Arguments for 'British Pluralism' in qualitative health research

Aims of the study. This paper examines the argument that certain qualitativ e research methods can be used in 'pure' forms. Whilst rigid adherence to p articular published procedures might be possible, we argue that in many cas es this is neither necessary nor more likely to increase the validity of th e research outcome. Methodological purity. In examining the works of well-known claimants to pa rticular research approaches such as grounded theory and phenomenology we s how that purity of method is uncommon. In particular it is possible to demo nstrate that all published qualitative methods are subject to their own und erlying relativist philosophy. The implication of this is that all are soci al constructions and that their execution will necessarily be negotiated in time and context. Conclusion. We conclude that analysis of varied examples of qualitative res earch shows methods to he more flexible than is often admitted. What we des cribe as 'British Pluralism' is an attempt to accept this reality whilst ma intaining rigour through integrity, clear accounts, reflexivity and constru ctive critique of one's own work and that of others.