CHAPTER 8 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH AND ACTION RESEARCH

CHAPTER 8 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH AND ACTION RESEARCH

It was not the detachment, the distance, or the objectivity, we believed, that made a research project great, it was the involvement, the closeness, and the subjectivity. We never heard anyone praise an ethnography by saying, “Wow, you really kept your distance from the participants.” Rather, research generated credibility by the closeness of researchers to their respondents and by how well they captured the essence of the lives and perspectives of the people they studied.

—Adler and Adler, 2012, p. 18

Selecting a qualitative research team: Research team members may be selected based on commitment to the research process, counseling skills, and cultural competence, including respect for the dimensions of African cultural values…. Counseling skills equip team members with the ability to self-reflect, build rapport, and otherwise respectfully interact with participants.

—Lyons, Bike, Johnson, and Bethea, 2012, p. 159

What do you understand if I tell you that white light is refracted at an angle between 33.39 and 33.91 degrees when it moves through glass? … What do you understand when I tell you that a rainbow makes me smile, or that the bright colors from the prism in my window remind me of someone who is very important to me and who is no longer with us?

—Mertens, 2009, p. 312

In This Chapter

Reasons for choosing qualitative methods are explored.

Strategies for qualitative inquiry and their methodological implications are discussed, including ethnographic research, case studies, phenomenology, grounded theory, and participatory action research.

General methodological guidelines are presented for qualitative research.

Criteria for critically analyzing qualitative research are provided.

Two studies summarized in Chapters 1 and 2 of this text exemplify qualitative approaches to research. In one study, the researcher was invited to El Salvador to explore the life experiences of youth who lived in a very violent context with a high level of gang activity (Schmalenbach, 2018; Sample Study 1.3). Schmalenbach conducted a transformative qualitative study with students, their families, teachers, and administrators in a school to help them develop teaching methods that were appropriate to this context to enhance the students’ academic achievement and social emotional development. In the second study (Sample Study 2.2), Nelson, Henderson, and Lackey (2015) used a qualitative approach to explore the experiences of youth who had been in a substance abuse prevention program. They focused on understanding the effects of the program on the youth in terms of their relationships and life chances after participating in the program.

Qualitative methods are used in research that is designed to provide an in-depth description of a specific program, practice, or setting. Here is a “generic” definition of a qualitative study:

Qualitative research is a situated activity that locates the observer in the world. It consists of a set of interpretive, material practices that make the world visible. These practices transform the world. They turn the world into a series of representations, including field notes, interviews, conversations, photographs, recordings, and memos to the self. At this level, qualitative research involves an interpretive, naturalistic approach to the world. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of or to interpret phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them.

Qualitative research involves the studied use and collection of a variety of empirical materials—case study; personal experience; introspection; life story; interview; artifacts; cultural texts and productions; along with observational, historical, interactional, and visual texts—that describe routine and problematic moments and meanings in individuals’ lives. (Denzin & Lincoln, 2018b, p. 10)

The Qualitative Revolution in Psychology

As urgent social problems, the rising tides of democratization, and social justice movements voice their claims outside of and within psychology, the discipline has been broadening and revising its methods of acquiring knowledge. Similar to its sister social sciences that have engendered a pluralization of research methods, psychology has followed suit by developing and incorporating qualitative methods that allow greater expression on the part of research participants and a more responsive relationship with them in the practice of research. Qualitative methods have become especially widespread in subfields involving professional practice, women’s issues, and multicultural concerns. Research has thereby hosted diverse, previously excluded stakeholders, and its knowledge has become more faithful to the experiences of persons and peoples. These methods are responsive to human subjectivity and meanings outside the boundaries of extant knowledge. As the development of methodological pluralism enacts ethical obligations that are deeply rooted in psychology’s identity, this pluralism also extends and enhances the scientific rigor and truth of psychological knowledge.

Key words associated with qualitative methods include complexity, contextual, exploration, discovery, and inductive logic. By using an inductive approach, researchers attempt to make sense of a situation without imposing preexisting expectations on the phenomena under study. Thus, the researcher begins with specific observations and allows the categories of analysis to emerge from the data as the study progresses.

For example, Schneider et al. (2004) knew that schizophrenia is a medical condition that is characterized by social isolation, and treatment for this condition requires interaction with medical professionals. The researchers placed themselves within a participatory transformative framework because of their belief that the experts on this topic are members of the community who live the experiences being studied. Rather than make assumptions about what needed to be researched based solely on scholarly literature, the researcher from the university (Schneider) contacted a support group for people with schizophrenia and began a process of determining their interest in working with her, outlining parameters for working together, and brainstorming topics that the community members valued for research purposes. They chose the topic of communicating with medical professionals. The results indicated negative and positive experiences in communicating with medical professionals centering on diagnosis, medication, getting information about the disease, needing support, and issues of respect and dignity in treatment settings. For example, concerns about medication included being overmedicated or suffering from side effects that were debilitating. One man commented, “I feel weighted down by the medication. It’s hard to move, walk, do things. It’s like walking in slavery, like lifting heavy bricks all the time, weighed down by the illness” (p. 570). In the end, the group made a list of recommendations for professionals when they interact with people with schizophrenia, and they developed a reader’s theater script based on the data collected during the study to perform for professionals and people with schizophrenia to share their results.

Basis for Selection of Qualitative Methods

Possible reasons for choosing qualitative methods are explored in this chapter: the researcher’s view of the world (paradigm) and practical reasons associated with the nature of qualitative methods.

The Researcher’s View of the World

Constructivist View

Denzin and Lincoln (2018b) note that many changes have occurred in the status of paradigms and choice of methods over the years, such that various paradigms are beginning to “interbreed.” They note that their own work within the constructivist paradigm is influenced by facets of the transformative paradigm, such as action research, critical theory, participatory research, and feminist theory. While recognizing the influence of other paradigms on their work, they continue to identify themselves as social constructionists who accept the ontological assumption associated with constructivism that reality is not absolute but is socially constructed and that multiple realities exist that are time and context dependent. Consequently, they choose to carry out studies using qualitative methods so that they can gain an understanding of the realities constructed by people in various contexts. Lincoln, Lynham, and Guba (2011) identify qualitative methods as the preferred methods for researchers working in the constructivist paradigm; however, they also recognize that quantitative methods can be used within this paradigm when it is appropriate to do so.1

Controversy surrounds the issue of determination of cause-and-effect relationships between constructivists and postpositivists. You remember the postpositivists’ claim that randomized controlled trials are necessary in order to make causal claims. In contrast to that position, Maxwell (2012) argues that

qualitative researchers [can] make and support causal claims…. Adequate causal explanations in the social sciences depend on the in-depth understanding of meanings, contexts, and processes that qualitative research can provide…. Research desperately needs qualitative approaches and methods if it is to make valid and useful claims about what works. (p. 655)

He argues that qualitative methods allow us to understand the process and dynamics that support a causal relationship without the need for comparison or quantitative measurement. Qualitative methods also allow for inclusion of participants’ differences in beliefs, values, intentions, and meanings as well as social, cultural, and physical contextual factors that affect causal relationships.

Transformative Views

People With Disabilities.

As exemplified in the Schneider et al. (2004) study, transformative researchers who work with communities with disabilities place high priority on developing relationships with members of the community, building trust, and recognizing the expertise that community members have. Qualitative research is useful because of the need to individualize education for students with disabilities—hence the need for research approaches that can capture the nature of those experiences. Qualitative approaches also allow for the study of accommodations needed for individual students that are specifically developed to address that student’s learning needs and how they are supported (i.e., the perceptions of participants and relevant stakeholders as well as logistical considerations that influence desire, ability, and comfort associated with implementing an intervention). Special education researchers are also concerned with the social validity of their work (see Chapter 7); ascertaining the social validity of an intervention is sometimes done using qualitative methods such as interviews with teachers, students, and administrators or by observing in classrooms.

Many of the criteria that establish the appropriateness of choosing qualitative methods parallel the conditions in special education. In special education, low-incidence conditions, such as deaf-blindness, cause sample sizes to be restricted or small. Students with disabilities are unique, with diversity across categories of disabilities as well as within them. In special education, each student’s program, by definition, is deliberately designed to be unique to satisfy that student’s needs. This is reflected in the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), including an Individualized Education Program (IEP) for school-age students; an individual family service plan (IFSP) for children, birth through 3 years old; and an individual transition plan (ITP) required for all individuals by their 16th birthday. By definition, if not by legal mandate, the programs for special education students are diverse and idiosyncratic.

Racial/Ethnic Minorities.

Leong (2012), editor of the American Psychological Association’s book series on culture, race, and ethnic psychology, notes that the “qualitative approach is especially important in the field of racial and ethnic minority psychology, given the complexity and intersectionality inherent in this subdiscipline” (p. xii). Lyons, Bike, Johnson, and Bethea (2012) assert an important role for qualitative research in uncovering the systemic presence of racism reflected in student selection and placement processes, ethnocentric curricula, and racist attitudes and discriminatory behaviors that impact school achievement.

Feminists Perspectives.

Olesen (2018) traces the history of feminist research, describing the evolution of the feminist lens in research partly as a criticism of positivist approaches to research. Hence, many feminist researchers developed qualitative approaches to research in order to make visible subjectivities, focus on issues of relevance to women (e.g., unpaid labor, educational inequities), and support social change. Feminists turned to qualitative methods because they allowed for closer interactions with the participants; these were viewed as necessary to understand the lived experiences of women who had been marginalized in a misogynistic culture. Using a feminist lens does not require the use of qualitative methods; feminists can conduct surveys, experimental studies, and historical research. However, in this chapter, the focus is on use of a feminist lens in the conduct of qualitative research.

Immigrant Groups.

Dodson, Piatelli, and Schmalzbauer (2007) address concerns regarding the conduct of qualitative research with recent immigrants, undocumented workers, and wage-poor people. They acknowledge that a trusting relationship in such contexts is more likely to reveal valid information; however, the trust also implies particular attention to how researchers use the findings. Dodson reflected on her work in low-income neighborhoods: “I understood a common code that divulging accurate accounts of everyday life was generally considered foolhardy, probably a disservice to one’s immediate material interests, and in some cases dangerous” (p. 827). The researchers thought they were asking neutral questions that would not pose a threat to the families, such as, “With whom do you live? What child care do you use when you go to school?” (p. 827). However, these questions are fraught with danger because of rules about cohabitation in public housing, which might mean that a woman would lose her home if it were discovered that she shared her living situation with another person. Or mothers in poverty may not make enough money to pay for child care and basic living expenses, thus putting them in a difficult position. If they reveal that they leave the children alone or with a sibling, that could result in having their children taken away from them. This also presents an ethical dilemma for the researcher with regard to child safety and reporting accurate information.

Indigenous Populations.

Scholarship by Indigenous people has taken a highly visible turn, whereby these scholars are demanding that research conducted in their communities be congruent with their beliefs, histories, and perceptions of appropriate ways to generate knowledge (Chilisa, 2012; Cram, Chilisa, & Mertens, 2013). Because of the strong valuing of relationships in Indigenous communities, Indigenous researchers are inclined to use qualitative approaches, perhaps not exclusively but certainly as an important part of the design. Chilisa (2012) described the respectful Indigenous researcher as one who “listens, pays attention, acknowledges and creates space for the voices and knowledge systems of the Other” (p. 22). Historically, research on Indigenous communities yielded a deficit view of the inhabitants and resulted in unequal access to land and societal goods and services. Hence, Indigenous scholars emphasize the need for their research to accurately represent the diversity within their communities, unmask oppressive power structures, and work toward improved social justice.

Practical Reasons (Pragmatism)

The nature of the research question itself can lead a researcher to choose qualitative methods. Patton (2002) identifies the following types of research questions for which qualitative methods would be appropriate:

1. The focus of the research is on the process, implementation, or development of a program.
2. The program emphasizes individualized outcomes.
3. Detailed, in-depth information is needed about certain clients or programs.
4. The focus is on diversity among, idiosyncrasies of, and unique qualities exhibited by individuals.
5. The intent is to understand the program theory—that is, the staff members’ (and participants’) beliefs as to the nature of the problem they are addressing and how their actions will lead to desired outcomes.

Patton (2002) describes a basis for choosing qualitative methods that is rooted in pragmatics associated with these methods, in addition to the nature of the research questions themselves. He notes that the choice of qualitative methods might be appropriate in three conditions. First, because many educational and psychological programs are based on humanistic values, the intended users of the research may prefer the type of personal contact and data that emerge from a qualitative study. Intended users should be involved in the decisions about choice of methods so that they will find the results credible and useful.

Second, qualitative methods may also be chosen when no acceptable, valid, reliable, appropriate quantitative measure is available for the desired outcomes of a program. See Box 8.1 for an example in which qualitative methods were chosen for this reason. In addition, the example comes from a cross-cultural context in which similar concepts related to people with disabilities did not exist between the two cultures.

Box 8.1 No Standardized Measurements Exist Cross-Culturally

I served as the evaluator for a study of the impact of professional development on teaching students who were deaf, blind, or intellectually disabled in Egypt. One of the interesting impacts of this study was the effect of the training on Egyptian administrators’ and teachers’ attitudes toward people with disabilities. At the time of the study, no standardized measures for attitude change were available that were appropriate within the Egyptian culture. Therefore, data collected from observations and interviews were used to document the kinds of language used to describe people with disabilities throughout the project. The evolution of the participants’ comments regarding the use of sign language and the role of the Deaf community in the education of Deaf children illustrate how qualitative methods cans be used to document changes in attitude.2

Behavioral indicators at the beginning of the project suggested that the Egyptian participants held beliefs that sign language use was not beneficial and could even be seen as a distraction:

The participants said: “We don’t use sign language in our schools for the Deaf because we know that it will interfere with the deaf child’s learning to speak and use their residual hearing.” This is a myth that was overturned by early research on deafness in the United States by Meadow (1967), which revealed that deaf children with deaf parents who used sign language with their children excelled in educational, social, and linguistic measures (including speaking) when compared to deaf children with hearing parents who did not sign with their parents. This finding might be seen as a surprise—deaf children of deaf parents are superior to deaf children of hearing parents—until one reflects on the role of early language acquisition for cognitive and linguistic development. The deaf children with deaf parents had access to a language in their early formative years.

At Gallaudet University, both hearing and deaf faculty sign when they give presentations. When the Egyptian participants saw the faculty signing during the professional development sessions, they asked the faculty to stop using sign language during their presentations because they found it “distracting.”

Contrast these behavioral indicators with what was observed in the middle of the project:

1. After reading research about the value of sign language and reflecting on the professional credentials of the deaf faculty who led parts of the training, some of the participants asked to be taught sign language.
2. They were told that they would need to learn sign language from Egyptian deaf people so that they would learn the signs appropriate for their deaf school children.
3. The faculty said that they could provide training in how to teach sign language to the deaf Egyptians whom the administrators and teachers identified in their country.

By the end of the project, five deaf Egyptians had been trained how to teach sign language and had begun teaching Egyptian sign language to the teachers and administrators.

In the final evaluation, the participants commented that they had not had enough training in sign language yet and that more deaf people needed to be trained to teach sign language in their communities. Thus, Mertens, Berkeley, and Lopez (1995) were able to document changes in attitudes that were manifest in changes of behavior without the use of quantitative measures.

SOURCE: Mertens, Berkeley, and Lopez (1995).

Extending Your Thinking Reasons for Using Qualitative Research

1. In your opinion, for what types of settings and problems are qualitative research methods appropriate and not appropriate?
2. What are the philosophical assumptions of the constructivist paradigm, and what are the methodological implications of those assumptions? How do they reflect the decision to use qualitative methods? How do the transformative paradigm assumptions influence choices to use qualitative methods?

A third reason for choosing qualitative methods might be to add depth to a quantitative study. Patton (2002) notes that the use of mixed methods can provide breadth, depth, and numerical data that can give a more complete picture of the phenomena under study. For example, in survey research, respondents commonly indicate their answers by circling a number on a Likert-type, 5-point scale. Follow-up interviews can be used to determine the meaning attached to their numerical ratings.

Types of Qualitative Research

Many different types of qualitative research are practiced in educational and psychological research. I chose to focus on five strategies in this chapter:

1. Ethnographic research
2. Case study
3. Phenomenological research
4. Grounded theory
5. Participatory action research

These five approaches are included in The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (Denzin & Lincoln, 2018b) and Patton’s (2002) Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods, and thus their inclusion is based on the rationale that they represent important approaches for educational and psychological qualitative research. Savin-Baden and Tombs (2017) provide insights into how these approaches to qualitative research can integrate the use of digital methods using tweets, digitized archives, email and web communications, social media posts, and geo-coded information. Three other qualitative approaches—historical, autoethnography, and biographical/narrative—are addressed in Chapter 9. These are also important approaches for qualitative researchers and both involve the collection of data about specific people’s lives, either historically or currently.

Ethnographic Research

Buscatto (2018) describes ethnography as a form of research that is defined as long-term observation “personally conducted in situ by the researcher and aimed at producing specific data” (p. 325). It is conducted over a period of time to reveal what happens during people’s daily lives. It can be done to study culture and society within the context of the daily lives of the participants, focusing on such constructs as religion, kinship, or health issues. The cornerstone of ethnography is observation over a period of time, but other data collection methods can be included, such as interviews and informal conversations. A key assumption is that by entering into firsthand interaction with people in their everyday lives, ethnographers can reach a better understanding of the beliefs, motivations, and behaviors of the people in the study than they could by using other methods.

For example, Schmalenbach’s (2018; Sample Study 1.3) was a mixed methods study that used ethnography for the qualitative part of the study. Schmalenbach studied the experiences of students, their families, teachers, and administrators in a community in El Salvador that had a high level of gang activity. She wanted to understand how the students and other members of the community experienced life, especially in terms of cooperation and mutual support because the community members agreed that these qualities were important to the decrease in violence.

Hammersley (2006, cited in Lillis, 2008, p. 358) identifies the following features of ethnography:

. Ethnography is concerned with the collection and analysis of empirical data drawn from “real world” contexts rather than being produced under experimental conditions created by the researcher.

. The research involves sustained engagement in a particular site.

. A key aim is for the researcher to attempt to make sense of events from the perspectives of participants.

. Data are gathered from a range of sources, but observation and/or relatively informal conversations are often key tools.

. The focus is a single setting or group of relatively small scale or a small number of these. In life-history research, the focus may even be a single individual.

. The analysis of the data involves interpretation of the meanings and functions of human actions and mainly takes the form of verbal descriptions and explanations, with quantification and statistical analysis playing a subordinate role at most.

In traditional ethnographic work, the researcher makes the decisions about what to study, how to study it, and whose voice to represent in the written ethnography with the goal of producing knowledge. In contrast to this description of traditional ethnography, several other approaches have emerged that reflect responsiveness to race, gender, sexual identity, postcolonial, and Indigenous social movements, including critical ethnography, feminist ethnography, performance ethnography, and photo-ethnography, with a goal of social change.

a. Critical ethnography “is a form of research that attempts to account for and highlight the complex relationship between structural constraints on human action and autonomous, active agency by individuals and groups” (Castagno, 2012, p. 374). This approach includes the examination of social structures, including economic, political, social, historical, and cultural institutions and norms that support discriminatory practices that constrain the agency of individuals or groups and the strategies of resistance employed by those who are oppressed. In Chapter 1 and in the section on Transformative Views in this chapter, a number of theoretical frames are presented, including CRT, Queer/LGBTQ theory, Disability Rights theory, and Indigenous theory. Any of these can be used in a Critical ethnography.

b. Feminist ethnography is characterized by focusing on women’s lives, activities, and experiences; use of feminist theories and ethics to inform methods and writing styles; and uses a feminist theoretical lens to analyze power differences related to gender (Olesen, 2018). Olesen also comments on the divergent growth seen in feminist ethnography in the form of endarkening, decolonizing, and indigenizing feminist research.

c. Performance ethnography (also known as ethnodrama) is yet another permutation of developments in the world of qualitative research (Hamera, 2018) that involves the development of a script and often a staged re-enactment of ethnographically derived data. The power of performance combined with ethnography serves to bring the results of the study to life in a way that is engaging and informative for the purpose of raising consciousness and stimulating action. This is discussed further in the final chapter of this book in the section related to reporting research.

d.In photoethnography or visual ethnography, images are used as data sources. The images can come from pictures taken by the researchers or by participants (often called photovoice, see Chapter 12) (Eberle, 2018). When participants take the pictures, the researcher gives them a camera to document some aspect of their lives. The researcher conducts follow-up interviews with the participants. The participants then describe what the pictures symbolize to them with a goal of working for social change. Newberry and Hoskins (2010) used photovoice to study the experiences of adolescent girls who used methamphetamines (see Chapter 12 for details). Farough (2006) conducted a photoethnographic study of White masculinities through the use of pictures taken by 26 men in their communities, followed by three photoethnographic interviews to explore ways the White men visually interpret race and gender within particular social contexts.

Schmalenbach (Sample Study 1.3) (2018) used a transformative lens (Mertens, 2009) that was informed by Indigenous theory (Chilisa, 2012) to frame her study in El Salvador. She chose an ethnographic approach because it allowed her to put emphasis on the culture and surrounding conditions while including the voices of those who were marginalized. In this community (an informal settlement), outsiders perceived the residents as criminals or potential criminals, making it difficult for them to find jobs. She was able to gain access because of her relationship with an NGO that had been operating in the community for many years and was trusted by the residents. She stayed in the community for one year during the main part of the study and then returned several times to give training to the teachers in the school where she had collected the data. She gathered data from multiple perspectives—from parents, teachers, students, and the school principal.

ase Study

Case study research is an investigative approach used to thoroughly describe complex phenomena, such as recent events, important issues, or programs, in ways to unearth new and deeper understandings of these phenomena. Specifically, this methodology focuses on the concept of case, the particular example or instance from a class or group of events, issues, or programs, and how people interact with components of these phenomena (T. S. Moore, Lapan, & Quartaroli, 2012, pp. 243–244).

A case may be based on any number of units of analysis: an individual, a group of individuals, a classroom, a school, or an event such as a shooting rampage or the birth of a child. Fourie and Theron (2012) conducted a case study that focused on the resilience of a young woman with a genetic disability that involved multiple mental and physical challenges. They noted that the young woman was cheerful and forward-looking despite these challenges, a demeanor that was not reflected in the literature on this type of disability. Thus, they used a transformative lens (Mertens, 2009) and resilience theory (Ungar, 2011) to frame their case study. “Following a transformative paradigm meant that we focused on the positives, or the protective resources and processes that encouraged [the participant’s] resilience” (Fourie & Theron, 2012, p. 1357). The researchers purposively selected this participant because of her resilient qualities and because she was willing to engage in the research with them. In addition to the participant, the case included significant adults in her life, including her mother, a previous primary school teacher, and her current tutor.

Stake (2005) recognizes the somewhat problematic situation that emerges in trying to define a case study as a unique form of research. To solve the problem, he uses the criterion that case study research is not defined by a specific methodology but by the object of study. He writes, “The more the object of study is a specific, unique, bounded system” (p. 445), the greater the rationale for calling it a case study. Case studies focus on a particular instance (object or case) and reaching an understanding within a complex context. Differences of opinion exist as to whether case study is a method or a research design. In that a variety of methods are used to collect data within case study research, I opt to discuss case studies as one option in qualitative research strategy choices.

To study a case, Stake (2005) recommends data collection of the following types of information:

1. The nature of the case
2. Its historical background
3. The physical setting
4. Other contexts, such as economic, political, legal, and aesthetic
5. Other cases through which this case is recognized
6. Those informants through whom the case can be known

The process of making comparisons with other cases is often left to the reader of the case study who comes to the report with preexisting knowledge of similar and different cases. Stake (2005) warns readers not to lose that which is unique about a given case in an effort to find similarities with other cases. Some people view case study methods as leading to scientific generalizations, but Stake emphasizes the intrinsic interest in each case as being important.

Yin (2018) recommends starting a case study by developing a research design (as has been the prevailing logic in this book all along). He identifies the following steps in the development of the case study design:

1. Develop the research questions (first discussed in Chapter 3). Yin suggests that “how” and “why” questions are especially appropriate for case study research. Youm (2007) conducted a case study in arts-based education that had the following research questions:
2. What are the steps in developing and planning a curriculum that integrates regular classroom content with music, visual arts, and media?
3. What are the roles of the teachers in different subject areas in the development and implementation of an (arts) integrated curriculum? (p. 43)
4. Identify the propositions (if any) for the study. Propositions are statements akin to hypotheses that state why you think you might observe a specific behavior or relationship. All case studies may not lend themselves to the statement of propositions, especially if they are exploratory. However, Yin (2018) says the researcher should be able to state the purpose (in lieu of propositions) of the study and the criteria by which an explanation will be judged successful. Propositions help narrow the focus of the study—for example, integration of arts into the curriculum. The purpose of the Youm’s (2007) study was to contribute to understanding the process involved in integrating arts-based curriculum in the first grade.
5. Specify the unit of analysis. Specification of the case involves the identification of the unit of analysis—for example, an exemplary student or a challenging psychotherapeutic client. Some cases can be more complex and harder to define than an individual—for example, a program, an organization, a classroom, a clinic, a neighborhood, or an event. Researchers need to base the design on either a single case or multiple cases and establish the boundaries as clearly as possible in terms of who is included, the geographic area, and time for beginning and ending the case. Once the case has been identified, the unit of analysis can then be described within the context of the case. One unit of analysis may be selected—or several. A holistic unit of analysis might be an individual’s relationship with his or her parents. Other units of analysis might be added, such as individual projects within a program or process units, such as meetings, roles, or locations. Yin (2018) labels single-unit case studies that examine the global nature of an organization or program as holistic designs and multiple-unit studies as embedded designs. Youm (2007) chose three first-grade classroom teachers and three arts team teachers in one school.

• Establish the logic linking the data to the propositions. Yin (2018) suggests that researchers attempt to describe how the data will be used to illuminate the propositions. He recommends use of a type of time series pattern-matching strategy in which patterns of data are related to the theoretical propositions. Youm (2007) collected data through observations during planning meetings and classroom teaching, interviews with individual teachers, document reviews that centered on their lesson plans, and artifacts, such as compact discs, books, and photographs.
• The criteria for interpretation of the findings should be explained. No statistical tests are typically appropriate for use as a criterion for case study decisions. Yin (2018) suggests that researchers use judgment to identify “different patterns [that] are sufficiently contrasting” (p. 27) to compare rival propositions. Youm (2007) used a systems-based framework to analyze the processes that were necessary for the integration of regular classroom curricula with the arts by looking at the support that the teachers needed from the administration in terms of substitute teachers and planning time. He looked at the dynamics of interactions among the teachers themselves to document the types of collaboration that facilitated the integration. He then examined the effects of the integration on the students and reported, “The teachers stated that integration made connections for learning concepts and enhanced student creativity and higher-level thinking” (p. 50).

In case study research, theory development is one essential part of the design phase. Yin (2018) defines theory as an understanding (or theory) of what is being studied. As noted in Chapter 3, the literature review is an excellent source for the identification of appropriate theories to guide the case study design.

Sample Study 2.2 is an example of a case study that used a group of 10 men and women who experienced long-term recovery after participating in a treatment program (Nelson et al., 2015). Nelson et al. were conducting an evaluation of the program to determine which factors contributed to their sobriety in the long-term. One of the evaluation questions was: “What were the lived experiences of alumni clients of a recovery support group for youth who have experienced long-term sobriety?” (p. 102). The evaluators hypothesized that the use of an alternative peer group support model would be effective for adolescents in recovery.

Case studies can be conducted as generic case studies, or they can be conducted as a specific type of case study such as an ethnographic case study or a phenomenological case study. Nelson et al. (2015) conducted a phenomenological case study, hence providing an excellent segue to the next section

Phenomenological Research

Moustakas (1994) introduced the research world to the phenomenological approach, an approach that emphasizes understanding the individual’s subjective experience (Wertz, 2005). It seeks the individual’s perceptions and meaning of a phenomenon or experience and calls upon the researcher to suspend theories, explanations, hypotheses, and conceptualizations to be able to understand the phenomenon “as it exists prior to and independent of scientific knowledge…. This return to phenomena as they are lived … is a methodological procedure … for the sake of fresh research access to the matters to be investigated” (p. 168). Patton (2002) framed the typical phenomenological research question as, “What is the meaning, structure, and essence of the lived experience of this phenomenon for this person or group of people?” (p. 104). The intent is to understand and describe an event from the point of view of the participant. The feature that distinguishes phenomenological research from other qualitative research approaches is that the subjective experience is at the center of the inquiry.

Researchers using the phenomenological approach in special education could study what the experience of being in a total-inclusion classroom is like or what the experience of being a student with a disability (or one without a disability) in an integrated classroom is like. In contrast, an ethnographic approach to special education research could include investigation of the impact of a program designed to facilitate integration of students with disabilities, studying the culture of the total-inclusion classroom, or studying interactions between children with or without disabilities. Sample Study 2.2 provides a summary of a phenomenological case study of how participants in a drug abuse recovery program experienced the program and their life in sobriety after they left the program.

Readers interested in the philosophical basis of phenomenology from a historical perspective are referred to Gubrium and Holstein (2000). The key characteristic of phenomenology is the study of the way in which members of a group or community themselves interpret the world and life around them. The researcher does not make assumptions about an objective reality that exists apart from the individual. Rather, the focus is on understanding how individuals create and understand their own life spaces.

Gubrium and Holstein (2000) identify phenomenology as the philosophical base for interpretive research strategies, such as ethnomethodology and conversational analysis, which have at their core the qualitative study of reality-constituting practices. Within this realm, the scientist’s job is to discover the meaning of the world as it is experienced by the individual. In ethnomethodology, the analyst focuses on describing how individuals recognize, describe, explain, and account for their everyday lives. Conversational analysis is one example of ethnomethodological research that examines the sequential organization of topics, management of turn taking, and practices related to opening, sustaining, and closing a conversation.

Extending Your Thinking Types of Qualitative Research

Identify the characteristics of two of the types of qualitative research: ethnography and phenomenology. How are they similar to and different from each other? Using specific research studies, give an example in your discipline of an application of each of these approaches. What are the defining characteristics that determine that these studies are ethnographic or phenomenological?

Feminists have used ethnomethodological strategies to highlight the oppressing effect of language use in describing women’s experiences: for example, describing families as “intact” only if they reflect the (somewhat) mythical model of father and mother married to each other and living in the same home with their children. This social construction of the family tends to convey a negative value to the many families represented by patterns other than that described. Many households are headed by single women who struggle against great odds (including those psychological stresses imposed by the socially constructed language) to raise their children in a positive manner.

Nelson et al. (2015) describe the phenomenological nature of their case study in terms of investigating the experiences of alumni of the recovery support program for youth. “Our aim was to uncover and describe the essence of participants’ lived experiences” (p. 103). Their focus was on comprehending “the essence of the participants’ experiences and the participants’ relation to the experiences to more fully understand the role of APGs [Alternative Peer Group] in adolescent recovery from drug and alcohol abuse” (p. 103). They collected qualitative data through a series of interviews to explore what it meant to be a member of an APG and how the alumni experienced recovering from drug and alcohol abuse by participating in the program. The evaluators described how they used a phenomenological approach to data analysis (see Chapter 13) in order to support their claim that they had captured the essence of the participants’ experiences.

Grounded Theory

Grounded theory has a dual identity as both a method of inquiry and a product of inquiry (Charmaz, 2014). Grounded theory, developed by Glaser and Strauss (1965) and modified by Corbin and Strauss (2008), is an approach in which data are simultaneously collected and analyzed in search of emergent themes that guide future data collection and culminates in the development of a theory grounded in the analyzed data. The defining characteristic of grounded theory is that the theoretical propositions are not stated at the outset of the study. Rather, generalizations (theory) emerge out of the data themselves and not prior to data collection. Thus, the emergent theory is grounded in the current data collection and analysis efforts.

Because the initial or emerging theory is always tested against data that are systematically collected, this approach to research has been called the constant comparative method (Charmaz, 2014). It was created explicitly for the purpose of developing theory based on empirical data. On the basis of the viewpoints expressed by participants in the research, researchers accept the responsibility to interpret the data and use them as a basis for theory generation. The constant comparative method calls on the researcher to seek verification for hypotheses that emerge throughout the study (in contrast to other qualitative approaches that might see this as the role of follow-up research).

The key methodological features include the following:

1. The researcher needs to constantly interact with the data; ask questions designed to generate theory and relate concepts. Make comparisons, think about what you see, make hypotheses, and sketch out mini-frameworks to test ideas.
2. Use theoretical sampling—that is, select incidents for data collection that are guided by the emerging theory; as you ask questions of your data, you will begin collecting data that will help you fill in gaps in your theoretical formulation.
3. Use theoretical, systematic coding procedures and conceptualize how the substantive codes relate to each other as hypotheses to be integrated into a theory. Different types of coding decisions—open coding and axial coding—are explained in Chapter 13 on data analysis.
4. Ask questions of your data that allow you to depict the complexity, variation, and nature of the relationships between variables in your study. Ask questions such as Who? When? Where? What? How? How much? Why? Also, be sensitive to red flag words such as never, always, and everyone. Provide sufficient details so the reader can see the progression in your conceptual development and induction of relationships.

Charmaz (2014) suggests that researchers using the grounded theory approach need to be aware that rigid adherence to these steps may create a false sense of confidence in the results. She recommends adopting more of a constructivist approach to grounded theory that recognizes that the categories and concepts are not inherent in the data, awaiting the researcher’s discovery. Rather, the researcher creates the categories and concepts as the result of interaction with the field and the questions that are asked. The narrowing of research questions, creation of concepts and categories, and integration of the constructed theoretical framework reflect what and how the researcher thinks and does about shaping and collecting the data.

Sample Study 8.1 provides an example of a grounded theory approach to qualitative research. Brandau and Evanson (2018) were concerned about cyberbullying amongst adolescents, and they wanted to develop a theory that would explain the process and coping strategies that could be used.

Participatory Action Research (PAR)

I debated with myself about where to place PAR in this book, should it be in the qualitative chapter or the mixed methods chapter? In this edition, I decided to keep it in the qualitative methods chapter as that has been the dominant method used by participatory action researchers for decades. However, this approach is being incorporated into more mixed methods studies (Ivankova & Wingo, 2018), so who knows, in the 6th edition, it may show up in the mixed methods chapter.

Sample Study 8.1Summary of a Grounded Theory Research Study

Research Problem: Many adolescents experience cyberbullying, with estimates ranging between 10% and 50%. As this is a relatively new phenomenon, little research evidence is available that gives insights to how it happens, its effect, and how adolescents cope with it. Such research can be used to develop prevention and recovery programs.

Research Purpose and Questions: “The purpose of this study was to explain the social and psychological processes involved in cyberbullying from the perspectives of those who have been victimized” (p. 1). The researchers had four research questions:

Research Question 1: What are the social processes that occur throughout adolescent cyberbullying?

Research Question 2: What are the antecedents and consequences to cyberbullying?

Research Question 3: In what ways do victims attempt to cope with or manage cyberbullying?

Research Question 4: What is the context in which adolescent cyberbullying occurs? (p. 2)

Method: A constructivist grounded theory approach (Charmaz, 2014) was used in this study because cyberbullying is a personal experience that is perceived differently by different people. This approach emphasizes the construction of meaning by participants and the researchers.

Participants: The researchers used flyers posted at businesses and facilities in nearby counties to recruit their participants. Fifteen participants between the ages of 14 and 21 agreed to share their experiences about cyberbullying. Twelve were female; three male. Eighty-seven percent self-identified as White; the remainder identified as “Other.” The authors said they used “theoretical concepts” (p. 3) to guide their sampling decisions, but they did not elaborate on what these concepts were.

Instruments and Procedures: The primary researcher began the study by critical self-reflection about her assumptions about cyberbullying that she recorded in memos. She continued this process through the entire study. She also conducted semi-structured interviews that lasted an average of 45 minutes with each participant. She began with a very open-ended question: “I understand that you have been cyberbullied. Would you please tell me about your experience with cyberbullying?” (p. 3). She probed as necessary to understand their experiences in terms of how and when it happened, how it progressed, and how it was resolved. “In keeping with Charmaz’ (2014) grounded theory approach, interview questions changed and evolved over time, as new codes and concepts emerged and required additional exploration” (p. 3). The researchers then conducted the data analysis using the principles of grounded theory (discussed in Chapter 13). Strategies to insure the rigor of the data are discussed later in this chapter and examples are provided from this study to illustrate them.

Results: The researchers developed a theory about cyberbullying that had several cyclical elements. It began with a period called being targeted, which was followed by being cyberbullied, losing oneself (e.g., losing self-confidence; engaging in self-harm), and attempting to cope (e.g., disengaging; getting help from family members). For victims that were unable to resolve the bullying, they were stuck in this cycle. However, if the cyberbullying stopped either through successful coping strategies or other means, then the victims could move on to the stage of resolving and finding oneself.

Discussion: The theory that emerged provides insights into the full cycle associated with cyberbullying during adolescents. The cyclical nature of the experience provides a framework for intervention strategies at multiple levels. Parents, educators, and psychologists who are aware of the various stages and the types of behaviors associated with each stage can be more alert to problems that require attention. It could also be used to inform the development of prevention programs.

SOURCE: Based on Brandau and Evanson (2018).

Brydon-Miller, Kral, Maguire, Noffke, and Sabblok (2011) provide the following description of participatory action research:

It is built upon the notion that knowledge generation is a collaborative process in which each participant’s diverse experiences and skills are critical to the outcome of the work. PAR combines theory and practice in cycles of action and reflection that are aimed toward solving concrete community problems…. And PAR is responsive to changing circumstances, adapting its methods, and drawing on the resources of all participants to address the needs of the community. (p. 387)

In PAR, participants share the role as co-researchers; Cook-Sather (2012) explores ways that participants can be engaged with as co-researchers, with specific emphasis on the dynamics involved when participants are students and the researcher is an adult. She writes,

It becomes clear that any ongoing process of perception, interpretation, and representation of student experience that constructs students as authorities and agents must be a process of research “with,” not research “on” students: students must be active agents in, not just objects of, interpretation. (p. 355)

The “with” quality of PAR can take many forms, including building participants’ capacities to design data collection instruments and collect and interpret data. Two approaches to participatory research differ in their fundamental assumptions of the role of the researchers and the influence of power on the researcher-participant relationships: cooperative participatory action research and transformative participatory action research (PAR).

The following steps are commonly used to describe the process of conducting action research:

Step 1: Diagnosing: Identify a practical and pertinent problem and reflect on possible solutions.

Step 2: Reconnaissance and planning: Develop possible solutions.

Step 3: Action: Implement the chosen solutions and collect data on its effectiveness.

Step 4. Reflection: Reflect on outcomes, decide what needs to be changed or improved, and revise or modify it for the next action step.

Step 5. Repeat as necessary: Continue the cycle to develop, implement, and evaluate solutions for practice improvement (Ivankova & Wingo, 2018).i

Cooperative Participatory Action Research

Cooperative inquiry involves participation of all people in the research process but does not explicitly address power relations and the potential transformative effects of the research. In the context of program evaluation, Whitmore (1998) termed this practical participatory evaluation. In education, cooperative inquiry is closer to the concept of classroom action research, in which teachers (sometimes with help from academics) conduct research into their own practice and ways to im

Cooperative inquiry is based on the importance of self-determination, and thus all people are involved in the research as co-researchers. They contribute to the decision making through generating ideas, designing and managing the project, and drawing conclusions from the experience, and also as co-subjects, participating in the activity being researched. Sample Study 8.2 provides an example of an action research study that used a cooperative inquiry approach in a classroom where disruptive behaviors decreased the amount of learning time. Two teachers worked with a university professor to conduct the study (Kroeger, Beirne, & Kraus, 2015).

Sample Study 8.2 Summary of a Cooperative PAR Study

Research Problem: Two teachers (Beirne and Kraus) taught at an urban high school that was focused on interdisciplinary instruction involving Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM). They decided to merge their English and history classes into a double-block class. The class was scheduled for immediately after lunch. The students were wound up when they returned to the classroom, and the teachers were frustrated because they could not get the students to settle down and start the lesson. They approached a university teacher supervisor for help.

Research Purpose: The purpose of this study was to identify and implement strategies that would have all the students at work within 4 minutes of entering the classroom.

Method: The study used a cooperative PAR approach that followed the recommended steps.

Step 1: Diagnosing: The teachers identified the problem explained in this sample study; the university professor (Kroeger) helped them explore potential solutions.

Step 2: Reconnaissance and planning: The teachers agreed to try a focused 5-minute warm-up activity to help the students transition from lunchtime to classroom time.

Step 3: Action: The teachers implemented the chosen solution and collected data on the level of noise in the first 10 minutes of class. Kroeger collected observational data based on what happened in the classroom on a daily basis as well as what happened in their weekly team meetings.

Step 4. Reflection: The teachers and university professor met weekly to discuss the data and to determine if modifications were needed in their strategies.

Step 5. Repeat as necessary: They continued this cycle to develop, implement, and evaluate solutions for practice improvement over one school year.

Participants: The participants included Kroeger, Bierne, and Kraus as well as the 60 students who were enrolled in their combined English and History course at an urban high school in the United States. Eighty percent of the students were economically disadvantaged, and 30% were identified as students with disabilities.

Instruments and Procedures: Qualitative and quantitative data were collected. The quantitative data were the levels of sound in the classroom during the first 10 minutes of each class day. The qualitative data were the observational notes made by Kroeger each day and transcripts of their team meetings.

Results: After implementation and refinement of the intervention, there was a dramatic drop-off of sound 4 minutes after the start of the class. The teachers also increased their use of positive behavior management and decreased their use of punitive language and behaviors.

Discussion: The authors reflected on the challenges that they experienced in learning to work together. The teachers were anxious about allowing someone from the university into their classroom. However, as they engaged in conversation with the university professor, they started to see the potential for change that might come from their partnership. Once the student behavior began to change, the teachers were more eager to engage with the researcher as they could see the benefits of using data to make decisions.

SOURCE: Based on Kroeger, Beirne, and Kraus (2015).

Transformative Participatory Action Research

Transformative participatory action research (PAR) also involves members of the community in the research process in varying roles but does so with explicit recognition of power issues and a goal of transforming society. Transformative PAR is associated with inquiries that are based on social transformation, often in developing countries. In the program evaluation context, Whitmore (1998) termed this transformative participatory evaluation.

Transformative PAR emphasizes the role of the researcher as a change agent who establishes conditions for liberating dialogue with impoverished or oppressed groups and the political production of knowledge (Brydon-Miller et al., 2011). The methodological implications arise from the need for dialogue between the more formally educated researcher and the cultural knowledge of the people. As in cooperative inquiry, the focus is on the people’s participation in setting the agenda, participating in the data collection and analysis, and controlling use of the results. However, transformative PAR emphasizes the use of methods that allow the voices of those most oppressed to be heard.

Thus, such research might take the form of community meetings and events that allow the oppressed people to tell their own stories, to reflect on their communities, and to generate ideas for change. The components of participation and dialogue can center on identification of needs, evaluation of services, or design of interventions (see Sample Study 8.3). Specific methodologies that are commonly used in PAR are discussed in Chapter 12 on data collection. PAR can also make use of other more orthodox research methods, both quantitative and qualitative, as long as the sensemaking comes from the community.

Box 8.2 provides a list of questions researchers can ask themselves to determine to what extent they are doing PAR. The questions were prepared by Tanis Doe (1996) of the World Institute on Disability in Oakland, California. For additional readings on PAR, the reader is referred to Brydon-Miller et al. (2011) and Walker and Loots (2018). Also, Flores (2008) provides a detailed guide to involvement of youth in participatory action research.

Box 8.2Questions Related to Participatory Action Research

1. Was the problem addressed by the research originally identified by the community who experienced the problem?
2. Was the goal of the research to fundamentally change and improve the lives of people with disabilities (or other marginalized, oppressed groups)?
3. Did the research process give power to participants?
4. Did the research participants belong to the group—usually a marginalized or oppressed population—who experience the problem being studied?
5. Will the participants experience increased consciousness, skill development, and resources?
6. Do researchers and participants share a peer relationship?
7. Can the results be used by and benefit the participants?

SOURCE: Adapted from Doe (1996).

Sample Study 8.3

Summary of a Transformative PAR Study

Research Problem: Gender inequalities persist in higher education, and they have been difficult to change. Despite attention to the issue, the inequalities persist. The researchers wanted to identify a research process that would have transformative impact on gender inequalities.

Research Purpose: The purpose of the study was to explore how a participatory research project might challenge and interrupt gender inequalities and involve and empower young people to bring about change themselves. We hoped that, through the project, participants and others would come to understand gender inequalities on the campus, including the role of educational processes, culture, and power relations as well as social norms and values that uphold inequalities and contribute to developing a gender equality policy for the university as well as extending gender inequality dialogues to the wider student community (p. 171).

Method: The study used a transformative PAR approach that followed the recommended steps over an 8-month period.

Step 1: Diagnosing: The researchers identified the broad theme of gender inequality. The students then participated in a workshop to deliberate about more specific aims, research questions, and strategies for moving forward.

Step 2: Reconnaissance and planning: The students participated in a second workshop to learn about socialized gender beliefs, blind spots, and the causes and effects of gender inequalities. The students then prepared to develop a survey that they could use to interview fellow students. The goal was to engage in dialogues with their fellow students about gender and to identify changes needed in policies on campus.

Step 3: Action: The students participated in a third workshop where they analyzed the results of their interviews to determine which inequalities were identified by their fellow students and to start thinking about needed policy changes. The students then worked to identify the key university stakeholders that they would need to reach, drafted a policy brief, presented it to the Dean of Students, and hosted a gender-awareness day.

Step 4. Reflection: The results of their data collection were used to identify additional work that needed to be done.

Step 5. Repeat as necessary: The students facilitated the organization of task-based committees to plan future activities, including presenting additional workshops and exhibitions.

Participants: The participants were 13 undergraduate students at a South African university who volunteered to be part of this study of gender inequalities on their campus. They were recruited through the Student Representative Council. All the students are Black; they speak either IsiZulu or Sesotho. Six were women; seven were men. All the participants “came from rural communities, where gender inequalities are deeply engrained in cultural norms and practices in families and communities, and are rarely questioned” (p.171).

Instruments and Procedures: Qualitative data were collected via student-implemented surveys. The students also did document reviews of existing policies. They used cameras to document the identified gender inequalities. The researchers conducted individual interviews with the students to determine the meaning of their participation in this project.

Results: The authors concluded that the project was successful in creating a better understanding of gender inequities and sharing this information with students. In addition, the students initiated a change in policy. However, no policy changes were implemented because of the campus politics, the departure of the Dean of Students, and a lack of action on the part of the committee that she had appointed to study the issue.

Discussion: The authors argue that transformative change occurred at the participant level because their attitudes, beliefs and values changed to become more in line with gender equality. The change at the institutional level was more elusive because of political factors and changes in people in power. Follow up with the participants indicated that they felt their personal changes had sustained over time; however, issues such as tuition rate hikes had taken over as the salient reason for political activism on campus.

SOURCE: Based on Walker and Loots (2018).

Extending Your Thinking Different Approaches in Qualitative Research

1. Brainstorm ideas for a qualitative research study. Choose one idea and briefly explain how you could use each of the qualitative strategies to investigate that topic:
2. Ethnographic research
3. Case study
4. Phenomenological research
5. Grounded theory
6. Participatory action research
7. Which of these strategies do you think would be most appropriate for your research topic? Why?
8. Identify one research study for each qualitative research strategy listed in Question 1. Explain your basis for categorizing each study. For each study, do the following:
9. Identify the research problem.
10. Identify the unit of analysis.
11. Describe the data collection methods that were used.
12. Identify the organizing framework for the findings.
13. Summarize the main findings.
14. Use the questions for critical analysis at the end of this chapter to critically analyze each study.

Farough (2006) noted that photoethnography is often used in transformative participatory action research, where individuals are given cameras to document the needs of their communities. The researcher develops the photos and sets up a follow-up interview with the respondent. The participants then describe what the pictures symbolize to them. The goal of this technique is to work for social change. As mentioned previously, Farough used this approach to study a group located in the context of privilege: White men. Upon completion of an intensive interview, he asked the respondent if he would be willing to take pictures of phenomena that reminded him of race relations and/or whiteness and things that reminded him of gender relations and/or masculinity.

Data Collection

Typically, qualitative researchers use three main methods for collecting data: observations, interviews, and document and records review. Interviews can be done with individuals or with groups. Interviewing is discussed in this chapter; the other methods (including focus groups) are discussed in Chapter 12 on data collection. I list them here to provide context for my remarks about methodological guidelines. Consider this quote from Adler and Adler (2012) as a prelude to how important participant observation is in qualitative research:

We continued to believe, epistemologically, that we should overlap our research lives with our private lives. That way, we could participate fully in our research settings. It was not possible, we thought, to understand a scene and its people without being there on the weekends as well as the weekdays, in the evenings as well as the daytimes, during periods of crisis as well as times of calm and routine. (p. 19)

Personal Interviews

Personal interviews are often associated with qualitative research. The following ideas can guide you through the planning and conducting of personal interviews.

Preparing for the Interview

1. Hold an introductory meeting to share the purpose of the study, discuss confidentiality issues, and get assurance that the person does want to participate. Then, schedule the interview at the respondent’s convenience.
2. Learn the local language. This is a reiteration of the advice given in the section on sensitive questions in Chapter 6; that is, the researcher should use terms familiar to the respondent: “What name do you use for … (your school, your parents, your group of friends, your educational program, etc.)?”
3. Make an interview schedule as best you can at the beginning of the study. This may include names, positions, or characteristics of the individuals you think you should interview. If it is important to talk with some people before others, this should be reflected in the schedule. How many people is it reasonable to interview in a day? That will depend on the nature of your survey, but bear in mind that this is hard work and you do need time to process what was said to you.
4. Make an interview guide. This can be very general (these are the types of issues that I think I should ask about) to very specific (I want to be sure I ask all these questions of everyone). Often, personal interviews raise issues that you had not previously considered and want to follow up with additional participants. So, stay flexible as far as the interview guide goes.
5. Don’t structure the interview guide around yes-or-no questions. This would defeat the purpose of having the person there to converse with. Plan to ask open-ended questions:

“How do you feel about the program?”

“What is your opinion about the program?”

“What do you think about the program?”

“What is your role here?”

“What are you trying to do in this program?”

• Definitely pretest your interview procedures.
• Plan to conclude with open-ended questions: For example, “Is there anything that I didn’t ask about that you think I should know?” “What didn’t I ask about that I should have?” “Is there anything else that you wanted to tell me that hasn’t come up so far?”

8. If you are training interviewers, do the following:

a. First, have the interviewers study the interview guide and learn about the interviewing conditions and logistics.

b. Second, have the interviewers practice interviews and receive feedback until performance reaches a desired level. (Videotaping can help with this.)

Starting and Conducting the Interview

1. Start by establishing rapport: Briefly review the purpose of the interview, your credentials, and the information needed. Provide assurances of confidentiality.
2. Focus your attention on what the person is saying. Use your “extra mind” time to evaluate what they are saying. This would allow you to formulate more than one possible hypothesis about what is happening. Test your various hypotheses. Ask for clarification: For example, “You mentioned several things. Let me be sure I have this straight … ”
3. Sequence the questions from general to specific. People need time to think about a question. Summarize what you have heard; then ask for specifics.
4. When asking for criticisms of a program, be sure to use a constructive framework to structure the questions: For example, “Are there any special factors about this problem that I should understand?”
5. Put answers in perspective: Ask for specific examples. Ask what opinions others might hold: For example, “How do administrators and teachers see this issue? The same way? Or differently?” Ask for definitions for words that a respondent might use, such as impact, urgent, critical, and blunders. Be wary of generalizations (e.g., “the problem is staff incompetence”), convoluted answers, or answers that fit preconceived notions too well. If respondents say that they want to talk “off the record,” then put your pencil down and listen to what they have to say. Be sure to get their permission to continue taking notes when they are ready to go back “on the record.”
6. A variety of different kinds of questions can be asked in interviews. (This is a slightly different conceptualization from that presented previously in the discussion of demographic, behavioral, knowledge, and attitude questions.) An interviewer might ask about these things:

Experiences or Behaviors.

It is possible to elicit descriptions of experiences by asking questions such as the following:

“What do you do?”

“If I were in this program, what kinds of things would I be doing?”

“Imagine that I am a new participant in this program, what kind of advice would you give me to help me get adjusted?”

“Imagine that I’m a new kid here. I just arrived today. What would you tell me so that I would know what to do and expect?”

Opinion or Value Questions

“What do you believe is the problem here?”

“What do you think are the strengths of this approach?”

“What do you think about that?”

“What would you like to see happen?”

“What is your opinion about that?”

Feeling Questions

“How do you feel about that?”

“How would you describe your feelings? Happy, anxious, afraid, intimidated, confident … ?”

Knowledge Questions

“What services are available?”

“Who is eligible?”

“What are the characteristics of the clients?”

Sensory Questions

“What do you see? Hear? Touch? Taste? Smell?”

“What is said to you?”

Background Questions

“In what field are you trained/educated?”

“What positions did you hold prior to this one?”

“How long have you been in this program?”

Ask only one question at a time.

Avoid asking “why” questions. Some people view these as sensitive. To avoid a possible defensive reaction, try wording the questions in one of these ways:

“What was it that attracted you to the program?”

“What other people played a role in your choice to participate?”

Try using role play or simulation questions: For example, “Suppose I was a student in your classroom. What kinds of activities would I be involved in to learn to read?”

Avoid disagreements, sarcasm, playing “Can you top this?” and correcting facts and dates. Admit an error if you make one.

Record the interview if possible and always take notes, even when recording the interview in case of a technological failure with the equipment.

Concluding the Interview

Ease into the conclusion by summarizing what you have just heard.

Explain what you plan to do with the data.

Thank the person for participating.

Probe gently (“Did I miss anything?”).

Follow up with a phone call or letter thanking the person again and clarifying any confusion.

Transformative Perspectives on Interviewing

Feminists have explored a wide range of methodological issues related to interviewing as a data collection method in research. What feminist researchers have in common in their consideration of social science methods is a strong concern with reflexivity, research relationships, and the protection of the researched (Sampson, Bloor, & Fincham, 2008). This emphasis on reflexivity, on the consideration of power within research relationships, and on the potential for researchers to harm participants is not exclusive to feminist researchers, but it has been emphasized and brought to the fore in their writing. Feminists raise the following issues related to interviewing:

1. Desirability of repeat interviews with the same respondent
2. Number, sequencing, and type (closed, open, or both) of questions
3. Ability of the interviewee to question the interviewer
4. Standardization of the process or questions
5. The location of the interview
6. The method of recording the data
7. Conducting the interview yourself or using trained interviewers
8. Doing face-to-face or phone interviews
9. Determining who will be present during the interview
10. Doing interviews individually or in a group
11. Whether or not the interviewer and interviewee know each other in advance
12. Having the interviewee read the interview transcript and interpretation and modify the data and interpretations in the study (Naples, 2003)

Extending Your Thinking Face-to-Face Interviews

1. Take the questions generated for a phone interview in Chapter 6 and transform them into a set of questions (or into an interview guide) that an interviewer could ask in a face-to-face interview. Write some brief introductory comments.
2. In groups of four, role-play a face-to-face interview, using the questions generated for the previous activity. One person should play the respondent and one the interviewer. The other two should act as evaluators and provide feedback concerning the following:
3. Making a statement of purpose, credentials, expectations, and anonymity
4. Using open-ended questions
5. Using probes on unclear responses
6. Asking only one question at a time
7. Avoiding “why” questions
8. Avoiding disagreements

Feminists have reported that multiple, in-depth interviews build bonds and provide an opportunity to share transcripts and interpretations. The goal of multiple interviews is to increase the accuracy of the results.

Who Can Interview Whom?

Is it necessary for women to interview women? For Deaf people to interview Deaf people? For African Americans to interview African Americans (Mertens, 2009)? These are not simple questions, nor do they have simple answers. Researchers struggle with the tensions created by the need to have interviewers who understand the cultural experiences of their respondents and potentially contributing to further marginalization associated with taking a position that only members of a group can interview each other. This is sometimes seen as an insider-outsider issue. Bassett, Beagan, Ristovski-Slijepcevic, and Chapman (2008) make the argument for insider status as follows:

With richer knowledge of their own group, an interviewer’s lived experience of the culture means categories and behaviors that apply to one group are not used to understand another group. Any member of a “minority group” experiences not only their own culture but also that of the dominant group since they must live seamlessly in both cultures. This may afford minority group members a dual understanding, allowing them to see the positive and negative aspects of membership in both minority and dominant groups (Caldwell, Guthrie, & Jackson, 2006). The advantage when interviewing minority group members is that both types of cultural values can be understood when they are invoked by participants. (p. 129)

A contrasting view is presented by anthropologists, who provide some insights into benefits of having “outsiders” conduct interviews:

As one of the founding feminist anthropologists I never objected to men studying women or women studying men. Indeed, my resistance to the concept of male dominance in the early 1970s … was based on the conviction that because men did not study women they were blind to local realities, which made it easy to project ethnocentric ideas about power and dominance. (Sanday, 2008, p. 207)

Foster (1993) reflected on her own position as a hearing person conducting research in the Deaf community. She contends that she does not have to be deaf to conduct research in deafness because what is important is a willingness to enter into meaningful dialogue with Deaf people and to place control of the research agenda in their hands. She suggested several strategies that she used to improve the quality of her work: (a) choosing qualitative methods, (b) seeking advice from an advisory group with Deaf representatives, (c) having her work reviewed by Deaf colleagues, (d) conducting research in collaboration with Deaf researchers, (e) using an interpreter who is fluent in the many varieties of sign language (e.g., American Sign Language, Total Communication, Signed English), and (f) acknowledging that we are all multipositional. Thus, although she might not share the characteristic of deafness with her respondents, commonalities can be found on other grounds, such as both being women, mothers, and so on.

The concept of cultural competence brings added insight into the insider-outsider complexity. Gentle warrior, Martin-Jearld, Skok, and Sweetser (2008) conducted a study to determine the views of cultural complexity from the perspectives of members of marginalized groups. Their respondents described the following strategies as means to meet their needs:

to recognize the diversity within diverse groups, experience diverse communities and relationships, become trained in cross-cultural knowledge, be aware and respectful of beliefs that differ from our own, and listen to diverse people for information to help us understand both their problems and possible solutions. (p. 220)

Should the Interviewer and Interviewee Be Friends or Strangers?

Somewhat related to the insider-outsider dilemma, researchers have also concerned themselves with the issue of the status of interviewer as friend or stranger. Many ethical review boards want to know if the researcher has a relationship with the participants, and if so, what the nature of that relationship is. If the interviewer and interviewee were friends prior to the interview, the interviewee may feel greater rapport and be more willing to disclose information. However, there could be a feeling of greater safety with a stranger in that the respondent can say what he or she thinks and not see the interviewer again.

For many participants taking part in research on sensitive topics, it is the first time that they have told someone their story, and this can raise difficulties not only for them but also for the researcher who is listening to the story. This sharing of hidden or unexplored aspects of people’s lives can change the expectations of the participants. The fact that qualitative research often requires supportive listening may make researchers ultimately more vulnerable to crossing the boundaries from research into friendship (Dickson-Swift, James, Kippen, & Liamputtong, 2007).

This characterization of researcher-as-friend is contentious. Fowler (2014) recommends a role as a standardized interviewer because he values trying to “neutralize” the effect of the interviewer so that differences in answers can be attributed to differences in the respondents themselves. Fowler argues that if interviewers ask each question in the same way for each respondent, biasing effects of the interviewer will be avoided. However, in qualitative research, the goal is to explore the unexpected and follow the lead of the interviewee, so this type of standardization is not seen as desirable in qualitative research.

Reciprocity

The issue of reciprocity is related to the role of the researcher in terms of feeling that he or she wants to give something back to the participant during the interview process. Sampson et al. (2008) describe this tension as follows:

Researchers spoke of a desire not to exploit the people they researched; they expressed an acute awareness of the power relationships pervading research settings; they sought to limit harm to participants and often to offer something in “return” for research participation in the form of emotional support, or the conduct of a personal service. Such sensitivities and the emotional investment and pain associated with them link strongly to the discourse of feminist research methods. (p. 928)

Feminists have written about ways to structure interviews to try to raise the consciousness of the interviewee who is experiencing abuse or some other form of trauma. For example, Kelly, Burton, and Regan (1994) said that when women were blaming themselves for abuse, the interviewers tried to help them explore their reasoning in more depth and to link this to the intention and behavior of the perpetrator, thereby opening up different ways of understanding. They concluded as follows:

If we accept that conducting and participating in research is an interactive process, what participants get or take from it should concern us. Whilst we are not claiming that researchers have the “power” to change individuals’ attitudes, behavior, or perceptions, we do have the power to construct research which involves questioning dominant/oppressive discourses; this can occur within the process of “doing” research and need not be limited to the analysis and writing up stages. (pp. 39–40)

How self-disclosive should the interviewer be? How much information should an interviewer share about himself or herself during the interview? A tension exists between engaging in a true dialogue with the respondent and possibly biasing responses by triggering “expected” responses. Interviewers need to be sensitive to possibly biasing the interviewee by the information that they choose to disclose about themselves.

Confirmation Bias

Confirmation bias is the tendency to privilege preexisting beliefs and to use those beliefs as filter for interpreting new information that we encounter (Winking, 2018). Human beings naturally seek information that confirms our beliefs and filter out contradicting information (think about the news sources you regularly consult; do you seek out those that agree with your way of thinking, or do you look for those that present a point of view that you disagree with?). Researchers need to be aware of this tendency and to be open to viewpoints with which they disagree or have not had personal experience. Critical reflection through journaling, checking with respondents for accuracy, and having a critical peer review our work are strategies for addressing confirmation bias.

Extending Your Thinking Interviewing in Qualitative Research

1. What is your opinion about the following?
2. Standardizing the interview process
3. The duration of interviews
4. The desirability of repeat interviews with the same respondent
5. Number, sequencing, and type (closed ended, open ended, both) of questions
6. Interviewees questioning the interviewer
7. Standardizing the questions
8. Where the interview takes place
9. How the interview is recorded
10. Doing the interviewing yourself or having an assistant do it
11. Face-to-face or phone interviews
12. Who is present during the interview
13. Doing the interviewing individually or in a group
14. The interviewer and interviewee knowing each other in advance
15. The interviewee reading the interview transcript (and interpretation) and modifying the data and interpretations in the study
16. Who can interview whom?
17. Can women interview men? Can men interview women? Can women interview other women? Can men interview other men?
18. Can White people interview racial/ethnic minorities? Can racial/ethnic minorities interview White people?
19. Can people with disabilities interview people without disabilities? Can people without disabilities interview people with disabilities?
20. How do you address the following?
21. Dominant groups using negative labels for nondominant group experiences
22. Connection and empathy
23. Interviewee-guided interviews
24. Putting the interviewee at ease
25. Doing reliability checks

General Methodological Guidelines

Because there is no one correct method for conducting qualitative research, qualitative researchers need to describe their methodology in detail so the reader can make a judgment about the quality of the methods used. There are multiple ways to structure and conduct a qualitative research study. Therefore, I discuss the process of designing and conducting such a study in terms of typical actions that occur in qualitative research and decisions that need to occur. This should not be interpreted as a lockstep approach to qualitative research. In a qualitative research proposal, the researcher needs to present a plan that includes a description of methods yet makes clear that changes will occur as the study progresses. The reader who intends to conduct a qualitative research study is referred to other texts that explore this topic in more depth (Charmaz, 2014; Denzin & Lincoln, 2018b; Patton, 2002; Yin, 2018).

The Researcher Is the Instrument

Unlike a printed questionnaire or test that might be used in a quantitative study, in a qualitative study the researcher is the instrument for collecting data. The qualitative researcher decides which questions to ask and in what order, what to observe, what to write down. Therefore, considerable interest has been focused on who the researcher is and what values, assumptions, beliefs, or biases he or she brings to the study. In general, qualitative research texts recognize the importance of researchers’ reflecting on their own values, assumptions, beliefs, and biases and monitoring those as they progress through the study (perhaps through journaling or peer debriefing) to determine their impact on the study’s data and interpretations. Researchers can use autoethnography as a strategy for tracking their own involvement in their study (see Chapter 9).

In transformative research in particular, the issue has been raised as to the ability of men to study women, members of a dominant ethnic group to study minority ethnic groups, or people without disabilities to study persons with disabilities. This issue was touched on in Chapter 6 (on survey research) under the topic of interviewing people who are similar to or different from yourself. In this context, the issue is more broadly addressed. What can a person who is not a member of the group do to try to enhance the validity of the information collected from that group, especially if the researcher represents a dominant group? Some researchers choose to do volunteer work in the community to build rapport and increase their understandings before they conduct their research. For example, M. L. Anderson (1993) is a White woman who wanted to conduct a study of race relations in a community that was racially divided with a history of paternalism. She spent many hours doing volunteer work at the senior center. She also did not pose herself as an “expert” on their lives. Rather, she presented herself as someone who was interested in learning about their lives. Foster (1993)—a hearing researcher—also reported assuming this stance in conducting ethnographic work with Deaf people.

M. L. Anderson (1993) reports sharing information about herself and her own feelings with the women. She describes her experiences as follows:

In my project, despite my trepidations about crossing class, race, and age lines, I was surprised by the openness and hospitality with which I was greeted. I am convinced that the sincerity of these women’s stories emanated not only from their dignity and honor, but also from my willingness to express how I felt, to share my own race and gender experiences, and to deconstruct the role of expert as I proceeded through this research. (p. 50)

She was an active volunteer in the senior center that these women regularly attended. Her participation in the everyday activities of the women’s culture, both in the center and in their homes, resulted in conversations that were filled with emotional details of their lives.

Speaking for the Other

Going beyond the question of whether or not a member of a dominant group can legitimately study the experiences of an oppressed group lays the ethical issue of who can speak for another. The problem inherent in the role of the researcher speaking for the other was captured by bell hooks (1990) in the following passage that depicts a hypothetical conversation between a researcher and a participant:

No need to hear your voice when I can talk about you better than you can speak about yourself. No need to hear your voice. Only tell about your pain. I want to know your story. And then I will tell it back to you in a new way. Tell it back to you in such a way that it has become mine, my own. Re-writing you, I write myself anew. I am still author, authority. I am still the colonizer, the speak subject, and you now at the center of my talk. (p. 241)

M. Fine, Weis, Weseen, and Wong (2000) warn that researchers can unwittingly or deliberately contribute to the continuation of oppression by presuming to speak for the groups in our research. Through collaborative construction of text, researchers can enable resistance to continued oppression. This topic is explored further in Chapter 13 in the section on writing research reports.

Focus on an Area of Inquiry

As discussed in Chapter 3, the qualitative researcher starts with a literature review that leads to the formulation of research questions. The important caveat, repeated here, is that the area of inquiry, as defined by the initial literature review and the research questions, should be viewed as tentative and evolving. The researcher must be open to a change of focus if that is dictated by the data emerging from the field experience.

Explore Research Sites and Sampling Issues

You can use information gathered from preliminary visits to potential research sites to convince a funding agency or a research committee that you are capable of conducting a qualitative study and to determine the site’s accessibility and suitability. During your visits, you can conduct pilot work (with permission of the gatekeepers at the site) that will allow you to suggest possible activities, locations, and people (possibly defined in terms of positions within the organization) that you want to include in your study. Because of the ontological assumption of multiple realities, be sure to include in your list of people those with diverse viewpoints about the phenomenon of interest. Sampling procedures for qualitative research and for reaching hard-to-reach and under-represented populations, along with implications for validity, are discussed in Chapter 11. The researcher should be aware that data provided by participants may vary based on the place, activity engaged in, or social variables at the time of the data collection (Patton, 2002). The researcher should provide a description of the setting, research site, and the conditions operating at the time the data were gathered and report exactly how the participants were selected along with their characteristics.

Your initial pilot work may also give you an idea about the length of time needed to complete your study, in addition to the number of site visits that you will need to make. In some ethnographic texts, the length of a study is recommended to be between 6 months and 1 year; however, the time frame will be dictated by a number of factors. In some cases, the length of the program may be limited to a few months, and thus the length of the study may correspond to the length of the program. In other cases, a funding agency will impose a limit of the amount of funds available and thus constrain the amount of time that the study can continue. The one guiding principle in the decision should be that the researcher avoids premature closure—that is, reaching inaccurate conclusions based on insufficient observations.

Gaining Permission

Before data are collected, the researcher must follow appropriate procedures to gain permission from the gatekeepers (typically defined as those with power in the organization or agency) of the organization or community. In organizational settings, such as schools, clinics, or community agencies, formal procedures are established that define how permission is to be obtained. Issues surrounding such procedures are discussed further in Chapter 11 on sampling; however, the researcher should contact the organization or agency to determine their specific procedures.

The notion of entry into a setting by means of access granted by gatekeepers is problematic for researchers who work from a transformative perspective. Recall Sandra Harding’s (1993) direction to start your research from marginalized lives and the key questions raised in the section of this chapter on PAR. The focus is on addressing problems that were originally identified by the community that experiences the problem (Doe, 1996). Thus, researchers operating within the transformative paradigm must consider strategies for entry into the community with respect to those who have the least power.

Dickson-Swift et al. (2007) reported the words of one of their participants who reflected on the responsibility:

It is so much more than just signing a form to say that they are willing to offer you information, they are actually allowing you into their lives, they are telling you personal information that might be quite hard, so you need to demonstrate a certain degree of discretion, of respect, of appreciation for what they are doing ‘cause the reality is that it is more than just words, it’s more than just what you are going to analyze, it’s their life, their experience and you need to make sure that you are aware of that. (p. 330)

Negotiating Entry

Lyons et al. (2012) provide practical advice for negotiating entry into sites for research, including visit a number of sites and negotiate with gatekeepers to determine if the proposed project would be welcomed and if researchers would be able to access the site. Populations that have experienced negative effects of research can have a healthy suspicion of a researcher’s motives. Gatekeepers might be wary of research that is aimed at evaluating their personnel or institution or that might reflect badly on their organization. The researcher can provide some assurances about the amount of control the gatekeepers will have over the research process and the use of the findings. The researcher needs to consider the nature of assurances that can be made without compromising the integrity of the research. The researcher also needs to learn about and adhere to the organization’s review process in terms of protection of human beings and identification of costs to the organization. Talking with other researchers who have conducted research in similar settings can be quite helpful.

Entering the Field

The researcher needs to make plans to enter the field in the least disruptive manner possible, taking care to establish good rapport with the participants. As mentioned previously, this can be facilitated by accommodating yourself to the routines of the informants, establishing what you have in common, helping people out, displaying an interest in them, and acting like a person who belongs (and being yourself).

Lyons et al. (2012) discuss entry into communities and the need to be aware of the cultural makeup of the community and the cultural positioning of the researcher. Sharing a salient characteristic (such as skin color) may be sufficient to begin a conversation, but it is not enough to ensure that the researcher will be viewed as trustworthy. The importance of shared characteristics will vary from community to community, but can include gender, marital status, age, physical appearance, ethnic/racial group, language, class, nationality, or tribal affiliation.

Researchers who work internationally will find that these characteristics are more or less important, depending on the country in which they are conducting their studies. All contexts have their own cultural norms and expectations based on various biological and socially defined characteristics of the people in them. The researcher should be sensitive to what these norms are and how they might affect the research work.

Role of the Researcher

In M. L. Anderson’s (1993) examination of the role of the researcher within the context of being a White woman studying the experiences of African American women, she suggests that White researchers doing research on race and ethnicity “should examine self-consciously the influence of institutional racism and the way it shapes the formulation and development of their research, rather than assume a color-blind stance” (p. 43). Thus, she rejects the “unbiased, objective” scientific research stance in favor of one that recognizes the influences of the researcher’s own status (e.g., race, gender, etc.) on the shaping of knowledge. This requires that researchers build more inclusive ways to discover the multiple views of their participants and adopt more personally interactive roles with them. Whereas M. L. Anderson (1993) addresses issues related to a member of the dominant culture studying other adults who have less power, how the researcher positions herself or himself and how the researcher adopts a definition of being “an adult” has a major impact on the research context and the involvement of children. Flores (2008) and Cook-Sather (2012) described the importance of negotiating a position that recognizes researchers as adults, albeit an unusual type of adult, one who is seriously interested in understanding how the social world looks from children’s perspectives but without making a dubious attempt to be a child. Through this the researcher emerges first and foremost as a social person and secondly as a professional with a distinctive and genuine purpose.

G. Fine and Sandstrom (1988) discuss the following issues in regard to developing the friend role when conducting research with children. First, researchers must provide the children with their reasons for being there. The researchers can be explicit and explain the complete and detailed purposes and hypotheses for the research. This could bias the research in that the kids may act in a way that could deliberately try to confirm or deny the researcher’s hypotheses. The researchers could try for a “shallow cover”—that is, admitting that they are doing research on children’s behaviors but not providing details. The problem with this role is that the children will develop their own ideas as to what the researcher is studying, and they may feel betrayed when they find out what the “real” reasons were. A third option would be to maintain “deep cover”—that is, not to tell the children that they are being observed. However, the researcher runs the risk of arousing suspicion and creating bad feelings after being “discovered.”

A second issue related to the role of the researcher as friend is associated with the settings in which an adult would be viewed comfortably as a friend. For example, kids may feel comfortable with an adult present during many of their behaviors but not at a party where sexual behaviors could be observed.

A third issue in the researcher’s role as friend is that of giving gifts or rewards. As a friend, the researcher might give companionship, praise, help with schoolwork, food, monetary loans, rides to activities, or movie tickets. G. Fine and Sandstrom (1988) warn researchers to be wary about using such gifts to manipulate their respondents or to allow the children to manipulate them by excessive demands for rewards (or loans and the like).

The age of the child is important in deciding which role to adopt. With very young children (preschoolers), the researcher could choose to act childlike or to just hang around and wait for gradual acceptance. The childlike behavior may thrill the children but “turn off” supervisors. With older children (preadolescent), the researcher could choose to assume the role of older sibling (big brother, big sister), student, journalist, or protector. With adolescents, the researchers can treat the children as people that they sincerely wish to get to know.

Gender Issues

Sexual harassment is another issue that surfaces in fieldwork. This may take the form of sexual hustling as well as assignment to traditional female roles and tasks in the field, such as “go-fer” or being the butt of sexual or gender jokes (Wagle & Cantaffa, 2008). The researcher’s response to sexist treatment creates a tension in terms of how to respond. Should the researcher ignore such remarks in order to nurture data collection opportunities?

Wagle (Wagle & Cantaffa, 2008) experienced sexual harassment and reported that she felt uncomfortable in regard to both her own personal safety and concerns that she might offend someone and jeopardize her research. She decided to socialize with the offending parties but to attend the social functions as a researcher collecting data. She recognized the ongoing tensions created by this situation in her reflections:

These reflections also make me question how my participants viewed me. Was I privy to insider information because some saw me as a sexual object? If they hadn’t, would I be writing more of an academic reflection? Furthermore, by taking these data silently and not disclosing my discomfort to my participants, am I perpetuating hegemonic gender and sexuality stereotypes? These questions are fascinating, disturbing, and perhaps unanswerable, yet it is important to the field of qualitative research that they are raised. (p. 151)

Clearly this is an area that is ripe for additional research and reflection.

Translation Issues in Multilingual Contexts

G. I. Lopez, Figueroa, Connor, and Maliski (2008) discuss the difficulties in qualitative research of collecting reliable and valid information when conducting research in a language other than the researcher’s primary language. Although standards of rigor exist for the data collection, analysis, interpretation, and reporting of qualitative data, no such standards exist for translation in qualitative research. The researchers conducted interviews in Spanish and transcribed them verbatim. Translators were hired who were bilingual and bicultural, having spoken both English and Spanish all their lives; they also had 7 years of experience each doing translations in a research context. These research staff translated the interviews into English. If questions arose in the translation process, the staff made a note of them and then discussed them with the research team. They kept a log of all questions and how they were resolved in order to build knowledge about the process of translation. All translated transcripts were reviewed by a third translator and then by the researchers. If necessary, additional team meetings were held to resolve questions. Additional information about translation of research data collection instruments is included in Chapter 12.

Qualitative Data Collection Methods

Interviewing as data collection in qualitative research was discussed extensively in this chapter. Many other types of data collection methods can be used in qualitative studies. Examples of other specific methods are discussed in Chapter 12. I want to acknowledge that data analysis is generally considered to be an ongoing task during a qualitative study. However, for purposes of teaching you about how to do research, I discuss the techniques of qualitative data analysis in Chapter 13.

Extending Your Thinking Role of the Interviewer

Should the interviewer be a friend or a stranger? Should the interviewer take action to help empower the interviewee (e.g., by raising consciousness of oppression)?

How much should you as the interviewer disclose about yourself during an interview?

In qualitative research, the problem of trust between the researcher and participant is very important. Describe strategies that you can use to build trust. Select several combinations from the eight-cell table that follows and role-play strategies for building trust within that context.

Add other dimensions to the role play, such as sexual harassment; passive-aggressive behavior; seductive, flirtatious behavior; expectation of deferential behavior; and so on.

Create other contexts with other variables, such as presence or absence of a disability, type of disability, and severity of disability, and role-play strategies for gaining trust.

Can you empathize with some respondents and not with others?

Extending Your Thinking Role of the Interviewer

1. Should the interviewer be a friend or a stranger? Should the interviewer take action to help empower the interviewee (e.g., by raising consciousness of oppression)?
2. How much should you as the interviewer disclose about yourself during an interview?
3. In qualitative research, the problem of trust between the researcher and participant is very important. Describe strategies that you can use to build trust. Select several combinations from the eight-cell table that follows and role-play strategies for building trust within that context.
4. Add other dimensions to the role play, such as sexual harassment; passive-aggressive behavior; seductive, flirtatious behavior; expectation of deferential behavior; and so on.
5. Create other contexts with other variables, such as presence or absence of a disability, type of disability, and severity of disability, and role-play strategies for gaining trust.
6. Can you empathize with some respondents and not with others?

Gender 

Researcher

Participant

Race/Ethnicity

Male

Female

Male

Female

Dominant culture

Minority culture

• Feminists writing about ethnographic research encourage the development of a close, nurturing relationship between researcher and participants in field settings. What is your opinion of the advantages and disadvantages of such a relationship?
• What should researchers reveal about their role as the researcher? Should they be complete participants? Should they perform other work in the setting (such as volunteer work)?
• Some feminists suggest that fieldwork relations are inherently deceptive and instrumental and feminists ought not to relate to women in this way. Others argue that the manipulative nature of the relationship can be reduced by reminding informants of your research intentions, being reciprocally nurturing rather than manipulative, and being motivated by concern for women, not by their exploitation. Where do you stand on this issue?
• Some ethnographic researchers have reported a dilemma in their fieldwork in that the women they are studying do not seem to be aware of their subordinate position. Is it the researcher’s responsibility to raise their level of consciousness? To raise questions about their oppression? Or would this reflect an inappropriate imposition of the values of the researcher as a feminist?

Critically Analyzing Qualitative Research

Quality indicators for qualitative research are dependent on the approach and purpose of the study. Standards for evidence and quality in qualitative inquiries requires careful documentation of how the research was conducted and the associated data analysis and interpretation processes as well as the thinking processes of the researcher. Freeman, deMarrais, Preissle, Roulston, and St. Pierre (2007) discussed the issue of validity (sometimes called credibility) in qualitative research as a process of using “data as evidence to warrant claims within different theoretical frameworks and specific communities of practice” (p. 28). (Note: This is in keeping with the points made in Chapter 1 about use of evidence to support claims of strengths and weaknesses in the critical analysis of all types of research.)

Criteria for judging the quality of qualitative research that parallel the criteria for judging positivist, quantitative research have been outlined by a number of writers (Guba & Lincoln, 1989; Levitt et al., 2018). Guba and Lincoln equate credibility with internal validity, transferability with external validity, dependability with reliability, and confirmability with objectivity. They added the additional category of authenticity for qualitative research. Lincoln (2009) extended this discussion of criteria for quality; many of these criteria align with the axiological assumption of the transformative paradigm. In this section, each criterion is explained along with ways to enhance quality in research that uses qualitative methods. (See Box 8.3 for a listing of these criteria.)

Credibility

Prolonged and Persistent Engagement.

Lincoln (2009) proposed criteria for quality in qualitative research that include the deep and close involvement of researchers in the community of interest combined with sufficient distance from the phenomenon under study to record accurately observed actions. Claims should be made based on sufficient data to support them, and processes of analysis and interpretation should be made visible. Implications that derive from these criteria include spending sufficient time in the field to be able to avoid premature closure (i.e., reaching conclusions that are erroneous based on limited exposure to the phenomenon; the conclusions might well be quite different with additional time spent in the field). Prolonged and persistent observation in simplistic terms means how long did the researcher stay on site and how many observations were made in what types of settings? The more complicated version of the criteria asks that researchers stay long enough to get it right and observe in sufficiently diverse situations to get a full and accurate picture. For example, conducting observations in a classroom the week before winter holidays is probably not going to give the researcher an accurate picture of typical student and teacher behaviors. There is no hard-and-fast rule that says how long a researcher must stay at a site. When the researcher has confidence that themes and examples are repeating instead of extending, it may be time to leave the field.

Box 8.3 Listing of Criteria for Judging Quality in Qualitative Research

Credibility (parallels internal validity)

1. Prolonged and persistent engagement
2. Peer debriefing
3. Member checks
4. Negative case analysis
5. Progressive subjectivity
6. Triangulation

Transferability (parallels external validity)

1. Thick description
2. Multiple cases

Dependability (parallels reliability)

1. Dependability audit

Confirmability (parallels objectivity)

1. Confirmability audit/chain of evidence

Transformative

1. Fairness
2. Ontological authenticity
3. Community
4. Attention to voice
5. Critical reflexivity/positionality or standpoint
6. Reciprocity/sharing perquisites of privilege
7. Catalytic authenticity/praxis or social change

Member Checks and Peer Debriefing.

In addition, checking with stakeholders (participants) in the research (member checks) and working with other researchers (peer debriefers) are recommended practices. Member checks involve the researcher’s seeking verification with the respondent groups about the constructions that are developing as a result of data collected and analyzed. Cho and Trent (2006) discuss this concept of

validity in qualitative research as an interactive process between the researcher, the researched, and the collected data that is aimed at achieving a relatively higher level of accuracy and consensus by means of revisiting facts, feelings, experiences, and values or beliefs collected and interpreted. (p. 324)

Member checks can be formal and informal. For example, at the end of an interview, the researcher can summarize what has been said and ask if the notes accurately reflect the person’s position. Drafts of the research report can be shared with the members for comment. Cho and Trent (2006) offer several different types of member checks: “‘technical (focus on accuracy, truth),’ ‘ongoing (sustained over time, multiple researcher/informant contacts),’ and ‘reflexive (collaborative, open-ended, reflective, critical),’ all of which are meaningfully compatible with particular research purposes, questions, and processes” (pp. 334–335).

Member checks and peer debriefing entail some careful thought on the part of the researchers, who need to consider who to check with and how and when to do it. Researchers should establish criteria for whom they will include in member checks and peer debriefings and give a rationale for why they choose those individuals. They should also map out a strategy for conducting these two processes. The researcher should engage in an extended discussion with a peer of findings, conclusions, analysis, and hypotheses. The peer should pose searching questions to help the researcher confront his or her own values and to guide next steps in the study. Also, researchers may encounter contradictions or denials in the process of member checks and peer debriefings, so they need to give additional thought as to how to handle such situations. What if there are disagreements or an adversarial relationship between the researchers and participants or the stakeholder is not trustworthy?

Bhattacharya (2007) describes a situation in which the research participant indicated no desire to read the research notes or reports. (I have also had students tell me similar stories.) She described her response to this challenge:

When I asked Neerada how she would feel if her mother or grandmother read about what she told me, my intent was not only to conduct member checks but also to identify nuggets of re-presentation. What stories did she want to tell without affecting her dignity? Perhaps, her mother or her grandmother will never read any of my work, but my obligation to her dignity kept me hounding mercilessly for stories that can/cannot be re-presented. Because my knowledge of Neerada’s narratives extended beyond the scope of my role as a researcher, I questioned the ethics of re-presentation of information that transgressed the boundaries of researcher/researched and entered that of sisterhood and friendship. Grounded in transnational feminism, I was critically concerned about the contested space of collaborative participation and imposing a self-serving expectation on Neerada, especially when she trusted me. On one hand, my academic training implored me to verify the information, and the meaning I was making of it, and invite the participant to author her stories. On the other hand, without Neerada’s engaged participation, I had to ask what secrets I wanted to reveal about Neerada and the production of her everyday life experiences. Knowing that missed and mis-understandings are always already contingent on the readers’ dialogical interaction with the re-presentation, my writing became the hybrid space of contested loyalties to various academic and cultural gatekeepers. (p. 1105)

Negative Case Analysis.

Working hypotheses can be revised based on the discovery of cases that do not fit. However, it should not be expected that all cases will fit the appropriate categories. Guba and Lincoln (1989) state that when a “reasonable” number of cases fit, negative case analysis provides confidence in the hypothesis that is being proposed. For example, suppose a researcher sees a pattern emerging that suggests that a top-down approach to a total-inclusion program creates resistance in the school staff. The researcher could seek additional data for negative case analysis from a school that used a bottom-up approach to total inclusion. If resistance was identified in that setting as well, the researcher would need to revise the emerging hypothesis that administration style alone creates resistance. It may be one of many factors that contribute to resistance to change.

Progressive Subjectivity.

Because researchers are the instruments in qualitative research, they need to monitor their own developing constructions and document the process of change from the beginning of the study until it ends. Researchers can share this statement of beliefs with the peer debriefer so that the peer can challenge the researcher who either does not keep an open mind or who is unaware of his or her own biases, including confirmation bias. Many researchers use journaling or write memos as a method to record their thoughts and feelings throughout the study. They can then use these notes in conversation with peer debriefers and/or as data in the analysis phase of the study to provide insights into how they changed their understandings as the study progressed. This concept is extended in the transformative criteria of critical reflexivity and positionality.

Triangulation.

Triangulation involves checking information that has been collected from different sources or methods for consistency of evidence across sources of data. For example, multiple methods such as interviews, observation, and document review can be used, and information can be sought from multiple sources using the same method (e.g., interviews with different groups, such as program administrators, service providers, service recipients, and people who are eligible to receive services but are not currently doing so). Guba and Lincoln (1989) do not support triangulation as a method to establish consistency from multiple sources because it implies that it is possible (or desirable) to find consistency across sources, which contradicts the notion of multiple realities discussed earlier in this chapter. They say that triangulation can still be used to check on factual data (e.g., how many children are in a program), but they recommend the use of member checks for other types of data. The researcher should be sure to explore rival explanations and to determine the convergence (or nonconvergence) of data from multiple sources in terms of supporting causal inferences.

Fetherston and Kelly (2007) provide an example of triangulation in their study of peace education:

We triangulated … our data, drawing from quantitative and qualitative sources: (a) marks, attendance, and demographic characteristics; (b) pre- and post-anonymous surveys of the cohort (82 registered students in the course); (c) pre- and post-interviews of a randomly selected group of 16 from the cohort; (d) analysis of student portfolios (71); and (e) our own field notes, memos, meeting records, e-mails of our observations and experiences of the class, interactions with students, and so on. (p. 266)

Transferability: Thick Description and Multiple Cases

Guba and Lincoln (1989) identify transferability as the qualitative parallel to external validity in postpositivist research. Recall that in the postpositivist paradigm, external validity enables generalization of findings based on the assumption that the sample used in the study is representative of the population. As this criterion is not applicable in qualitative research, the term transferability is the parallel concept that enables readers of the research to make judgments based on similarities and differences when comparing the research situation to their own. In qualitative research, the burden of transferability is on the reader to determine the degree of similarity between the study site and the receiving context. The researcher’s responsibility is to provide sufficient detail to enable the reader to make such a judgment. Extensive and careful description of the time, place, context, and culture is known as thick description. The term was coined by Geertz (1973) to capture the need for qualitative researchers to provide sufficient details about the context so that readers would be able to understand the complexity of the research setting and participants. This thick description enables readers to make judgments about the applicability of the research findings to their own situations.

For example, Mertens (1990) studied the reasons that referrals were increasing to a special school that served several school districts in a rural area. She provided an in-depth description of the community in which the special school was located as well as of the sending and receiving schools by means of demographic and observational data. She observed in all the schools and provided a description of the physical setup of the classrooms and the processes of instruction that were used. Thus, readers could determine how similar their own conditions were to those reported by Mertens. A thick description of the context was important because the rural nature of the community had an impact on understanding the reasons for the increased referrals (e.g., in terms of ability to attract and retain qualified special education staff and inability to hire personnel to serve the needs of students with low-incidence disabilities in sparsely populated areas).

Yin (2018) suggests that use of multiple cases can strengthen the external validity of the results. He also notes that the relationship between the case study and extant theories can lead to decisions about generalization from case study research.

Dependability

Guba and Lincoln (1989) identified dependability as the qualitative parallel to reliability. Reliability means stability over time in the postpositivist paradigm. In the constructivist paradigm, change is expected, but it should be tracked and publicly inspectable. A dependability audit can be conducted to attest to the quality and appropriateness of the inquiry process. Yin (2018) describes this process in case study research as maintaining a case study protocol that details each step in the research process.

For example, Mertens (1991) began a study of ways to encourage gifted Deaf adolescents to enter science careers with a focus on instructional strategies used in science classes. However, emerging patterns in the data suggested the importance of examining administrative practices that facilitated the acquisition of competent interpreters or teachers and staff who were Deaf. This change of focus is acceptable and to be expected in qualitative research, but it should be documented.

Confirmability

Guba and Lincoln (1989) identified confirmability as the qualitative parallel to objectivity. Objectivity means that the influence of the researcher’s judgment is minimized. Confirmability means that the data and their interpretation are not figments of the researcher’s imagination. Qualitative data can be tracked to their source, and the logic that is used to interpret the data should be made explicit. Guba and Lincoln recommend a confirmability audit to attest to the fact that the data can be traced to original sources and that the process of synthesizing data to reach conclusions can be confirmed. Yin (2018) refers to this as providing a “chain of evidence.” The confirmability audit can be conducted in conjunction with the dependability audit. Thus, a special education researcher’s peers can review field notes, interview transcripts, and so on and determine if the conclusions are supported by the data.

Transformative Criteria

Transformative criteria for quality in qualitative research are situated in concerns for social justice and human rights (Mertens, 2009; Mertens & Wilson, 2019). Scholars in the field describe several sets of criteria that are commensurate with this position. For example, Kirkhart (2005) describes multicultural validity and defines it as “correctness or authenticity of understandings across multiple, intersecting cultural contexts” (p. 22). I presented her five justifications for this type of validity in Chapter 1. Lincoln (2009) described authenticity as a type of validity that refers to providing a balanced and fair view of all perspectives in the research study, and they included the following criteria:

Fairness.

Fairness answers the question, To what extent are different constructions and their underlying value structures solicited and honored in the process? To be fair, the researcher must identify the respondents and how information about their constructions was obtained. Conflicts and value differences should be displayed. There should also be open negotiation of the recommendations and agenda for future actions. Total-inclusion research can be judged to be fair if the variety of viewpoints, both for and against (and the conditions under which inclusion would be supported), are included in the report (Mertens, 1990).

Ontological Authenticity.

This is the degree to which the individual’s or group’s conscious experience of the world became more informed or sophisticated. This can be determined based on member checks with respondents or by means of an audit trail that documents changes in individuals’ constructions throughout the process. In the study of increased referrals to a special school, respondents came to understand the discrepancy between policy and practice with regard to referral of students with disabilities to special schools (Mertens, 1990). The policy said that students with disabilities should be educated as much as possible with general education students and that, as a last resort, before referral to a special school, they should be provided with educational services in a separate, special education classroom in their home school. Local school staff did not support use of the special education classroom because they perceived it as stigmatizing for the student to go to a separate classroom. They preferred to refer a student to the special school when they had exhausted attempts to integrate a student with a disability in a general education classroom.

Community.

Research takes place within and affects a community (Lincoln, 2009). The researcher should be able to know the community well enough to link the research results to positive action within that community. The researcher needs to demonstrate that a method of study was used that allowed the researcher to develop a sense of trust and mutuality with the participants in the study.

Attention to Voice.

Author bell hooks (1990) has asked questions related to who can speak for whom in her writing: Who speaks for whom? Who speaks for those who do not have access to the academy? The researcher must seek out those who are silent and must involve those who are marginalized.

Positionality or Standpoint Epistemology/Critical Reflexivity.

Lincoln (2009) describes the inherent characteristic of all research as being representative of the position or standpoint of the author. Therefore, researchers should acknowledge that all texts are incomplete and represent specific positions in terms of sexuality, ethnicity, and so on. Texts cannot claim to contain all universal truth because all knowledge is contextual; therefore, the researcher must acknowledge the context of the research. The researcher must be able to enter into a high-quality awareness to understand the psychological state of others to uncover dialectical relationships (Lincoln, 2009). The researcher needs to have a heightened self-awareness for personal transformation and critical subjectivity.

Reciprocity/Sharing the Perquisites of Privilege.

Researchers should give thought to what they give back to communities as a result of their research experiences. In some cases, members of the community may enhance their abilities to conduct research. In others, they may find the results useful to seek funding for or revision of important programs in their communities. Researchers should also be prepared to share the royalties of books or other publications that result from the research. Lincoln (2009) believes that we owe a debt to the persons whose lives we portray.

Catalytic Authenticity.

This is the extent to which action is stimulated by the inquiry process. Techniques for determining the catalytic effect of research include respondent testimony and examination of actions reported in follow-up studies. The final activity of a project to improve access to court systems for people who are Deaf and hard of hearing involved the participants in the development of a plan to improve access in their court systems in each state (Mertens, 2000). The planning groups included judges, members of their staff, and Deaf people or advocates for Deaf people. The researcher followed up a year later with the participants to review their plans and determine what changes they implemented. The follow-up data indicated that changes were made such as providing bench books for all judges to inform them about ways to appropriately support and accommodate Deaf and hard-of-hearing people in their courtrooms. In addition, several of the Deaf participants brought lawsuits against the court systems to improve access. While this was not a specific objective of the study, it does indicate that the project served to stimulate action to improve court access.

Praxis or Social Change.

Transformative criteria also raise questions about the use of the research findings for the purpose of social change and thus extend the concept of catalytic authenticity (Mertens, 2009; Mertens, Holmes, & Harris, 2009). Cho and Trent (2006) describe this as transformational validity, emphasizing the need for the researcher to engage in deep self-reflection in order to understand the social conditions and implications for bringing change to that setting. Another important implication for transformative criteria of validity is the extent to which resultant changes are prompted by the research findings (Ginsberg & Mertens, 2009). The application of such criteria is of course problematic for a number of reasons, not the least of which is determination of who has power to make changes and how that power can be challenged or redistributed in the interests of social justice. Cho and Trent (2006) discuss the challenges associated with this version of validity for praxis or social change purposes:

A key aspect of the praxis/social change purpose of qualitative research lies in the relationship between researcher and researched. Change efforts become integral parts of the research design. In order for authentic change to occur, collaborative relationships between researcher and researched should be manifested during (and after) the research process. Authority, power, or privilege deployed, both implicitly and explicitly, from the side of the researcher needs to be deconstructed if not discarded entirely if the researcher hopes to make a realistic difference in either schools or society. (pp. 331–332)

Validity as a process in the praxis/social change purpose involves inquiry with and on behalf of participants. Validity claims in this purpose are determined in part by the extent to which collaboratively involved participants are co-researchers in the research process. The warranted validity, of course, will be at risk if the relationship between researcher and researched is unequal, exploitative, or not taken seriously. To this end, major validity criteria that should be relationally and collaboratively adopted in this purpose are: (1) member checks as reflexive; (2) critical reflexivity of self; and (3) redefinition of the status quo. Member checks as reflexive practice refers to the constant backward and forward confirmation between the researcher and the participants under study in regard to re/constructions of constructions of the participants. Reflexive member checking seeks to illuminate a better representation of the lived experience of the participants being studied. Critical reflexivity of self should be played out in a way that challenges the researcher to be able to come across something unknown as they move on. In other words, the researcher should openly express how his or her own subjectivity has progressively been challenged and thus transformed as he or she collaboratively interacts with his or her participants. Lastly, in regard to the major outcome of the report/account, participants should be able to differently perceive and impact the world in which they live. (p. 333)

Lincoln (2009) envisioned a different set of criteria for judging the quality of research from what is currently used in most academic settings. Her vision rests on a desire to see decisions in academia be made on the basis of the extent of our involvement with research participants rather than on our presumed distance.

Questions for Critically Analyzing Qualitative Research

1. Did the researcher maintain sufficient involvement at the site to overcome distortions, uncover people’s constructions, and understand the context’s culture and thus avoid premature closure?
2. Did the researcher use peer debriefing and member checks? Did the researcher prepare a statement of beliefs and share those with the peer debriefer?
3. Did the researcher use negative case analysis?
4. Did the researcher use triangulation?
5. Did the researcher provide sufficient thick description?
6. Did the researcher do a dependability audit?
7. Did the researcher do a confirmability audit?
8. Did the researcher display conflicts and value differences?
9. Did the individuals and groups become more informed or sophisticated about their experiences?
10. Did the researcher establish links with the community that indicated that a level of trust had been established?
11. Did the researcher seek out those who are silent and marginalized?
12. Was the researcher critically reflexive?
13. Were arrangements made to give back to the community and to share the perquisites of privilege?
14. Did the evaluation stimulate action? How did the research process and outcomes enhance social justice and human rights?

Extending Your Thinking Quality of Qualitative Research

1. Find a qualitative study (e.g., Sample Studies 1.2 or 1.3 or find a study doing a literature search) and explain what the researchers did or could do to improve the quality of their study. Structure your answer using the following categories:
2. Credibility
3. Transferability
4. Dependability
5. Confirmability
6. Authenticity
7. Select two qualitative studies from the literature. Compare the authors’ handling of the following dimensions:
8. Motivation for conducting the research
9. Data collection strategies
10. Credibility building/validity
11. Ethics
12. Using the same qualitative studies you selected for Question 2, answer these questions:
13. How and why do these texts differ? How do they relate to the theoretical readings you are currently doing?
14. Do you think the authors are justified in their methods or presentations? Why? Why not?
15. How will these readings help you make decisions about your own professional work in the field?
16. What do you think are the most important standards to use in comparing these two works?

Summary of Chapter 8: Qualitative Methods

Researchers from different paradigmatic perspectives choose to use qualitative methods for different reasons. Constructivists use qualitative methods in order to explore the social construction of reality or document causal relationships. Transformative researchers use qualitative methods to capture the lived experiences of those who are marginalized or the systemic oppression dynamics in society. Pragmatists use qualitative methods if they think that their research question justifies the use of such methods. Overall, qualitative methods allow a researcher to get a richer and more complex picture of the phenomenon under study than do quantitative methods. The most common methods of data collection associated with qualitative research include interviews, observations, and reviews of documents or other artifacts. Strategies for conducting phone and personal interviews were discussed in this chapter. Other data collection strategies for qualitative research are discussed in Chapter 12.

Notes

1. When qualitative methods are used within the postpositivist paradigm, typically the researcher establishes predetermined, static questions to guide the research, converts the qualitative data to frequency counts, and so on. However, I focus on the use of qualitative methods within the constructivist/transformative traditions because of the unique criteria for judging quality associated with such research.

2. The intent of this example is to illustrate how behavioral observations can be used in a qualitative study to provide evidence of attitudinal change. Persons interested in further details about the study (such as the number and characteristics of the participants in the study and the pervasiveness of the attitude changes) are referred to Mertens, Berkeley, and Lopez (1995).