Overview of Qualitative Methods
Qualitative inquiry cultivates the most useful of all human capacities - the capacity to learn
from others.
This is a "methods" course. As such, students will be required to engage in real research. This
differs from a "methodology" course in which we would be more likely to discuss and critique
various methods, their theoretical underpinnings, and the ramifications of their use.
Qualitative researchers study people by observing them in their natural settings, or by analyzing
the cultural symbols they use. We attempt to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of
the meanings people bring to them. Qualitative research brings together a variety of empirical
materials (case study, personal experience, life story, interview, participant observation,
historical, and visual texts) that describe routine and problematic moments and meanings in
individuals' lives. Our end product is a collage of images, understandings, and interpretations of
the phenomenon under study. This collage will connect the parts and stress the meaningful
relationships that operate in the environment under study.
I have tried to design the course in a way that allows for the accumulation of necessary
knowledge and skills early enough in the semester to leave ample time to complete the major
research project. It is imperative that we “hit the ground running.” A fairly complete description
of each of the course requirements can be found on the assignments page. Here I simply want to
paint a picture of the course in broad strokes.
Clearly, the centerpiece of the course (and your grade) is the final research project that you will
accomplish. The purpose of the assignment is to gain the valuable experiences associated with an
entire research process. The culmination of the project must be a completed journal article
(appropriate for submission for publication) of approximately 25 pages.
To make it possible for you to produce a high quality piece of research, it is absolutely necessary
for us to learn at least one way of doing research that has a proven track record for effectiveness.
This is the reason I am requiring ethnographic interviews. The series of steps we will follow,
though not the consummate field technique, is generally recognized, in one form or another, as a
basic starting point for qualitative studies. It resembles closely what Glaser and Strauss (1967)
call the “Grounded Theory Method” and its structure is well accepted. We need to have a plan
for organizing the immense amount of information that is accumulated in this type of research. If
there is one thing all qualitative researchers agree on (and it may be the only thing), it is that we
produce a mountain of data. Organizing all these data and sifting through to find significant
patterns can be a daunting task. James Spradley has put together a series of steps that take us
through the interview process in a way that makes sense. The skills learned in interviewing are
very applicable to other qualitative approaches including field observations, content analysis, and
archival searches.
Each week we will discuss whatever readings are scheduled to be sure we get the very most from
the authors. Most importantly, we will discuss YOUR projects. It is only through actual practice
that you will gain the skill and confidence necessary to complete your project. By discussing
your experiences and sharing thoughts, feelings, successes, and tribulations, you increase your
overall understanding of the craft and, therefore, your chances of producing a quality project.
Like any other graduate course in higher education, your success is very dependent on your
staying current. There is little chance of “cramming” at the last minute. If you come to a session
unprepared, it is a form of double jeopardy. Not only is it difficult to clear up any problems you
may be facing with the past material, there is every reason to believe that the new material will
not be easily understood. In addition, your voice will not be included in the important discussion
that will ensue. In effect, your peers also loose out. On a more pragmatic note, this course
requires roughly 9-10 hours a week (average) of outside time. If you devote only 1 hour per
week for the first ten weeks (a common occurrence, unfortunately), then you will be faced with
the incredible task of accomplishing approximately ninety hours of work in the final five weeks.
When in doubt, observe and ask questions.
When certain, observe at length and ask many more questions.
FIVE ASSUMPTIONS
"It's time for a dose of reality."
"Come back to reality."
"Eventually reality sets in."
"Get real!"
We've all heard some of these; perhaps we've uttered them from time to time. What do we mean
when we say these things? Most would agree that we're saying that there are some things that
actually exist and others that are figments of imagination, deception, or hallucination. In a more
common usage, we are probably saying that there is a difference between the world as is and the
world as it could or should (according to someone) be.
"What is real?" This was one of the central questions for the ancient philosophers whose ideas
we've all at least touched upon at some time in our lives. I guess we could add "...as opposed to
hallucination?" in order to get a clearer notion of what's at stake here. There was a prevailing
idea that everything we see about us was ultimately reducible to some basic (primordial) "stuff."
In other words, everything that is known is composed of this stuff, which can combine in various
ways to give us the total variety of what we call the universe. This stuff was, then, the final
"reality." Once we could discover it, we would have gotten to the bottom of explaining
everything, because the stuff could not be divided any further. The Greek word "atom" means,
literally, not dividable.
Lively debate raged over the character of this stuff. Some said it was matter (materialists) and
some said it was mind (idealists). Others even said it was some of each and still others said there
was no such thing as the stuff. While these and other questions are profoundly interesting and
surely important to the discipline of philosophy, they have more limited, but still very important
implications for us as social researchers. When we say that we are pursuing a "philosophy of
science" we are saying that we are examining the same puzzles that tantalized the ancients. For
example: What is real? How do we tell reality from fantasy (illusion)?
As researchers we are committed to finding out “what’s really going on” as opposed to reporting
illusions. However, going after what’s really going on assumes we have a sense for what reality
is before we start out. This is the ontological question as it relates to our current quest in SOC
608. We need to have a working understanding of ontology, as well as epistemology and
axiology, in order to better understand the various decisions that have to be made along the road
to designing a research project that will, in fact, bring us closer to apprehending what’s really
going on. Quite a few of the nuts-and-bolts issues that we will face along the way are decided
based, in part, on the assumptions we are bringing to the project. We will also discover that
many of the dilemmas we encounter in our own work are often the result of an internal
contradiction between assumptions embedded in our personal paradigm (view/perspective) that
would remain problematic without some way to diagnose our procedural decisions. Such
mundane matters as constructing a survey question or organizing field notes rest on basic
assumptions regarding:
what is real and knowable
what we must do in order to know
what is worth knowing and why
what techniques will lead to fruitful inquiries, and
how best to share our research with others.
Several thousand years of development and debate are on the table when we take up these points.
This short presentation will not begin to do justice to the depth, breadth, and complexity of these
assumptions. In fact, I am quite sure our colleagues from the philosophy department would find
this monograph extremely simplistic. That said, my defense of simplicity is clear: We need only
the products of the philosophers’ debates, in usable form, in order to begin our work, which is
different enough from theirs that we must part ways somewhere. As an analogy, we part ways
with the mathematicians once we have adequate knowledge and skills in statistical work. We
also move along a different path than the journalist, historian, and anthropologist, though we
borrow much from them and then reconstruct what we borrow to meet our specific needs. In
fairness to our own discipline, we also contribute to their endeavors and again, our tools and
techniques are customized to take whatever form needed.
What we are developing is a kind of map of the major inquiry (research) paradigms in sociology.
Paradigms are the basic beliefs that lie behind and support legitimate inquiry. The assumptions
that most clearly reveal the underlying paradigm are: ontological, epistemological, axiological,
methodological, and rhetorical. Various writers differ on the logical order for examining these
assumptions. Almost all agree that the first point in need of critique is the ontological question:
what is the form and nature of reality and, therefore, what is there that can be known about it?
Most scholars also agree that the next logical question is the epistemological one: What is the
relationship between the researcher (knower) and that which can be known? Who can produce
knowledge?
From here there is some disagreement on the relative importance on the remaining assumptions.
For our purposes, the axiological question occupies the third position. This is the question of the
place of values, both those of the researcher and of the researched, in the research process.
Fourth, the methodological question is: which research techniques will best serve the researcher
in looking for what can be known?
Finally, what is the most appropriate language and voice to be used in reporting the results of
inquiry? This is the rhetorical question.
It probably comes as no surprise that these fundamental issues are inter-related and interdependent. At the core of one’s paradigm is the central question of what constitutes reality.
Clearly, this sets the framework for the other questions.
There are several inquiry paradigms in existence from which we could select in order to
investigate the social world. They range from the classic positivist perspective to the
constructivist perspective of symbolic interactionism. As with the philosophical questions, I will
try to simplify our task without losing the important aspects that will shape our course. Keep in
mind that everything included in my typology is a synthesis and simplification, though hopefully
a useful one.
THE QUANTITATIVE PARADIGM
Ontological assumption: There is a reality that can be apprehended. We can determine “the way
things are” and, often, discover the cause effect relations behind social reality. At the least, we
can find meaningful indicators of what is “really” happening.
Epistemological assumption: The investigator and the object of investigation are independent
from each other and the object can be researched without being influenced by the researcher.
Any possible researcher influence can be anticipated, detected, and accounted for (controlled).
Axiological assumption: Values are excluded from the research process. They are considered
confounding variables-phenomena that cloud our view of reality.
Methodological assumption: The most prevalent methods used include experiments, quasiexperiments, and other hypothesis-testing techniques. Meaningful phenomena are
operationalized by determining variables that can be accurately measured.
Rhetorical assumption: The research is written from the perspective of the disinterested scientist.
Typically, our report is couched in mathematical terms.
THE QUALITATIVE PARADIGM
Ontological assumption: Realities are constructed by the social actors. These realities are relative
in that no reality is considered more “true” than any other; they may be more or less well
informed within the context of the social actors’ lives.
Epistemological assumption: The researcher interacts with the object of research and can affect
that object. Findings are created through interaction between researcher and researched.
Axiological assumption: Values have a privileged position. Often, there is a value-laden purpose
to the research. The researcher is not reluctant to be openly passionate about pursuing the
project.
Methodological assumption: The meanings of the social actors can only be discovered through
close interaction between the researcher and respondents. The aim is to work toward a
construction of the social milieu that is consistent with the experiences of the participants.
Methods include long term observations, in depth interviews and content analysis of documents.
Rhetorical assumption: The research is often written in the first person, indicating an involved,
even passionate investigator. Possibly, an appeal is made for action to correct a social ill.
SOME MODELS
Thomas Theorem: What we believe to be real will be real in its consequences.
Traditional (Deductive) Research
Puzzle (what is association
Qualitative (Inductive) research
Puzzle (How do ... define
between X&Y?)
Hypothesis
Operationalization
Choose Method
Pre-Test
Evaluate Method
Choose Sample
Measure
Consolidate Results
Test Hypothesis
•••
There is a "truth" that can be found
Distant researcher is the expert
Value-free
Reported in numbers
•••
Q1 -> A1
their experiences?)
Choose primary method
Begin Collecting Data
Generate Theory
•••
The "truth" we seek is that of the informants
Involved researcher is the "student"
Value-ridden
Reported in words
•••
Q -> A -> Q -> A
Q2 -> A2
etc.
etc.
Analyze First Data for possible themes
Continue Collecting/Analyzing