(2008) who measured the frequency of codes within the data and ensured thorough checking of data analysis across the research team. While this was an interpretive

phenomenological study suggesting an interpretivist approach, the use of MK-2206 in vivo a questionnaire survey suggests trading large numbers of participants for deep understanding of individuals’ experience. Four studies (Barker et al., 2007, Fenety et al., 2009, Pool et al., 2010 and Sokunbi et al., 2010) do not provide the paradigm within which their study sits, they also do not explain what methodology they used perhaps choosing a generic approach (Lichtman, 2006); two of the studies (Barker et al., 2007 and Fenety et al., 2009) Selleck PARP inhibitor document the use of the constant comparative method of data analysis suggesting a grounded theory approach. While Perry et al. (2011) conduct a study within interpretivism, the statement that ‘all themes and categories being successfully identified’ (p. 286) suggests a possible move towards post-positivism. Carlesso et al. (2011) while not mentioning the paradigm, appear to have operated within interpretivism. The value of making explicit the paradigm within which the researchers conducted a study is that it enables the reader to use the appropriate criteria with which

to judge the merits of the research. If a study sits within post-positivism for example, then that immediately guides the reader to critically evaluate the study in terms of the strict rules and procedures necessary to create objective knowledge. For example, the reliability and validity of measuring instruments and control of variables would be vital. On the other hand a study sitting within

interpretivism would, for example, expect the researcher to follow an iterative process in relation to data collection and analysis, and take a critically reflective and reflexive stance. While quantitative studies carry out statistical testing and arrive at generalizations, qualitative studies would provide thick description, conveying the different perspectives of the research participants (and researcher). Findings would remain specific to the context in which data was collected, and may be transferrable to another similar setting. Thus the knowledge claims of qualitative research are entirely different Edoxaban to that of quantitative and it is perhaps overlooking this that leads to the accusation that qualitative research is ‘soft’ and ‘unscientific’. While researchers have made a substantial contribution to the knowledge base of manual therapy, the complimentary use of qualitative approaches would further enhance our understanding of ourselves as practitioners, and our practice with patients. Quantitative and qualitative research has very different theoretical and philosophical assumptions and the paradigms of positivist/post-positivist and interpretivist paradigms have been explored.