Qualitative Research In Communication Disorders An Introduction For Students And Clinicians 1st Edition Rena Lyons

Qualitative Research In Communication Disorders An Introduction For Students And Clinicians 1st Edition Rena Lyons
Qualitative Research In Communication Disorders An Introduction For Students And Clinicians 1st Edition Rena Lyons
Qualitative Research In Communication Disorders An Introduction For Students And Clinicians 1st Edition Rena Lyons

1. Qualitative Research In Communication Disorders
An Introduction For Students And Clinicians 1st
Edition Rena Lyons download
https://ebookbell.com/product/qualitative-research-in-
communication-disorders-an-introduction-for-students-and-
clinicians-1st-edition-rena-lyons-52387520
Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

2. Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.
Handbook Of Qualitative Research In Communication Disorders 1st
Edition Martin John Ball
https://ebookbell.com/product/handbook-of-qualitative-research-in-
communication-disorders-1st-edition-martin-john-ball-36858988
Qualitative Research In Technical Communication 1st James Conklin Ed
https://ebookbell.com/product/qualitative-research-in-technical-
communication-1st-james-conklin-ed-4765826
Qualitative Research Methods In Public Relations And Marketing
Communications 2nd Edition 2nd Edition Christine Daymon
https://ebookbell.com/product/qualitative-research-methods-in-public-
relations-and-marketing-communications-2nd-edition-2nd-edition-
christine-daymon-2481702
Quantitative Research In Communication 1st Edition Mike Allen B Scott
Titsworth Stephen Hunt
https://ebookbell.com/product/quantitative-research-in-
communication-1st-edition-mike-allen-b-scott-titsworth-stephen-
hunt-51259668

3. Quantitative Research Methods In Communication The Power Of Numbers
For Social Justice 1st Edition Erica Scharrer
https://ebookbell.com/product/quantitative-research-methods-in-
communication-the-power-of-numbers-for-social-justice-1st-edition-
erica-scharrer-32822358
Analyzing Media Messages Using Quantitative Content Analysis In
Research Lea Communication Series 2nd Edition Daniel Riffe
https://ebookbell.com/product/analyzing-media-messages-using-
quantitative-content-analysis-in-research-lea-communication-
series-2nd-edition-daniel-riffe-1898974
Internet Communication And Qualitative Research A Handbook For
Researching Online Chris Man
https://ebookbell.com/product/internet-communication-and-qualitative-
research-a-handbook-for-researching-online-chris-man-4407078
Qualitative Research In Criminology Cuttingedge Methods Rita Faria
https://ebookbell.com/product/qualitative-research-in-criminology-
cuttingedge-methods-rita-faria-48672408
Qualitative Research In Marketing And Management Doing Interpretive
Research Projects 2nd Edition Chris Hackley
https://ebookbell.com/product/qualitative-research-in-marketing-and-
management-doing-interpretive-research-projects-2nd-edition-chris-
hackley-50574110

5. Qualitative research
in communication
disorders

6. © 2019 J&R Press Ltd
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise, except under the terms of the
Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or under the terms of a licence issued by the
Copyright Licensing Agency Ltd, without the permission in writing of the Publisher.
Requests to the Publisher should be addressed to J&R Press Ltd, Farley Heath Cottage,
Albury, Guildford GU5 9EW, or emailed to [email protected]
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names
are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for
general use.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Cover design: Jim Wilkie Cover image by ‘clivewa’
(used under license from Shutterstock.com)
Project management, typesetting and design: J&R Publishing Services Ltd, Guildford,
Surrey, UK; www.jr-publishingservices.co.uk
Indexed by Terry Halliday ([email protected])

7. Qualitative research
in communication
disorders
An introduction for students
and clinicians
Rena Lyons and Lindy McAllister (Eds)
J&R Press Ltd

9. Contents
Foreword by Professor James Law vii
Prefacexi
About the authors xv
Section I Introduction
1 Introduction and overview of qualitative research
1
Lindy McAllister and Rena Lyons
Section II Qualitative research methodologies
2 Conversation Analysis and its use in communication disorders research
35
Sarah Griffiths, Hilary Gardner and Rachel Bear
3 Critical discourse analysis and its use in communication disorders research
59
Mary Pat O’Malley-Keighran
4 Discourse analysis and its use in communication disorders research
75
Elizabeth Spencer and Lucy Bryant
5 Ethnography and its use in communication disorders research
91
Tami Howe, Sarah Verdon, Catherine Easton and Martha Geiger
6 Grounded theory and its use in communication disorders research
119
Clare Carroll and Deborah Harding
7 Narrative inquiry and its use in communication disorders research
141
Rena Lyons, Chalotte Glintborg and Lindy McAllister
8 Participatory approaches in communication disorders research
167
Ruth McMenamin and Carole Pound
9 Phenomenology and its use in communication disorders research
193
Sophie MacKenzie, Lindy McAllister, Kyla Hudson, Linda Worrall,
Bronwyn Davidson and Tami Howe
10 Qualitative case study and it use in communication disorders research
213
Samantha Siyambalapitiya, Tami Howe and Helen Hambly
Section III Methods in qualitative research in communication disorders
11 Methods in qualitative research in communication disorders
239
Rena Lyons and Lindy McAllister

10. Qualitative research in communication disorders vi
Section IV Ensuring rigour in qualitative research
12 Ensuring rigour in qualitative research
267
Lindy McAllister and Rena Lyons
Section V Illustrating methods in qualitative research
13 Using in-depth, semi-structured interviewing
285
Lucette Lanyon, Deborah Hersh, Jane Bickford, Janet Baker, Charn Nang,
Miranda Rose and Linda Worrall
14 Observational techniques
313
Robyn o’Halloran, Abby Foster, Linda Worrall and Miranda Rose
15 Ethnographic techniques
335
Carol Westby
16 The Voice Centred Relational Approach in communication disorders research
351
Felicity Bright and Maxine Bevin
Section VI Particular considerations
17 Ethics in qualitative research with people with communication disorders
369
Nicole Müller, Rena Lyons and Julie Marshall
18 Innovative methods
387
Rosalind Merrick, Sharynne McLeod and Clare Carroll
19 Maintaining cultural integrity in Australian Aboriginal
and Māori qualitative research in communication disorders
407
Karen Brewer, Tara Lewis, Chelsea Bond, Elizabeth Armstrong, Anne Hill,
Alison Nelson and Juli Coffin
20 Using qualitative research to explore professional practice
435
Sue Roulstone, Marie Atherton, Bronwyn Davidson, Deborah Harding, Maja Kelić
and Lindy McAllister
21 Qualitative evidence synthesis
461
Robyn O’Halloran and Catherine Houghton
Section VII Conclusions
22 Conclusions and future directions
485
Rena Lyons and Lindy McAllister
Index493

11. Foreword
Historically quantitative, positivistic approaches to research have predominated
in the speech and language sciences. There are a variety of reasons for this,
such as the way that research training is constructed in preliminary courses
training people to become speech and language therapists, the editorial
position of journals which have supported the academic development of the
profession, and the historical proximity to medicine and, latterly, psychology.
This is rather different from the research of other professional groups
such as nurses, occupational therapists and teachers. These groups have often
prioritized the experience of the individual, something which has become
especially important in a world where patient satisfaction is at a premium
and personalized care a priority. Quantitative methods are exceptionally
good for asking certain sorts of questions about whether an intervention
works, whether a diagnosis is accurate. But it has become increasingly clear
that, while it can be seen as a necessary condition for testing the outcomes of
an intervention, it is not a sufficient condition when it comes to evaluating
the feasibility, acceptability or transferability of an intervention. It is not just
about whether an intervention works but about how it works and for whom
does it work and why, a fact captured in the UK Medical Research Council’s
Guidance on complex interventions which underpins the development of most
interventions
1
. We need properly conducted and well-structured interviews
but also respondents who are well able to understand what they being asked
and who can respond in a manner that is readily recognized by the reader.
Inevitably, people with communication disabilities become a test both for
how a consumer model of health and social care can work and for how best
to get people to reflect on their needs. How do you gain the views of people
who do not speak? In work we carried out in Primary Care in London, we
asked people with a range of different disabilities about their experience of
the transition from secondary to primary care (a key economic issue for any
healthcare provider with a concern for the costs of a poorly-managed primary/
secondary interface). We heard, often shocking, stories about the way that
1 Craig, P.,  Dieppe, P.,  Macintyre, S.,  Michie, S.,  Nazareth, I.,  & Petticrew, M. (2013) Developing and evaluating complex interventions: The new Medical Research Council guidance. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 50(5), 587‒592. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2012.09.010.

12. Qualitative research in communication disorders viii
many practitioners engaged with those with communication disabilities
2
.
We heard stories of misdiagnosis and misunderstanding of needs, about
practitioners too busy to listen carefully. In another study in Scotland, two
general practitioners said that working with people with communication
disabilities was like practising “vet medicine” because they could not tell you
what was being said and had to rely exclusively on physical examination
3
. This
type of information, so critical to informing service provision, is only really
available from qualitative research.
Historically speech and language therapists have often delivered services
from their clinics separate from other services, but now it is much more
common for them to be part of teams whether that be in hospices, hospitals,
day care, or schools. The members of these teams have very different roles but
all need to understand the individual and their communicative capacity. It is
very difficult to ask of this sort of provision “does it work?” because it is, by
its nature, so inherently complex. A more appropriate question is, what makes
a team work effectively? And this leads us to notoriously slippery concepts
such as collaboration and trust. At its root is the concept of social capital – the
relationships between the different individuals and the only way to get at social
capital is to adopt qualitative methods
4
. This type of research puts members
of the team on the same page and makes them feel that it is something that
they are collaborating in, or in modern parlance, ‘co-constructing’, rather than
having it done to them.
Of course, this interest in the qualitative paradigm is not new in
communication disabilities research as witnessed by early papers in the UK
5
and
2 Law, J., Bunning, K., Byng, S., Farrelly, S., & Heyman, B. (2005). Making sense in primary care: levelling the playing field for people with communication disabilities. Disability and Society, 20, 169‒185.
3 Law, J., Van der Gaag, A., & Symon, S. (2005). Improving communication in primary care: An
examination of the feasibility of introducing Health Talk: Count me in in two primary care practices.
Report to Forth Valley and Ayrshire and Arran Primary Care Trusts. Available from the first author c/o
School of Education, Communication and Language Sciences, University of Newcastle, Newcastle-upon-
Tyne NE1 7RU, e:
[email protected]
4 McKean, C., Law, J., Laing, K., McCartney, E., Cockerill, M., Allon Smith, J., & Forbes, J.C. (2017).
A qualitative case study in the social capital of co-professional collaborative co-practice for children
with speech language and communication needs. International Journal of Language and Communication
Disorders. DOI: 10.1111/1460-6984.12296
5 Eastwood, J. (1988). Qualitative research: An additional research methodology for speech
pathology? International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 23, 171‒184.
DOI:10.3109/13682828809019885

13. Foreword ix
the US
6,7
but, despite its obvious value, it remains relatively underdeveloped.
It needs advocates, and advocates who are at the top of their game. So I am
delighted to be able to introduce Lyons and McAllister’s new book Qualitative
Research in Communication Disorders: An Introductory Guide for Students
and Clinicians. In the end, as the authors indicate, the distinction between
qualitative and quantitative research is invidious because there is really just
good quality and less good quality research, irrespective of the paradigm. In
the end, it always boils down to how well theories are constructed, methods
outlined, results reported, and conclusions drawn. There have been a panoply
of texts outlining qualitative methods going back thirty or more years, but while
they have reported on the methods they rarely engage with the complexity
of eliciting the views of people whose primary difficulty is communication
itself. This book addresses this issue directly, providing detail on how different
qualitative approaches have been applied in the field of communication disorders.
It will be an invaluable resource for students, practitioners, and researchers
within the communication sciences but also for social and health scientists
who have an interest in accessing the views of those who, by definition, find
communication a challenge.
James Law PhD
Professor of Speech and Language Sciences
Newcastle University, UK
October 2018
6 Simmons-Mackie, N., Damico, J.S., & Damico, H.L. (1999) A qualitative study of feedback in aphasia treatment tags:  Aphasia,  feedback,  therapeutics,  qualitative research,  clinicians. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 8, 218‒230. DOI:10.1044/1058-0360.0803.218
7 Damico, J.S. & Simmons-Mackie, N. (2003). Qualitative research and speech-language pathology:
A tutorial for the clinical realm. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 12, 131‒143.
DOI:10.1044/1058-0360(2003/060)

15. Preface
Rena
The original idea for this book came about from conversations between Rena
Lyons and Sharynne McLeod in August 2016. The Discipline of Speech and
Language Therapy, NUI Galway, Ireland, was honoured to host Sharynne on
a visit before the 30th IALP World Congress, which was held in Dublin for the
first time that year. While Sharynne was in Galway, I took her on a sight-seeing
tour of beautiful Connemara and we stopped for a coffee in Ballynahinch
Castle. Over our drinks, we discussed qualitative research and the somewhat
unique situation in our Discipline where almost everyone was a qualitative
researcher, with experience in a range of approaches. We wanted to build
on this experience and Sharynne suggested the possibility of an edited book
on qualitative research in communication disorders. I was both excited and
daunted by the idea but did not know where to start. I didn’t have a notebook
so we improvised and jotted down ideas and possible chapter titles on a
paper napkin! Sharynne suggested that Lindy McAllister would be the perfect
match as a co-editor because of both her experience in editing books and as
a qualitative researcher. I was aware of Lindy’s work but had never met her.
Of course, Sharynne knew that Lindy would be attending the IALP Congress
and she introduced us a few days later and the rest is history! Sharynne also
introduced me to Rachael Wilkie at J&R Press. I am indebted to Sharynne for
her encouragement, generosity, and support.
Lindy
I was delighted when Sharynne introduced me to Rena with the suggestion
we could write together. It’s not the first time I’ve co-authored a book with
someone I had not previously worked with and knew that, with good planning,
regular communication and a commitment to meeting deadlines, such an
international collaboration could work well. As a late-stage career academic
I was keen to foster the career development of those who would come after
me, so supporting early career researchers and students to understand and
use qualitative research was appealing. With two face-to-face sessions working

16. Qualitative research in communication disorders xii
together in Galway (one to plan, one to ‘wrap up’), hundreds of emails, and
numerous skypes (where Rena would sometimes ask me to stop talking so
she could hear the Australian birds in their early morning chorus outside my
window!) we completed this book ahead of schedule.
As co-editors, we are both passionate about qualitative research and its use in
research of practice and communication disorders and have thoroughly enjoyed
working together on this book. The field of communication disorders has its
origins in the disciplines of medicine, linguistics, education, and psychology
where the predominant research paradigm has been quantitative. Qualitative
research has not traditionally been included in curricula educating speech
and language therapists, so they may not feel that they have the knowledge
or skills to use this methodology. In recent years there has been an increase
in the number of qualitative studies published in communication disorders
research. We know that many phenomena in the field of speech and language
therapy practice and communication disorders are complex and that qualitative
research provides an excellent paradigm for exploring these phenomena. There
is increasing recognition that knowledge generated using qualitative research
can complement that generated using quantitative methods.
As qualitative researchers, we know that embarking on the use of this
methodology can be daunting. As in many fields, people beginning to use
qualitative research methods may be confused about the different approaches,
different terms for what seem like similar concepts, and are often unclear in
relation to how to actually ‘do’ the methods. What they read in published
journal papers by necessity of word length glosses over the fine-grained detail
of what was done, and why, in planning, data collection and data analysis.
Our vision was that this book would be an introductory guide, which would
be read in conjunction with other generic qualitative research textbooks, to
support those beginning to use qualitative research specifically in the field of
communication disorders.
When we started planning the book, we brainstormed ideas and sent out
‘expression of interest’ emails to researchers who had published qualitative
research in the field of speech and language therapy practice and/or
communication disorders, inviting them to contribute and to suggest topics in
qualitative research that they could write about. We were overwhelmed by the
positive response from researchers in Ireland, the UK, Australia, New Zealand,
Denmark, Croatia, South Africa, US and Canada! We used the data from the

17. Preface xiii
expressions of interest to develop a book proposal which we submitted to J&R
Press. To our delight the book proposal was accepted.
Given that this book is an introductory text, our goal was that it would be
written in an accessible style with a practical focus. To achieve this accessible
style and coherence, we provided chapter templates and chapter samples to
authors. We invited authors who had experience using specific qualitative
approaches to write chapters collaboratively. In this way, researchers from
different parts of the world, who may not have already known each other,
worked together on chapter drafts. We believe that this collaborative writing
approach has enhanced the richness of the content and hopefully has fostered
some new collaborations!
One of the decisions we had to make as co-editors was in relation to
terminology. For example, the term ‘speech and language therapist’ is used
in Ireland and the UK, ‘speech-language therapist’ is used in New Zealand,
‘speech pathologist’ is used in Australia, and ‘speech-language pathologist’ is
used in the US and Canada. Given that the book is published by J&R Press, a
UK-based publisher, we made the decision to use the term speech and language
therapist throughout the book to ensure consistency.
We have structured this book into seven sections. The first section, entitled
‘Introduction’, as the name suggests provides an introduction to qualitative
research and its use in the fields of speech and language therapy practice and
communication disorders. The second section, entitled ‘Qualitative Research
Methodologies’, has nine chapters, each of which covers one of the major
qualitative research methodologies and which are presented alphabetically.
Authors provide an overview of each qualitative approach, its use and application
in both research in practice and communication disorders research, as well as
top tips. Each chapter has case studies which clearly illustrate ways in which
the authors applied and used the particular qualitative methodology. The
third section, entitled ‘Methods in Qualitative Research in Communication
Disorders’, provides an overview of aspects of the methods that are common
across all of the qualitative methodologies. Section IV, entitled ‘Ensuring
Rigour in Qualitative Research’, addresses ways in which researchers can
apply strategies to strengthen rigour in qualitative studies. Section V, entitled
‘Illustrating Methods in Qualitative Research’, contains four chapters, each of
which focuses on ways in which researchers have used specific methods in
communication disorders research. Section VI is made up of five chapters
which address ‘Particular Considerations’ when using qualitative research,
such as dealing with ethical issues, innovative approaches, maintaining

18. Qualitative research in communication disorders xiv xiv
cultural integrity in Australian Aboriginal and Māori qualitative research in
communication disorders, using qualitative research to explore practice, and
qualitative synthesis. The final section focuses on a review of the content and
reflection on future directions for qualitative research in communication
disorders research.
We have come a long way since that chat over coffee in Ballynahinch Castle!
We have really enjoyed working on this book and we have learned so much
along the journey. We have been humbled and inspired by the diversity and
excellent quality of the chapter contributions. As co-editors, we are also very
grateful to the chapter authors for writing so well collaboratively, sometimes
with co-authors that they did not know, and for meeting our deadlines. This
ensured that the process ran smoothly. It has also been a pleasure to work
with Rachael and Jim at J&R Press. They have been so helpful and supportive
along the way. We’d also like to acknowledge NUI Galway who awarded Rena
a grant in aid of publication to support the detailed work of creating an index
for the book.
We are very impressed of the way in which speech and language therapy
researchers are using qualitative methodologies in communication disorders
research. We hope that this book will inspire speech and language therapy
students and clinicians to engage in qualitative research.

19. About the authors
Professor Elizabeth Armstrong, PhD, is Foundation Chair in Speech Pathology
at Edith Cowan University in Perth. She has published widely in the area of
aphasia and presents regularly at national and international speech pathology,
linguistics, allied health and medical conferences. Aphasic discourse analysis,
aphasia treatment studies, and cross-cultural practice constitute her areas of
focus. Since 2010, Professor Armstrong has led a strong multidisciplinary team
of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal researchers exploring the experiences of
Aboriginal brain injury survivors and their families using both qualitative and
quantitative methodologies. This research aims to promote culturally secure
rehabilitation services for Aboriginal people post brain injury, and to improve
health outcomes of Aboriginal brain injury survivors.
Marie Atherton, PhD candidate, is a lecturer in Speech Pathology at the
Australian Catholic University, Melbourne Australia. She has had a diverse
career path, practising as a clinical speech and language therapist for many years
before working as an advisor to Speech Pathology Australia, the professional
body representing speech pathologists in Australia, and then moving into
academia. In 2010, Marie accepted a position in Vietnam to coordinate a
2-year speech and language therapy training programme for Vietnamese health
professionals. Marie’s PhD was a longitudinal study employing qualitative and
participatory research methods to explore the experiences of a group of these
Vietnam graduates. She is due to complete her PhD in 2019. She continues
to actively support the development of the speech and language therapy
profession in Vietnam.
Janet Baker, PhD, is Adjunct Associate Professor in Speech Pathology and
Audiology, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University,
Australia. She is a speech pathologist and family therapist with post-graduate
qualifications in psychotherapy. Jan’s teaching, clinical work and research
interests have been focused upon the aetiology and management of functional
and psychogenic disorders, the professional voice, counselling for speech
pathologists, and the processes involved in the therapeutic relationship. In her
private practice, now newly based in Sydney, Jan offers services as Consultant
in Voice and Supervision of Professional Practice for Speech Pathologists.

20. Rachel Bear is a speech and language therapist who has worked for over
30 years in paediatrics in a primary care centre and mainstream school
settings. Rachel works with children with a range of speech, language and
communication needs, but her primary interest is in working with children
with speech difficulties. Rachel is currently studying for a PhD at the University
of Sheffield. Her research uses thematic analysis and conversation analysis
to look at the ways we support parents of children with speech difficulties to
carry out their homework tasks.
Maxine Bevin, PhD, is a speech-language therapist working in private practice
with adults with communication disability in New Zealand. Her interest
is in qualitative research methodologies. Her doctoral research was in self
and identity in people living with aphasia. She has also completed research
exploring self and identity in community-based rehabilitation services for
people with acquired brain injury. She is currently part of an evaluation team
researching the outcomes of training programmes for the workforce working
with vulnerable children.
Jane Bickford, PhD, is a lecturer in the College of Nursing and Health Sciences
at Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia. She has worked extensively as a
speech pathologist in a range of clinical and community settings, with diverse
populations in both Australia and the United Kingdom. Inspired by her
previous work in the area of head and neck cancer, Jane recently completed
her PhD examining the psychosocial experiences of people who have a total
laryngectomy. Through this research she developed expertise using grounded
theory methodology. In 2017, she was awarded the Vice Chancellor’s Prize
for Doctoral Thesis Excellence. She is currently using qualitative methods
to research patient experiences of head and neck lymphoedema treatments,
communicative participation outcomes after laryngectomy and user experiences
of a co-designed programme to prevent occupational voice problems.
Chelsea Bond, PhD, is a Munanjahli and South Sea Islander Australian and
a Senior Research Fellow with the Poche Centre for Indigenous Health at
The University of Queensland. Dr Bond has worked as an Aboriginal Health
Worker and researcher in communities across south-east Queensland for the
past 20 years and has a strong interest in urban Indigenous health promotion,
culture, identity, and community development. Dr Bond’s career has focused
on interpreting and privileging Indigenous experiences of the health system
including critically examining the role of Aboriginal health workers, the
Qualitative research in communication disordersxvi

21. narratives of Indigeneity produced within public health, and advocating
for strength-based community development approaches to Indigenous
health promotion practice. Dr Bond has a number of publications related to
strength-based health promotion practice, Indigenous social capital, and the
conceptualization of Aboriginality within public health. Dr Bond is a board
member of Inala Wangarra and Screen Queensland, and a regular guest host
of 98.9FM’s ‘Let’s Talk’ programme and co-host of popular weekly radio show
and podcast ‘Wild Black Women’.
Karen Brewer (Whakatōhea, Ngaiterangi), PhD, is a postdoctoral research
fellow in Te Kupenga Hauora Māori (Department of Māori Health) at The
University of Auckland. She completed a PhD in Speech Science in 2014, with
a thesis titled ‘The experiences of Māori with aphasia, their whānau (family)
members and speech-language therapists’. As a kaupapa Māori researcher Karen
explores ways to improve cultural safety in the speech and language therapy
profession and ensure equity of service delivery and outcomes for Māori.
Felicity Bright, PhD, is a Senior Lecturer in Rehabilitation in the School
of Clinical Sciences at Auckland University of Technology. She is a speech
and language therapist with a particular interest in how clinicians work to
enhance the patient’s experience in rehabilitation. She uses qualitative research
methodologies to explore areas related to patient experience including patient-
provider communication, hope, engagement, and therapeutic relationships.
She teaches in the physiotherapy and postgraduate rehabilitation programmes,
and supervises postgraduate students from a range of disciplines.
Lucy Bryant, PhD, is a postdoctoral research associate at the Graduate
School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Australia and a Certified
Practicing Speech Pathologist. She completed her PhD in Speech Pathology
at the University of Newcastle Australia, investigating the implementation
of discourse analysis in the clinical assessment of adults with aphasia. Lucy’s
research focus on discourse analysis stems from an interest in assessment and
intervention for people with aphasia, and in particular how people use language
for functional communication. She also has an interest in how technology may
be used to assist clinicians to perform analysis.
Clare Carroll, PhD, is a registered speech and language therapist and a lecturer
at National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland. Clare has a wealth of clinical
experience from working in the Irish Health Service and in private practice.
About the authorsxvii

22. She uses a range of qualitative methodologies to study interdisciplinary team
working practices and to support the participation of children, young people
with disabilities and their families in research and practice. Clare is passionate
about services being informed by the people who use them, in particular
understanding what is important to people with communication disabilities.
Professor Julianne (Juli) Coffin, PhD, is an Aboriginal Western Australian
who has traditional ties to her grandparent’s country in the Pilbara region
(Nyangumarta). Juli was born in Ngala, Western Australia and has lived the
majority of her life in the Pilbara. She is the proud mother of three children. Juli
was educated in Australia through Edith Cowan University (Western Australia)
and James Cook University (Queensland). Professor Coffin is a prominent
Aboriginal researcher with research expertise in cultural security, education
and research across diverse range chronic diseases, nutrition, contextualizing
bullying, and health promotion. Professor Coffin has completed a degree in
education, Masters in Public Health and Tropical Medicine (with distinction)
and a PhD with an award in excellence. With a keen interest in Aboriginal
languages and ways of learning Dr Coffin combines her education and cultural
learnings to deliver the outstanding translation of research into practice that
is always of an impeccable standard. She is highly regarded by her peers as
being creative and innovative around some of the particularly controversial
and complex areas in Aboriginal health and education.
Bronwyn Davidson, PhD, is an Associate Professor at the University of
Melbourne, Australia and a Fellow of Speech Pathology Australia. She completed
her Bachelors Degree in Speech Pathology and her PhD at the University of
Queensland. Bronwyn has extensive experience as a clinician, academic and
researcher, especially in the fields of aphasiology and practice education. She
holds a keen interest in participatory research and education that address
services for people with communication disability in majority world countries.
Catherine Easton, PhD, is a Senior Lecturer at Charles Sturt University,
Australia and Certified Practicing Speech Pathology. She completed her
Master of Speech Pathology at LaTrobe University after completing a PhD in
linguistics, also at LaTrobe University. Catherine has an interest in research
focusing on social justice in speech pathology, including regional, rural and
remote practice, Australian Indigenous cultural competence development
in higher education, and linguistic prejudice towards non-standard dialects.
Catherine’s interest in ethnography has grown from exploring methodologies
that facilitate multiple perspectives to be heard.
Qualitative research in communication disordersxviii

23. Abby Foster, PhD, is a speech pathologist who has spent her career working
with stroke survivors. She completed her doctoral studies in 2016 through The
University of Queensland. After initially needing convincing to use qualitative
research methods, she is now a self-proclaimed qualitative methods nerd.
Her research and clinical interests lie in the acute management of post-stroke
aphasia, the lived experience of acquired communication disability, and the
intersection between speech pathology and social justice. Abby currently works
as the manager and research/clinical lead for speech pathology at Victoria’s
largest health network, Monash Health. She is also an adjunct lecturer in the
School of Allied Health at La Trobe University.
Hilary Gardner, DPhil, is a speech and language therapist with over 35 years
in practice. She has combined a clinical career with research and lecturing
posts at UK universities, most recently the University of Sheffield. Her own
research utilizes predominantly qualitative methodology such as Conversation
Analysis to consider adult‒child interactions, especially those involving speech
and language therapy tasks. Hilary continues to support the development of
collaborative approaches for those working with communication difficulties,
especially within educational settings, through workshops and lectures at
home and abroad. 
Martha Geiger, PhD, is a senior lecturer at the Centre for Rehabilitation
Studies in the Department of Global Health, Stellenbosch University, South
Africa. A speech and language therapist by profession, she has specialized in
interdisciplinary work to increase communicative participation of persons
with severe to profound disabilities – usually with no speech at all. Her work
includes teaching (e.g., applied research methods and ethics) and supervising
postgraduate student studies. Past experience includes 12 years of community-
based rehabilitation and development work in neighbouring Botswana.
Chalotte Glintborg, PhD, is Assistant Professor of Rehabilitation Psychology
in the Faculty of Humanities at Aalborg University, Denmark. Her research has
centred on exploring first person perspectives on the emotional consequences
of living with disabilities, e.g., identity problems, distress, shame and depression,
etc. She is involved in the development of Rehabilitation Psychology as a field in
Denmark. She has used a variety of both qualitative and quantitative methods
and the combination of the two in mixed methods studies.
Sarah Griffiths, PhD, is a senior lecturer at Plymouth Marjon University and
has over 28 years of experience as a speech and language therapist. She began
About the authorsxix

24. her career working with adult clients in acute and outpatient settings before
moving into higher education. Sarah teaches in the fields of adult acquired
communication disorders and evidence-based practice and runs on-site
clinics for people with Parkinson’s and support groups for their relatives. Sarah
completed a PhD in Medical Studies in 2013 which focused on a conversation
analytic study of everyday conversation management in Parkinson’s. She
continues to research this area and has published several papers in this field.
Helen Hambly, PhD, works as an analyst for ‘Children, Schools and Families’
at Cornwall Council, UK. She has a background in health psychology and
health services research and has utilized a variety of qualitative and quantitative
research methods in her work. She has a particular interest in methods for
eliciting and understanding the perspectives of children with speech, language
and communication needs, and their families, in the context of health and
education support. She completed her PhD with the Bristol Speech and
Language Therapy Research Unit and the University of the West of England,
UK, using qualitative methods to explore everyday experiences of children
with language impairment.
Deborah Harding is Associate Professor and Director of Workforce Development
for the School of Allied Health, Midwifery and Social Care in the Faculty of
Health, Social Care and Education, Kingston and St George’s University of
London. She is a UK-registered speech and language therapist and continues
to work with speech and language therapists in a professional leadership role
for St George’s University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. Deborah delivers
post-registration education for health and social care professionals with a focus
on policy, quality improvement and service transformation. Deborah expects to
have completed her PhD studies at the University of London in 2019. Her PhD
studies are focused on supervision practices for Allied Health Professionals.
Deborah Hersh, PhD, is Associate Professor in Speech Pathology at Edith
Cowan University in Western Australia. She is a certified practising speech
pathologist, and a Fellow of Speech Pathology Australia. Deborah has worked
in the United Kingdom and Australia in a range of clinical, research and
teaching contexts, publishing and presenting her research extensively. She uses
a variety of qualitative approaches including grounded theory, interpretative
phenomenological analysis, narrative inquiry and discourse analysis. Deborah’s
research includes exploring the experiences of people with aphasia and their
families in relation to assessment, goal setting, therapy, discharge, community
aphasia groups and therapeutic relationships.
Qualitative research in communication disordersxx

25. Anne Hill, PhD, is a Senior Lecturer in speech pathology in the Faculty of
Health and Behavioural Sciences at The University of Queensland, Australia.
She is a speech and language therapist with extensive clinical experience and
experience facilitating learning for students in practice placements. Anne’s
research employs quantitative and qualitative methodologies and has a
particular focus on models of clinical education which provide authentic and
powerful learning experiences for students, such as simulation and placements
in interprofessional and culturally and linguistically diverse environments.
Catherine Houghton, PhD, is a lecturer in the School of Nursing and Midwifery
in National University of Ireland Galway and co-chair of QUESTS (Qualitative
Research in Trials Centre). Catherine is a registered general and children’s nurse
and her research interests lie primarily in qualitative research methodologies
including case study research and qualitative evidence synthesis (QES). Catherine
has published on qualitative methods, analysis, rigour and ethics and QES studies
on dementia, infant feeding and a Cochrane review on recruitment to trials.
As co-chair of QUESTS, Catherine endeavours to promote and maximize the
use of qualitative research in trials and primary trial methodological research.
Catherine was recently awarded funding from the Irish Research Council for
the purpose of developing a clearly articulated pathway between QES and trial
methodology and further developing QES expertise in Ireland.
Tami Howe, PhD, is currently an Assistant Professor in the School of Audiology
and Speech Sciences at The University of British Columbia in Vancouver,
Canada and was previously a faculty member at the University of Canterbury
in Christchurch, New Zealand. She completed her doctoral and postdoctoral
studies at The University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia. Dr Howe
has used a range of qualitative research methods to explore the insiders’
perspective on how adults with aphasia and their family members live with
their communication disorder. She has also supervised numerous postgraduate
students using both qualitative and mixed methods research approaches.
Kyla Hudson is a member of the Centre for Clinical Research Excellence
in Aphasia and the Communication Disability Centre at The University of
Queensland, Australia. She has over 10 years’ experience as a speech language
pathologist and her main research interests centre around quality of life for
individuals with aphasia and their families. In her doctoral studies she used
qualitative research methods to explore the meaning of successfully living with
aphasia from the perspectives of people with aphasia, family members and
About the authorsxxi

26. Qualitative research in communication disordersxxii
speech language pathologists. She has supervised a number of PhD students
using quantitative and qualitative research methods and has a keen interest in
developing research methods that are inclusive and accessible for individuals
with communication disorders.
Maja Kelić, PhD, is a speech and language pathologist clinically working with
school-age children with reading and language impairment at the SUVAG
Polyclinic for the Rehabilitation of Listening and Speech, Zagreb, Croatia. She
is involved in the ‘COST ACTION IS1406: Enhancing children’s oral language
skills across Europe and beyond’ where she used qualitative research methods
and knowledge elicitation to explore therapists’ decision-making process. She
is actively participating in promoting the importance of speech and language
therapy in the Croatian Association of Speech and Language Therapists and
Croatian Dyslexia Association.
Lucette Lanyon, PhD, is a lecturer and researcher in the School of Allied Health
at La Trobe University, Australia. She is a speech pathologist with specialties
in rehabilitation and long-term management for people with acquired brain
injuries and progressive neurological diseases. Lucette has used qualitative
research methods to explore a range of areas of speech-pathology practice
including factors involved in research participant decision making, barriers and
facilitators to community aphasia group engagement, and utilization of allied
health assistants within speech pathology service provision. She has worked
as a research mentor to numerous clinicians seeking to step into research.
Lucette is co-founder of the online resource Aphasia Community which
supports clinicians, people with aphasia, and their significant others to access
up-to-date and relevant information regarding community aphasia groups.
Tara Lewis is an Iman woman with connections to central Queensland. She
is the Clinical Lead in Speech Pathology at the Institute for Urban Indigenous
Health in Brisbane as well as a PhD candidate at The University of Queensland.
She works alongside Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communicates to
support culturally safe speech pathologist services in development paediatrics.
Tara utilizes Indigenous research methodologies alongside western qualitative
research methods in order to place Indigenous voices and aspirations at the
centre of qualitative research. She is also the co-chair of the Speech Pathology
Australia Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander advisory committee where she is
helping to implement Indigenous research methodologies across the profession.
Rena Lyons, PhD, is a certified speech and language therapist and Senior Lecturer

27. About the authorsxxiii
in the Discipline of Speech and Language Therapy, School of Health Science,
College of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, NUI Galway, Ireland. She
has over 30 years of clinical, teaching, and research experience in speech and
language therapy in Ireland. She has used qualitative methodologies to explore
a range of research interests such as the lived experience of communication
disability, parental perspectives, identity construction, the voice of children
with developmental speech and language disorders, and the social model of
disability. She is involved in the ‘COST ACTION IS1406: Enhancing children’s
oral language skills across Europe and beyond’.
Sophie MacKenzie, PhD, is Programme Director for the PGDip Speech
and Language Therapy and the BSc (Hons) Speech and Language Therapy
programmes at the University of Greenwich and Canterbury Christ Church
University. She was a practising speech and language therapist for 20 years,
working predominantly with clients with aphasia, dysphagia and cognitive
communication disorders. She supervises both masters and PhD students,
and has a particular interest in qualitative research methodologies.
Julie Marshall, PhD, is a Reader (Associate Professor) in Communication
Disability and Development at Manchester Metropolitan University in the
UK. She is a speech and language therapist and has worked for over 30 years
in the UK and in sub-Saharan Africa, helping to educate speech and language
therapists and other professionals, carrying out research and clinical work,
building research capacity and preparing allied health professionals to work
in the Global South. Her research interests have been focused particularly on
the development of services for people with communication disabilities in
Majority World countries; attitudes towards, understanding of and responses
to communication disability; evidence-based intervention and, more recently,
supporting people with communication disabilities in humanitarian situations.
Lindy McAllister, PhD, is Professor Emerita in the Faculty of Health Sciences at
The University of Sydney, Australia. She is a speech and language therapist who
has specialized in practice-based education across the allied health professions.
In that capacity she has used a range of qualitative research methods to explore
aspects of professional practice, supervision of students, students’ and clients’
experiences of practice-education placements. She has supervised numerous
PhD students using both quantitative and qualitative research methods. She
is involved in the development of the speech and language therapy profession
in Majority World countries, especially in Vietnam.

28. Qualitative research in communication disorders xxiv
Sharynne McLeod, PhD, is Professor of Speech and Language Acquisition at
Charles Sturt University, Australia. She is an elected Life Member of Speech
Pathology Australia, Fellow of the American Speech-Language-Hearing
Association, Vice President of the International Clinical Linguistics and
Phonetics Association, founding chair of the International Expert Panel on
Multilingual Children’s Speech, and past editor of the International Journal of
Speech-Language Pathology. She has published 10 books and more than 150
book chapters and journal articles. Professor McLeod’s research focuses on
multilingual children’s speech acquisition and children with speech sound
disorders, particularly to ensure that children can participate fully in society.
Ruth Mc Menamin, PhD, is a lecturer in Speech and Language Therapy and
co-director of the MSc Advanced Healthcare Research and Practice at the
National University of Ireland, Galway. Ruth has particular experience and
expertise in involvement research with people with aphasia and community
partners using qualitative participatory health research approaches. Ruth is a
member of the International Collaboration of Participatory Health researchers,
the Collaboration of Aphasia Trialists and the Public and Patient Involvement
(PPI) Ignite team at NUI, Galway. In that capacity she uses participatory
learning and action (PLA) research to involve people with aphasia (PWA),
healthcare professionals and students as co-researchers in PPI activities, with
publications in peer-reviewed journals and numerous international conference
presentations. Ruth is responsible for supervising postgraduate MSc and
PhD students and is committed to integrating civic values at the centre of her
research and teaching.
Rosalind Merrick, PhD, is a speech and language therapist in Sussex, UK. She
specializes in work with children with speech, language and communication
needs in mainstream schools. She has a background in primary education and
is a chartered psychologist. She provides teacher education for the University
College London Institute of Education. She has used qualitative methods to
explore children’s perceptions of communication difficulty, clinical decision
making and teachers’ views of children’s participation.
Nicole Müller, DPhil, is Professor of Speech and Hearing Sciences at University
College Cork, Ireland. She was born and grew up in Germany, and was
educated in Germany, Ireland, and England. Before coming back to Ireland
in 2017, she held academic positions in the UK, the USA, and Sweden. As
a Fulbright scholar, she spent six months at NUI Galway, conducting a field

29. About the authorsxxv
study with bilingual nursing home residents. She has wide-ranging research
and teaching interests, which include the effects of neurodegeneration and
brain damage on communication and cognition, multilingualism, and clinical
linguistics and phonetics.
Charn Nang, PhD, is a lecturer and researcher in The School of Medical and
Health Sciences at Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia. She is a qualified
speech language therapist who works clinically in the area of stuttering. Her
research interests include stuttering, speech motor control development,
evidence-based treatments for stuttering and cultural and linguistically diverse
topics in speech pathology. Charn has used qualitative research methods to
explore the experiences of people living with stuttering including women who
stutter and migrants to Australia who stutter as well as to explore people who
stutters’ experiences with treatment. 
Alison Nelson, PhD, is the Director of Workforce Development at The Institute
for Urban Indigenous Health in Brisbane. She holds an adjunct position as
Associate Professor in the Faculty of Health and Behavioural Science at The
University of Queensland. Alison has a background as an occupational therapist
and has extensive research, teaching and practice experience working alongside
urban Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Alison has completed
both a research Master’s degree and PhD in the areas of service delivery and
perceptions of health for urban Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children
and young people, and she has published widely in these fields.
Robyn O’Halloran, PhD, is a Senior Lecturer in Human Communication
Sciences, La Trobe University and Research Lead in Speech Pathology at St
Vincent’s Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. She is a speech and language therapist
who has worked with adults with acquired neurogenic communication disorders
in hospital and community health settings. She has supervised research by higher
degree students using both quantitative and qualitative research methods. Her
research interests include supporting healthcare providers to communicate
effectively with patients who have communication disability in hospital.
Mary-Pat O Malley-Keighran, PhD, is a lecturer in speech and language
therapy at NUI Galway. She is a speech and language therapist with a special
interest in working with multilingual families and in supporting speech and
language therapists working with multilingual families. She is also interested

30. Qualitative research in communication disorders xxvi
in disseminating research in an accessible way to families and speech and
language therapists through her award-winning website ‘Talk Nua’ (www.talknua.
com). In her capacity as lecturer and speech and language therapist, she has
used a range of quantitative and qualitative methods to investigate narrative
as an ecologically valid language assessment approach for monolingual and
multilingual children, children’s drawings as a way to understand children’s
perspectives on their speech, and critical discourse analysis as a way of
exploring representations of clients in range of contexts from report writing
to Irish newspapers and radio.
Carole Pound, PhD, is a speech and language therapist who has worked
extensively with people with acquired neurodisability and their families and
friends. She co-founded the charity Connect to develop innovative therapy
and support services with and for people living with aphasia and her doctoral
studies used participatory action research to explore the friendship experiences
of adults with aphasia. As a researcher in the Centre for Qualitative Research
at Bournemouth University, her current interests focus on working with
service users, providers and organizations in health and social care contexts
to understand and translate humanization theory to practice.
Miranda Rose, PhD, is Professor of Speech Pathology in the School of Allied
Health, La Trobe University, Australia. After a 20-year academic career in
speech pathology education, Miranda moved into research-only positions
focused on the development of effective interventions and management
strategies for post-stoke aphasia. Miranda currently leads a nationally funded
research centre in Aphasia Recovery and Rehabilitation at La Trobe University,
including qualitative investigations and large randomized controlled trials of
treatment efficacy and effectiveness.
Sue Roulstone, PhD, is Emeritus Professor at the University of the West of
England, Bristol and a member of the Bristol Speech & Language Therapy
Research Unit. Sue has worked as a speech and language therapist, a manager,
a researcher and an educator and was Chair of the UK Royal College of Speech
& Language Therapists from 2004‒2006. Her research interests include child
and family perspectives, professional judgement and evaluation of speech and
language therapy. She has carried out a number of consultations with parents,
children and young people using qualitative methods.

31. About the authorsxxvii
Samantha Siyambalapitiya, PhD, is a speech pathologist and Senior Lecturer
in the School of Allied Health Sciences at Griffith University, Australia and
a member of the Menzies Health Institute Queensland. Samantha leads a
programme of research investigating communication disability in individuals
from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, including bilingual
speakers. She has employed both quantitative and qualitative research methods
to explore this area.
Elizabeth Spencer, PhD, is a qualified speech pathologist and lecturer in Speech
Pathology at the University of Newcastle, Australia. She has a background in
linguistics and specialist expertise in the areas of clinical discourse analysis. She
currently teaches primarily in the area of child language. Her current research
focuses on the application of linguistic analyses to explore the effects of ageing
on language in the general population and also of adults with communication
disorders and has supervised research at undergraduate and postgraduate
levels in these areas.
Sarah Verdon, PhD, is a Senior Lecturer and Research Fellow at Charles Sturt
University, Australia. Her research focuses on the development of a culturally
competent workforce and supporting the communication of children from
diverse backgrounds. She is co-chair of The International Expert Panel on
Multilingual Children’s Speech and oversaw the development the Speech
Pathology Australia national position paper and clinical guidelines for ‘working
in a culturally and linguistically diverse society’.
Carol Westby, PhD, is a consultant for Bilingual Multicultural Services, Inc.
in Albuquerque, NM. She is an ASHA Board Certified SLP Specialist in Child
Language. She has employed qualitative methodologies in the development and
evaluation of early intervention programmes and language/literacy programmes
for school-age students from culturally/linguistically diverse populations and
support systems for first generation university students. She has published
and presented nationally and internationally on narrative and expository
language development and facilitation, theory of mind, metacognition/
executive function, language-literacy relationships, and issues in assessment
and intervention with culturally/ linguistically diverse populations. She has
directed masters’ theses and doctoral dissertations that have used qualitative
methodologies, particularly ethnography.

32. Qualitative research in communication disorders xxviii
Linda Worrall, PhD, is a Professor of Speech Pathology, Co-Director of
the Communication Disability Centre and Postgraduate Coordinator at
The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. She completed her
undergraduate degree in speech pathology at The University of Queensland
but then completed her PhD in the Stroke Research Unit in Nottingham, UK.
She has practised as a speech pathologist both in Australia and the UK and
founded the Australian Aphasia Association, the consumer-led organization,
in 2000. She has published over 200 peer-reviewed journal articles, 26 book
chapters, and six books; graduated 24 PhD candidates and has had continuous
nationally competitive research funding during her academic career. From
2009‒2014, she led the NHMRC-funded Australia-wide Centre for Clinical
Research Excellence in Aphasia Rehabilitation.

33. Section I Introduction

35. 1 Introduction and overview of
qualitative research
Lindy McAllister and Rena Lyons
Goals and layout of the book
Most speech and language therapists (SLTs) undertake research subjects as
part of their degrees, and some will complete research projects as students.
Clinicians increasingly have a research role built into their job descriptions.
Until recently, SLTs were educated primarily (or only) in quantitative (statistical)
approaches to research and the majority of our research literature presented
quantitative studies. Qualitative research is being used more frequently by
SLTs and research funding bodies are increasingly seeking research proposals
using mixed methods, that is, designs that combine quantitative and qualitative
approaches, to better answer research questions. The body of literature in the
field of communication disorders where researchers have used qualitative
research has grown considerably in the last decade, and there are new books
on the topic of qualitative research in communication disorders (e.g., Ball,
Müller, & Nelson, 2014). Qualitative research is now more frequently covered
in pre-registration degree curricula for speech and language therapy students.
However, students and clinicians remain under-confident in their use of
qualitative research. There are many reasons for this; depth of education in
qualitative research is one reason. There may not be sufficient time devoted to
explicating qualitative research methods and giving students time to practise
and develop skills in qualitative data collection and analysis. Developing an
understanding of qualitative research is also confused by the plethora of terms
used in qualitative research, often without clear explanation and illustrations
of use. Some students do not feel confident in their knowledge of statistics
and may see qualitative research as a way of avoiding statistical analysis.
However, Creswell (2007) reminds us that qualitative research involves in-
depth exploration of a problem and this type of research requires time and
resources and should not be seen as an easier option than a quantitative study.

36. Qualitative research in communication disorders 2
We are SLTs who are passionate about qualitative research and have
experience both using and teaching qualitative research in the field of
communication disorders and speech and language therapy practice. We use
the term ‘communication disorders’ in this book as a broad term that includes
both the communication impairment and barriers to participation. We
deliberately focus on the use of qualitative research in the field of communication
disorders rather than dysphagia because very few qualitative studies have
been published in dysphagia to date. This book aims to demystify qualitative
research and reduce confusion about terms used in discussing and writing
about qualitative research methodologies and methods. We aim to provide
speech and language therapy students and clinicians with an overview of
qualitative research, the different methodologies and methods within it, and
how it can be used to answer important questions in clinical and professional
practice in speech and language therapy. There are particular issues which
researchers need to consider when carrying out qualitative research with
people with communication disorders given that many data collection and
analysis methods are based on generating and analyzing talk. Our goal is to
provide rich examples of how qualitative research has been used in the field
of communication disorders so that readers develop understanding of the
methods used and gain confidence in how to go about designing qualitative
research studies, selecting methodologies, collecting and analyzing data, and
writing up findings from qualitative research. But Braun and Clarke (2013)
remind us that while it is important to learn about qualitative research, the
actual doing of qualitative research is an essential part of the learning process.
We start by explaining what qualitative research is, locating qualitative
research within the array of research paradigms, highlighting the similarities
and differences between qualitative research and quantitative research, and
providing an overview of the major methodologies (also referred to as approaches
or traditions) within the qualitative research paradigm. Later chapters (Chapters
2‒10), written by experienced and internationally published SLTs, provide
more detailed discussions and examples of the different qualitative research
approaches or methodologies, with examples of use in their research. Chapter
11 provides an overview of common methods used to collect and analyze data
in qualitative research. Chapter 12 discusses the various techniques used to
ensure scientific rigour in qualitative research. In subsequent chapters (13‒16),
SLTs illustrate methods they have used to recruit participants, collect data,
analyze and write up their data. These chapters contain worked examples of
data, analysis and writing to reveal the detail too often excluded from qualitative

37. 3Introduction and overview of qualitative research
research journal publications due to word length. We include chapters (17‒21)
on ethical and cultural considerations in engaging with research participants
1
in qualitative research as well as innovative approaches in qualitative research.
In Chapter 21 there is a discussion on the emerging area of synthesizing data
from qualitative research studies. Finally, in Chapter 22 we make concluding
remarks and discuss future directions for qualitative research in the field of
communication disorders.
What is qualitative research?
The starting point for any research project is the research question or what
it is that you want to find out. This will guide you to the most appropriate
methodology and methods to answer your question. For example, if a researcher
wanted to explore parental experiences of ‘what’ it is like to live with a child
with a developmental language disorder and ‘how’ parents sought help for
their child, one of the options available to answer these questions is qualitative
research. According to Braun and Clarke (2013) the most basic definition of
qualitative research is that “it uses words as data, collected and analysed in
different ways. Quantitative research, in contrast, uses numbers [their emphasis]
as data and analyses them using statistical techniques” (p.3). There is debate
about whether qualitative researchers should provide quantitative data (e.g.,
the number of times that a theme appeared across participants). Qualitative
researchers may decide to provide a frequency count but this may be used
to complement a deep analysis and is not the primary goal of a qualitative
research design (Lewis, 2016). Qualitative research is particularly useful for
answering ‘what’ and ‘how’ questions and can be viewed as an umbrella term
for a range of methodologies such as conversation analysis, critical discourse
analysis, discourse analysis, ethnography, grounded theory, narrative inquiry,
participatory research, phenomenology, and qualitative case study. All of these
methodologies have been used in communication disorders research and are
discussed in this book.
In this section we provide an overview of research paradigms and then
of the methodologies and methods available within the qualitative research
paradigm. It is in the discussion of research paradigms and qualitative research
methodologies where much of the confusion and uncertainty experienced by
students and SLTs about qualitative research arises. There can be confusion
1 We use this term but are aware of other terms used in the literature such as patients, clients, and consumers.

38. Qualitative research in communication disorders 4
about the overlapping nature of the concepts and ways in which terms are used
to describe research. For example, the term ‘paradigm’ may be used by one
author to represent the ontological and epistemological aspects of research
design and by another writer as a method of data collection. Our goal is to
overview this as clearly and succinctly as possible but some understanding of
the terminology of research is required – so bear with us.
A paradigm provides an overarching framework for the research and
different research paradigms carry with them certain assumptions about the
nature of reality (ontology ) and the nature of knowledge (epistemology),
which in turn suggest appropriate methodologies for generating knowledge.
Creswell (2007) reminds us that philosophical assumptions may come from
the researchers’ worldviews, a set of beliefs, and theoretical positions. It is
important that researchers make these philosophical assumptions explicit
when writing up the study. Over time there have been changes in how people
view paradigms. For example, in the past some argued that there were three
paradigms (quantitative, qualitative and critical theory paradigms) which
“stem from the philosophical stances of positivism, idealism and realism,
respectively” (Higgs & Titchen, 1995, p.132). Critical theory is an overarching
term that covers a number of qualitative research traditions such as participatory,
feminist or emancipatory research (see, for example, Kincheloe & McLaren,
2005). Researchers working in a critical theory paradigm assume that reality is
shaped by the surrounding social, political, cultural, and economic values that
people operate in. Critical qualitative researchers “question the conceptual and
theoretical bases of knowledge and method, to ask questions that go beyond
prevailing assumptions and understandings, and to acknowledge the role of
power and social position in health-related phenomena. The notion includes
self-critique, a critical posture vis-à-vis qualitative inquiry itself” (University of
Toronto: http://www.ccqhr.utoronto.ca/what-is-critical-qualitative-research).
In the current literature, critical theory is not generally viewed as a distinct
paradigm but a critical lens can be brought to any methodology. In the past,
some scholars saw action research as distinct from other research paradigms (for
example, Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988) in that it “combines inquiry with action
as a means of stimulating and supporting change and as a way of assessing the
impact of that change” (Burns, 2007, p.11); that is, the purpose of the inquiry
is to bring about change and learning through systematic reflection on the
topic that is the focus of the study. However, Kagan, Burton and Siddiquee
(2017) view action research as an approach to inquiry whereby researchers
attempt to “combine understanding, or development of a theory, with action

39. Introduction and overview of qualitative research5
and change through a participatory process, whilst remaining grounded in
experience” (p.55) and is part of the qualitative research paradigm. Kemmis
and McTaggart themselves now accept the view that action research fits under
the participatory research umbrella (Kemmis, McTaggart, & Nixon, 2014). We
have included a chapter on participatory research (Chapter 8) which covers
a range of methodologies such as participatory learning and action research
in which stakeholders are collaborators with researchers.
In the interest of clarity we will focus our discussion here on the two main
paradigms discussed in the current literature: quantitative and qualitative
research. SLTs have long used the quantitative research paradigm (also known
as the positivist, empirico-analytic paradigm, and often referred to using
the term ‘statistical research’), but are now increasingly using the qualitative
paradigm (also known as the interpretive paradigm or as interpretive research
or interpretive inquiry), which includes some linguistic research such as
discourse analysis and conversational analysis.
It is important to understand that a researcher’s views on ontology and
epistemology should lead to the selection of particular methodologies and
methods so that there is coherence within the research design (Braun &
Clarke, 2013). Confusingly, in your readings you will come across the term
Box 1.1 Definitions of terms paradigm, methodology and methods.
• Paradigm: A paradigm represents “the entire constellation of beliefs,
values, techniques, and so on shared by the members of a given (scientific) community” (Kuhn, 1970, p.175). Guba (1990, p.17) described a paradigm as a “basic set of beliefs that guides action”. For example, qualitative research is a distinct paradigm.
• Methodology: Methodology refers to the choices we make in relation to ontology and epistemology and how we will explore the phenomenon of interest (Silverman, 2013). For example, we refer to grounded theory and narrative inquiry as methodologies. In this book we use the terms ‘approach’ and ‘methodology’ synonymously.
• Methods: Methods refer to the specific research techniques (Silverman, 2013). For example, interviews are a method for data collection and thematic analysis is a method for data analysis.

40. Qualitative research in communication disorders 6
methodology used in different ways by different authors. For example, the term
methodology may be used for broad definitions (e.g., qualitative research) or
narrow definitions (e.g., discourse analysis) (Silverman, 2013). Furthermore,
O’Brien, Harris, Beckman, Reed and Cook (2014) used the term ‘approaches’
to refer the names of methodologies (e.g., ethnography) and ‘methodologies’
to refer to data collection methods (e.g., interviews or focus groups).
With a view to providing clarity we are using the terms paradigm,
methodology, and methods as illustrated in Figure 1.1.
Similarities and differences between qualitative and
quantitative research paradigms
It is important to understand the similarities and differences between the
two major research paradigms of quantitative and qualitative research. This
is important because qualitative research has been criticized and researchers
have been referred to as “journalists or soft scientists. The work of qualitative
researchers is termed unscientific, or only exploratory or subjective” (Denzin &
Lincoln, 2005, p.8). Lewis (2016, p.8) argues that these criticisms “demonstrate
a lack of understanding about both the nature of qualitative research and the
differences between subjectivity and objectivity”. Both qualitative and quantitative
research paradigms share similarities. For example, both paradigms are
‘scientific’ and produce empirical evidence. However, there are some significant
ontological and epistemological differences between the paradigms which need
to be understood, as they influence the sorts of questions that can be asked
and answered, methodologies and methods chosen, and interpretation and
presentation of data and findings. Figure 1.1 summarizes the major ontological
and epistemological distinctions between qualitative and quantitative research
as we discuss them here.
Guba and Lincoln (1994) described the ontological assumptions (about
the nature of reality) of the qualitative paradigm as relativist in nature, meaning
that multiple realities exist, with individuals constructing their own meanings
and interpretations of their experiences. Qualitative approaches acknowledge
that meaning is relative to individuals (not assumed as absolute and measurable
as in the quantitative paradigm), and that multiple realities mean there are
multiple ways of looking at and experiencing the world. Qualitative research
assumes “a relativist ontology (there are multiple realities), a subjectivist
epistemology (knower and respondent cocreate understandings) and a

41. Theory
QUANTITATIVE
RESEARCH
RESEARCH
PARADIGM
QUALITATIVE
RESEARCH
Single, objective realityPHILOSOPHICAL
PERSPECTIVE
Multiple realities
Test, verify, describe
(discrete variables)
Research purpose Explain, interpret, describe
(phenomena)
Descriptive
Relational
Comparative
Methodology Phenomenology
Ethnography
Grounded theory
Qualitative case study
Participatory research
Narrative inquiry
Discourse analysis
Conversation analysis
Critical discourse analysis
Randomized controls
Clinical trials
Single case designs
Surveys
Methods Observation
Interviews
Focus groups
Review of artefacts
Review of documents
Numerical, descriptive Research data Words, images
Visual display
Statistical analysis
Data analysis Constant comparative
analysis
Thematic analysis
Discourse analysis
Framework analysis
Confirmed, revised,
emergent or grounded
theory
Figure 1.1 A model of qualitative and quantitative approaches to research (after Higgs,
1998). (Used with relevant permissions.)

42. Table 1.1 Philosophical underpinnings of qualitative research and seminal scholars.
Philosophical
traditions and
theoretical
constructs
DefinitionSeminal scholars
Symbolic
interactionism
The study of structure, functions and meanings of symbol systems (such as language) which was developed by the
Chicago school (Oxford University Press, 2009).
The process of interaction to understand meaning in people’s lives (Minichiello & Kottler, 2010).
According to Blumer (1969) there are three core principles in this theory: the meaning people assign to their interactions
with others; the language we use to negotiate meaning through symbols; and the thinking processes that negotiate the
interpretation of symbols (as described by (Minichiello & Kottler, 2010).
Blumer (1969), George
Herbert Mead (1925)
Social
constructionism
The processes through which social realities are constructed and sustained (Holstein & Gubrium, 2008b in Silverman,
2013, p.107). The multiple and varied subjective meanings of experiences which are negotiated socially and historically
and formed through interactions with others (Creswell, 2007).
In social constructionism there is an emphasis on the constructivist aspects of knowledge such as a focus on ‘what’ and
‘how’ questions (Silverman, 2013). Social constructionism is rooted in symbolic interactionism and phenomenology.
Husserl (1973), Schutz
(1967) Ricoeur
(1980), Vygotsky
(1987), Searle (1995),
Berger and Luckman
(1971)
Social
constructivism
A theory about how people learn – where they ask questions and find answers via exploration and assessment of what
they already know (Oxford University Press, 2009).
HermeneuticsThe research processes in qualitative research are often described as hermeneutical and dialectical (Guba & Lincoln,
1994). Hermeneutics refers to the activity of interpretation (Schwandt, 1994). Participants’ understandings of their lived
experiences or their social constructions are interpreted by researchers using hermeneutic techniques and are “compared
and contrasted through a dialectal interchange” (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, p.111) between participant and researcher.
Ricoeur (1980),
Derrida (1993),
Schwandt (1990,1994),
Heidegger (1962,
1982), Gadamer
(1976)
Systemic functional
linguistics
Systemic functional linguistics is theory of language use (Müller, Mok, & Keegan, 2014). Language has two functions,
i.e., constructing experience and enacting social processes (Halliday & Matthiessen, 1999). Provides a framework for the
“detailed analysis of the linguistic resources involved in the creation of meaning” (Müller, Mok, & Keegan, 2014, p.168).
Halliday & Hasan
(1980), Eggins (2004)
Critical theoryCritical theory is a school of thought that stresses the reflective assessment and critique of society and culture by
applying knowledge from the social sciences and the humanities. (Wikipedia accessed 27 July 2018). Many disciplines
have a critical strand (e.g., critical disability studies, critical education). Readers should also be aware of the distinct
tradition of Critical Theory, which arose in the 1930s in the Frankfurt School.

43. Table 1.1 Philosophical underpinnings of qualitative research and seminal scholars.
Philosophical
traditions and
theoretical
constructs
DefinitionSeminal scholars
Symbolic
interactionism
The study of structure, functions and meanings of symbol systems (such as language) which was developed by the
Chicago school (Oxford University Press, 2009).
The process of interaction to understand meaning in people’s lives (Minichiello & Kottler, 2010).
According to Blumer (1969) there are three core principles in this theory: the meaning people assign to their interactions
with others; the language we use to negotiate meaning through symbols; and the thinking processes that negotiate the
interpretation of symbols (as described by (Minichiello & Kottler, 2010).
Blumer (1969), George
Herbert Mead (1925)
Social
constructionism
The processes through which social realities are constructed and sustained (Holstein & Gubrium, 2008b in Silverman,
2013, p.107). The multiple and varied subjective meanings of experiences which are negotiated socially and historically
and formed through interactions with others (Creswell, 2007).
In social constructionism there is an emphasis on the constructivist aspects of knowledge such as a focus on ‘what’ and
‘how’ questions (Silverman, 2013). Social constructionism is rooted in symbolic interactionism and phenomenology.
Husserl (1973), Schutz
(1967) Ricoeur
(1980), Vygotsky
(1987), Searle (1995),
Berger and Luckman
(1971)
Social
constructivism
A theory about how people learn – where they ask questions and find answers via exploration and assessment of what
they already know (Oxford University Press, 2009).
HermeneuticsThe research processes in qualitative research are often described as hermeneutical and dialectical (Guba & Lincoln,
1994). Hermeneutics refers to the activity of interpretation (Schwandt, 1994). Participants’ understandings of their lived
experiences or their social constructions are interpreted by researchers using hermeneutic techniques and are “compared
and contrasted through a dialectal interchange” (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, p.111) between participant and researcher.
Ricoeur (1980),
Derrida (1993),
Schwandt (1990,1994),
Heidegger (1962,
1982), Gadamer
(1976)
Systemic
functional
linguistics
Systemic functional linguistics is theory of language use (Müller, Mok, & Keegan, 2014). Language has two functions,
i.e., constructing experience and enacting social processes (Halliday & Matthiessen, 1999). Provides a framework for the
“detailed analysis of the linguistic resources involved in the creation of meaning” (Müller, Mok, & Keegan, 2014, p.168).
Halliday & Hasan
(1980), Eggins (2004)
Critical theoryCritical theory is a school of thought that stresses the reflective assessment and critique of society and culture by
applying knowledge from the social sciences and the humanities. (Wikipedia accessed 27 July 2018). Many disciplines
have a critical strand (e.g., critical disability studies, critical education). Readers should also be aware of the distinct
tradition of Critical Theory, which arose in the 1930s in the Frankfurt School.

44. Qualitative research in communication disorders 10
naturalistic (in the natural world) set of methodological procedures” (Denzin
& Lincoln, 2005, p.24).
In your reading about qualitative research you will come across a number of
philosophical traditions and theoretical constructs which underpin qualitative
research. It is beyond the scope of this book to discuss these in depth but
it is important that you position your research within the context of these
philosophical and theoretical underpinnings. We provide a brief overview of
the key philosophical constructs and seminal scholars in Table 1.1.
The ontologies and epistemologies underpinning qualitative research
are in stark contrast to those of research in the quantitative paradigm,
which assumes that researchers are capable of controlling and measuring a
phenomenon (called in that paradigm a ‘variable’) “without influencing it or
being influenced by it” (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, p.110). Quantitative researchers
assume that measurement is undertaken by a value-free, detached researcher,
rigorously following prescribed procedures that eliminate contamination of
data, and that this allows replicability of results. In contrast, in the qualitative
paradigm, knowledge is not seen as ‘fixed’ or ‘true’, unchangeably determined
through experiments, but rather as created in interactions among people
(socially constructed); in the case of research, between researcher and research
participants. Qualitative researchers seek to describe, explain, interpret, and
understand the meaning of social phenomena as experienced by individuals
in their context. “Research with people, rather than on people” is the goal of
qualitative research (Dickson, 1995, p.415). Hence, the people who participate
in qualitative research are known as informants, participants, or research
collaborators, not ‘subjects’ as in some quantitative research. Indeed, Graue
and Walsh (1998) argue that the term data generation is preferable to data
collection because data collection suggests that the data is out there to be
collected whereas data are generated in and through interactions between
researchers and participants.
The ontological and epistemological assumptions upon which qualitative
research is based lead to considerations about methods quite distinct from
those of the quantitative paradigm. In relation to sampling strategies, qualitative
researchers do not seek large samples from which generalizations can be drawn;
rather they seek detailed knowledge and understanding of the lived experience
of a typically small number of participants. The data in qualitative research
consist of texts, newspapers, documents, interviews, naturally occurring talk
(without the intervention of the researcher), life stories, observational data,
visual data (see Silverman, 2013 for an overview). These data contrast with

45. Introduction and overview of qualitative research11
the data collected in quantitative studies which are typically numbers-based.
The place of theory also differs in the two paradigms. In quantitative research,
a priori theory is tested, often in the form of hypothesis testing. In contrast,
qualitative research seeks to discover and describe theories that emerge from
the data; theory is derived by inductive analysis and is grounded in the data.
All theory emerging from qualitative research can be said to be ‘grounded’.
The term ‘grounded theory’ applies to a particular methodology and approach
to data analysis and theory generation described by Glaser and Strauss (1967)
and Strauss and Corbin (1990) (see Chapter 6). Deductive approaches to data
analysis can also be used where researchers may draw on concepts from the
literature when conducting data analysis while also remaining open to new
themes (Minichiello, Aroni, & Hays, 2008).
To better understand the differences between these two research approaches
it may be helpful to consider two papers in the speech and language therapy
research literature, both apparently about the same topic ‒ the perceptions of
parents about their experiences of speech and language therapy programmes,
but using different research paradigms which reflect different views about
the kinds of data that best address their questions. Crais, Poston and Free
(2006), working within the quantitative paradigm, used an established rating
instrument to examine agreement between parents and professionals on
whether family-centered practices were implemented during assessments and
which practices were viewed as important to include in future assessments.
The features of interest were established a priori within the rating tool, and
Box 1.2 Characteristics of qualitative research (Creswell, 2007).
• It is conducted in natural settings
• Researchers are viewed as key instruments
• Multiple sources of data may be used
• Inductive data analysis is used
• There is a focus on participants’ meanings
• The design is viewed as emergent
• Interpretive inquiry is used

46. Qualitative research in communication disorders 12
the analysis compared parents’ and professionals’ ratings using numerical
data and statistical analyses. Kummerer, Lopez-Reyna and Hughes (2007)
positioned their study within the qualitative paradigm and their aim was to
explore the perceptions of immigrant Mexican mothers with regard to their
children’s communication disability and their experiences of speech and
language therapy services. They used semi-structured interviews and field
notes of informal conversations with parents; the data were therefore verbal.
The researchers adopted a grounded theory methodology, using constant
comparative analysis to identify themes in the mothers’ data.
In summary, the key characteristics of qualitative research are presented
in Box 1.2.
Arguments for using a qualitative approach in
communication disorders research
Qualitative research can complement quantitative research to enhance our
understanding of communication disorders as well as speech and language
therapy practice for four reasons. First, communication as a human right is
enshrined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which
states that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression (United
Nations, 1948). People with communication disabilities have been excluded
from research because of assumptions that they would be unable to participate
due to their communication disabilities. If we take a human rights perspective,
then it is incumbent upon us to include people with communication disabilities
in research, to give them a voice and, more importantly, to listen to their voice.
A special edition of the International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology
celebrated the 70th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and authors discussed communication as a human right and focused on four
themes: “(1) communication rights for all people; (2) communication rights of
people with communication disabilities; (3) communication rights of children;
and (4) communication rights relating to language” (McLeod, 2018, p.5).
Qualitative methodologies can be used to explore the first-hand experiences
of people with communication disabilities, their communication partners and
those who work with them, which may in turn shape the services we provide.
Second, one of the frameworks that has informed assessment and
intervention in the field of communication disorders has been the International
Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF; World Health
Organisation, 2001). The ICF provides a holistic biopsychosocial framework

47. 13Introduction and overview of qualitative research
and consists of three lists of codes: one list of body structure and function;
one list for activities and participation; and a list of codes relating to personal
and environmental factors that may impact on functioning. Many of the tests
available to speech and language therapists focus on the impairment rather
than activities and participation or personal and environmental factors.
Qualitative methodologies provide rich opportunities to explore the lives
and experiences of people with communication disorders as well as their
communication partners in context. These data can complement data from
traditional tests by providing ecologically valid information on what it is like
to live with a communication disability and the types of supports which are
required to improve quality of life.
Third, evidence-based practice (EBP) underpins speech and language
therapy practice and has been defined as “the conscientious, explicit, and
judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care
of individual patients” (Sackett, Rosenberg, Gray, Haynes, & Richardson,
1996, p.71). When using EBP, the clinician integrates three different kinds
of evidence: external evidence from systematic research, clinical expertise,
and patient values and preferences. When SLTs think about evidence-based
practice, they may focus on one of these pillars (i.e., external evidence from
rigorous quantitative studies). Qualitative research provides opportunities
to explore the other two pillars of EBP. For example, if we want to explore
how clinicians implement evidence or make decisions in practice, qualitative
methodologies are useful to uncover their reasoning and decision making
(see Chapter 20). Qualitative research can also enhance our understanding
of patient preferences and values. For example, Greenhalgh (2016) argued
that narrative inquiry, a type of qualitative methodology, can complement
traditional quantitative approaches and enhance our understanding about
the cultural contexts of health. Qualitative methodologies can be used to
understand lived experiences and lifestyle choices which in turn can inform
interventions which are aimed at influencing these experiences and choices
(Greenhalgh, 2016). Qualitative research is also recommended in the early
stages of designing complex intervention trials to enhance credibility and the
impacts of interventions (Morgan et al., 2016).
Fourth, there have been calls to promote patient and public involvement
(PPI) in healthcare and research with the goal of improving the health and
experiences of patients, families, and the wider public (Ocloo & Matthews,
2016). Involvement in this context refers to activities that are done ‘with’ rather
than ‘on’ patients. In PPI there is a partnership between patients, the public, and

48. Figure 1.2
Qualitative Research Level of Alignment
Wheel (QR-LAW)TM (Bradbury-Jones
et al., 2017). Reproduced with permission
from Taylor and Francis.

50. Qualitative research in communication disorders 16
healthcare professionals and patients can be involved in all aspects of research
and healthcare from design to implementation and dissemination. Ocloo and
Matthews (2016) discussed some of the benefits of PPI including: “improving
patient choice, self-care and shared decision-making (SDM) contributing to
research partnerships and changes to service delivery and patient outcomes”
(p.627). Qualitative methodologies can be used to promote PPI (e.g., involving
participants in all aspects of the research process) (see Chapter 8).
Research methodologies within the qualitative
research paradigm
Several methodologies or approaches in the qualitative paradigm have particular
applicability to communication disorders research. They include participatory
research, phenomenology and hermeneutics, narrative inquiry, ethnography,
grounded theory, qualitative case studies, and methodologies where talk and
text are analyzed. Silverman (2013, p.138) stated that “your choice of method
should reflect both your research topic and your overall research strategy as
your methodology shapes which methods are used and how each method is
used”. Furthermore, each of these methodologies has specific epistemological
and ontological underpinnings as well as particular approaches to sampling,
data collection, and analysis.
Bradbury-Jones et al. (2017) claimed that some researchers may only use
some aspects of a methodology rather than the full package and there can be
a mismatch between what researchers say they do (e.g., they may state that
they used grounded theory) and what they actually do (e.g., they may not have
used all of the specific methods associated with grounded theory). Bradbury-
Jones et al. (2017) designed a Qualitative Research Level of Alignment Wheel
(QR-LAW)
TM
(see Figure 1.2) which provides information on the major
methodologies in qualitative research (they use the term ‘orientations’) and the
methods (they use the term ‘techniques’) associated with these methodologies
to enable researchers to align methodologies and methods. Their intention
is not to draw rigid boundaries between methodologies but rather to enable
researchers to be cognisant of and account for their decisions if they combine
or borrow from different methodologies and methods. Bradbury-Jones et
al. (2017) also include a methodology called ‘generic qualitative’ research.
Generic qualitative research has been defined as research that “is not guided
by an explicit or established set of philosophic assumptions in the form of
one of the known qualitative methodologies” (Caelli, Ray, & Mill, 2003, p.2).

51. Introduction and overview of qualitative research17
Caelli et al. (2003) argue that researchers who use generic qualitative research
should address four parameters to enhance the credibility of their research: “the
theoretical positioning of the researcher, the congruence between methodology
and methods; the strategies to establish rigour; and the analytical lens through
which the data are examined” (p.5).
In the following section, we provide a brief overview of what each of the
major methodologies entails. In Chapters 2‒10 more detailed descriptions
of these methodologies are provided with exemplars of the decision-making
processes used by researchers regarding methodologies and methods in the
field of communication disorders.
Analyzing text and talk
In many qualitative approaches the method of data collection is interviews (see
Chapter 13). However, if the researcher is interested in exploring interactions
between people (e.g., interactions between SLTs and clients) or in repair
strategies used when communication breakdown occurs in aphasia or dementia,
the data could be naturally-occurring talk rather than interview data. Three
major approaches to analyzing text and talk are conversation analysis, critical
discourse analysis and discourse analysis. Conversation analysis was developed
by Sacks, Schlegloff and Jefferson (1974) to explore “the structure and process
of social interactions” (Peräkylä, 2005, p.875) (see Chapter 2). For example,
Griffiths, Barnes, Britten and Wilkinson (2011) used conversation analysis
to explore repair strategies in conversations between people with Parkinson’s
Disease and familiar conversation partners.
Discourse analysis is used across a number of disciplines such as linguistics
and psychology where it is referred to as discursive psychology. Discourse
analysis refers to “many different approaches of investigation of written texts
(and of spoken discourse as well)” (Peräkylä, 2005, p.871). There are different
approaches to discourse analysis. In critical discourse analysis, researchers analyze
ways in which power and inequalities are represented and constructed in text
(see Chapter 3). This approach has been used in the field of communication
disorders. For example, O’Malley-Keighran (2016) used critical discourse
analysis to explore representations of clients in exemplar texts in textbooks
and Ferguson and Armstrong (2004) analyzed SLTs’ documentation presenting
challenges for the profession regarding relationships with our ‘patients’. In
linguistics, discourse analysis refers to research that explores “the features of

52. Qualitative research in communication disorders18
text that maintain coherence in units longer than the sentence” (Peräkylä &
Ruusuvuori, 2011, p.871) (see Chapter 4).
Ethnography
Ethnography focuses on understanding a culture or way of life of a group
from the perspective of its members. Early ethnographers such as Margaret
Mead (see, for example, 1963) studied so-called ‘exotic cultures’ in the Pacific,
Asia, South America or Africa. Recent ethnographic work has been informed
by the work of Spradley (1979), Werner (1999), and Rice and Ezzy (1999),
among many other writers. Data collected through observation, field notes,
interviews, artefacts, mapping of relationships and places of importance are
analyzed to identify ways in which people categorize meanings inherent in
their culture. Prolonged immersion in the field, interacting with and observing
participants, allows understanding and description from an ‘insider’ or ‘emic’
perspective (Fetterman, 1989). The result of ethnographic research is a detailed
description of the way of life of a group.
A few ethnographic studies have been conducted in the field of
communication disorders (e.g., Parr, 2007; Wickenden, 2011; see Table
1.2). This methodology has potential to help us to understand the everyday
experiences of people with communication disorders as well as elucidating
routine practices in speech and language therapy which may be taken for
granted (see Chapters 5 and 15).
Grounded theory
Glaser and Strauss (1967) coined the term ‘grounded theory’ to describe an
inductive process of identifying themes and analytic categories in data. As
described by Glaser and Strauss (1967) and later Strauss and Corbin (1990),
the theory uses a structured approach to coding. Researchers bring their
‘theoretical sensitivity’, that is, knowledge of the field and phenomenon under
investigation, which allows them to be aware of subtleties in the data and likely
concepts and categories to be found in the data. Particular coding strategies
are used to identify categories of data, and causal, relational, and consequential
types of relationships among categories of data.
Semantics and the similarities of analytic procedures in interpretive research
have led to confusion about what is meant by grounded theory and theory
grounded in data. All theory emerging from the analysis of interpretive data

53. Introduction and overview of qualitative research19
is grounded in data, and the steps of grounded theory analysis are similar to
those used in many approaches to interpretive data analysis. Analysis involves
multiple interactions of coding and categorization of data using what is known
as ‘constant comparative analysis’; that is, constantly moving between sections
of one text or across different texts, comparing codes or categories to identify
commonalities and differences. Early emergent theory is tested in the analysis
of subsequent data, and data collection continues until saturation is achieved
(Hammersley & Atkinson, 1983); that is, until no new concepts or categories
emerge from the data. Analytic memos are written while data are analyzed to
assist with describing the processes actually used in analysis and interpretation.
Grounded theory has not been widely used in communication disorders
research. In recent years, researchers have used grounded theory to explore
experiences of people with communication disabilities (Hynan, Goldbart, &
Murray, 2015) and reflective practice in speech and language therapy (Caty,
Kinsella, & Doyle, 2016) (see Table 1.2 and Chapter 6).
Narrative inquiry
An interpretive approach widely used in education research is narrative
inquiry (Clandinin & Connelly, 1994; Connelly & Clandinin, 1990), which
seeks to illuminate personal practical knowledge through the elicitation and
analysis of stories from participants about their life experiences. Humans are
essentially ‘storied beings’ (Polkinghorne, 1995) and there are at least two
ways in which narrative inquiry can be conducted: through the analysis of
narratives, which yields typologies or categories; or through narrative analysis,
which uses “actions, events or happenings ... to produce stories such as ... a
historical account, a life story, a case study or a storied episode of a person’s
life” (Polkinghorne, 1995, p.15).
Narrative inquiry has been used in communication disorders research; for
example Lyons and Roulstone (2017) used narrative inquiry to examine identity
in children with speech and language disorders (see Table 1.2 and Chapter 7).
Participatory research
Participatory research has been defined as a methodology which “focuses on
a process of sequential reflection and action, carried out with and by local
people rather than on them” (Cornwall & Jewkes, 1995, p.1667). According to
Kemmis and McTaggart (2005, p.560) there are distinguishing characteristics

54. Table 1.2 Mapping of research questions to paradigms, methodology and methods: Examples from communication disorders research.
Researchers Research questions/AimsMethodology Methods of data collectionMethods of data analysis
O’Malley-Keighran
(2016)
An exploration of ways in
which clients’ speech, language,
communication, and feeding,
eating, drinking and swallowing
(FEDS) abilities are evaluated
in diagnostic report writing
exemplars.
Critical Discourse
Analysis and
Systemic
Functional
Linguistics
Sample reports texts from the speech and language
therapy educational literature that aim to demonstrate
‘best practice’ in relation to ‘professional’ report writing.
Appraisal analysis
McMenamin et al.,
(2015)
To explore participants’ insider
(emic) experiences of (1) aphasia
and (2) a Conversation Partner
Programme.
Participatory
Learning and
Action (PLA)
Flexible brainstorming and card sort tasks. The analysis was guided by the
principles of thematic analysis
with co-analysis of data with
participants.
Brown, Worrall,
Davidson, and Howe
(2010)
The aim of this study was to
explore, from the perspectives of
people with aphasia, the meaning
of living successfully with aphasia.
Interpretive
phenomenology
Semi-structured in-depth interviews and participant-
generated photographs and artefacts with 25 people with
aphasia.
Interpretative
phenomenological analysis
following a four-step process
Lyons & Roulstone
(2017)
To explore the identities which
children with speech and language
disorders presented in their
narratives and to investigate their
evaluations of these identities with
a view to understanding the values
they attach to labels.
Narrative Inquiry 5‒6 semi-structured interviews with 11 children with
speech and language disorders and the aim was to
generating storied accounts of everyday experiences.
Thematic analysis that included
analysis of plot structure and
evaluative language.
Parr (2007)To track the day-to-day life and
experiences of people with severe
aphasia, and to document levels of
social inclusion and exclusion as
in everyday settings.
Ethnography Visited participants on three occasions for up to 3 hours.
Some participant observations where she observed with
little interaction and some where she participated in the
situation, e.g., joining a swimming class or carrying in
shopping. Extracts from her ethnographic field notes
were included.
Thematic analysis
Wickenden (2011)To explore identity and the lifeworlds of teenagers who use
AAC.
Ethnography Participant observation and extended narrative
conversations with 9 key young people, in a variety of
contexts over an 18-month period.
Thematic analysis
Hynan, Goldbart, &
Murray (2015)
To explore ways in which young
people with a diagnosis of cerebral
palsy who use augmentative and
alternative communication (AAC)
perceive using the Internet and
social media.
Constructivist
Grounded
Therapy
Interviews with young people who used AAC, with
heads of technology and a quality assurance manager,
internet blog and policy documents.
Initial, focused and theoretical
coding supported by memo
writing.
Caty et al. (2016)To identify and advance
understanding about how
experienced speech and language
therapists engage in reflective
practice to develop their
knowledge of head and neck
cancer rehabilitation.
Grounded theory In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted
with 12 SLPs working in head and neck cancer
rehabilitation.
Grounded theory methods
(e.g., constant comparison and
memo-ing).
Carroll and Sixsmith
(2016)
To explain the processes involved
in collaborative relationships in
early intervention services from
the multiple perspectives of all
those involved in the team.
Grounded theory
and case study
Interviews with parents and professionals from an early
intervention team and participatory methods with five
young children with developmental disabilities e.g.,
talking mats, babycam.
Grounded theory methods of
data analysis.
Hambly (2014)To explore children’s, parents’,
peers’ and professionals’
experiences of children’s language
impairment.
Interpretive
phenomenological
analysis (IPA) and
case study
Arts-based methods with children with language
impairment. Interviews with the children’s parents,
teachers, learning support assistants, speech and
language therapists and siblings and/or friends.
Thematic analysis
Griffiths, Barnes,
Britten, & Wilkinson
(2011)
To examine naturally-occurring
instances of problems with
intelligibility that resulted in
multiple attempts at repair in
order to consider repair initiation
strategies that might restrict or
enhance participation.
Conversation
analysis
Video-recordings of informal conversations with people
with Parkinson’s Disease in their home setting involving
familiar conversation partners.
Conversation analysis
techniques to explore repair
initiators.

55. Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:

56.     Wielä syntihin syvemmä 120
    Moni päällä päihtyneellä
    Himoiltansa hillitähän,
    Alla viinan villitähän;
    Joista juttuja tulepi,
    Sakot suuret päälle saapi, 125
    Rahat raukalta menepi,
    Aika tärkki tuhlatahan,
    Moni viikko vierähtäpi,
    Kuukausi pian kulupi,
    Keräjiä käyessänsä 130
    Pitäjän rajaperillä.
    Syystäpä nämät tulevat
    Witsat ankarat ajaiset,
    Saamma Herran sallimasta
    Monet nähä nälkävuoet, 135
    Katovuoet katkerimmat;
    Wielä syttyvät soatki,
    Monet kauhiat kapinat,
    Esivaltojen välillä;
    Tuimimmat tulipalotki, 140
    Mainittavat maakylissä,
    Kauhiammat kaupungissa.
    Kukas saapi sanoa,
    Kenen kieli kertonepi
    Sitä synnin synkeyttä, 145
    Raskahinta rangastusta,
    Jonka viinan viljeliät
    Ja sen kauppiaat kavalat
    Kansan päälle kartuttavat,

57.     Kun he juhlina jaloina, 150
    Herran päivinä pyhinä,
    Ajan kaiken kaupitsevat,
    Myyvät sitä myrkkyänsä.
    Kysyn vielä viimeiseksi,
    Kuinkasta ovat sinulla 155
    Aina kanssasi asiat
    Wiinanmyyjä vietteliä!
    Etkö tunne tunnossasi
    Synniksi sitä tekoa,
    Kun aina ajallisia 160
    Himomielellä halajat,
    Tavarata tarkottelet
    Kirottua, katoavata?
    Saatatko nämät sanoa
    Siunatuiksi sillingeiksi, 165
    Jotka nyt tilassa tässä
    Olet kurja ottanunna,
    Saanut sarkoilla pahoilla?
    Nämät markat mahtanepi,
    Pahoin sillingit sinulle, 170
    Tuoa päälle penninkisi
    Kirouksen katkerasti.
    Näillä raukoilla rahoilla
    Myyt sä oikian osasi
    Saatanalle saalihiksi; 175
    Tuhlaat tavalla tällä
    Avarimmat armohetket,
    Saastutat pyhimmän paikan
    Synnin kanssa kauhiasti,

58.     Sillä Siionin häväset, 180
    Aivan parjoat pahasti.
    Aina täällä jo ajassa
    Kaiken onnesi kaotat,
    Siirrät kauas siunauksen,
    Ijankaikkisen ilosi. 185
    Heitä poies herjat kaupat,
    Hylkeä hyvällä mielen
    Poies rakkaus rahanki;
    Muista aina mielessäsi,
    Mitä Mooses muistutteli, 190
    Sekä ilmoitti Esaias,
    Jutteli Jumalan miehet
    Herran hengeltä hyvältä:
    "Kuhun kaiken ilman alla
    Saatan muistoni minäki, 195
    Siin' olen minä samassa
    Aina kanssanne asuva;
    Sihen saatan suosioni
    Siinä siunoan sinua."
    Wielä itseki Isäntä, 200
    Warasi Wapahtajamme
    Juutalaisia jalosti
    Jerusalmissa samassa.
    "Niin on kerta kirjoitettu:
    Minun on oma oleva 205
    Tämä huone hengellinen;
    Pitäis olla oikeutta
    Runsahin rukoushuone,
    Waan te teettä temppelini

59.     Kaupallanne kauhiasti, 210
    Teettä petojen pesäksi,
    Asunpaikaksi pahinten,
    Ryöväritten roukkioksi."
    Ei siis pitäisi pilata,
    Eikä syöstä synnin alle 215
    Sitä paikkoa parasta,
    Herran huonetta hyvimmän.
    Siitä työstä tyhmimmästä
    Paljo saarnaavat papitki,
    Oikiat opettajamme, 220
    Siitä esti Esivalta,
    Kielsi armas Keisarimme,
    Jalon neuosta Jumalan,
    Paljo sakkoa panevi
    Juomisesta juhlapäivän, 225
    Kaksi viinan kaupinnasta.
    Juhlapäivinä jaloina
    Etsi sielusi etua;
    Niinkun kaste kaunihisti
    Aamulla alas tulepi, 230
    Keot kaikki kastelepi,
    Wihannoiksi virvoittapi,
    Niin on suurra sunnuntaina,
    Aina juhlina jaloina,
    Herra armon antavainen, 235
    Siunauksen Siionissa,
    Waipunehet virvoittava,
    Wielä särjetyt syämet.

60.     Mielet murehen alaset,
    Ilon kanssa kaunistava, 240
    Jos ei itse estettäisi
    Synnin suurella sumulla
    Armon töitä alkavia.
    Juhlapäivinä jaloina
    Etsi sielusi etua; 245
    Sitten toisessa tilassa
    Ole aina arkioina
    Elatustas' etsiväinen;
    Saatpa oikian osasi,
    Siviämmän siunauksen, 250
    Aina Herralta hyvältä,
    Joka soisi Suomessaki
    Siiviäksi Siioninsa.
Jälkimaine. Tämä runo on talonpoika Benjami Seppäsen tekemä
Kiannalta, saman miehen, jolta jo ennen on yksi runo präntätty tässä
kirjassa (k. Lokakuulta v. 1837, Pohjanmaan surkeudesta). Waikk' ei
kyllä Kiannalla niin kaupita'kaan pyhäpäivinä viinaa kirkon luona,
ettei pahemmin kaupittaisi monella muulla kirkolla, niin tapahtui
kuitenki mennä vuonna, että muutamata talonpoikaa semmoisesta
kaupasta sakotettiin. Siitä lie Seppänen tullut kehoitetuksi tämän
runonsa laittamaan, jonka ainaki luulisimma vaikuttavan enemmin,
kun minkään muun sakon viinanmyöjän tykönä, joskohta ei ketänä
erittäin nimitetä'kään. Muutamia paikkoja olemma jättäneet pois,
erittäinki semmoisia paikkoja, joissa kertomalla sanottiin, mitä toisilla
sanoilla jo ennen oli sanottu. On myös runolla pituutta ilmanki niitä.

61.     Huolikaihos Karjalassa,
    Kalevalan kankahilla.
    Mikä pouke Borgoassa,
    Melu merikaupungissa,
    Suru Suomen rannikoilla?
    Koskenkylä kyynäleissä,
    Huoli Piispan huonehissa.
    Mikä vaiva ja valitus,
    Mikä mielet painostanna?
    Huolenhuuvot kuulumiset,
    Kaikki kasvot kastuneina,
    Murhe muovot muuttanunna.
    Suuri aine on surulle,
    Syy on huolelle, hopulle,
    Kuin on kuollunna, kaonnut,
    Kaunis miesi kaatununna;
    Pappein parvesta parain,
    Paras Herranpaimenista,
    Hurskain hurskasten seasta.
    Kova kuolema kohannut,
    Hyvätahtosen tavannut,
    Hyväsuovan suoristanut;
    Muoto muuttunna ihana,
    Kasvo kaunis kalvettunna.
    Hälytään Hämeenmaassa,
    Huolentuska on Turussa,
    Suru suurempi Savossa,
    Kaihos kauhein Karjalassa,

62.     Kuin on kallis kaatununna,
    Waipununna mies vakainen,
    MOLANDERI moinen miesi,
    Moinen herra hengellinen.
    Tokko tohin, tokko toivon
    Saneksella, saattanenko
    Mahillesa mainihella,
    Hyvät avut, ansiosa,
    Tuska suuni tukkeaapi,
    Itku silmäni sitoopi,
    Pakko palauttaa syvämmen,
    Suru salpoaa sanani,
    Huoli äänen ällistääpi.
    Maininnenko mainiosta,
    Kuin oil kuulu Kuopiossa
    Opilta, opetuksilta,
    Sanoiltasa, saarnoiltasa,
    Harras koulunhaltiana,
    Opettaja oivallinen,
    Oivallinen, onnellinen,
    Uros uuras uupumaton,
    Eillen muista muisteltava.
    Kaupungissa kappalaissa
    Wiran toimitti toella.
    Sävyllinen säävyissäsä,
    Sotapappina sovelias.
    Rakastettu rahvaalta,
    Jalomiesi jalkaväiltä,
    Savon sotasankareilta;

63.     Muistan muotoja ihanan,
    Suusa, silmäsä suloiset,
    Leppeen, lämpymän syvämmen.
    Kesalaksiat kehuuvat
    Näyttäin siintäsioasa;
    Kerskaavat Kesalahella
    Walveutuneesa valollen,
    Karjalassa kasvaneesa,
    Waloksi, valaistukseksi,
    Kaunistukseks Karjalallen,
    Ilomantsillen iloksi,
    Hiippakunnan kunniaksi.
    Kuin oil tarkka taioltasa,
    Oliit tarkatkin tapasa,
    Peri puhtaat puheesa;
    Waati toisiltai totuutta.
    Hän oil julma juomareillen,
    Wainoi väärin vannojija,
    Warsin vaarti varkaita,
    Wallattomia vakuutti,
    Sanapattoja paneli,
    Torui toenpuutokselta,
    Ylenkahto ylpeitä.
    Kyseli kylänluvuissa,
    Tiijusti joka tilassa,
    Kellä käytös keskuuessa
    Kävi käskyin Jumalan.
    Seurais seuramme tapoja,
    Lakiamme, laatujamme,

64.     Niitä kiitti kinkereissä,
    Piti parvessa paraassa,
    Antoi arvoa enemmän.
    Esivalloista esinnä
    Wiisas maanki viljelijä
    Esimerkit ensimmäiset
    Antoi kaikissa avuissa,
    Yllytti, ylösvalasi
    Kansaveljii Karjalassa.
    Waarin otti vaivaisista,
    Köyhät ruokki kyökistäsä.
    Huonot holhoi huoneinsa,
    Otti orvot suojiinsa,
    Avun leskillen levitti,
    Puolti syyttömät poletut.
    Hyvä turva tuttavillen,
    Aina auttoi ystäviisä,
    Auttoi avun ansanneita.
    Otoissasa oivamiesi
    Ehti vuonna vuotuisesa,
    Yhä vilppeyttä vihaava.
    Otti otot täyvelliset,
    Saatavat joka savulta;
    Missä talot miehelliset,
    Kussa koit kohtalaiset,
    Ei ne päässyt pitkän päällen,
    Niitä jättännä jälellen.
    Waan jos vanhat vaivaloiset,
    Lesket leivän hankkijoina,
    Lapsilauma saattamaton,

65.     Antoi restit anteiksi,
    Kuittikirjan kuittaili.
    Avittain avuttomia
    Antoi evääksi eloa,
    Wielä viili leipäkyörän,
    Pani paistia palaisen,
    Myöski rokkia ropeen.
    Sure Suomi suurta miestä,
    Ilomantsiat isäänne,
    Suku suuresti sureevi;
    Toiset itkeevät isääsi,
    Elämäns' esikuvoa,
    Puolisoo poloinen leski
    Tukeasa, turvoasa,
    Kunnon kansakumpania.
    Kansa kaikki Karjalassa
    Mainioa mainihtoovat,
    Murehella muisteloovat,
    Surusuulla toimittaavat,
    Saneleevat vuossatoja,
    Tuhansia tunnustaavat,
    Arvoasa, ansioosa
    Kaihoavat kallaspäätä;
    Itkevätpä Ingerissä,
    Wielä hallatsee Wirokin.
J. F. L[agervall].

66. Lauluja
1.
    Onneton olen minä oltuani,
    Onneton tähän kylään tultuani.
    Onnettomaksi olen minä luotu,
    Eik' ole minulle ilopäivää suotu.
    Turvoa ei ole siellä eikä täällä,
    Enempi kun linnulla lentonsa päällä.
    Maailma minua paljoki vaivaa,
    Ja minun eteheni kuoppaa kaivaa.
    Ystäväni on myös ynsiäksi tullut,
    Kun hän on maalimalta juttuja kuullut.
    Kukas sinun eksytti rakkauen tiellä? —
    Tule, tule kertaksi luokseni vielä!
    Muistatko muinen, kun karjassa käytiin,
    Ahosilla asueltiin, leikkiä lyötiin?
    Päivä se paisti ja pienet kukat loisti;
    Kukatki ne ketosilla iloamme toisti.
    Sinusta ja minustapa lintusetki laulo,
    Ääni se kuulu ja helinä se kaiko.
    Minä olin likan alku, siivo ja kainu,
    Murehesta paljo en tietä'kään tainnu.

67.     Sinä mua kutsuit morsioksesi,
    Suloutta täynnä oli syämesi.
    Syämesi oli kuni palava tuli;
    Kukas sen nyt kylmäksi tulevan luuli!
    Enkä minä itselleni näin luullu käyvän;
    Ikäväni kestää kuolemapäivään.
    Toivoni on rauennut, mennyt juur tyhjään,
    Ei ole enää mulla ilopäivää yhtään.
    Olen ma kun kyyhkynen vierahalla maalla,
    Lentävä lintunen taivahan alla.
2.
    Mieleheni muistuvat muinaiset ajat,
    Isäni ja äitini ilotäyet majat.
    Olin minä tytön taimi koria kun kukka,
    Joka pojan päällen en katsonutkaan.
    Koriana kävin minä eestä ja takaa,
    Mieleni oli ilonen ja murehista vapaa.
    Muistanpa vielä, kun marjassa käytiin,
    Mansikoita syötiin ja leikkiä lyötiin.
    Linnut ne laulelivat metsien päällä,
    Meistä he laulelivat siellä ja täällä.

68.     Toisinaan kun tuli tuiskuset ilmat,
    Satehiset viikot ja ankarat kylmät.
    Tupa oli lämmin ja kamari oli kaunis,
    Kamarissa maito ja voi ja leipä valmis.
    Ei ole ajat enää niinkun olit ennen,
    Entiset ajat ovat olleet ja menneet.
    Nyt ei ole siaa mulla siellä eikä täällä,
    Enempi kun lehellä liukkaalla jäällä.
    Woi kuinka tyttöparan onki minun käynnä,
    Muretta ja surua on syämeni täynnä.
    Ilopäivä on mennyt ja kohta ikä katkee,
    Eik' ole joka minun murehista kätkee.
    Wuoteni kulki, kun virtanen vesi;
    Mikä mulla tullee viimenki esiin.
3.
    Ei oo mulla muretta ja ei oo huolta mitään,
    Maailma se murehen nyt minusta jo pitää.
    Maailma hullaa, mitä vaanki hollaa,
    Waan puhas likka ma taianki olla.
    Mitäs minä tuosta suren, likka nuori, nätti.
    Jos minun poika jätti viinanjuoja ratti? —

69.     Tämän kylän pojat minä tervassa keitän,
    Toisen kylän pojille ma toivoni heitän.
    Tämän kylän pojat minä touheen lykkään,
    Muunlaiset olla pitää, joista ma tykkään.
    Ennen minä liikutan rihmaa ja neulaa,
    Ennenkun tämän kylän poikia seuraan.
    Ennen minä liikutan likasia puita,
    Ennenkun ruman pojan laihoja luita.
    Ennen minä nokisia pölkkyjä kannan,
    Ennenkun ruman pojan suuella annan.
MEHILÄINEN.
W. 1839. Syyskuulta.
Kertomus muutamasta varkaudesta.

70. Wuonna 1837 syksyllä tuli varkaita muutaman sepän torppaan
Kerimäellä ja varastivat pajakalut sepältä, palkeen ja kaikki, mitä
vaan löysivät pajasta, ja kantovat ne veneesen, jolla he olivat yli
järven tulleet. Nämät saivat he onnellisesti veneesen. Mutta nyt piti
vielä syömäainetta saaha ja lähtivät takasin sepän mökkiin, että
eteistuvasta saaha leipiä ottaa, Waan kuin he sinne pyrkivät, niin
sattui talonväkiä havahtemaan ja mänivät ulos kahtomaan mikä se
kartanolla olisi. Samalla lähtivät rosmot pois juoksemaan. Alas talon
rahvas huutaa, minkä keritään, että rosmoloita on kartanolla. Waan
sillä ajalla, kuin rosmot toistais mänivät torppaan, niin sattu
muutama mies soutamaan samaan rantaan, nousi maalle ja teki
tulen rannalle ja aiko siinä maata yötä. Tämä kuin kuuli huuon
torpasta, alas hän huuta vastaan: "missä rosmot? missä rosmot?"
Nyt kuuli rosmot, että jo on ihmisiä heiän veneellänsä. Ei heillä ollut
enää aikaa sinne männä, vaan juosta metsään. Torpan rahvas, kuin
kuulivat, että rannallakin on huutajia, juoksivat sinne ja löysivät
hyvin tutun miehen siellä tulta polttamasta ja alkovat sille haastaa,
niin ja niin rosmot rupeis viemään kaikki elon elämisen meiän
mökistä. Ja samalla mitä he kävelivät rannalla, löysivät veneen hyvin
läheltä miehen tulta ja kaikki pajakalut veneessä. Nyt vasta saivat
tietää, että on sitä talosta katonna tavaraa. Eikä mies, joka tulen
rannalle teki, tiennyt, että hänellä oli tavaravene vartioittavana.
Tästä saivat pois kaikki kapineensa ja rosvoloihen eväslaukku, joka
oli veneessä, tuli sepän omaksi. Wielä kiittelivät he yövierastaan
rannalla, joka heiän onneksi sattu toki tulemaan rannalle, vaikka ei
mies tiennyt ennen koko tavarasta mitään, kuin sitten vasta rahvaan
rannalle tultua. Muutama mies haasto samaa asiaa ja sano
tuntevansa senkin laukun, kenen se on, joka pitäis olla Liperistä
kotosin. (Räätäli Olovi Karjaliinilta Liperin pitäjästä kirjoitettu ja
samoilla sanoilla tähän präntätty).

71. Pään parannuskeino.
Muuan tohtori ajellessaan läänissään tuli muutamaan
kestikievariin. Päästyänsä taloon tulee mies tohtorin puheille ja
sanoo: "voi, herra tohtori! kuin minun päätäni pakottaa; mitään sillen
osais tehä?" Tohtori meni aivan lähelle miestä ja kahtoi tarkasti
silmiin, mutta tunsi samalla, että viinan löyhkä tuli ulos miehen
suusta. Sano siinä samassa miehelle; "mäne nyt talon emännän
luoksi ja pyyä pari puhasta maitopyttyä ja tuo ne täynnä kylmää
vettä tänne kammariin." Mies oli valmis täyttämään käskyn ja kanto
yhen hyväkokosen pytyn täynnä vettä kammariin ja sano: "eiköhän
tämä jo piisaisi?" "Noh ehkä se piisaa, sano tohtori, lähetäänpäs nyt
ulos." Mies läksi eellä, tohtori perästä ja pysäytti miehen rappuin
viereen seisomaan ja aukasi hänen vaatteensa kauluksen hyvin
avonaiseksi, otti vesipytyn ja alko kaataa sitä miehen pään päälle,
Mutta hyvin hiljaan, että se pitemmältä piisaisi. Mies parka seisoo
siinä, eikä tohi mitään virkkaa, vaan lavat lotisivat, kuin täyty
talvipakkasella niin kauan aikaa siinä seisoa. Wiimmein mäni
kengänvarretkin vettä täyteen, että se yli nousi takasin. Kuin tämä oli
tehty, sano tohtori: "mäne nyt makaamaan ja makaa niin kauan,
kuin minä tulen ylös ajamaan." Mies täytti kaikki, mitä käsketty oli.
Tohtori oli aikansa talossa ja mäni matkoinsa, jätti miehen
makaamaan siihen. Totta tuo lienee jo havannut. (Olovi Karjaliinilta
Liperissä kirjoitettu).
Älykäs morsian.
(Muualta.)

72. Pappi kysyi morsiamelta vihkiissä: "minä kysyn sinulta, Liisa
Eerikin tytär, jos sinä otat j.n.e." Tyttö, joka luuli kysymyksen
turhaksi, vastasi: "vielä hän kysyy!"
Osansaanti.
(Muualta.)
Waras kävi muutaman talon sivu ja sanoi talonpojalle, joka kylvi
peltoansa: "tuosta, mitä kylvät minäkin vielä tulen saamaan osani."
"Ehkä tuletkin, vastasi talonpoika, sillä minä kylvän hamppua."
Mikäs talonpojan eläissä!
(Muualta.)
Mustalainen sanoi kerran: "mikä talonpojalla on eläissä; tynnörin
kylvää, kaks saapi."
Laahattu taethanko.
(Muualta.)
Muuan yksinkertainen mies, joka sontaa hajotti pellollaan, näki
parven variksia lentävän hänen peltonsa seipäihen. Niitä
pelottaakseen osotti hän taethangollaan (taikollaan) ja äänti ikään
kuin ampuvinaan. Samalla sattui metänkäviä, joka turhin oli päiväsä
metässä tallannut ja nyt tahtoi laahinkiasa ulosampua, ampumaan
saman variksen. "Kahos perk…" sanoi sonnanhajottaja, koska kuuli
paukahuksen ja näki variksen maahan putoovan, kahtoin tarkasti
hankoasa, "en minä luullut hänessä ruutia olevan."

73. Osattoman osa.
(Muualta.)
Maamittari, joka oli jakanut niin, että yksi osakas jäi aivan osatta,
lohtutti häntä sanoin: "elä huoli yhtään, kyllä sinun vuittisi (osasi)
täältä kartasta löytyy."
Worpii.
(Muualta.)
Sotamies, joka ei ollut aivan tarkka ampuja, vaikka hän sen luuli
itestäsä, kehui kerran maaliin ampumisellaan sanoin: "minä vain kuin
ammuin, niin joka kerta huvettiin vorpii (sivute)."
Akan rukous kylväissaän.
(Muualta.)
Muuan akka sanoi kylväissään: "Anna, hyvä Jumala! jyvä jyvästä,
kaksi kahesta."
Yöpäivällä.
(Puoli muualta.)
Muinon mustalainen palkkautu kyntämään päivänlaskuun asti.
Mutta kuin työ pisti hänellen ikäväksi, niin sanoi tuskissaan: "ennen
Ristus avita on yöpuolessa, ennenkuin päivä laskeksen." — Toinen,
joka oli jonkun ajan muutamassa talossa kasakoinnut, sanoi: "rupes

74. perk… talonpojalle kasakaksi; iltayöstä lähetään työhön, eikä
koskaan ennen puoltayötä levolle."
Tarina.
(Muualta.)
Kylän läpi ratsastaissani alkoi hevoseni nilkuttaa toista
etujalkaansa; kenkä oli irti, sentähden täydyin viivähtää kylässä,
saada kenkä kiinnitetyksi. — Sepän luona viipyissäni kokountui
miehiä, vaimoja ja lapsia ympärilleni, niiden seassa eräs
kerjäläisukko, joka anoi jotain almua. Pajan edessä oli vesikuoppa,
jossa vasta raudoitettuja vaunun rattaita jäähdytettiin ja se oli nyt
pisipintana. Kukkaroani auastessa, siitä jotain kerjäläis-ukolle
antaakseni, putosi samassa kultatukaatti ja vierähti kuoppaan, josta
sitä ei enää löydetty. Tienoilla olevat surkuttelivat minua
vahingostani, ukko vaan suu hymyssä lausui: "laivalla meren
rannassa piti Kapteinin kerran maksaa jotakuta laivamiehelle, jossa
tapauksessa hopia riksi putosi veteen. Sitä ei enää saatu ylös. Waan
kala, joka samassa sattui uimaan lähellä sitä paikkaa nieli sen
suuhunsa. Sama kala tarttui jälestäpäin onkeen muutamalle
maanmiehelle, joka veronmaksoksensa oli suuressa rahantarpeessa.
Ei siis mikään hukattu eli pudotettu ole samassa kadotettu. Se on
huolenpitäjän käteen elikkä talteen annettu, joka kyllä osottaa sen
tositarvitsialle." Wiisaasta puheestansa annoin ukolle enemmin, kun
aioinkaan esinnä, enkä niin suuresti surrutkaan enää kuoppaan
jäänyttä tukaattiani.

75. Indialaisten kuollonjuhla.
(Muualta.)
Indian maassa Aasiassa on tavallinen, että kuolleita ei haudata,
vaan poltetaan rovioilla. Samalla roviolla polttaa moni leski itsensä
elävänä kuolleen miesvainajansa ruumiin kanssa. Sillä se katsotaan
heidän pakanallisen uskonsa jälkeen hyödylliseksi leskelle, että hän
niin elävänä itsensä polttaa ja luullaan hänen sillä urhollisuudellansa
sovittavan kaikki miesvainajansa synnit, jos olisivat olleet kuinka
suuria. Itsensä sanotaan hänen tästä työstänsä tulevan paratiisiin ja
siellä niin monta kertaa 35 miljuunaa vuotta riemussa elävän, kun
hänellä on hiuskarvaa päässänsä. Mutta jos hän ei polta itsiänsä,
jota laki ei välttämättömästi vaadi, niin on hänellä siitä koko
elinaikuinen häpiä ja muu vastus. Ei siis ihme, että moniki leski
tuliroviolla lopettaa päivänsä. Semmoisesta lesken itsensä
polttamisesta kertoo muuan Euroopalainen, joka sattui paikalle
näkemään, seuraavalla tavalla:
"Eilen illalla näin kauhistavaisen menon, koska muuan leski
polttihen ynnä miesvainajansa ruumiin. Minä ohjattuna
murhehuoneesen näin siellä kuolluen ruumiin laskettuna matolle.
Leski istui hajalla hivuksin ruumiin luona. Sitte havattuansa Esivallan
miehen, konttasi luoksi ja pyysi lupaa, saada polttaakseten
miesvainajansa ruumiin kanssa.
"Niin pian kun Esivallan sallinta tähän hirviään menoon tuli
ilmoitetuksi, nostivat sukulaiset ruumiin paariille ja kantovat ulos,
leskenki päälle istuttua. Niin veivät määrättyyn paikkaansa. Tihkiältä
seurasi rahvasta jälessä. Roviopino oli tehty kuivista puista ja osittain
täytetty kerkiään syttyvillä aineilla. Se oli noin kahden kyynärän

76. korkuinen, puolenkolmatta kyynärää päältä poikki, maassa kiini ja
onsi sisältä. Ruumis pantiin pinolle ja leski pesi itsensä ei ulahtaalla
olevassa lammissa. Hiukan aikaa oli hän niin menehtynyt, että
sukulaiset täytyivät pidellä häntä käsissään.
"Jällen jaloilleen tointununna repäsi siekaleen vaatteistaan ja
käärei kahdeksanvuotisen poikansa ympärille, jonka kautta pyhitti
poikansa rovion sytyttäjäksi. Lähellä olevat miehet sekä vaimot
lankesivat nyt maahan ja suutelivat hänen jalkojansa. Hän kehotti
kaikkia vaimoja esimerkkiänsä noudattamaan, jos sattuisivat samaan
tilaan. Nyt läheni poika palavalla tulisoitolla pinoa, sytytti sen ja
kohta alko tuli leimuta vallan voimakkaasti. Leski astui myös
lähemmäksi, kierti kolmasti pinoa ja heitteli sinne kainalossaan
kannetusta astiasta pihkaa, sillä tulta paisuttaaksensa. Juoksi sitte
iloten liekkien läpi ja istahti ruumiin viereen. Samassa oli hän liekiltä
sulettu, jota katsojat kiihdyhtivät nakellen sinne hamppua ja muita
sytteitä. Ihonki jo mustuttua paukutti hän vielä käsiänsä yhteen, siksi
että viimein vaipuivat ja koko ruumis oli kun kekäle vihasten liekkien
keskellä.
"Rahvas huusi ja ilotsi lakkaamatta, todistain ei vielä koskaan
nähneensä jalompata ja järkähtämättömämpää vaimoa. Minä seisoin
lähellä pinoa, vaimon kasvot olivat minuun päin. — En unhota tässä
iässä sitä kaamiata näkyä. Se oli yli kaiken, mitä voidaan sanoa,
kauhia ja hirmuinen. Alussa loisti vaimon katsannossa lempeys, sitte
urostui hän ja kaljahti, sen perästä vallotti heikkous ja
tuskantapanen uuvutus, mutta pinoa kiertäessään palausi entinen
kylmä rohkeus.
"Woi hän olla noin 50 vuoden vanha, miesvainajansa oli elänyt 60
ajastaikaa. Kolme lasta jäi häneltä jälkeensä, yksi tytär 20 vuotinen

77. ja kaksi poikaa, toinen 8, toinen 7 vuoden vanha."
Näitä lukiessamme emmekö ilolla tuntisi, mikä onnellisuus meillä
eikö ole uskostamme jo tässäkin ajassa pakanauskoisten kansain
rinnalla?
Ystävät.
(Muualta.)
Rikkaalla kauppamiehellä oli poika, jota hän sydämestänsä rakasti.
Hän kasvatti hänen suurella huolenpidolla, eikä laiminlyönyt mitään
millä saisi hänestä jalomielisen, siviän, Jumalata pelkääväisen ja
ymmärtäväisen nuorukaisen. Sitte kutsui hänen kerran eteensä ja
sanoi: "poikani! kaikki, mitä säätysi ja virkasi mukaan sinua
hyödyttäisi, olen antanut oppiaksesi. Waan se oppi puuttuu vielä
sinulta, jolla voisit tuntea ihmisten moninaiset mielenlaadut ja
omasuudet. Sentähden toivon sinun lähtevän muutamaksi ajaksi
vieraille maille vaeltamaan. Matkoilla nähdään ihmisiä kaikesta
laadusta ja mitä enemmin niitä nähdään, sitä paremmin opitaan
niiden seassa elämään. Maailma on suuri kirja täynnänsä hyödyllisiä
neuoja. Se on peili, joka silmin nähtäväksi osottaa ihmisten
moninaisen muodon ja josta viisas ennättää sen korkeimman edun
tässä elossa, nimittäin ystävän. Poikani! jos löydät yhden ainoankaan
ystävän elämäsi alla, niin on sinulla sulosin ja pysyväisin onni
kädessäsi, jota ei muu, kun kuolema voi kukistaa. Muu onni ja
tavarat ovat tuhansien tapausten alasia, mutta ystävätä ei voi
kenkään anastaa. Etsi siis matkoillasi saada sinulleki joku ystävä ja
ele katso kalliimmiaki kamaroita suureksi ystävän rinnalla."

78. Nuorukainen jätti hyvästi isänsä ja lähti matkalle, kulkeusi
muutamaan lähimaahan, oleskeli siellä jonkun ajan ja palausi kotia,
ennenkun isä luuli hänen missään vielä tutuksikaan tulleen.
Kummastellen tätä pikaista paluuta sanoi isä hänelle: "no, poikaseni
niinkö palasit pian jällen!" "Isäni, vastasi nuorukainen, sinä sanoit
suurimman tarkoituksen matkallani olevan, että löytäisin yhdenkään
ystävän ja nyt olen löytänyt jo kaksiki kymmentä, jotka ovat
varmaan taattavat, tosiystäväni."
"Hyvinpä kyllä, arveli kauppamies, oletki ystäviä saanut ja niin
vähässä ajassa. Minä itse en ole niin onnellinen ollut. Seitsemän
kymmentä ajastaikaa olen elänyt, koetellut onnen ja onnettomuuden
vaiheita, tullut tuntemaan monta ihmistä, mutta, kaikkein niiden
seassa ja kaikella sillä pitkällä ajalla ei kun yhden ainuan ystävän. Ja
sinä olet muutaman kuukauden ajalla löytänyt kaksikymmentä!
Mutta muistatko vielä, mitä lähtiessäsi sanoin sinulle: ele kiitä
ystävätä, ennenkun hädässä koettelit. Nimiystäviä löytyy paljo, vaan
tosiystäviä ylen harvassa. Nimiystävät eivät tiedä, mitä ystävällä
ymmärrettäänkään. He ovat sumun kaltaiset aamulla; niinkun sumu
pakenee ensimmäisen auringon säteen edestä, niin heki
ensimmäisessä hädässä. He kohtelevat yksinkertaista, joka heihin
luottaa, niinkun humaltunut mies kannuansa. Niin kauan kun siinä
olutta kesti, katseli hän sitä sulosilla silmillä, vaan kun se tulee
tyhjäksi, hän siitä ei enää huoli, vaan luopi pois tyköänsä. Pahoin
pelottaa minua, poikani, että ne kaksikymmentä ystävääsi ovat kaikki
tämän juopuneen vertasia."
"Wääräsä luulossa olet sinä, isäni, lausui nuorukainen. Tuiki tarkon
tiedän, että nämät minun ystäväni eivät hyljää minua, jos kuinka
tyhjänä, köyhänä ja onnettomana tulisin heidän tykönsä ja heiltä
mitä tahansa tarvitseisin."

79. "No käydään koettelemaan, vastasi isä, minä en usko
koettelematonta ystävää." — "Käydään, käydään," sano poikaki.
Kauppamies teurasti kauriin, pani sen säkkiin ja tahrasi pojan
vaatteet verellä. Pimiän tullen nosti säkin, jossa teurastettu kauris
oli, poikansa selkään ja neuoi häntä, kuinka hänen tulisi käyttää
itsiänsä. Niin lähtivät ja tulivat lähinnä asuvan luoksi niistä pojan
kahdestakymmenestä ystävästä. Poika kolkutti ovelle ja ystävä
avettuansa kysyi syytä tähän myöhäiseen etsikkoon. Poika vastasi:
"olethan sinäki kuullut siitä riidasta, joka on meidän ja sen lähellä
asuvan hoviherran välillä. Äsken kohtasimma toinen toisen
yksinäisellä paikalla kaupungissa. Havattuansa minun julmistui hän
ja karkasi vihan vimmassa päälleni, jotta täytyi kaiken voimin varjella
itsiäni. Minä vedin miekkani, varotin ja vaadein häntä säästämään
henkeänsä, vaan hän vimmassaan syöstäytyi vasten paljasta
miekkaani ja kaatui hengetönnä paikalle. Pelkäsin kostoa ja turmioa
sekä itselleni että isälleni, jos asia tulisi ilmi, liiatenki kun hän elää
suuressa arvossa kuninkaan tykönä ja on muutenki korkiasta
suvusta. Sentähden otin hänen ruumiinsa ja kannoin tänne. Rukoilen
sinua, kätke se niin kauan huoneessasi, että löydän jonkun salasen
paikan, johon taitaisin haudata."
"Pieni on huoneeni eläville, saati kuolleille, vastasi nähtävästi
närkästyksissään ystävä. Paitsi sitä tietää jokainen, kuinka
eripuraisuudessa olet elänyt sen surmatun hoviherran kanssa.
Jokahinen tuntee myös meidän ystävyytemme ja kun helposti
arvaavatki hänen sinulta surmatuksi ja ruumista ei löydettäisi
muualta, niin tokko ei lähdettäisi sitä täältäki etsimään. Ei se auttaisi
sinua onnettomuudessasi, ettäs sihen kietoisit minunki. Ainuan
palveluksen, jonka voin sinulle osottaa, on se, että kätken
salasuutesi."

80. Nuorukainen pyysi ja rukoili apua hädässään, mutta turhaan.
Hänen hyvä ystävänsä tuli aina kylmemmäksi ja vastukset
harvemmaksi, niin että hänen viimein säkkineen täytyi taemmaksi
vaeltaa. Hän meni toisen ystävän tykö, joka samalla tavalla kohteli
häntä, ja niin kävi hän järjestänsä jokaisen tykönä niistä
kahdestakymmenestä, vaan viimeisestä ei ollut enemmin apua, kun
ensimmäisestäkään.
"Joko nyt näet, sanoi kauppamies pojalleen, kuinka vähä on
ulkonaiseen näköön luotettava? Kussa on näiden ystäviesi
tosiystävyys, jota ylistellen kiitit? Heti kuultua hätäsi, raukesi heidän
rakkautensa. He ovat valkoseksi sivuttuja seiniä, vedettömiä pilviä,
hedelmättömiä puita. Mutta lähdetäänpä nyt minun ainuan ystäväni
luoksi!" Sinne tultuansa kolkutti kauppamies ovelle. Ja koska mies
sisällä kuuli ystävänsä äänen, aukasi hän oven ja kysyi sydämellisellä
rakkaudella, miksi niin myöhään etsei häntä. Kauppamies jutteli
poikansa valhetellun onnettomuuden ja pyysi ystävänsä kätkemään
ruumista.
"Mielelläni kätken, jos vaikka usiampia, vastasi ystävä. Eikä mikään
pelko elikkä vaara taida estää minua kokemasta kaikkia, mitä voin
sinun ja poikasi pelasteeksi. Lähde nyt poikanesi, minä saatan teidät
maakartanohoni, jossa elättä piilossa ja vapaana kaikista oikeuden
etsimisistä."
Kiittäin ystävätänsä nytkin osotetun jalouden ja rakkautensa
puolesta, sanoi kauppamies hänelle: "ei ole mitään hätää; minä olen
ainuastaan valhetellut tämän seikan, näyttääkseni yksinkertaiselle
helppouskoiselle pojalleni, mikä erotus onki ystäväin ja ystäväin
välillä. Hänellä oli kaksikymmentä ystävää, joidenka luona kävimmä,
eikä yksikään olisi auttanut häntä, niinkun sinä minua."

81. Keino ylösherättää kuolleita, taikka täyttä onnellisuutta ei löydy
maassa.
(Muualta.)
Kuninkaalta kuoli puolisonsa ja häntä ei voitu millään lohduttaa.
Yöt päivät istui, suri ja itki hän sen kuolleen ruumiin vieressä, ei
syönyt eikä juonut, jotta jo peljättiin hänen itsensäki kohta kuolevan.
Niin käytiin ja noudettiin muuan viisas mies, etteikö hän saisi
Kuningasta ylellisestä murehestaan vieroitetuksi. Wiisas tuli ja astui
surutupaan Kuninkaan eteen. "Armollinen Kuningas! sanoi hän, ele
närkästy, että rohkenen sinua lähestyä suuressa Murheessasi. Enkä
tule tyhjillä lohdutuksilla vaivaamaan sinua, vaan ilmoittamaan, että
entinen onnesi on pian jälle palajava. Pian on puolisosi heräjävä
unestaan ja omalla kädellänsä pyhkivä kyynelet silmistäsi. Toki
oudostutti puhettani, mutta minä olen muutamassa vanhassa
kirjassa löytänyt aivan tarkan välikappaleen, jolla voin jälle herättää
puolisosi. Sihen ei tarvita, kun että kolme täydellisesti onnellista
ihmistä kirjoittavat nimensä puolisosi haudalle, niin hän kohta
nousee ja on elävä, kun ennenkin.
"Se pitää kohta tehtämän, sanoi Kuningas, valitse itse ne kolme
onnellista, joita tarvitset. Jos he takasin tuovat kalliin puolisoni niin
olen itse heidän seassansa neljäntenä täydellisesti onnellisena."
Paikalla antoi hän ulos käydä käskyn, että kaikkein, jotka nautitsivat
täyttä onnellisuutta piti löydyttämän itsensä viisaan tykönä ja
antaman nimensä Kuningaspuolison haudalle.
Waivoin oli tämä käsky maakunnassa julistettu, koska muuan
nuori mies juoksi hengästyneenä viisaan eteen ja sanoi hänelle:
"nimeni on Abraham, kirjoita se haudalle ja joudu, sillä aika on

82. tärkki." "Miksikä niin tärkki?" kysyi viisas. "Siksi, vastasi nuorukainen,
että minä rakastan nuorta, ihanaista neitsyttä, täydellisintä Jumalan
luotua olentoa. Tämän täydellisyytensä ohessa on hän kuitenki vähä
muuttelehtavainen ja epävakainen luonnostansa; eilen hylkäsi hän
minun luotaan, vaan kutsui tänäpänä jällen ja nyt minä juuri tällä
hetkellä, olen onnellisin kaikista ihmisistä. Jos vielä huomennaki
lienen, sit' en tiedä. Sentähden joudu nimeni kirjoituksessa!" "Sinä
olet onnellisin ihmisistä, vastasi viisas, niinkauan kun se ihana neitsyt
sinua rakastaa ja sitte kun hän hylkää sinun, olet kentiesi
onnettomin mielestäsi. Mutta hän rakastaa eli hylkää, miten ilma
muuttuu. Wähän kummanlaista on siis onnellisuutesi. Kernaammiten,
kun sinun onnellisuutesi, rupiaisin vilutaudin alaseksi, joka ehki
määräajoillansa palajaa ja jota vasten tiedän olla varusalla. Mene
pois nimenesi, se ei kelpaa."
Muutaman päivän perästä tuli nuori aviopari viisaan eteen. He
olivat neljä vuotta hellimmästi toinen toistansa rakastaneet.
Moninaiset esteet ja koetukset olivat he onnellisesti voittaneet ja nyt
vihdoin altarin edessä yhdistyneet. He puhuivat niin ihastuttavasti
onnellisuudestaan, että viisaalla ei ollut mitään vastaan sanomista.
Kuitenki sanoi hän täytyvänsä koetella, jos sama onnellisuus olisi
oikein vaka ja kestävä. "Tämä koetus, sanoi hän, olkoon ei pitkä,
eikä vaivaloinen. Menkää yhdeksi viikoksi ja nautitkaa iloa toinen
toisenne kanssa ilman mitään muuta huvitusta ja ypö yksinänne.
Itsestänne mahtaa teillä olla kylliksi iloa, ettettä muuta kaipaakaan.
Sitte viikon päästä tulkaa jällen, niin kirjoitan nimenne." — Ilolla
mieltyivät tähän kokeesen ja rientivät kahdenkesken nautitsemaan
iloa, jota ei kenkään koko viikossa olisi hämmentävä. Missä
ihastuksessa, missä riemussa eikö kulunut ensipäivä! Seuraava oli jo
vähä pensiämpi, kolmantena ikävyivät, neljäntenä riitausivat ja

83. viidentenä — erkausivat toinen toisestaan. Wiisas odotti heitä, vaan
ei kuulunut kumpaakaan.
Wasta mainitun nuoren parikunnan perästä tuli kaksi
köyhännäköistä, erinomaista personaa ja pyysivät tulla
kuunneltavaksi. He olivat veljekset ja vanhin heistä alkoi lausua:
"köyhiä olemma me ja alhaisesta säädystä, eikä meillä ole ystäviä,
jotka meitä auttaisivat. Asumma pienessä kaupungissa, jossa tuskin
lähimmäiset naapurimmekaan meitä tuntevat. Sanalla sanottu:
emme ole lähelläkään onnea vaan jos kuninkaalle kelpaisi auttaa
meitä, niin pian puolisonsa herättämiseksi saisi meistä kaksi
täysionnellista ihmistä. Sihen ei tarvittaisi muuta, kun että asettaisi
veljeni maaherraksi syntymäkaupungissamme ja minulle, joka en
pyri kunniasioihin, käskisi rahavoutinsa maksaa sata tuhatta riksiä."
"Pian pitää olla anomuksenne täytetty, vastasi viisas. Minä käyn
Kuninkaan puheille ja epäilemättäki antaa hän teille mitä
onnellisuudeksenne tarvitsetta. Mutta sitä ennen, sanoi hän sille
vanhemmalle veljelle, pitää sinun laittaa minulle kirjallinen todistus
joltain, jolla on sata eli tuhatki tuhatta riksia ja sillä summallansa olisi
täydeksi onnellinen." Ja nuoremmalle sanoi hän: "sinun pitää laittaa
minulle samanlainen todistus joltain pienen eli suuren kaupungin
maaherralta. Sitte olen tekevä, mitä taidan teidänki onnellisuudeksi
ja meillä on kolmen kaivatun siasta neljäki täydesti onnellista
ihmistä. Kuninkaan puolison heräjäminen tulee niin välttämättömästi
tapahtumaan."
Weljekset mieltyivät sihen, lupasivat laittaa todistukset ja pian tulla
takasin, vaan eivätpä tulleetkaan. Eivät löytäneet rikasta, joka ei
pyrkinyt rikkaammaksi, eivätkä maaherraa, joka ei olisi toivonut
päästäksensä vaikka Kuninkaaksi. Tainkaltaisilla mutkilla pääsi viisas
monesta muustaki onnellisuuden uneksiasta, joista yksi toivoi saada

84. jonkun ihanan maahovin, toinen korkian kunniaviran, kolmas
arvomerkin j.n.e. Monen semmoisen hurjan perästä tuli vihdoin
muuan vakainen kelpomies, joka ei toivonut, mitänä. "Herra, sanoi
tämä kelpomies, iloa ja huvitusta minä yksin rakastan, mutta
viisaudeniloa ja huvitusta. Työ, kohtuus ja tytyväisyys ovat ne
välikappaleet, joilla viljelen iloani ja lisään nautintoani. Myös olen
nuori, terve ja melko rikas. Sihen lisäksi on minulla monta ystävätä,
eikä yhtään tiettyä vihamiestä. Waimoni on nuori ja kaunis, jota
rakastan sydämestäni ja hän rakastaa minua. Wiisi vuotta olemma jo
olleet yksissä ja saanet kaksi kaunista lasta, pojan ja tyttären. Eikö
minulla siis ole syytä pitää itseäni täydesti onnellisena? Synti olisi
minulla siitä, jos muuta ajattelisinkaan." "Wissisti on sinulla syytä
sihen, vastasi viisas, ja tunnustaa täytyy, kuoleman minua, jos olisin
sinun siassasi, jo vähän pelottavanki." "Aivan tosi, lausui toinen,
tämän elämän nautinnoilla olisi aivan huono arvo, jos ei niiden loppu
toisinaan vähän huolettaisiki." "Oikein sanottu, arveli viisas, mutta
epäilen, että se onnellisuus, jota pelko toisinaan tapaa, ei ole oikein
puhdas ja täydellinen." "Kuolematani, sanoi mies, minä vähemmiten
kaikista muistelen." "Se sitte on toinen asia, lausui viisas, mutta koe
ystäväni saada se peräti pois ajatuksestasi ja totuta itsesi uskomaan,
ettet koskaan kuole. Sitte tule jällen ja minä kiitollisuudella otan
nimesi haudalle kirjoitettavaksi. Nyt siitä ei vielä ole apua kuolleen
herättämiseksi."
Se onnellinen meni ja koki poisvieroittaa kuoleman muiston. Mutta
mitä ennemmin hän yritti olla ilman, ettei koskaan muistaisi
kuolemata, sitä useimmin tuli se hänen muistoonsa ja mieleensä.
Wiimein rupeis kuoleman pelko häntä oikein vaivaamaan. Ei hänestä
siis ollutkaan takasin tuliata. Kolme kuukautta oli kulunut siitä, kun
viisas ensin alkoi täydestä onnellisia kuulustella. Ja kun ei sillä ajalla
ollut ketänä semmoista tavannut, niin epäili vastakaan tapaavansa.

85. Niin meni Kuninkaan tykö, jonka ensimurhe jo oli niin antaunut, että
viisas rohkeni tunnustaa, epäilevänsä, ei koskaan löytää
täysionnellista ihmistä, jonka nimi kelpaisi haudalle. "Mihin, sanoi
Kuningas, mihin kaikki se tyhjä vaivasi? Mikset heti kirjoittanut omaa
ja jonkun muun kahden viisasten nimeä haudalle jos siitä olisit apua
toivonut? Te viisaat kuitenki aina kehutta ja kerskaatta, ettei
muussa, kun viisauden tutkinnossa ole täyttä onnellisuutta." "Uh,
armollinen Kuningas! vastasi viisas, ne viisaimmatki meistä ovat
kuitenki ihmisiä. Usein pettyvät omilla, usein toisten luuloilla. Mitä
minuun koskee, niin olen kolmekymmentä vuotta etsinyt viisautta ja
onnellisuutta, vaan en ole vielä löytänyt kumpaistakaan."
"Niinmuodoin, sanoi Kuningas, ei ole yksikään ihminen täydesti
onnellinen?" "Ei yksikään, vastasi viisas, ei yksiainuakaan. Eikä
taida'kaan kukaan täällä elossa tulla täydesti onnelliseksi. Sillä kaikki
muuttuu ja ilomme lakastuu, kun kukkanen. Se korkia puolisosi, jota
suret ja kaipaat, uskoi ihanimman ikänsä alla tämän totuuden.
Ylistäin Luojan tahtoa käytti hän tästä vajaavasta elämästä
hyväksensä mitä hänelle oli sallittu, ja on nyt mennyt toiseen
onnellisempaan, josta, joka sinne kerran tuli, ei enää toivo takasin.
Niin mitä sinäki, korkia Kuningas, häntä sieltä paremmasta elämästä
pahempaan toivoisit. Lakkaa suremasta ja tydy Luojan töihin, sillä ei
kenkään taida niitä parantaa."
Wisusti miettien tytyiki Kuningas ja kiitti viisasta vaivoistansa ja
nevoistansa. Eikä olisi enää antanutkaan puolisoansa herättää.
Tavalliset lohduttajamme, aika, toimet, huvitukset ja uudet huolet
lohduttivat hänenki murheessansa.

86. MEHILÄINEN.
W. 1839. Lokakuulta.
Kuningasten onni.
Kun muuan Bramina Patnassa aamulla läksi ulos huoneestaan,
löysi hän ovensa edessä kahiloista tehdyn korin, jossa äskensyntynyt
poikalapsi makasi. Hän otti lapsen, piti ja kasvatti sitä huolellisesti ja
nähtyänsä sen olevan harras-oppisen ja muuten hyväluontoisen
antoi sen oppia kaikkia, josta sille mieheksi tultuansa mahtaisi jotain
etua olla. Lapsi kasvoi mieheksi ja ylettiin aikaavoittain korkeimpiin
kunniasioihin, siksi että hän viimein tuli Kuninkaan lähimmäksi
käskynhaltiaksi: Sitte Kuninkaan kuoltua ja vallanperillistä ei ollen,
valittiin hän yksimielisesti Kuninkaan jälkeenseuraajaksi.
Semmoisena hänen kerta oikeutta uutten alammaistensa kanssa
pitäessä näki kansan seassa vanhan ukon alinomaa puoleensa
katselevan. Kuningas oli havatsevanansa ilon ja lempeyden kyyneleet
ukon silmissä, kun samassa oudonmuotoinen mies astui
oikeushuoneesen ja ukko yhtäkkiä karkasi sen päälle kaikella innolla.
Hän veti häntä, ehkä toinen teki vastakynttä, Kuninkaan istumen
eteen ja sanoi: "Herra! kosta puolestani tälle ilkiälle tähtientutkialle
ja kuuntele armostasi minun elämäni laitaa, joka vähän koskee
sinuunki. Minä olen isäsi, ehken tähänasti ole uskaltanut ilmoittaa
itsiäni pojalle, jonka lapsuudessansa heitin ja jonka rakkautta en ole
ansannut. Waan nähdessäni tämän mieron heittiön, jonka tässä
vedin eteesi ja joka on syy kaikkeen rikokseeni, en voinut hillitä

87. Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.
More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge
connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and
personal growth every day!
ebookbell.com