Running head: ANALYZING FIELDNOTES
Forthcoming, IN: Edward Elgar Handbook of Qualitative Research in Education
Analyzing Fieldnotes: A Practical Guide
Zoё Corwin & Randall F. Clemens
Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis
University of Southern California
3470 Trousdale Parkway, WPH 701D
Los Angeles, CA 90089
(213) 740-7218
zcorwin@usc.edu
rclemens@usc.edu
1
ANALYZING FIELDNOTES
2
Zoë B. Corwin is a qualitative researcher with the Center for Higher Education Policy
Analysis at the University of Southern California. Corwin held Haynes and Spencer
Foundation dissertation fellowships while working on a study examining college access
and persistence for students from foster care. She is currently working on a series of hard
copy and online game-based college access interventions.
Randall F. Clemens is a Dean's Fellow in Urban Education Policy and research assistant
at the Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis at the University of Southern
California. His research focuses on educational reform, policy design, school and
community partnerships, and qualitative research.
ANALYZING FIELDNOTES
3
Analyzing Fieldnotes: A Practical Guide
Fieldnotes are a critical yet often underemphasized component of the research and
writing process. In qualitative research, fieldnotes have long held a significant role in
data collection and analysis. Seldom, however, are fieldnotes the focus of research
methods sections or “how to” guides. Perhaps this is because researchers view fieldnotes
as of minor importance compared to the overall research methodology or methods
(Shank, 2006). Lederman (1990), highlighting the difficulty of categorizing fieldnotes,
writes, “It is no wonder that fieldnotes are hard to think and write about: they are a
bizarre genre. Simultaneously part of the “doing” of fieldwork and of the “writing” of
ethnography, fieldnotes are shaped by two movements: a turning away from academic
discourse to join conversations in unfamiliar settings, and a turning back again” (p. 72).
Fieldnotes at the same time represent the research process and product. And yet, despite
the use of fieldnotes as an essential part of qualitative research, few texts exist in which
the authors fully explore the role and mechanics of fieldnotes, specifically within the field
of education research. Notable exceptions include Emerson, Fretz & Shaw’s (1995)
comprehensive overview Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes and Sanjek’s (1990) edited
volume Fieldnotes: The Making of Anthropology.
In this chapter, we present a synthesis of pertinent literature regarding fieldnotes
and then offer a detailed description of how to analyze fieldnotes. The first section
summarizes the philosophical and theoretical underpinnings of fieldnotes in qualitative
research and is intended to highlight the interrelated nuances of collecting and analyzing
fieldnotes. The second section shares concrete examples from a large scale qualitative
ANALYZING FIELDNOTES
4
research project to illustrate the mechanics of analyzing fieldnotes during and after data
collection. The ultimate goal of the chapter is to illustrate that analyzing fieldnotes is a
process that begins from the moment one conceptualizes a study.
Defining fieldnotes
Much of qualitative research requires keen, detailed, and reflective observations
of social settings. Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw (1995) describe ethnographic field research
as involving two components: “First, the ethnographer enters into a social setting and gets
to know the people involved in it…second, the ethnographer writes down in regular,
systematic ways what she observes and learns while participating in the daily rounds of
life of others” (p. 1). To record what they observe in the field, qualitative researchers rely
on fieldnotes, or “detailed, nonjudgmental (as much as possible), concrete descriptions of
what has been observed” (Marshall & Rossman, 2011, p. 139). Most often, fieldnotes
chronicle settings, people, and activities (Merriam, 1988). High quality and carefully
constructed fieldnotes provide “thick description” in which a researcher not only
describes behavior but the context as well, thereby focusing on how people make
meaning of their social worlds (Geertz, 1973). Fieldnotes can provide a portal from the
reader to the research setting. For a discussion about the anthropological approach to
ethnographic work, including collecting fieldnotes through extended fieldwork see
chapter 3 of this volume (qv, Mills).
Writing fieldnotes is a selective and active process. Accordingly, “the first stage
of conventional, textual representation is the construction of fieldnotes” (Atkinson, p.89).
As a researcher observes a social phenomenon or location, she determines what to
ANALYZING FIELDNOTES
5
include in the fieldnotes; this process affects how she constructs and describes the social
world. Stated in another way, fieldnotes are “authored representations of ongoing social
life” (Emerson, 2001).
Content and style of fieldnotes vary among researchers and projects. The content
of fieldnotes are determined by a myriad of factors, including research questions, site
selection, participants, and length and time of study. Fieldnotes might be collected for a
project with solely one researcher or for a project involving a team of researchers from
the same or different institutions. Some researchers include charts, diagrams, and pictures
in their notes; others write minute details of social interactions or settings they have
observed; and still others opt for using uniform observational protocols that can be shared
among researchers. Some researchers choose to limit their fieldnotes to recording
observations of setting and activities while others include more personal notations in the
margins or in an additional column. Researchers may choose to integrate their own
reactions and perceptions into the core of their fieldnote writing. “Jottings” taken down in
the field serve to remind researchers of significant actions or possible connections to
larger themes (see Emerson et al., 2001 and Saldana, 2009). In some instances,
researchers indicate reflections through the notation “OC” (observer’s comments) that
incorporate “researcher’s feelings, reactions, hunches, initial interpretations, and working
hypothesis” (Merriam, 1988, p. 98). Some researchers maintain records solely through
hand written notes while others rely on much more systematic and clearly typed up notes.
For an interesting discussion of what to include in fieldnotes see DeVries (qv).
ANALYZING FIELDNOTES
6
The nature of the data collection site, composition of research team, and topic of
query influence when and how notes are recorded and written. While there is no
prescribed format for fieldnotes, effective fieldnotes do involve an awareness of how data
are being collected and recorded, including acknowledging the role of the researcher in
that process. Take, for example, a study analyzing the social networks of drug dependent
teenagers. Even after they have given consent to participate in the study, might a
researcher and notepad significantly affect the types of behaviors and conversations in
which the informants engage? How does the personal background of the researcher (e.g.
age, race, gender) potentially affect data? Will research informants change their behavior
because of the note taking process? Many aspects of data collection have significant
implications for the ultimate trustworthiness of study findings. Analyzing fieldnotes
begins with an awareness of how research design and methods can influence data
collection and analysis. In the next section, we draw a connection between the theoretical
underpinnings of qualitative research and their influence on fieldnotes.
Understanding Fieldnotes
Acknowledging the underlying paradigmatic assumptions that affect the way a
researcher approaches each step of qualitative research is as important as understanding
the mechanics of collecting fieldnotes. The purpose of acknowledging the foundational
concepts in qualitative inquiry is not to devolve into an overly theoretical discussion
removed from practical considerations. Instead, we attempt to highlight the importance of
understanding one’s own perspective and positionality and the related implications for
the research process.
ANALYZING FIELDNOTES
7
Every researcher either knowingly or unknowingly adopts the conventions of one
or multiple paradigms. Put simply, a paradigm is a worldview.1 Paradigms range from
positivist to constructivist, from believing an absolute, knowable reality exists to
believing in a restricted, socially constructed reality. Each worldview contains its own set
of ontological questions—how is reality defined, and what does existence mean—and
epistemological questions—what is knowledge, and what is the relationship between the
knower and the known. Other key questions relate to methodology and axiology. For
instance, what phenomena does a researcher investigate and how, and what criteria does
she use to judge their inquiry? Based on one’s own beliefs, the answers to these questions
may vary drastically.
The researcher’s own paradigmatic associations have important implications for
the way she approaches research in general and fieldnotes in particular. For instance, an
individual who situates himself or herself within a positivist epistemological framework
believes in fieldnotes as a method to obtain truth (Kvale, 2007). A postmodernist, in
contrast, believes fieldnotes to be constructions or, using Clifford Geertz’s (1973)
language, “fictions,” because they are recreations of authentic acts. Similarly, a positivist
may seek input from subjects about the content of fieldnotes in order to ensure the
validity of data whereas a critical theorist may use fieldnotes as a venue to facilitate an
evolving dialogue between researcher and participant.
Using Fieldnotes to Improve Trustworthiness
1
For a more in-depth treatment of paradigms, see Kuhn (1970) and, for a description of qualitative
paradigms, see Eisner (1990), Smith, (1990), and Guba and Lincoln (2005).
ANALYZING FIELDNOTES
8
The caliber of fieldnotes has significant implications for data analysis and
presentation. In the previous section, we discussed paradigms and the basic categories
that define them, including ontological, epistemological, and methodological.
Trustworthiness answers an axiological question by providing criteria to judge qualitative
research.2 Considering the process and product of research, fieldnotes can improve the
trustworthiness of data (Guba, 1981; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Sanjek, 1990) and limit
misunderstanding from the text (Wolcott, 1990). Member checks and triangulation are
two strategies that the researcher can use to improve the rigor of research. Ethnographic
fieldnotes provide a helpful tool for member checks. By sharing fieldnotes and seeking
input from informants about how data collected represents their experiences, fieldnotes
can ensure more accurate data collection and analysis by the researcher (LeCompte &
Goetz, 1982). Fieldnotes also allow for triangulation with alternative data sources, like
interviews and document analysis, in order to reduce researcher bias and improve
credibility (Guba, 1981). In relation to creating a useful archive of data—what Lincoln
and Guba (1985) refer to as a research audit—fieldnotes fulfill a vital role, along with
research diaries, memorandums, and interview transcripts. Lastly, descriptive fieldnotes
minimize the chances that readers will misinterpret the text (Wolcott, 1990) and
maximize the transferability—analogous to the quantitative concept of generalizability—
of the research (Guba, 1981). Fieldnotes, whether quoted or summarized in the final
2
Trustworthiness (Guba, 1981; Lincoln & Guba, 1985) establishes criteria for rigorous research. The four
criteria are credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. They are qualitative responses to
criteria for quantitative research—internal validity, external validity, internal reliability, and external
reliability. If the reader is interested in reading further about on-going discussions about criteria for
qualitative research, we suggest beginning with Eisenhart and Howe (1992), and Lincoln (2001), and
Tierney and Clemens (Qv).
ANALYZING FIELDNOTES
9
product, allow for thick description (Geertz, 1973) in a text and permit the reader to
vicariously experience the research setting. By presenting rich data, the researcher
enables the reader to make an informed decision about whether or not the research may
be applied to her own studies, a key concern of transferability.
Questions to Consider Prior to Entering the Field (with Implications for Analysis)
[to be included in a box / insert]






How will I record my observations?
What tools / supplies do I need (e.g. paper, pencil, tape recorder, camera)?
How often will I take fieldnotes?
Where and when will I write down fieldnotes?
o Will the act of jotting down cause people in the social setting to act
differently?
When will I begin to code data, and how might that coding process affect
subsequent observations?
How does my own positionality affect what I might choose to write down?
Analyzing Fieldnotes
Data analysis entails a process of translation and negotiation when data collection
and analysis often occur concurrently. Multiple techniques exist to analyze data,
including content analysis, discourse analysis, grounded theory, and narrative analysis
(Kvale, 2007). We acknowledge the value of each of these lenses to analyze data. For the
purposes of clarity in this article, however, we adopt a grounded theory approach that
emphasizes theory generation as a product of data collection (Charmaz, 2001; Charmaz,
2006; Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
The mainstay of most qualitative analysis involves coding data. Like fieldnotes,
coding purposes and strategies vary across methods, projects, and researchers.
Nevertheless, the overarching goal of coding is to move from “unstructured and messy
ANALYZING FIELDNOTES
10
data to ideas about what is going on in the data” (Richards & Morse, 2007, 133). Codes
enable researchers to describe data, categorize data by topic, draw connections, and,
consequently, develop theoretical concepts and identify themes (Richards & Morse,
2007).3
Once a researcher collects fieldnotes, she then codes data based on discrete
categories (as illustrated below in the “Examining Fieldnotes” section). Gibbs (2007)
offers a helpful list of items that may be coded:4
1. Specific acts, behaviors
2. Events
3. Activities
4. Strategies, practices or tactics
5. States
6. Meanings (including concepts, significance, symbols)
7. Participation
8. Relationships or interactions
9. Conditions or constraints
10. Consequences
11. Settings
12. Reflections on researcher’s role in the research process
3
See Richards & Morse (2007) for a discussion of the different types of codes, how to use them and how to
manage codes.
4
See Gibbs (2007) for a more comprehensive description of coding that includes examples.
ANALYZING FIELDNOTES
11
Items coded are guided by the research question(s) and increasingly focused inquiry.
While the researcher may start with a broad range of observable data, the categories
should decrease as data collection proceeds.
When a research project involves multiple researchers, coding involves a more
lengthy process of identifying codes and discussing themes together. A group based
analytic process creates an opportunity for colleagues to clarify, make connections and
think through concepts with the support, critique and insight of other informed
researchers. Due to the varying perspectives participating in the analysis of data, multiresearcher analysis has the potential to enhance the trustworthiness of findings in contrast
to a lone researcher who runs the risk of missing key themes when working in isolation.
For researchers analyzing data alone, robust literature reviews and member checking
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985) can mitigate the potential to overlook key codes and themes.
Examining Fieldnotes
To illustrate one possible way to analyze data, we provide a step-by-step review
of how a team of researchers analyzed fieldnotes for a large-scale qualitative project. In
doing so, we aim to illustrate how analysis is not just a culminating step in the life-course
of a study, but rather plays an integral role in the entire research process. It is imperative
to note that while we present the steps below in a linear format, steps often occur in a
simultaneous, recursive process and various phases of the research process inform each
other.
Background. In 2005, researchers from the Center for Higher Education Policy
Analysis at the University of Southern California conducted a qualitative study funded by
ANALYZING FIELDNOTES
12
the U. S. Department of Education to determine the key characteristics of effective
college preparation programs. Six researchers, split among sites in California, collected
data at twelve high schools during the course of three school years. Researchers used a
case study approach (Stake, 1995) to examine differences and similarities in program
implementation and effectiveness. Data collection entailed observations of a wide variety
of school events and extracurricular activities as well as interviews and focus groups with
students, teachers, administrators, and family members. Data collection was extensive,
spanning multiple sites, informants, and researchers. Researchers relied heavily on
fieldnotes to record observations, share data, and discuss emerging findings with the
research team. Findings were summarized for academic, practitioner, and policymaker
audiences. Using an inductive approach to hypothesis generation, grounded theory guided
the overall approach to the study (Charmaz, 2001; Charmaz, 2007; Glaser and Strauss,
1967).
Steps guiding data collection and analysis. In what follows, we outline the key
components of the research process for the college access study and highlight how each
phase influenced the analysis of fieldnotes.
Step one: Research questions. The first step related to analysis involved
reviewing literature related to the topic in order to inform the study’s research
questions. Our goal was to identify major topics highlighted in discussions of college
access in order to provide a focus for our observations. Major topics of interest included
academic preparation, guidance, peers, family, mentors, culture, extracurricular activities,
the timing of interventions, and the cost effectiveness of programs. There were two initial
ANALYZING FIELDNOTES
13
overarching research questions: First, what role do students’ social support networks play
in college preparation? And second, what elements in a college preparation program
facilitate college preparedness?
Step two: Site selection. Before we started collecting data, we had to identify sites
that would provide rich sources of data. This step entailed researching and analyzing the
demographics at each site and developing relationships with administrators in order to
secure access. These two steps were critical to ensuring that the case study sites would
allow for the collection and analysis of robust data and therefore contribute to the
trustworthiness of data.
Step three: Initial data collection. For the initial phase of data collection,
researchers took notes about the activities and social interactions that transpired during
the site visits. Fieldnotes across researchers lacked uniformity when initially written in
notebooks. In most cases, one researcher would not be able to read the notations of the
others. After researchers typed up their notes, we were able to share what we had written.
Due to the benign nature of the study, we opted to clarify our presence in the classroom,
explaining to students in general terms why we spent time with them. Consequently, students
were at ease when researchers took notes. Researchers dressed in attire that was appropriate for
the school environment, i.e. clothes a teacher would wear as opposed to business attire, and
usually positioned themselves in the back of the room, thereby minimizing the distraction of
additional adults in the classroom. Perhaps most relevant to implications for the trustworthiness
of the study, the longitudinal nature of the study meant that students became familiar and at ease
with the researchers’ presence in the classroom.
ANALYZING FIELDNOTES
14
Step four: Generation of fieldnotes. A considerably time intensive facet of the
research process, and one critical to data analysis, involved typing up fieldnotes. Typing
up fieldnotes was initially essential so that researchers could read each other’s notes and
so that notes could be entered into a qualitative data analysis program (described below).
At this stage, researchers also started to tease out significant themes and reflected
on their observations. Saldana (2009) describes a process of “preliminary jottings” when
researchers begin the coding process as they write up fieldnotes. In preliminary jottings,
researchers start to write potential codes in the margins of notes or transcripts or in
separate analytic memos to return to later. These notes assist researchers to develop codes
in later stages of analysis. Saldana (2009) cautions researchers to “be wary of relying on
your memory for future writing. Get your thoughts, however fleeting, documented in
some way” (p.17). For the college access project, researchers kept a list of preliminary
codes that were later shared with the research team in group meetings. Preliminary codes
informed the first phase of data analysis.
Step five: Initial data analysis. After fieldnotes were typed up and shared,
researchers embarked on the process of identifying and defining initial codes. We used a
data-driven approach for the first phase of analysis during which we attempted to let the
data illustrate what was happening as opposed to imposing an existing theory on the data
(Glaser & Strauss, 1967). This process is also known as open or emic coding (Bernard &
Ryan, 2010; Gibbs, 2009; Gough & Scott, 2000). At this point in data analysis,
researchers coded fieldnote data by hand. We developed a code list and identified nine
ANALYZING FIELDNOTES
15
major themes that we wanted to highlight during subsequent data collection.
Excerpt from fieldnotes with open codes
Observations
Students were given a
problem set of SAT-type
questions to work on. One
student didn’t begin for a
while because he didn’t
have a pencil.
The advisor suggested that
students “shouldn’t need
help” and that they should
work by themselves.
A prize was offered to the
first person to turn in their
answers.
Advisor asked the
whereabouts of specific
students. The other students
present knew where most
students were.
Throughout the meeting, 8
students filtered in late.
Most stayed the whole (25
min.) session. A small
group came and the end of
the session, signed in and
then left
Data-driven codes
-ACTIVITY
Observer Comments
-SUPPLIES
-PARTICIPATION
-Was the student unprepared?
Or could he not afford the
necessary supplies?
ADVISOR/LEADERSHIP -What if students did need
STYLE
help?
-INCENTIVES
-PEERS
-EXPECTATIONS
-PARTICIPATION
-Why was the incentive
necessary? What type of
message does this send to
students?
- The students appear to be a
tight-knit group.
-Useful to track attendance
and punctuality over time
Step six: Additional data collection. Due to the complex nature of data collection
(multi-researcher, multi-site), we opted to use an observational protocol across
observations for the secondary phase of data collection. Subsections of the protocol
included:
o
Background / setting
o
People in attendance
ANALYZING FIELDNOTES
o
Agenda / Points discussed / Activities observed
o
Evidence of themes
o
Insights / themes / policy implications
o
Questions to follow up
16
Under “evidence of themes,” researchers recorded notes on the major themes identified
during the literature review and initial coding: academic preparation, extracurricular
activities, guidance, peers, family, mentors, and culture. The observational protocol
facilitated analysis of data because it focused the researchers’ observations on specific
themes and simplified cross-site analysis because researchers collected robust data on
similar themes.
Step seven: Detailed coding. After subsequent stages of collecting data and
writing up fieldnotes over the course of several months, we started to enter fieldnote
write-ups into Atlas.ti, a qualitative software analysis tool. The tool allowed the research
team to code large amounts of data in a systematic way. With an advanced literature
review complete (see Tierney, Corwin, & Colyar, 2005) and considerable amount of data
collected, the research team shifted our analysis approach to a primarily concept-driven
approach, also known as etic coding (Gough & Scott, 2000). By organizing data
according to concepts from the literature, we were able to narrow our analysis and make
it applicable to the literature. Gibbs (2009) points out that data driven and concept driven
coding are not mutually exclusive, “most researchers move backwards and forwards
between both sources of inspiration during their analysis” (p.46).
Excerpt from fieldnotes with concept-driven codes
ANALYZING FIELDNOTES
Observations
When we arrived, the
counseling coordinator
announced that she was
available to meet with
students one-on-one to work
on their college essays.
One student followed up
with her.
When asked, one senior
knew that the college
application deadline was
Friday.
The advisor told students
they need to turn everything
in online. He told students
that sometimes the computer
system crashes on the
deadline day, suggesting
that students could turn in
materials a day late.
17
Data-driven codes
Observer Comments
- COUNSELOR AS
INSTITUTIONAL AGENT
-COLLEGE SUPPORT
-PARTICIPATION
-INSTITUTIONAL
DEADLINES
-LOW COLLEGE
KNOWLEDGE
-Why did only one student
follow up? Preparedness or lack
of comfort?
-TECHNOLOGY
-MISINFORMATION
-DETRIMENTAL ADVICE
-ADULT AS GATEKEEPER
-Follow up to see when students
turned in applications
Step eight: Identification of themes. After a close reading of the fieldnotes and
transcripts and engaging in line by line coding, the research team turned to expanding
connections and identifying themes. Atlas.ti proved helpful in these conversations
because we were able to print out reports according to codes. We could, for example,
print out all excerpts from the text that pertained to “peers.” Seeing all data related to a
particular theme was helpful to analysis. While Atlas.ti (and software analysis tools
MAXQDA, NVivo, and Hyperresearch) offers functions to map out connections between
themes, the research team opted to explore and expand upon themes in verbal
discussions.
ANALYZING FIELDNOTES
18
Step nine: Trustworthiness. In order to make sure that study findings were
trustworthy, researchers shared excerpts from fieldnotes and emerging findings with
research participants. Participants were asked if fieldnotes and findings reflected their
experiences accurately. In addition, researchers triangulated data by conducting
observations, interviews, and focus groups with various stakeholder groups, e.g. students,
teachers, administrators, counselors, and family members. This was a critical step as
themes that emerged through triangulated data and feedback from participants affected
follow-up data collection and analysis.
Step ten: Presentation of findings. Writing up findings entailed a different focus
of analysis. We first had to determine the audience for study results and then the best way
to communicate findings to that audience. While the themes identified as salient did not
change across audiences, presentation of data varied depending on whether a publication
was intended for academic, practitioner, or policymaker audiences. Federal reports
summarized findings and incorporated charts and tables; academic articles included rich
data with thick descriptions and quotes from study informants; and practitioner
monographs presented data in concise ways that included illustrative quotes. To see how
the research team incorporated data from fieldnotes and analysis in narrative form, see
Urban High School Students and the Challenge of Access: Many Routes, Difficult Paths
(Tierney & Colyar, 2009).
Conclusion
Presentation of data follows the culmination of hours of diligent and methodical
data collection and analysis. As with the research process, no one correct way exists to
ANALYZING FIELDNOTES
19
present data. The manner in which fieldnotes are presented, however, has significant
implications for the analysis of data from the reader’s perspective. Consider how the
reader interprets data when she reads direct excerpts from fieldnotes versus summaries of
observations. While both examples are textual representations, readers react differently to
data depending on its presentation. Bourgois and Schonberg’s (2009) recent
photoethnography, Righteous Dopefiend, for instance, offers a compelling example of
fieldnotes in a text. The reader learns by reading actual fieldnotes and examining
photographs interspersed between the authors’ analysis about the lives of heroin addicts
living on the streets of San Francisco. The book invokes lively classroom discussions
when we have pushed students to consider how the text might be different without the
inclusion of their rich, detailed fieldnotes?
Presentation of data depends on multiple factors, including the intent of the
author, data available, audience, and publication type. In concluding this text, we want to
highlight the potential of fieldnotes to elevate the imaginative possibilities of data
presentation. Focusing attention to the collection, analysis, and presentation of fieldnotes
heightens the potential of researchers to fulfill key purposes of qualitative inquiry—to
illuminate and provoke, to address social issues and provide alternative solutions. The
creative, thoughtful, and purposeful treatment of fieldnotes increases the likelihood that
the researcher will connect the reader to researched in meaningful ways.
ANALYZING FIELDNOTES
20
References
Atkinson, P. (2001). Ethnography and the representation of reality. In R.M. Emerson
(Ed.), Contemporary Field Research (2nd ed., pp. 89-101). Long Grove, IL:
Waveland Press.
Bernard, H.R., & Ryan, G.W. (2010). Analyzing qualitative research: Systematic
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bourgois, P., & Schonberg, J. (2009). Righteous Dopefiend. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Charmaz, K. (2001). Grounded Theory. In R.M. Emerson (Ed.), Contemporary Field
Research (2nd ed., pp. 335-352). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through
qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Eisenhart, M.A., & Howe, K.R. (1992). Validity in educational research. In M.D.
LeCompte, W.L. Millroy & J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative
research in education. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Eisner, E.W. (1990). The meaning of alternative paradigms for practice. In E.G. Guba
(Ed.), The Paradigm Dialog (pp. 88-104). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Emerson, R.M. (2001). Fieldwork practice: Issues in participant observation. In R.M.
Emerson (Ed.), Contemporary Field Research (2nd ed., pp. 113-152). Long
Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
Emerson, R.M., Fretz, R.I., & Shaw, L.L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
ANALYZING FIELDNOTES
21
Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In The
interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic.
Gibbs, G.R. (2007). Analyzing qualitative data. Los Angeles: Sage.
Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
Gough, S., & Scott, W. (2000). Exploring the purposes of qualitative data coding in
educational enquiry: Insights from recent research. Educational Studies, 26, 339354.
Guba, E.G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries.
Educational Communication and Technology, 29(2), 75-91.
Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and
emerging confluences. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of
qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 191-215). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
LeCompte, M.D., & Goetz, J.P. (1982). Problems of reliability and validity in
ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research, 52(1), 31-60.
Lederman, R. (1990). Pretexts for ethnography: On reading fieldnotes. In R. Sanjek (Ed.),
Fieldnotes: The making of anthropology (pp. 71-91). Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
Lincoln, Y.S. (2001). Varieties of validity: Quality in qualitative research. In J. Smart &
W.G. Tierney (Eds.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp.
25-72). New York: Agathon Press.
Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
ANALYZING FIELDNOTES
22
Marshall, C. & Rossman, G.B. (2011). Designing qualitative research. (5th ed.). Los
Angeles: Sage.
Kvale, S. (2007). Doing interviews. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kuhn, T.S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Richards, L. & Morse, J. M. (2007). Readme first for a user’s guide to qualitative
methods(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Saldana, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Sanjek, R. (1990). On ethnographic validity. In R. Sanjek (Ed.), Fieldnotes: The makings
of anthropology (pp. 385-418). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Shank, G.D. (2006). Observing. Qualitative research: A personal skills approach. (2nd
ed.) (pp. 21-37). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Smith, J.K. (1990). Alternative research paradigms and the problem of criteria. In E. G.
Guba (Ed.), The Paradigm Dialog (pp. 167-197). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Stake, R.E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tierney, W.G., & Clemens, R.F. (in press). Qualitative research and public policy: The
challenges of relevance and trustworthiness. In J. Smart (Ed.), Overview of higher
education: Handbook of theory and research. New York: Agathon Press.
Tierney, W.G. & Colyar, J.E. (2009). Urban high school students and the challenges of
access: Many routes, difficult paths. New York: Peter Lang.
ANALYZING FIELDNOTES
23
Tierney, W.G., Corwin, Z.B., & Colyar, J.E. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing for college: Nine
elements of effective outreach. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Wolcott, H.F. (1990). On seeking--and rejecting--validity in qualitative research. In E.
Eisner & A. Peshkin (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry in education: The continuing
debate (pp. 121-152). New York: Teachers College Press.