Hi.
I use several methods. Here are some:
1. I expose them to research questions that cannot be answered adequately by using quantitative tools (e.g., What is the experience of...? What does the process entail? How do the participants understand phenomenon X?, etc.). I also have them find a quantitative tool (i.e., questionnaire) that they favor, and demonstrate the areas that it does not cover (i.e., the richness of the experience under investigation).
2. Early on, I expose them to the different paradigms and their logic (I have them experience social construction and subjective meanings via an exercise wherein I show identical stimuli to two students but construct their meaning differently).
3. Early on I teach them the hermeneutic circle, and have them experience the cyclic process of understanding and re-understanding. I also demonstrate in various how parts and whole give meaning to each other (e.g., how the word "positive" changes it's meaning in "Are you positive" and "O positive" and "positive symptoms" and five other examples).
4. I also let them ponder several quotations that challenge their views (e.g., Nietszsche, Rorty, Geertz). For instance: "When we aggregate people, treating diversity as error variance, in search of what is common to all, we often learn about what is true of no one in particular" (Josselson, 1995, p. 32 "imagining the real")
Good luck.
I HOPE IT HELPS..
