1 t I i. ! THE LANDSCAPE Oľ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH ---------------,--------------------------------------------------------------- As always, we appreciate ihc efforts of Lenny ľricdmau, i|ic dircUofrVf marketing at Sage, along with his staff, for (heir indefatigable efforts in getting the word out about the Handbook to teachers, researchers, and incthodologists around ihc world. Astrid Virding was essential in moving this project through production; wc are also grateful to the copy editor, Judy Selhorst, and to those whose proofreading and indexing skills were so central to the publication or the Handbook on which these volumes are based. Finally, as ever, wc thank our spouses, Katherinc Ryan and Egon Gtiba, for their forbearance and constant support. The idea for this three-volume paperback version of the Handbook did not arise in a vacuum, and we arc grateful for the feedback we received from countless teachers and studeníš, both informally and in response to our formal survey. We wish especially to thank the following individuals: Jim Haunt, University of Utah; Joanne Cooper, University of I iawaii; Fran Crawford, Curtin University; Morten linder, University of North Dakota; Rich Hoffman, Miami University of Ohio; Patti Lather» Ohio State University; Michael Lissack, Henley-on-Thames; Martha MacLeod, University of Northern British Columbia; Suzanne Milter, University of Buffalo; Peggy Rios, University of Miami; Cynthia Russell, University of Tennessee,—. Memphis; Diane Schnelker, University of Northern Colorado; Coleen Shannon, University of Texas at Arlington; Barry Shealy, University of Buffalo; Ewart Skinner, Bowling Green State University; Jack Spencer, Purdue University; and Carol Tishchnau, Karolínska Institute. NORMAN K. WiNZlN UnhHtsttij <>f Illinois at UrbarvľGiampalQn yvonnaS. Lincoln Texas AStM University X i. 1 t. I ŕ fc-J í i I I li i í »Ji 1 Introduction Entering the Field of Qualitative Research Norman K Dentin & Yvotma S. Lincoln A Qualitative research has a long and distinguished history in the ^ human disciplines. In sociology the work of tbc "Chicago school" in the 1920s and 1930s established the importance of qualitative research for the study of human group life. In anthropology, during the same period, the pat h breaking studies of Boas, Mead, Benedict, Batcson, livans-Pricchard, Radcliffe-Brown, and Malinowski charted the outlines of the fieldwork method, wherein the observer went (o a foreign setting to study the customs and habits of another society and culture (for a critique of this tradition, sec Rosaldo, 1989, pp. 25-45). Soon qualitative research would be employed in other social science disciplines, including education, social work, and communications. The opening chapter in Part I, Volume 1, by Vidich and Lyman, charts key features of this history. In this introductory chapter we will briefly define the field of qualitative research, then review tltc history of qualitative research in the human disciplines, so that this volume and iis contents may be located in their proper historical moment. A conceptual framework for reading the qualitative AUTHORS'NOTE: vJfc arc grateful i« tlic many people win» have helped wiili iliii chapter, Im ludlng Mltth Allen, Kill hemic I!- Ryan, and I l.u ry wblcoll. 1 6268 ' I '( i L I I ' t I L ' í I I THE LANDSCAPE OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH ______________________I_____________________________._______________________________________________________________ what is available in the context, and what the researcher can do in chat setting. Qualitative research is inherently multimcthod in focus (Brewer ÔC Hunter, 1989). However, the use of multiple methods, or Triangulation, reflects an attempt to secure an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon in question. Objective reality can never be captured. Triangulation is not a lool or a strategy of validation, but an alternative to validation {Denzin, 1989a, 1989b, p. 244; Fielding & Fielding, 1986, p. 33; Flick, 1992, p. 194). Tlie combination of multiple methods, empirical materials, perspectives and observers in a single study is best understood, then, as a strategy that adds rigor, breadth, and depth to any investigation (see Flick, 1992, p. 194). The bricoieur is adept at performing a large number of diverse tasks, ranging from interviewing to observing, to interpreting personal and historical documents, to intensive self-re flection and introspection. The bricoieur reads widely and is knowledgeable about the many interpretive paradigms (feminism, Marxism, cultural studies, constructivism) that can be brought 10 any particular problem. He or she may not, however, feel that paradigms can be mingled, or synthesized. That is, paradigms as overarching philosophical systems denoting particular ontologies, episte-mologics, and methodologies cannot be easily moved between. They represent belief systems that attach the user to a particular worldview. Perspectives, in contrast, are less well developed systems, and can be more easily moved between. The cesearcher-as-^r/co/tw-thcorist works between and within competing and overlapping perspectives and paradigms. The bricoieur understands that research is an interactive process shaped by his or her personal history, biography, gender, social class, race, and ethnicity, and those of the people in the setting. The bricoieur knows that science is power, for all research findings have political implications, l'Jicrc is no value-free science. The bricoieur also knows that researchers all tell stories about the worlds they have studied. Thus the narratives, or stones, scientists tell are accounts couched and framed within specific storytelling traditions, often defined as paradigms (e.g., positivism, postpositivism, constructivism). The product of lbe bricoieur'& labor is a bricolage, a complex, dense, reflexive, collagelike creation that represents the researcher's images, understandings, and interpretations or the world or phenomenon under analysis. This bricolage will, as in the case of a social theorist such as Simmel, connect the parts to the whole, stressing the meaningful relation- 4 L- .1 t _ 1 L ! t J t- _. J V _ 1 V___I V___\ t------1 Mi Inltoduclion ships that operate in the situations and social worlds studied (Weinstein ôc Weinstein, 1991, p. 164). Qualitative Research as a Site of Multiple Methodologies and Research Practices Qualitative research, as a set of interpretive practices, privileges no single methodology over any other. As a site of discussion, or discourse, qualitative research is difficult to define clearly. It has no theory, or paradigm, that is distinctly its own. As Part II of this volume reveals, multiple theoretical paradigms claim use of qualitative research methods and strategies, from constructivism to cultural studies, feminism, Marxism, and ethnic models of study. Qualitative research is used in many separate disciplines, as we will discuss below. It does not belong to a single discipline. Nor does qualitative research have a distinct set of methods (hat are entirely its own. Qualitative researchers use semiotics, narrative, content, discourse, archival, and phonemic analysis, even statistics. They also draw upon and utilize the approaches, methods, and techniques of ethnomctho-dology, phenomenology, hermeneutics, feminism, rhizomatics, deconstrue-tionism, ethnographies, interviews, psychoanalysis, cultural studies, survey research, and participant observation, among others (see Nelson ct al., 1992, p. 2)." All of these research practices "can provide important insights and knowledge" (Nelson et al., 1992, p. 2). No specific method or practice can be privileged over any other, and none can be "eliminated out of hand" (p. 2). Many of these methods, or research practices, are also used in other contexts in (he human disciplines. Lach bears the traces of its own disciplinary history. Thus there is an extensive history of the uses and meanings of ethnography and ethnology in education (Hymes, 1980; LeCompte & Preissle, 1992); participant observation and ethnography in anthropology (Marcus, Volume 1, Chapter 12), sociology (Atkinson Ěc Hammcrslcy, Volume 2, Chapter 5), and cultural studies (Fiske, Volume 1, Chapter 11); textual, hcrmcncutic, feminist, psychoanalytic, semiotic, and narrative analysis in cinema and literary studies (Lentricchia ÔC Mclaughlin, 1990; Nichols, 1985; see also Manning & Cullum-Swan, Volume 3, Chapter 9); archival, material culture, historical, and document analysis in history, biography, and archaeology (Hodder, Volume 3, Chapter 4; Smith, Volume 2, Chapter 8; Tnchman, Volume 2, Chapter 9); and discourse and fi i. u u íl__I b—[ fc-J h—I THE LANDSCAPE OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH conversational analysis in communications and education (Holstein &c Gubrium, Volume 2, Chapter 6). The many histories thai surround each method or research strategy reveal how multiple uses and meanings arc brought to each practice, lextual analysis in literary studies, for example, often treat texts as self-contained systems. On lbe other hand, a researcher employing a cultural studies or feminist perspective would read a text in terms of its location within a historical moment marked by a particular gender, race, or class ideology. A cultural studies use of ethnography would bring a set of understandings from postmodernism and poststructuralism to the project. These understandings would likely not be shared by mainstream postpositivist sociologists (see Atkinson" & Hammersley, Volume 2, Chapter 5; AUheidc St Johnson, Volume 3, Chapter 10). Similarly, postpositivist and poststructural historians bring different understandings and uses to the methods and findings of historical research (see Tuchman, Volume 2, Chapter 9). These tensions and contradictions arc all evident in the chapters presented here. These separate and multiple uses and meanings of the methods-af qualitative research make it difficult for researchers to agree on any essential definition or the field, for ir is never just one thing/ Still, a definition must be established for use here. We borrow from, and paraphrase. Nelson et al.'s (1992, p. 4) attempt to define cultural studies: Qualitative research is an interdisciplinary, iransdisciplinary, and sometimes counterdisciplinary field. It crosscuts the humanities and the social and physical sciences. Qualitative research is many things at the same lime. It is multiparadigmatic in focus- Its practitioners arc sensitive to the value of the multimcthod approach. They arc committed to the naturalistic perspective, and to the interpretive understanding o/human experience. At the same time, the field is inherently political and shaped by multiple ethical and political positions. Qualitative research embraces two tensions at the same time. On the one hand, it is drawn to a broad, interpretive, postmodern, feminist, and critical sensibility. On the other hand, it is drawn to more narrowly defined posirivist, postpoiieivist, humanistic, and naturalistic conceptions of human experience and its analysis. This rather awkward statement means that qualitative research, as a set of practices, embraces within iis own multiple disciplinary histories, con- fi U ! I, í í. I u t, U U U Introduction staut tensions, and contradictions over the project itself, including its methods and I lie forms its findings and interpretations take. The field sprawls between and crosscuts all of the human disciplines, even including, in some cases, the physical sciences. Its practitioners are variously committed to modern and postmodern sensibilities and the approaches to social research that these sensibilities imply. Resistances to Qualitative Studies The academic and disciplinary resistances to qualitative research illustrate the politics embedded in this field of discourse. The challenges to qualitative research are many. Qualitative researchers are called journalists, or soft scientists. Their work is termed unscientific, or only exploratory, or entirely personal and full of bias. It is called criticism and not theory, or ii is interpreted politically, as a disguised version of Marxism, or humanism. These resistances reflect an uneasy awareness that the traditions of qualitative research commit the researcher to a critique of the positivist project. But the positivist resistance to qualitative research goes beyond the "ever-present desire to maintain a distinction between hard science and soft scholarship" (Carey, 1989, p. 99). The positive sciences (physics, chemistry, economics, and psychology, for example) are often seen as the crowning achievements of Western civilization, and in their practices it is assumed that "truth" can transcend opinion and personal bias (Carey, 1989, p. 99). Qualitative research is seen as an assault on this tradition, whose adherents often retreat into a "value-free objectivist science" (Carey, 1989, p. 104) model to defend their position. They seldom attempt to make explicit, or to critique, the "moral and political commitments in their own contingent work" (Carey, 1989, p. 104). The opposition to positive science by the postpositivists (see below) and the postsiructuralisis is seen, then, as an attack on reason and truth. At the same time, the positive science attack on qualitative research is regarded as an attempt to legislate one version of truth over another. This political terrain defines the many traditions and strands of qualitative research: the British tradition and its presence in other national contexts; the American pragmatic, naturalistic, and interpretive traditions in sociology, anthropology, communications, and education; the German and French phenomenological, hermeneutic, semiotic, Marxist, structural, and poststructural perspectives; feminist, African American studies, Latino studies, gay and lesbian studies, and studies of indigenous and aboriginal 7 Ilíi t____I b_____I. fc_____I fc—I fc—i fc—I t THE LANDSCAPE OF QUAUTAIIVE RESEARCH cultures (Nelson et al., 1992, p. 15). The politics of qualitative research Creates a tension dim informs each of the above traditions. 1 lus icnsion itself is constantly being reexamined and interrogated, as qualitative research confronts a changing historical world, new intellectual positions, ami its own institutional and academic conditions. To summarize: Qualitative research is many tilings to many people. Its essence is twofold: a commitment to some version of the naturalistic, interpretive approach to its subject matter, and an ongoing critique of the politics and mejhods of positivism. Wc turn now to a brief discussion of the major differences between qualitative and quantitative approaches to research. Qualitative Versus Quantitative Research The word qualitative implies an emphasis on processes and meanings thai arc not rigorously examined, or measured (if measured at all), in terms of quantity, amount, intensity, or frequency. Qualitative researchers stress the socially constructed nature of reality, the intimate relationship between the researcher and what is studied, and the situational constraints that shape inquiry Such researchers emphasize the value-laden nature of inquiry. They seek answers to questions thai stress how social experience is created and given meaning. In contrast, quantitative studies emphasize the measurement and analysis of causal relationships between variables, not processes. Inquiry is purported to be within a value-free framework. Resesrch Styles: Doing the Same Things Differently? •- Or course, both qualitative and quantitative researchers "think they know something about society worth telling to others, and they use a variety of forms, media and means to communicate their ideas anil findings" (Ucckcr, 19K6, p. 122). Qualitative research differs from quantitative research in five significant ways (Keeker, 1993). These points of difference turn on different wtays of addressing the same set of issues. They return always to the politics of research, anil who has the power to legislate correct solutions Co these problems. Uses of positivism. First, both perspectives are shaped by the positivist and post positivist traditions in the physical and social sciences (sec the discus- G i i. i i, i r, i i, i i. i i. i i. i i Introduction sion below). These two positive science traditions hold to naive and critical realist positions concerning reality and its perception. In the positivist version it is contended that there is a reality out there to be studied, captured, and understood, whereas postpositivists argue lhal nalily can never be fully apprehended, only approximated (Cuba, 1990, p. 22). Post positivism relies on multiple methods as a way of capturing as much of reality as possible. At the same time, emphasis is placed on the discovery and verification of theories. Traditional evaluation criteria, such as internal and external validity, are stressed, as is the use of qualitative procedures that lend themselves to structured (sometimes statistical) analysis. Computer-assisted methods of analysis that permit frequency counts, tabulations, and low-level statistical analyses may also be employed. The positivist and pOStpositivist traditions linger like long shadows over the qualitative research project. Historically, qualitative research was defined within the positivist paradigm, where qualitative researchers attempted to do good positivist research with less rigorous methods and procedures. Some mid-century qualitative researchers (e.g., Becker, Gccr, Hughes, & Strauss, 1961) reported participant observation findings in terms of quasksiaiistics. As recently as 1990, two leaders of the grounded theory approach to qualitative research attempted to modify the usual canons of good (positívístic) science to fit their own postposiiivist conception of rigorous research (Strauss & Corbin, 1990; see also Strauss 8c Corbin, Volume 2, Chapter 7; but also see Glaser, 1992). Some applied researchers, while claiming to be atheoretical, fit within the positivist or postpositivist framework by default. Spindler and Spindler (1992) summarize their qualitative approach ro quantitative materials: "Instrumentation and quantification arc simply procedures employed to extend and reinforce certain kinds of data, interpretations and test hypotheses across samples. Both must be kept in their place. One must avoid their premature or overly extensive use as a security mechanism" (p. 69). Although many qualitative researchers in the postpositivist tradition use statistical measures, methods, ami documents as a way of locating a group of subjects within a larger population, ihcy seldom report their findings in terms of the kinds of complex statistical measures or methods to which quantitative researchers are drawn (<-'-g-> path, regression, or log-linear analyses). Much of applied research is also atheoretical. Acceptance of postmodern sensibilities. The use of quantitative, positivist methods and assumptions has been rejected by a new generation of 9 990345 u u U U' d fi__I t d__ IHE LANDSCAPE OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH qualitative researchers who arc attached to poststructural, postnío/lcni sensibilities (see below; see also Vidich & Lyman, Volume I, Chapter 2, and Richardson, Volume 3, Chapter 12). These researchers argue thai positivist methods are but one way of telling a story about society or the social world. They may be no better or no worse than any other method; they just tell a different kind of story. This tolerant view is not shared by everyone. Many members of the critical theory, constructivism poststructural, and postmodern schools of thought reject positivist and postpositivist criteria when evaluating (heir own work. They sec these criteria as irrelevant to their work, and contend thai these criteria reproduce only a certain kind of science, a science thai silences loo many voices. These researchers seek alternative methods for evaluating their work, including verisimilitude, emotionality, personal responsibility, an ethic of caring, political praxis, mullivoiced texts, and dialogues with subjects, hi response, posiiivisls and postpositivists argue that what they do is good science, free of individual bias and subjectivity; as noted above, they see postmodernism as an attack on reason and truth. Capturing the individual's point of view. Both qualitative and quantitative researchers are concerned about the individual's point of view. However, qualitative investigators think they can get closer to the actor's perspective through detailed interviewing and observation. They argue that quantitative researchers seldom are able to capture the subject's perspective because 11 it-y havi lo rely on more remole, inferential empirical materials, Thi empirical materials produced by the sorter, interpretive methods arc regarded by many quantitative researchers as unreliable, impressionistic, and not objective. Examining lbe constraints of everyday life. Qualitative researchers are more likely than quantitative researchers to confront the constraints of the everyday social world. They see this world in action and embed their findings in it. Quantitative researchers abstract from this world and seldom study it directly- They seek a nomothetic or etic science based on probabilities derived from the study of large numbers of randomly selected cases. These kinds of Statements Stand above and outside che constraints of everyday life- Qualitative researchers are committed to an emic, iiho-graphic, case-based position, which directs their attention to the specifics of particular cases. 10 fc_l fc_] 1. f L—I Ľ-J I— I L I (. I I. I Introduction Securing rich descriptions. Qualitative researchers believe lhal rich descriptions of the social world arc valuable, whereas quantitative researchers, with their etic, nomothetic commitments, arc less concerned with such detail. The five points of difference described above (uses of positivism, acceptance of postmodern sensibilities, capturing the individual's point of view, examining the constraints of everyday life, and securing rich descriptions) reflect commitments to different styles of research, different epistc-mologies, and different forms of representation. Each work tradition is governed by a different set of genres; each has i is own classics, its own preferred forms of representation, interpretation, and textual evaluation (sec Becker, 1986, pp. 134-135). Qualitative researchers use ethnographic prose, historical narratives, first-person accounts, siill photographs, life histories, fictionalized facts, and biographical and autobiographical materials, among others. Quantitative researchers use mathematical models, statistical tables, and graphs, and often write about their research in impersonal, third-person prose. With the differences between these two traditions understood, we will now offer a brief discussion of the history of qualitative research. We can break this into four historical moments, mindful that any history is always somewhat arbitrary. ♦ The History of Qualitative Research The history of qualitative research reveals, as Vidich and Lyman remind us in Chapter 2 of Volume 1, that the modern social science disciplines have taken as their mission "the analysis and understanding of the patterned conduct and social processes of society." The notion that this task could be carried out presupposed that social scientists had the ability to observe ibis world objectively. Qualitative methods were a major tool of such observations.* Throughout the history of qualitative research, investigators have always defined their work in terms of hopes and values, "religious faiths, occnpahon.il and professional ideologies" (Vidich & Lyman, Volume I, Chapter 2). Qualitative research (like all research) has always been judged on the "standard of whether the work communicates or 'says' something 11 THE LANDSCAPE OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH ' ___________ to us" (Vidich & Lyman, Volume J, Chapter 2), based on how we conceptualize out reality and our images of the world. Epistemology is the word that has historically defined these standards or evaluation. In the contemporary period, as argued above, many received discourses on epistemology have been "disprivileged," or cast into doubt. The history presented by Vidich and Lyman covers the following (somewhat) overlapping stages: early ethnography (to the seventeenth century);colonial ethnography (seventeenth-, eighteenth-, and nineteenth-century explorers); «he ethnography of the American Indian as "other" (late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century anthropology); the ethnography of the "civic other," or community sindies, and ethnographies of American immigrants (early twentieth century through the 1.960s); studies of ethnicity and assimilation (mid-century through the 1980s); and the present, which we call the fifth moment. In each of these eras researchers were and have been influenced by their political hopes and ideologies, discovering findings in their research that confirmed prior theories or beliefs. Karly ethnographers confirmed the racial and cultural diversity of peoples throughout the globe and attempted to fit this diversity into a theory about the origin of history, the races, and civilizations. Colonial ethnographers, before the professional izacion of ethnography in the twentieth century, fostered a colonial pluralism that left natives on their own as long as their leaders could be co-opted by the colonial administration. European ethnographers studied Africans and other Third World peoples of color. Early American ethnographers studied the American Indian from the perspective of the conqueror;- who saw the life world of the primitive as a window to the prehistoric past. The Calvinist mission to save the Indian was soon transferred to the mission of saving the "hordes" of immigrants who entered the United States with the beginnings of industrialization. Qualitative community studies of the ethnic other proliferated from the early 1900$ to the 1960s, and included the work of K. Franklin Frazier, Robert Park, and Robert Redfield and their students, as well as William Foote Whyte, the Lynds, August Hollingshead, Herbert Gans, Stanford Lyman, -.(Vrlhur Vidich, and Joseph Bensman. The post-1960s' ethnicity studies challenged the "melting pot" hypothesis of Park and his followers and corresponded to the emergence of ethnic studies programs that saw Native Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and African Americans attempting to take control over the study of their own peoples. 12 li___I Im I Itttrciiuction The postmodern challenge emerged in the mid-1980s. It questioned the assumptions that had organized this earlier history, in each of its colonial-izing moments. Qualitative research that crosses the "postmodern divide" requires one, Vidich and Lyman argue, to "abandon all established and preconceived values, theories, perspectives,... and prejudices as resources for ethnographic study." In this new era the qualitative researcher does more than observe history; he or she plays a part in it. New tales of the field will now be written, and they will reflect the researcher's direct and personal engagement with this historical period. Vidich and Lyman's analysis covers the full sweep of ethnographic history. Ours, presented below, is confined to the twentieth century and complements many of their divisions. We begin with the early foundational work of the British and French, as well the Chicago, Columbia, Harvard, and Berkeley schools of sociology and anthropology. This early foundational period established the norms of classical qualitative and ethnographic research. ♦ The Five Moments of Qualitative Research As noted above, we divide our history of qualitative research in this century into five phases, each of which is described in turn below. The Traditional Period We call the first moment the traditional period (this covers Vidich and Lyman's second and third phases). It begins in the early 1900s and continues until World War II. In this period, qualitative researchers wrote "objective," colonializing accounts of field experiences that were reflective of the positivist scientist paradigm. They were concerned with offering valid, reliable, and objective interpretations in their writings. The "other" who was studied was alien, foreign, and strange. Here is Malinowski (1967) discussing his field experiences in New Guinea and the Trobriand Islands in the years 1914-1915 and 1917-1918: Nothing whatever draws me to ethnographic studies.... On the whole the village struck mc rather unfavorably. There is a certain disorganization ... 13 t I L * I . THE LANDSCAPE OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH (Ik towdincss and persistence of the people who laugh ami Marc and fie discouraged me somewhat... . Went to (he village hoping to photograph a few stapes of i he Intra dance. I handed out linllstuks of tobacco, then watched a few dances; then took pictures—but results were poor. .., clicy would tiol pose long enough for time exposures. Al moments 1 was furious .it them, particularly because after I gave litem their portions of tobacco they all went away, (quoted in Gccr(7, 198X. pp. 71 74) In mother wojk, this lonely, frustrated, isolated field-worker describes his methods in the following words: In the held one lias to face a chaos of facts-----i» »his crude form they arc not scientific fans at all; they are absolutely elusive, and can only be fixed by interpretation... . Only laws and generalizations ftfl scientific facts, and field work consists only and exclusively in (he interpretation of the chaotic «Ktal reality, ui sul)ordinating it to general rules. (Mahnowski. I'M*. I'»IS, p. 128} quoted in Gecsts, 1988, p. 81) Maltiiowski's remarks are provocative. On the one hand they disparage ficldwork, hm Oil the other they speak of it within the glorified language of science, wilh laws and generalizations fashioned out of this selfsame experience. The field-worker, during this period, was lionized, made mio a larger-than-life figure who went into and then relumed from the field with stories about strange people. Rosaldo (198.9) describes tins as t lie period of the Lone Ethnographer, the story of the man-Scientist who wenl off in search of his native in a distent land. There this figure "encountered the object of his quest.. . (and) underwent his rite of passage by enduring the ultimate ordeal of 'ficldwork' " (p. 30). Returning home wilh his data, the Lone Ethnographer wrote up an objective account of the culture lie studied. These accounts were structured by the norms of classical ethnography. This sailed bundle of terms (Rosaldo, 1989, p. .11) organized ethnographic texts in terms til foui beliefs and commitments: a commitment lo objectivism, a complicity with imperialism, a belief in inoniimcnt.ilism (the ethnography would create a museumlikc picture of the culture studied), and a belief in límeleetnctt (what was studied never changed). This model of the researcher, who could also write complex, dense theories about what was studied, holds lo the present day. l-'. n n r . í . ' . i . i . i totrotkKtioii The myih of the l.one Ethnographer depicts the birth of classic ethnography. The texts of Malinowski, Radcliffe-Brown. Margaret Mead, and Gregory BltCtOfl are still carefully studied for what they can tell the novice about fieldwork, taking field notes, and writing theory (see the discussion of hiitcNou and Me.nl in Harper, Volume .1, Chapter 5), loday (his image has been shattered. The works of the classic ethnographers are seen by m m as i flu sol tin-colonial past (Rosaldo, 19X9. p. 44). Although many feel nostalgic about this image, others celebrate its passing. Rosaldo (1989) qoOtM Cora Du llois, a retired Harvard anthropology professor, who lamented (his passing at a conference in 198(1, reflecting on the crisis in anthropology: "|1 fed a distance] from the complexity «nddiaarray of what I once found a justifiable and challenging discipline. . . . Il has been like moving trom a distinguished art museum into a garage sale" (p. '14). I)u Hois regards (he classic ethnographies as pieces of timeless artwork, NM h M those contained in a museum. She detesls the chaos of the garage vale, which Rosaldo values: "It [the garage sate) provides a precise image of the pOSCCOlonkl situation where cultural artifacts flow between unlikely-places, and nothing is sacred, permanent, or sealed off The image of anthropology as a garage sale depicts our present global situation" (p. -14). Old standards no longer hold. Ethnographies do not produce timeless truths. The commitment to objectivism is now hi doubt. The complicity with imperialism is openly challenged today, and the belief in monumen-talism is a (lung of the past. The legacies of this first period begin at the end of the nineteenth century, when the novel and the social sciences li.nl ha nine distinguished as separate systems of discourse (Clough, 1992, pp, 21-22). However, the Chicago school, with its emphasis on the life story and lite "slicc-of-life" approach to ethnographic materials, sought to develop an interpretive methodology that maintained the ccntrality of (he narrated life history appn i.ich. This led to the production of the texts that gave the rcsearchcr-as-author the power to represent the subject's story. Witten under the mantle ol Straightforward, semi ment-free social realism, these texts used the langu ige ol ordinary people. I hey articulated l social science v< rsion oi binary naturalism, which often produced the sympathetic illusion that a solution to a social problem had been found. Like films about the Depression era iuvenile delinquent and other social problems (Hoffman &: ľurdy, 19X1), these accounts romanticized the subject. They turned the deviant into ihc sociological version of a screen hero. These sociological stones, like their film counterparts, usually had happy endings, as they •b 30 81 iL IL iL h IV [) l iL ! TUE LANDSCAPE Of GUALITATIVE RESEARCH followed individuals through the three stages of the classic morality tale: existence in a stale of grace, seduction by evil and the (all, and finally redemption through suffering. The Modernist Phase The modernist phase, or second moment, builds on the canonical works of the traditional period. Social realism, naturalism, and slice-of-life ethnographies arefstill valued. This phase extended through the postwar years io the 1970s; ii is still present in the work of many (see Wolcoti, 1992, for a review). In this period many texts attempted to formalize qualitative methods (sec, for example, Bogdan & Taylor, 197.5; Cicourel, 1964; Pilstead, 1970; Glaser ÔC Strauss, 1967; J. Lofland, 1971; Lofland St Lofland, 1984). 'The modernist ethnographer and sociological participant observer attempted rigorous, qualitative studies of important social processes, including deviance and social control in the classroom and society. This was a moment of creative ferment. A new generation of graduate students, across lbe human disciplines, encountered new interpretive theories (cthnomcihodology, phenomenology, critical theory, feminism). They were drawn to qualitative research practices that would let them give a voice to society's underclass. Post positivism functioned as a powerful epístcmological paradigm in this moment. Researchers attempted to fit the arguments of Campbell and Stanley (1963) about internal and external validity to constructionist and interac-tionist models of the research act. They returned to the texts of the Chicago school as sources or inspiration (see Denzin, 1970, 1978). A canonical text from this moment remains Boys in White (Becker er a!., 1961). Firmly entrenched in mid-century methodological discourse, this work attempted to make qualitative research as rigorous as its quantitative counterpart. Causal narratives were central to this project. This mul-tiinethod work combined Open-ended and quasi-structured interviewing with participant observation and the careful analysis of such materials in Standardised, statistical form. In a classic article, "Problems of Inference and Proof in Participant Observation," Howard S. Becker (1958/1970) describes the use of quasi-statistics: Participant observations have occasionally been gathered in Standardized form capable of being transformed into legitimate statistical data. But the exigencies of the field usually prevent the collection of data in such a form 16 ii it Ii ; I fl_l I. ! I, Intfoduction to meei the assumptions of statistical tests, so that the observer deals in what have been called "quasi-statistics." His conclusions, while implicitly numerical, do not require precise quantification- (j>. 31) In the analysis of data, Becker notes, the qualitative researcher takes a cue from statistical colleagues. The researcher looks for probabilities or support for arguments concerning the likelihood that, or frequency with which, a conclusion in fact applies in a specific situation. Thus did work in the modernist period clothe itself in the language and rhetoric of positivist and postpositive discourse. This was the golden age of rigorous qualitative analysis, bracketed in sociology by Boys in White (Becker e( al., 1961) at one end add The Discovery of O rounded Theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) at the other. In education, qualitative research in this period was defined by George and l-ouise Spindler, Jules Henry, Harry Wolcott, and John Singleton. This form of qualitative research is still present in the work of such persons as Strauss and Corbin (1990) and Miles and Huberman (1993), and is represented in their chapters in ibis ihree-volumc set. The "golden age" reinforced a picture of qualitative researchers as cultural romantics. Imbued with Promethean human powers, they valorized villains and outsiders as heroes to mainstream society. They embodied a belief in the contingency of self and society, and held to emancipatory ideals for which "one lives and dies." They put in place a tragic and often ironic view of society and self, and joined a long line of leftist cultural romantics that included Umerson, Marx, James, Dewey, Gramsci, and Martin Luther King, Jr. (West, 1989, chap. 6). As this moment came to an end, the Vietnam War was everywhere present in American society. In 1969, alongside these political currents, Herbert Blumer and Everett Hughes met with a group of young sociologists called the "Chicago Irregulars" at the American Sociological Association meetings held in San Francisco and shared their memories of the "Chicago years." Lyn Lofland (1980) describes the 1969 meetings as a moment of creative ferment—scholarly und political. The San Francisco meetings witnessed not simply the BlumCt-1 lughes event but a "counterrevolution." ... a group first came to ... talk about die problems of being a sociologist and a female------the discipline seemed literally to be bursting with new . . . ideas: labelling theory, ethnoniethodology, conflict theory, phenomenology, dramaturgical analysis, (p. 253) 17 15 u ' i it t ii i- íl_i íi__i if i i IDE LANIISCAPE OF QUALITATIV!; RHSfARCII Thus did flic modernist phase come to an end. '"n ' .u!m, Vvoniiii Lincoln, Roben Stake, and (illioi Eisner. By the end of the 1970s several qualitative journals were in place, from Urban Life (now four/hit of Contemporary Ethnography) to Qualitative Sociology, Symbolic Interaction, and Studies in Symbolic Interaction. Crisis of Representation A profound rupture occurred in the mid-1980s. What we call the fourth moment, of the crisis of representation, appeared with Anthropology as Cultural Critique {Marcus ßc Fischer, 1986), The Anthropology of Experience (Turner & firmier, 1986), Wiling Culture (Clifford 8c Marcus, 1986), Works and Lives (Geertz, 1988), and The Predicament of Culture (Clifford, 19H8). These works made research and writing more reflexive, and called into question the issues of gender, class, and race. They articulated (Inconsequences of Gcc(t/As "blurred genres" interpretation of the field in the early 1980s. New models of truth and method were sought (Rosaldo, 19ÍÍ9). The erosion of classic norms in anthropology (objectivism, complicity with colonialism, social life structured by fixed rituals and customs, ethnographies as monuments to a culture) was complete (Rosaldo, 1989, pp- 44-45). Critical and feminist epistemologies and cpistemologies of color now compete for attention in this arena. Issues such as validity, reliability, and objectivity, which had been settled in earlier phases, are once more problematic. Interpretive theories, as opposed to grounded theories, are now more common, as writers continue to challenge older models of truth and meaning (Rosaldo, 1989). Stoller and Olkes (1987) describe how the crisis of representation was felt in their fieldwork among the Songhay of Niger. Stoller observes: "When I began to write anthropological texts, I followed the conventions 1'1 9781 74 i ' i : i I L I l I L I i I . ' . -Ill I A\iiv;ah n m AI!IAIIVbRR-hňm:H (limy training-1 'gathered data,' and once the'data'were arranged in neat piles, I 'wrote them up." In one case 1 reduced Songhay insults to a series of neat logical formulas" (p. 227), Stoller became dissatisfied with this form of writing, in part because hi; learned "everyone had lied to me and ... the data I had so painstakingly collected were worthless. I learned a lesson: Informants routinely lie to their anthropologists" (Stoller & Olkes, 1987, p. 229). This discovery led to a second, that he had, in following 'he conventions of ethnographic realism, edited himself out of his text. "I his led Stoller tcjproduce a different type of text, a memoir, in which he became i central character in the story he told. This story, an account of his experiences in the Songhay world, became an analysis of the clash bei ween his world and the world of Songhay sorcery. Thus did Stollor'l journey represent an attempt to confront the crisis or representation in the fourth moment. Clough (1992) elaborates this crisis and criticizes those who would argue that new forms of writing represent a way out of it: While many sociologists now commenting on the criticism of ethnography view writing as "downright central to the ethnographic enterprise" (Van Mannen, 1988, p. xi), the problems of writing arc still viewed a* different from the problems of method or ficldwork itself. Tims the \ohinon usually Offered is experiments in wni ing, I hat is, a self-amsimmiic-ss about wril Ing. (p. 136) However, it is this insistence on the difference between writing and lieldwork that must be analysed. In writing, the field-worker makes a claim to moral and scientific authority. These claims allow the realist and the experimental ethnographic text to function as sources of validation for an empirical science. They show, that is, thai the world of real lived experience can soil be captured, if only in the writer's incimiirs, tiuinn.il experimentations, or dramatic leadings. These works have the danger of directing attention away from the ways in which the text constructs sexually situated individuals in a field ol tOCisJ difference. They also perpetuate "empirical science's hegemony" (Clough, 1992, p. 8), for these new writing technologies of the sublet hriimic the site "for the production of knowledge/power . . . |ahgncd ] with ... the capital/state axis" (Aronowitz, 1988, p. 300, quoted m Clough, 1992, p. 8). Such experiments come up against, and then back away from, 20 I t. V i I ■ , 1 MmbcffcM the difference between empirical science and social criticism. Too often they fail to engage fully n new politics of tcxtuality that would "refuse the identity of empirical science" (Clough, 1992, p. 1.15). This new social Criticism "would intervene in the relationship of information economics, nation-state politics, and technologies of mass communication, especially in terms of the empirical Science*" (Clough, 1992, p. 16). Tim, of course, is the terrain occupied by cultural studies. Richardson, in Volume 3, Chapter 12, and Clandinin and Connelly, Volume 3, Chapter 6, develop the above arguments, viewing writing as a method of inquiry that moves through successive stages ol self-reflection. As a scries of writings, the field worker's texts flow from die field experience, through intermediate works, to later work, and finally to the research text that is the public presentation of the ethnographic and narrative experience. Thus do ficldwork and writing blur into one another. There is, m the final analysis, no difference between writing and fieldwork. These two perspectives inform each other throughout every chapter in this volume. In these ways the crisis of representation moves qualitative research in new, critical directions. A Double Crisis The ethnographer's authority remains under assault today, A double . tlsil of representation and legitimation confronts qualitative researchers in the social sciences. Embedded in the discourses of poststructuralism and postmodernism (Vidich &c Lyman, Volume 1, Chapter 2; Richardson, Volume 3, Chapter 12), these two crises are coded in multiple terms, variously called and associated with the interpretive, linguistic, and rhetorical turns in social theory. This linguistic turn makes problematic two key assumptions of qualitative research. The first is that qualitative researchers can directly capture lived experience. Such experience, it is now argued, is created in the social text written by the researcher. This is the representational crisis. It confront! the inescapable problem of representation, but docs so within a framework that makes the direct link between experience and text problematic. The second assumption makes the tradicional criteria for evaluating and interpreting qualitative research problematic. This is the legitimation crisis. It involves a serious rethinking of such terms as validity, gener-alizabilily, and reliability, terms already retheorized in post positivist. 21 L L l V-------1 l l I t I ___________________THE LANDSCAPE Of QUALITATIVE RESEARCH____________________ conitfuctionist-fuKufiliftic (1 incoln ft Cuba, [985,p. )(), feminlsttrbnow K Cook, ivy I, pp. i-11; Smith, 1992), and interpretive (Atkinson, 1990; Mamme rsley, 1992; Lauter, 1993) discourses. This crlili asks, How are qualitative studies to be evaluated In the poststructural moment? < ilearly (nese i wo crises blur together, for .my representation must now legitimate Itself in terms of some set of criteria thai allows the author (.nul the reader) to make connections between the text and the world written •bout The Fifth Me-ment The fifth monimi is the prevent, defined and shaped by the dual crises described above. Theories are now read in narrative terme, as "tales of the field" (Van Maanen, ivsx), Preoccupations with the representation <»i the "Olher" remain. New epistemologie* Írom previously silenced groups emerge to offer solutions to this problem. The concept of the aloof researcher has been abandoned. More action-, activist-in in it rd research is on the horizon, as are more sni ial i riticism and social Critique« The Search Im grand narratives will be replaced by more local, small .scale theories fitted to specific problems and specific situations (Lincoln, 1991). Reading History We draw four conclusions from tins brief history, noting thai it I*, like-all histories, somewhat arbitrary Pint, each of the earhn historical moments is m ill operating in the present, cither as Icg.R y oi .is.i m-1 ol pi.u lues lhal researchers still follow oi argue against, (ne multiple, and fractured, histories of qualitative resean h now make it possible for any given ie-icarchet to attach a project to a canonical text from any ol the abovc-deSCribcd historical moments. Multiple criteria of evaluation now compete for attention in this field. Second, an embarrassment of * hones now ll i, lenzes the field of qualitative research. There have never been so many paradigms, strategies of inquiry, or methods of analysis io draw upon and Utilize. Third, we are in a moment of discovery and reihst overy, as new Ways Ol looking, interpreting, aiguing, and writing are debated and dis-CUSSed. fourth, the qualitative research act can no longer be viewed from within s neutral, oi objective, positivist perspective class, race, gender, ami el htiu it y šliape the process ol inquiry, making resean li a inultiuilitiral process, h is to this topit I hul we nexl turn. .'.' ! I I_____I I_____I Ml _____________________ htliodiiclion ♦ Qualitative Research as Process Three interconnected, generJi activities define the qualitative research pro. ess. They go by a variety of different labels, including theory, method ami analysis, and rw/o/ojry- cpisle$nolog3^ and mcthixlology. behind these terms stands the personal hiogiaphy of the gendered re>c.uihci', who speaks from a particular class, racial, cultural, and ethnic Community pei spectivc. The gendered, multicultiirally situated resean her approaches the world with a set of ideas, a framework (theory, ontology) that specifies i mi of questions (epistemology) that .ire then examined (methodology, analysis) in specific ways. Thai is, empirical materials bearing on the question are collected and thľii analyzed and written about Every researcher speaks from wiilim a distinct interpretive community, which configures, in its special way, the multicultural, gendered components of tip«- («search act. Behind all of these phases of interpretive work stands the hiogiaphically situated researcher. This Individual enters the research process from inside nit interpretive community that incorporates its own historical research ti.nil mms- into a distinct point of view. This perspective leads die researcher in adopl particular views of the "other" who is studied. Al the same time, the politici and the ethics ol research must also be considered, for these concerns permeate every phase ol the research process. ♦ The Olher as Research Subject Prom ils[|iru-of-the-ceniury buili in modern, interpretive lorm, qualitative research has been haunted hy a double-faced ghost. On the one hand, qualitative researchers have avsumed that qualified, competent observers can with objectivity, clarity, and precision report on their own observations of I he social world, induding tfie experiences of others. Second, re- ■earchers have held ro a belief In a real subject, or real Individual, who is preienl in the world and able, in some form, to report on his or her experiences. So armed, researchers could blend their observations with the observations provided by subjects through interviews and life story, pei ■onal experience, case study, and othei documents. I hase two beliefs have led qualitative researchers across disciplines to seek a method thai would allow them to record their own observations 23 3985 53 fc ft—' fc—I I— t- ' t. f t,___I t THE LANDSCAPE OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH accurately while still uncovering the meanings iheir subjects bring to, their life experiences. This method would rely upon the subjective verbal and written expressions of meaning given by lbe individuals Studied, these expressions being windows into the inner life oř the person. Since Dilthey (190(1/1976), this search for a method bas led to a perennial focus in the human disciplines on qualitative, interpretive methods. Recently, this position and its beliefs have come under attack. Poslstruc-turalists and postmodernists have contributed to the understanding that there is no cle^r window into the inner life of an individual. Any ga?.e is always filtered through the lenses of language, gender, social class, race» and ethnicity. There are no objective observations, only observations socially situated in the worlds of the observer and the observed. Subjects, or individuals, are seldom able to give full explanations oi their actions or intentions; all they can offer are accounts, or stories, about what they did and why. No single method can grasp the subtle variations in ongoing human experience. As a consequence, as argued above, qualitative researchers deploy a wide range of interconnected interpretive methods, always seeking better ways lo maku more understandable (he worlds of experience [hat have been studied. Table 1.1 depicts the relationships we see among the five phases thai define the research process. Behind all but one of these phases stands the biographically situated researcher. These five levels of activity, or practice, work their way through the biography of the researcher. Phase 1: The Researcher Our remarks above indicate the depth and complexity of the traditional and applied qualitative research perspectives into which a socially situated researcher enters. These traditions locate the researcher in history, both guiding and constraining work that will be done in any specific study. This field has been characterized constantly by diversity and conflict, and these, David Hamilton argues in Volume 1, Chapter 3, arc its most enduring traditions. As a carrier of this complex and contradictory history, the researcher must also confront the ethics and politics of research. The age of value-free inquiry for (he human disciplines is over, and researchers now snuggle to develop Situational and transsituational ethics that apply to any given research act. 24 t t t ! * í It ti ti tltl ______________________ _________introduction TABLE 1.1 The Research Process Phase I Ihn RoseaiclMfr at! a Mullictflluial Subject htslwy and research traditions conceptions ol soil and llie olhcf ethics aixt politics of research Phase2: rheoieHcal fciradigmsandrtrspectives positivism, poslpositivism constructivism feminism(s) ethnic models Marxist nwdels cultural studies models Phase 3: Research Strategies stud)' design C3SC study ellinograpliy. participant observation phenomenology, ethnomcthodology grounded theory toopaphicaj molhod historical method action and applied research clinical resflarcii Phase 4: Methods ol Collection and Analysis interviewing observing arlilacls. documenls. and records visual methods personal eaperience methods data management methods compufeŕassísied analysis textual analysis Plase 5: The Art ol Interpretation and Presentation crlie/ia lor judging adequacy tie ail and politics of imerpielalion writing as Inlei pielation policy analysis ovalualiod Kiidiiiws applied iBsoiiicti 25 I I U k ! i ! V , L_J THE LANDSCAPE OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH Phase 2: Interpretive Paradigms *iw All qualitative researchers arc philosophers in chat "universal sense in which all human beings ... are guided by highly abstract principles'' (Bateson, 1972, p. 320). These principles combine beliefs about ontology (What kind of being is the human being? What is the nature öf reality?), cpistemology (What is the relationship between the inquirer and the known?), and methodology (How do we know the world, or gain knowledge of it?) (seejGuba, 1990, p. 13; Lincoln & Cuba, 1985, pp. 14-15; see also Guba & Lincoln, Volume I, Chapter 6). These beliefs shape how the qualitative researcher sees the world and acts in it. The researcher is "bound within a net of epistemological and ontologies I premises which—regardless of ultimate truth or falsity—become partially self-validating" (Bateson, 1972, p. 314). This net that contains the researcher's epistemological, ontologica), and methodological premises may be termed a paradigm (Guba, 1990, p. 17), or interpretive framework, a "basic set of beliefs that guides action" (Guba, 1990, p. 17). All research is interpretive, guided by a set of beliefs and feelings about the world and how it should be understood and studied. Some of these beliefs may be taken for granted, only assumed; others arc highly problematic and controversial. However, each interptetive paradigm makes particular demands on the researcher, including the questions that are asked and the interpretations that are brought to them. At the most general level, four major interpretive paradigms structure qualitative research: positivist and post posit i v ist, constructívist-interpre-tivp, critical (Marxist, emancipatory), and feminist-poscstruelural. These four abstract paradigms become more complicated at the level of concrete specific interpretive communities. At this level it is possible to identify not only the constructivist, but also multiple versions of feminist (Afrocentric and poststructural)3 as well as specific ethnic, Marxist, and cultural studies paradigms, these perspectives, or paradigms, are examined in Part It of Volume 1. The paradigms examined in Volume 1, Part II, work against and alongside (and some within) the positivist and posipositivist models. They all work within relativist ontologies (multiple constructed realities), interpretive epistemologie« (the knower and known interact and shape one another), and interpretive, naturalistic methods. Table 1.2, presents these paradigms and their assumptions, including their criteria for evaluating research, and the typical form that an interpre- ZG i ,1.1 i r i-j ĺ. r i ■- ... -..■■;,,■; TABLE 1.2 Interpretive Paradigms Paradigm/lheory Criteria Form of Theory Type of Narration ftBitivistf internal, exlemal validity postposilivist Conslruclivisl trustwoflhiress. credibility, transferability, confirmabllily ;--iR.L.t :ľvu: ].'.?:■ ■",! "uľi.v.1 š! nil ::, Aftocenlfic. lived experience, dialogue, caring, accountability, race, class, gendei. reflemiiy, praxis, emotion, concrete (jiourriirc) Alrocenl'ic, lived experience, dialogue, caring, accountability, race, class, gender emancipatory theory, lalsiliable, diaiogical, race, class, gender cultural practices, praxis, social tests, subjectivilies logical-deductive, seieniilic report scientific, grounded subslantive-formai interpretive case studies, ethnographic fiction critical, standpoint essays, stories, experimental wiling standpoint, critical, historical critical, historical, econutnic social criticism essays, fables, dramas historical, economic, scciocultural analysis cultural theory as Cfilicism tive or theoretical statement assumes in the paradigm.9 Each paradigm is explored in considerable detail in Volume 1, Parr II, by Guba and Lincoln (Chapter 6), Schwandt (Chapter 7), Kincheloe and McLaren (Chapter 8), Olesen (Chapter 9), Stanfield (Chapter 10), and Fiskc (Chapter 11). The positivist and posipositivist paradigms have been discussed above. They work from within a realist and critical realist ontology and objective epistemologies, ;uid rely upon experimental, quasi-experimental, survey, and rigorously defined qualitative methodologies. In Volume 3, Chapter 7, 1 Iuberman and Miles develop elements of this paradigm. The constructivist paradigm assumes a relativist ontology (there are multiple realities), a subjectivist epistemology (knower and subject create understandings), and a naturalistic (in the natural world) set of methodological procedures. Findings are usually presented in terms of the criteria of grounded theory (see -Strauss & Corbin, Volume 2, Chapter 7). Terms such as credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmahility replace the usual positivist criteria ká internal and external validity, reliability, and objectivity. Feminist, ethnic, Marxist, and cultural studies models privilege a materialist-realist ontology; that is, the real world makes a material difference in terms of race, class, and gender. Subjectivist epistemologies and naturalistic ?■! ,f ■ i','. i i ' . : i i—i THE LANDSCAPE Of (JlíAl ITATIVE RESEARCH methodologies (usually ethnographies) ue also employed. Bmpirieift* materials and theoretical arguments are evaluated in terms ol iheii cmancipa- tory Implications. Criteria from gender and racial coi.....unities (e,g„ African American) may be applied (emotionality and feeling» caringi personal accountability, dialogue), ľostsiructural feminist theories emphasize problems with i In- m mal text, us logic, .nul its inability aver to represent hilly the world ol lived experience. Positivist and postposltivist criteria of evaluation are replaced by "i hers, including the reflexive, mult i voiced text that is grounded in the expciicnees o&opprcssed peoples. The Cultural studies paiadigm is multifocused, with many different sti.iiuls drawing from MaiMsm, liiinuisin, and the postmodern sensibility. There Is a tension between humanistic cultural studies sinking lived experiences and more struetur.il cultural studies projects stressing the structural .md material determinants (race, class, gender) of experience. Hi« cultural studies paradigm uses methods strategically, that is, as resources for understanding and foi producing resistances to lot al structures «>f domination. Cultural studies scholars may do «lose textual readings and discourse analysis of cultural texts .is well as local ethnographies, open-ended interviewing, ami porticipani observation! ľne focus >s on how race, class, and gendei are |>toduccd and enacted in historical!) specific situations. Paradigm and history in hand, focused on a concrete empirical problem to examine, the researcher now moves to the next stage ol ilie research process, namely, working with a specific strategy of inquiry. Phase 3: Strategies of Inquiry and Interpretive Paradigms table 1.1 presents some of the irutjoi strategies of inquiry i researcher ma) USe. I'hase 1 begins with rest-.uch design, which, htoadly .omeivcd, involves h cleat focus on (he research question, the purposes of the study, ''what information moel appropriately will answer spceili«. ie',can h mies-tions, and winch strategies arc moM effective foi obtaining It" (l e< ompte tV Prdsste, 1993, p, to) A research design desuibes .1 llcxible set ol guidelines that connects theoretical paradigms to strategies ol inquiry and methods for collecting empirical material, A research design situates researchers in the empirical world and connects them to Specific sites, persons, groups, institutions, and bodies of relevant interpretive material. / 28 J iJ Ü J Ü J J '» i/| UMlOihCllOII im hiding documents and archhrea A research design also specifies how ihe investigator will address the two critical issues ol representation and legitimation. A strategy of inquiry comprises s bundle of skills, assumptions, and practices that researchers employ .is they move from then pai.hhgin to the empirical world. Strategies ol inquiry put paradigms Ol intei pi elation into motion. At the same lime. Strategies of inquiry council the lescarcher to specific methods of collecting and analyzing empirical materials. For example, the case study method relies on interviewing, observing, and document analysis. Research strategics implement and anchor paradigms m specific empirical sites, or in specific methodological practices, such as making a case an object of study. These strategies include the case study, phenomenological and ethnomethodological techniques, as well as the use ol grounded theory, the hiogiapliK.il. historical, action, and clinical methods I ach of these strategies is loiinri trd to a complex literature; CSM h has Sep irate history, exemplary works, and preferred ways foi pulling the strategy into motion. Phase 4: Methods of Colkictimi and Analyzing Empirical Materials The researcher has several met hods for collecting empirical materials,11 ranging from the interview to direct observation, to the analysis of artifacts, documents, and cultural records, to the use of visual materials or personal experience. The researcher may also use a variety of different methods of reading and analyzing interviews or cultural texts, unhiding content, narrative, and scmiotic Strategies. Kited with large amounts of qualitative materials, the investigator seeks ways of managing and interpreting these documents, and here data management methods ami computet assisted models of analysis ni.iy he <»( us,-. Phase 5: The Art of Interpretation Qualitative research is endlessly creative and inter pieiive. The reseat« hei does not just leave the field With mountains ol empiru il materials and then easily write up his or hei findings. Qualitative miei prel.itions are constructed. The researcher first creates a field text consisting of field notes and documents from the Held, what Roger Sanjek (1990, p. 386) calls nidi \mg" and David Plat h (1990, p. .17-1) calls "filework. "The writcr-as- /•i 21 36 0 I i t I i i l I I ___________ TI* lAHOSCAPg OF QUAUTMIVE RESEARCH Interpreter tnovci from this texi to .1 research texts notes and interpreta liona based on tilt field text. This text ll then rc-crcatcd ;is .1 workup interpretive «document ihm cootaini the writer's initial attempts to make •eme out of wl1.1i h« or she has learned, ľmally, the writer pfoduCCi the public text that COinea to the reader. This final lale of the íiclil may assume several forms: confess»mal, realist, impressionistic, critical, Formal, literáty, analytic, grounded theory, and so on (sec Van Maanen, 1988). I he interpret 1 v e practice of making sense nl one's findings is hot h artful and political, ýluliiplľ criteria for evaluating qualitative research now extat, and ihosJ we emphasize stress the situated, relational, ami textual Structures of the ethnographic experience. I here is 110 single interpretive truth. As we argued earlier, there are multiple interpretive communities, culí having its own criteria for evaluating an interpretation! Program evaluation is a major site of qualitative research, and qualitative researchers cin mllticiicc social polky in nuporiani ways. David Mauuhon, in Volume 1, Chapter f, traces the rich history of applied qualitative research in the i m 1*1 sciences. This utihe critical sue where theory, method, praxis, or action, and policy all come together. Qualitative rcscauhfis Oafl isolate target populations, show the immediate effects of certain programs on such groups, m\A isolate the constraints that operate against policy . nanges in such setting!, Action-oriented and clinically oriented qualitative leu-archer* can also create spaces for those who arc studied (ihr other) to speak. The evaluatot becomes the conduit for making such voices heard. Greene, in Volume 1. chapter 13, and Rist, In Volume i, Choptci 14, develop these topics. ♦ Tlie Filih Mumunt: What Comes Next? Marcus, in Volumu I, Chapter 12, argues that we arc already in the post "post" period—pOSt-pOStatructuralism, post -post modernism. What tins means for interpretive, ethnographic practices is Mill not clear, bin n is certain that things w.ill never be the same. Ware in a new age where measv, Uncertain, mullivolced texts, cultural criticism, and new experimental works will become more common, as will more reflexive forms ol field-work, analysis, ami miei textual representation. I he subject «'I "itr final essay in this volume is this "fifth moment." It is true that, as the poet said, the cent« cannot hold. We can reflect on what should be at b new center. 30 »Ji tlUltXtUCltOfl Ums we come lull circle. Hie t hapli'ts in these voluntes take the researcher through every phase of the research act. The contributors examine the relevant histories, controversies, and current practices associated with each p.uadigni, strategy, and method. They also offer projections for the future—where specific paradigms, strategies, or methods will he 10 years from now. In reading the ihapters that follow, it is important to remember lhat the Geld of qualitative i< search is defined by a series of tensions, contradictions, and hesitations. This tension works h.u k and forth between (he broad, doubling postmodern sensibility and the more certain, innre traditional positivist, postpowlivist, and naturalistu comepiions of t Im project. All of the chapters that follow are caught in and .ulit ulate 'his tension. Notes 1. Qualitativ« rtMartfa b» separate and illtliii|iuished histories in edu. e ■ wi)tk,commiiiiKiii«>nvrrt^ho!ogRhii!oiy,orB«n"*'0«*l"^>eí.n>c*JicalKtriKf.a»thio-pulogy, and sociology. 2. Definitions of 1......1 Ol these ternu are in order here, ľotitiviun usertl 1 hat objective accounts of the work! can be Riven. Po$tpoütM$m holdi thai only partially objective accounts of the world can he (uodiiccd.bccauv all methods are flawed. Am« rWrjiMi» hn-ms itiii any system it made ipj> ol a set ol oppovHional caicRories embedded in l.>tii'.ii><'.r. S.....otk» in the Klence ol ilgni »r *.i^n lyitemi .1 Hrucniralisi projecti According to poil$trueturailtm, larifuasa ll an unstable lyaNm ol raferenia, ihm ii 1« Impouibli evtl to iipuite completely llir meaning nl .hi action, ICJIt, M inlcniion. AulMIonVnillM i porary sensibility, developing since Wohl Wit II. laOC plflilcgf I BO llfla aUIBOthft method, or pwadlam Utrmtmntíes h an ■ pproacn 10 the analyiisof texts that ■irctsei how jiiior understanding! and prejudices shape (hr interpretive process. PhiHQtnWQlagy is a complex system o( ideas associated with the worki ol Hnsscrl, f icidcsjijer, Sartre, Merle au-Poniy, and Alfred Schuw. Cultural studies is a complex, interdisciplinary field lhat merges critical theory, feminism, and poststructiiralitm. Í. According 10 Weinstein and Weinstein (ľ'1'I), "Ihr meaning of/»iVo/rw in ľtench popular speech is "someone who works with his (or her) hands and uses drvioiu means CCdaoatcd to ihOM Ol ihr 11.illMiian.' . .. the btttoltH' it pr.Ktical and gets the job done" (p, 161). These aufholt prOVfOC a history of this leim, connecting il to the winlt ..I ihe German wcJoloafii ind ndal theorist (.Ymi-, Simmrl ami, by implication, limuletalre. •I. Here it is relevant to make a divfini lion between fi'iluuipies fhiil me Iliad KfOM disciplines and mrflmdsiliai are used wit hm «Im |p|..... I llwoauthodolotW*, foi example, rmploy ii.ru apptoach as a mrihod. where»« Qiaefl trleclively borrow thai method as a lechnkjoe lor tbali own appKcadons. Harry wolceti (penonal conimnnicai....., i'*'M) siiHK<'»l* this distill« lion, ll is also relevant to make distinctions aniónu topic, metlunl, anil resource. Metbodl i IK br «nulled as topics of iiHiiiiiy—for instance, bow a case smdv |etl 31 40 75 91 90 7 1 63 THE LANDSCAPE OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH done. In this ironic, etlmomeihodological sense, method i* boih a resource and a iífjílc- ol inquiry. 5. Indeed, any attempt m give'" essential definition »I qualitative research tccjuircs .1 qualitative analysis »f tlic circumstances that produce s«cli a definition. 6. In this sense all icscaicli is qualitativen because "the observer is at ilic center ol the research process" (Vidich & I-yman, Volume I, Chapter 2). 7. Sec Lincoln and Guba (1985) for an extension and elaboration of this tradition in the mid-1980s. 8. Olcsen (Volume 1, Chapter 9) identifies three strands of feminist research: mainstream empirical, standpoint and Cultural studies, and posisttuí tutal, postmodern, placing Afroccntric and othfr models of color under the cultural studies and postmodern categories. 9. These, of course, arc our interpretations of ihc.se paradigms and interpretive styles. 10. Empirical materials is the preferred term for what are traditionally described as data. ♦ Relerences AronowltX, S. (19R8). Science as power; Discourse and ideology in modem society. Minneapolis: Univi-isity ol Minnesota 1'ieSS. Atkinson, P. A. (Í990). The ethnographic imagination: Textual constructions of reality. London: Rtnitlcdgc. Batcson, G. (1972). Stepi loan ecology o/mimi New York: Ballantine. Heckcr, II. S. (1970). Problems of inference and proolln participant observation. In H. S. Becker, Sociological work. Chicago: Aldinc. (Reprinted from American Sociological Review. 1958,23, 652-660) Becker, 11. S. (1986). Doing things together. Kvanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. Becker, H.S. (1989). Tricks of the trade. Studies in Symbolic Interaction, 10, 481-490. Becker, H. S. (1993, June 9). "Ire epistcmohgy of qualitative rcscprcb. Paper presented at rhe MacArchur Foundation Conference on Ethnographic Approaches to the Study of Human Behavior, Oakland, CA. Becker, H. S., Gecr, 11., Hughes, E. C, & Sltauss, A. L (1961), Boys in white: Student culture in medical school. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bogdan, R., ôc Taylor, S. J. (1975). Introduction to qualitative research methods: A phenomenological approach to tbc social sciences. New York: John Wiley. Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (1989). Multimethod research: A synthesis of styles. Ncwhnry Park, CA: Sage. Campbell, I J. T., 6c Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Hand McNnlly. (.wy,y \V.(\9$9).Comnuinicationasculture:lMaysa>imediaandsociety. Boston: Uuwiii 11 y nun. Ckourcl, A. V. (1964). Method and measurement in sociology. New York; Free PlBSS. Clifford, J. (1988). The predicament of culture: Twentieth century etlmograplry, literature. and art. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Clifford, J., & Marcus, G. E. (Eds.). (1986). Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press. 32 tyt Introduction Cloiigh, P. T. (1992). Tbeentl(s) of ethnography: From realism to social criticism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Dcnzin, N. K. (1970). Vie research act. Chicago: Aldinc. Dentin, N. K. (197«). Vie research act (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Denxin, N. K. (1989a). Interpretive mteractionism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Dcnzin, N. K. (1989b). The research act (3rd ed.). Englcwoud Clifls, NJ: Prentice Hall. Oilthcy, W. L, (1976). Selected writings. Cambridge: Cambridge Univcrsiry Ptess. (Original work published 1900) Fielding, R G-, &C Fielding, J. L. (1986). Unking data. Beverly I [ills, CA: Sage. Filslcad, W. J. (Ed.). (1970). Qualitative methodology. Chicago: Maikbam. Flick, U. (1992). Triangulation revisited: Strategy of validation or alternative? journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 22, 175198, Fonow, M. M.f & Cook, J. A. (1991). Back to the future: A look at the second wave of feminisecpisiemology and methodology. InM. M. FonowßrJ. A. Cook (Eds.), ßeyrW methodology; Feminist scholarship as lived research (pp. 1-15). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Gecilz, C. (197.1). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books. Geertl, C. {1981). Local knowledge; Further essays in interfiretive anthropology. New Yoik: Basic Books. Gcerrz, C. (1988). Works and lives: The anthropologist as author. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Glaser, B. G. (1992). Emergence vs. forcing: llasics of grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Glaser, B. G., fie Strauss, A. L (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategics for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldinc. Guba, E. G. (1990). The alternative paradigm dialog. In E. G. Cuba (Ed.), The paradigm dialog (pp. 17-30). Newbury Paik, CA: Sage. Hammerslcy, M. (1992). What's tvrong with ethnography f Methodological explorations. London: Roufledgc. Hymes, D. (1980). Educational ethnology. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, í í, 3-8. Latlier.P. (1993). Fertile obsession: Validity after pos[stnicturalism..Socio%í<:ír/yK«r/cr/}', 14, 673-693. LeComptt, M. D., & Preissle, J. (1992). Toward an ethnology of student life in schools and classrooms; Synthesizing the qualitative research tradition. In M. D. LeComptr, W. L. Millroy, & J. Preissle (Eds.), Vie handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 815-859). New York: Academic Press. UCompte, M. D-, Öi Preissle, J., With Tisch, R. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research (2nd ed.). New York: Academic Press. Unlricchia, F., Of. Mclaughlin, T. (lids.). (1990). Critical terms for literary study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lévi-Strau», C. (1966). The savage mind (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Pre«. Lincoln, Y. S. (1993, January 27-2«). Notes toward a fifth generation of evaluation; Lessons from the voiceless, or, Toivarda postmodern politics of evaluation. Paper presented at the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Southeast Evaluation Association, Tallahassee, FL. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 33