Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques

n our chapter for the first edition of the Handbook of Qualitative Research, we focused on the contention among various research paradigms for legitimacy and intellectual and p;uadigmatic hegemony (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). The postmodern paradigms that we discussed (postmodernist critical theory and constructivism) 1 were in contention with the received positivist and postpositivist paradigms for legitimacy, and with one another for intellectual legitimacy. In the half dozen years that have elapsed since that chapter was published, substantial change has occurred in the landscape of social scientific inquiry. On the matter of legitimacy, we observe that readers familiar with the literature on methods and paradigms reflect a high interest in ontologies and epistemologies that differ sharply from those undergirding conventional social science. Second, even those est::~blished professionals trained in quantitative social science (including the two of us) want to learn more about qualitative approaches, because new young professionals being mentored in graduate schools are asking serious questions about and looking for guidance in qualitatively oriented studies and dissertations. Third, the number of qualitative texts, research papers, workshops, and training materials has exploded. Indeed, it would be difficult to miss the distinct turn of the social sciences tow::~rd more interpretive, postmodern, and criticalist practices and theorizing (Bloland, 1989, 1995). This nonpositivist orientation has created a context (surround) in which virtually no study can go unchallenged by proponents of contending paradigms. Further, it

Paradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions, and Emerging Confluences.

Although many critics are reluctant to accept the trustworthiness of qualitative research, frameworks for ensuring rigour in this form of work have been in existence for many years. Guba’s constructs, in particular, have won considerable favour and form the focus of this paper. Here researchers seek to satisfy four criteria. In addressing credibility, investigators attempt to demonstrate that a true picture of the phenomenon under scrutiny is being presented. To allow transferability, they provide sufficient detail of the context of the fieldwork for a reader to be able to decide whether the prevailing environment is similar to another situation with which he or she is familiar and whether the findings can justifiably be applied to the other setting. The meeting of the dependability criterion is difficult in qualitative work, although researchers should at least strive to enable a future investigator to repeat the study. Finally, to achieve confirmability, researchers must take steps to demonstrate that findings emerge from the data and not their own predispositions. The paper concludes by suggesting that it is the responsibility of research methods teachers to ensure that this or a comparable model for ensuring trustworthiness is followed by students undertaking a qualitative inquiry.

/pdf/strategies-for-ensuring-trustworthiness-in-qualitative-49m51pdmkn.pdf

Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects

released a remarkab le report, A Nation at Risk. This Report has s t imulated in the media considerable discussion about the problems in our schools, speculation about the causes, and ass ignment of blame. Astonishingly, f e w of the media reports have focused on the specific f indings and recommendat ions of the Commission. A lmos t none of the med ia reports tells that the Commission i tsel f re frained f rom speculation on causes and f rom assignment of blame. Because of the extraordinary clarity and importance of the Commission's Report, the editors of the Communica t ions decided to reprint the Report's main section in its entirety. We are p leased to present it to you here.

A nation at risk: the imperative for educational reform

A common misconception about sampling in qualitative research is that numbers are unimportant in ensuring the adequacy of a sampling strategy. Yet, simple sizes may be too small to support claims of having achieved either informational redundancy or theoretical saturation, or too large to permit the deep, case-oriented analysis that is the raison-d'etre of qualitative inquiry. Determining adequate sample size in qualitative research is ultimately a matter of judgment and experience in evaluating the quality of the information collected against the uses to which it will be put, the particular research method and purposeful sampling strategy employed, and the research product intended.

Sample size in qualitative research

One criticism about qualitative research is that it is difficult to generalize findings to settings not studied. To explore this issue, I examine three broad arguments for generalizing from data: sample-to-population extrapolation, analytic generalization, and case-to-case transfer. Qualitative research often uses the last argument, but some efforts have been made to use the first two. I suggest that analytic generalization can be very helpful for qualitative researchers but that sample-to-population extrapolation is not likely to be.

/pdf/alternative-arguments-for-generalizing-from-data-as-applied-xvt4avrnni.pdf

Alternative Arguments for Generalizing From Data as Applied to Qualitative Research

The classical qualitative educational research design is the case study. Studies of school life (Cusick, 1973; Wolcott, 1973), of the larger social forces affecting schooling (Ogbu, 1974), and of efforts to promote planned educational change (Smith & Keith, 1971) have used qualitative data in describing a single social setting. Typically, such studies emphasize in-depth description but provide a weak basis for generalization to other settings. The last decade, however, has seen the emergence of a new form of qualitative research, one intended to strengthen its ability to generalize while preserving indepth description. These multisite qualitative studies address the same research question in a number of settings using similar data collection and analysis procedures in each setting. They consciously seek to permit cross-site comparison without necessarily sacrificing within-site understanding. Although having some roots in academic social sciences (e.g., see Clark, 1970; Whiting, 1963; Whiting & Whiting, 1975), multisite qualitative research arose primarily in response to pressures from the federal government in the 1970s for studies that could overcome some of the weaknesses of large quantitative evaluations without being limited by the particularism of the single-site case study. Like many hybrids, it is today quite robust. However, these multisite qualitative studies were typically expensive endeavors and were done for specific policy purposes, which the current federal administration seems neither to value nor to feel it can afford. There are two important reasons for reflecting on the historical development and potential utility of multisite qualitative policy research at this time. Although it is unwelcomed by most social scientists, the current hiatus in commissioning policy research at the federal level provides researchers and policymakers with an opportunity to consider these issues in some detail. Further, the field of policy research has matured to the point where such considerations can be very fruitful. In recent years qualitative researchers have moved beyond the need to defend the legitimacy of their craft in the policy arena (Rist, 1977; Smith, 1978; Stake, 1978). Moreover, quantitative researchers are beginning to acknowledge a role for qualitative research in policy and evaluation studies (Cronbach, 1982; Hoaglin, Light, McPeek, Mosteller, & Stoto, 1982) and to consider the proper balance of qualitative and quantitative techniques (Cook & Reichardt, 1979; Smith & Louis, 1982). In addition, practitioners of multisite qualitative policy research now exhibit sufficient confidence in their craftsmanship to begin a process of public self-criticism with an eye to improving their methods (Firestone & Herriott, 1982; Miles, 1979; Smith & Louis, 1982; Yin, 1981). Efforts to examine multisite

Multisite Qualitative Policy Research: Optimizing Description and Generalizability

The current debate about quantitative and qualitative methods focuses on whether there is a necessary connection between method-type and research paradigm that makes the different approaches incompatible. This paper argues that part of the connection is rhetorical. Quantitative methods express the assumptions of a positvisit paradigm which holds that behavior can be explained through objective facts. Design and instrumentation persuade by showing how bias and error are eliminated. Qualitative methods express the assumptions of a phenomenological paradigm that there are multiple realities that are socially defined. Rich description persuades by showing that the researcher was immersed in the setting and giving the reader enough detail to “make sense” of the situation. While rhetorically different, the results of the two methodologies can be complementary. Examples are drawn from two studies using different methodologies to study the same problem.

/pdf/meaning-in-method-the-rhetoric-of-quantitative-and-dalrxyk4oj.pdf

Meaning in Method: The Rhetoric of Quantitative and Qualitative Research

The push for more complex, intellectually demanding approaches to teaching suggests that teacher commitment will continue to be important for effective education. This article develops a framework for assessing how differential incentive policies affect teacher commitment. It identifies seven key workplace conditions that contribute to teacher commitment: job design characteristics, feedback, autonomy, participation, collaboration, learning opportunities, and resources. This framework is used to assess the effects of such differential incentive policies as merit pay and career ladders. The selection mechanisms in these two programs are found to reduce autonomy and collaboration, but the job enrichment aspects of career ladders are found to increase participation, collaboration, and resources. We recommend combining policies that increase participation, collaboration, and feedback rather than continuing to experiment with differential incentives.

Teacher Commitment, Working Conditions, and Differential Incentive Policies

To examine how performance-based assessment changed mathematics teaching under conditions of moderate and low stakes, we studied middle school teachers in five districts in Maine and Maryland. Our observations suggest that the effects of state testing on teaching may be overrated by both advocates and opponents of such policies. When combined with moderately high stakes and other conditions, such assessments generate considerable activity focused on the test itself. This activity can promote certain changes, like aligning subjects taught with the test. It appears to be less successful, however, in changing basic instructional strategies.

William A. Firestone

Papers

Alternative Arguments for Generalizing From Data as Applied to Qualitative Research

Multisite Qualitative Policy Research: Optimizing Description and Generalizability

Meaning in Method: The Rhetoric of Quantitative and Qualitative Research

Teacher Commitment, Working Conditions, and Differential Incentive Policies

Performance-Based Assessment and Instructional Change: The Effects of Testing in Maine and Maryland.