortium for Chicago School Research
­published a report arguing, in part, that grades were a better measure of
academic performance than test scores, in large part because they encompassed noncognitive factors such as academic behaviors and persistence
(Farrington et al., 2012). Collectively, this work is pushing educators,
policymakers, and business leaders to rethink what skills or abilities
should be prioritized and how they should be measured.

Origins of a Conceptual Framework–
– 37

In the sections that follow, we first present an excerpt of “Grit: Perseverance and Passion for Long-Term Goals.” The excerpt focuses on the
literature review and methods discussion included in the published work.
Following the excerpt, we break the argument down into a series of
­logical steps, making the paper’s conceptual framework explicit. We then
turn to the primary focus of this chapter: the evolution of grit as a concept,
the framework that developed around it, and processes that informed that
We focus on the evolution of the idea itself, highlighting the process
that led to both the coining and definition of grit as a term. Importantly,
this process drew on three distinct forms of research: literature review,
interviews, and survey design. Each of these forms served to shape and
refine the concept and to bolster the argument for it. The interplay
between concept and method is also critical: the definition of grit shaped
the means to study it, but the reverse was also true. Each in turn helped
to frame the argument that grit is real and important, the conceptual framework that serves as the foundation for this important and influential work.
Duckworth, A. D., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007).
Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 92 (6), 1087–1101.
Talent and Achievement
Intelligence is the best-documented predictor of achievement
(Gottfredson, 1997; Hartigan & Wigdor, 1989). Reliable and valid
measures of IQ have made it possible to document a wide range
of achievement outcomes affected by IQ, including college and
graduate school grade point average (GPA; e.g., Bridgeman,
McCamley-Jenkins, & Ervin, 2000; Kuncel, Hezlett, & Ones,
2001), induction into Phi Beta Kappa (Langlie, 1938), income
(Fergusson, Horwood, & Ridder, 2005), career potential and job
performance (Kuncel, Hezlett, & Ones, 2004), and choice of occupation (Chown, 1959)…
However, in the Terman longitudinal study of “mentally gifted”
­children, the most accomplished men were only 5 points higher in
IQ than the least accomplished men (Terman & Oden, 1947)… More
predictive than IQ of whether a mentally gifted Terman subject grew
up to be an accomplished professor, lawyer, or doctor were particular noncognitive qualities: “Perseverance, Self-Confidence, and
Integration toward goals” (Terman & Oden, 1947, p. 351). Terman
and Oden, who were close collaborators of Cox, encouraged further
inquiry into why intelligence does not always translate into achievement: “Why this is so, what circumstances affect the fruition of
human talent, are questions of such transcendent importance that
they should be investigated by every method that promises the
slightest reduction of our present ignorance” (p. 352).
Personality and Achievement

The Big Five model has provided a descriptive framework for much
of the contemporary empirical work on traits that predict success
(Goldberg, 1990; John & Srivastava, 1999; McCrae & Costa, 1987;
Tupes & Christal, 1992). In a 1991 meta-analysis, Barrick and Mount
concluded that Big Five Conscientiousness related more robustly
to job performance than did Big Five Extraversion, Openness to
Experience, Neuroticism, or Agreeableness (Barrick & Mount, 1991).
Uncorrected correlations between conscientiousness and job performance ranged from r _ .09 to r _ .13, depending on the occupational
group. In a meta-analysis of confirmatory studies of personality
measures as predictors of job performance, Tett, Jackson, and
Rothstein (1991) observed a sample-weighted mean correlation
between conscientiousness and job performance of r _ .12.
One might conclude from these meta-analyses that at best, any
given personality trait accounts for less than 2% of variance in
achievement. If so, compared with IQ, personality would seem
inconsequential. Alternatively, it is possible that more narrowly
defined facets of Big Five factors may more robustly predict particular achievement outcomes (Paunonen & Ashton, 2001). It is also
possible that there exist important personality traits not represented
as Big Five facets…
Although we recognize the utility of the Big Five taxonomy as a
descriptive framework in which newly characterized personality
traits should be situated, we do not believe that it provides an
exhaustive list of traits worth studying.
Conscientious individuals are characteristically thorough, careful,
reliable, organized, industrious, and self-controlled. Whereas all of
these qualities bear a plausible contribution to achievement, their
relative importance likely varies depending upon the type of
achievement considered. For example, Galton (1892) suggested that
self-control—the ability to resist temptation and control impulses—is
a surprisingly poor predictor of the very highest achievements…

Origins of a Conceptual Framework–
– 39

Hough (1992) distinguished between achievement and dependability aspects of conscientiousness. According to Hough, the achievement-oriented individual is one who works hard, tries to do a good
job, and completes the task at hand, whereas the dependable person is self-controlled and conventional (p. 144). In a meta-analysis,
Hough found scales classified as measuring achievement orientation
predicted job proficiency (r _ .15) and educational success (r _ .29)
better than did dependability (r _ .08 and r _ .12, respectively).
Grit overlaps with achievement aspects of conscientiousness but
differs in its emphasis on long-term stamina rather than short-term
intensity. The gritty individual not only finishes tasks at hand but
pursues a given aim over years. Grit is also distinct from dependability aspects of conscientiousness, including self-control, in its
specification of consistent goals and interests. An individual high
in self-control but moderate in grit may, for example, effectively
control his or her temper, stick to his or her diet, and resist the
urge to surf the Internet at work—yet switch careers annually. As
Galton (1892) suggested, abiding commitment to a particular
vocation (or avocation) does not derive from overriding “hourly
Grit also differs from need for achievement, described by McClelland
(1961) as a drive to complete manageable goals that allow for immediate feedback on performance. Whereas individuals high in need
for achievement pursue goals that are neither too easy nor too hard,
individuals high in grit deliberately set for themselves extremely
long-term objectives and do not swerve from them—even in the
absence of positive feedback. A second important distinction is that
need for achievement is by definition a non-conscious drive for
implicitly rewarding activities and, therefore, impossible to measure
using self-report methods (McClelland, Koestner, & Weinberger,
1992). Grit, in contrast, can entail dedication to either implicitly or
explicitly rewarding goals. Further, we see no theoretical reason
why individuals would lack awareness of their level of grit.
Development of the Grit Scale
The aforementioned reasoning suggests that grit may be as essential
as IQ to high achievement. In particular, grit, more than self-control
or conscientiousness, may set apart the exceptional individuals who
James thought made maximal use of their abilities. To test these
hypotheses, we sought a brief, stand-alone measure of grit that met
four criteria: evidence of psychometric soundness, face validity for
adolescents and adults pursuing goals in a variety of domains (e.g.,
not just work or school), low likelihood of ceiling effects in highachieving populations, and most important, a precise fit with the
construct of grit.
We reviewed several published self-report measures but failed to
find any that met all four of our criteria. The only stand-alone measure of perseverance we found, the Perseverance Scale for Children
(Lufi & Cohen, 1987), is not face valid for adults. The Passion Scale
(Vallerand et al., 2003) assesses commitment to a subjectively
important activity but not perseverance of effort. The tenacity scale
used by Baum and Locke (2004) and derived from Gartner,
Gatewood, and Shaver (1991) was developed for entrepreneurs and
is not face valid for adolescents. Similarly, the Career Advancement
Ambition Scale (Desrochers & Dahir, 2000) refers to attitudes
toward one’s “profession” and “firm.” Cassidy and Lynn (1989)
developed a need for achievement questionnaire that taps work
ethic and desire for excellence, which are consona …
Purchase answer to see full

Order your essay today and save 10% with the discount code ESSAYHSELP