Nature And Assumptions Of Qualitative Research.docx

1

Nature of Qualitative Research According to Domegan and Fleming (2007), “Qualitative research aims to explore and to discover issues about the problem on hand, because very little is known about the problem. There is usually uncertainty about dimensions and characteristics of problem. It uses ‘soft’ data and gets ‘rich’ data’”. (p. 24). According to Myers (2009), qualitative research is designed to help researchers understand people, and the social and cultural contexts within which they live. Such studies allow the complexities and differences of worlds-under-study to be explored and represented (Philip, 1998, p. 267). In qualitative

research,

different

knowledge

claims,

enquiry strategies,

and data

collection methods and analysis are employed (Creswell, 2003). Qualitative data sources include observation and participant observation (fieldwork), interviews and questionnaires, documents and texts, and the researcher's impressions and reactions (Myers, 2009). Data is derived from direct observation of behaviours, from interviews, from written opinions, or from public documents (Sprinthall, Schmutte, and Surois, 1991, p. 101). Written descriptions of people, events, opinions, attitudes and environments, or combinations of these can also be sources of data. Paradigm comes from Greek παράδειγμα (paradeigma), "pattern, example, sample" from the verb παραδείκνυμι (paradeiknumi), "exhibit, represent, expose" and that from παρά (para), "beside, beyond" and δείκνυμι (deiknumi), "to show, to point out".

In rhetoric, paradeigma is known as a type of proof. The purpose of paradeigma is to provide an audience with an illustration of similar occurrences. This illustration is not meant to take the audience to a conclusion, however it is used to help guide them there. A personal accountant is a good comparison of paradeigma to explain how it is meant to guide the audience. It is not the job of a personal accountant to tell their client exactly what (and what not) to spend their money on, but to aid in guiding their client as to how money should be spent based on their financial goals. Anaximenes defined paradeigma as, "actions that have occurred previously and are similar to, or the opposite of, those which we are now discussing." The original Greek term παράδειγμα (paradeigma) was used in Greek texts such as Plato's Timaeus (28A) as the model or the pattern that the Demiurge (god) used to create the cosmos. The term had a technical meaning in the field of grammar: the 1900 Merriam-Webster dictionary defines its technical use only in the context of grammar or, in rhetoric, as a term for an illustrative parable or fable. In linguistics, Ferdinand de Saussure used paradigm to refer to a class of elements with similarities. Positivism :The English noun positivism was re-imported in the 19th century from the French word positivisme, derived from positif in its philosophical sense of 'imposed on the mind by experience'. The corresponding adjective (lat. positīvus 'arbitrarily imposed', from pono 'put in place') has been used in similar sense to discuss law (positive law compared to natural law) since the time of Chaucer. Positivism is a philosophical theory stating that positive[clarification needed] knowledge is based on natural phenomena and their properties and relations. Thus, information derived from sensory

2

experience, interpreted through reason and logic, forms the exclusive source of all authoritative, knowledge, Positivism holds that valid knowledge (certitude or truth) is found only in this derived knowledge.

Verified data (positive facts) received from the senses are known as empirical evidence; thus positivism is based on empiricism,

Positivism also holds that society, like the physical world, operates according to general laws. Introspective and intuitive knowledge is rejected, as are metaphysics and theology. Although the positivist approach has been a recurrent theme in the history of western thought, the modern sense of the approach was formulated by the philosopher Auguste Comte in the early 19th century, Comte argued that, much as the physical world operates according to gravity and other absolute laws, so does society, and further developed positivism into a Religion of Humanity.

Logical positivism : In the early 20th century, logical positivism—a descendant of Comte's basic thesis but an independent movement—sprang up in Vienna and grew to become one of the dominant schools in Anglo-American philosophy and the analytic tradition. Logical positivists (or 'neopositivists') rejected metaphysical speculation and attempted to reduce statements and propositions to pure logic. Strong critiques of this approach by philosophers such as Karl Popper, Willard Van Orman Quine and Thomas Kuhn have been highly influential, and led to the development of postpositivism.

Interpretivism : Antipositivism (also known as interpretivism or negativism) is the belief within social science that the social realm is not subject to the same methods of investigation as the natural world. The social realm requires a different epistemology in which academics do not use the scientific method of the natural sciences. Antipositivists hold that researchers need to be, first, aware that our concepts, ideas, and language shape how we think about the social world. Therefore, antipositivists focus on understanding the interpretative method employed. Beginning with Giambattista Vico in the early eighteenth century, and later with Montesquieu, there was a separation between natural history and human history. The former is not directly under man's control whereas the latter is in fact man's creation. As such, an epistemological distinction is made between the natural world and the social realm which informs antipositivism. The natural world can only be understood with regard to its external characteristics, whereas the social realm can be understood externally and internally, and can therefore be known fully. The internal focus is seen fully developed in antipositivist methods.

In the early nineteenth century, various intellectuals, led by the Hegelians, questioned the prospect of empirical social analysis. Karl Marx died before the establishment of formal social science, but nonetheless fiercely rejected Comtean sociological positivism—despite himself attempting to establish a historical materialist "science of society".

3

The enhanced positivism presented by Emile Durkheim would serve to found modern academic sociology and social research, yet retained many of the mechanical elements[clarification needed] of its predecessor. Hermeneuticians such as Wilhelm Dilthey theorized in detail on the distinction between natural and social science ('Geisteswissenschaft'), whilst neo-Kantian philosophers such as Heinrich Rickert maintained that the social realm, with its abstract meanings and symbolisms, is inconsistent with scientific methods of analysis. Edmund Husserl, meanwhile, negated positivism through the rubric of phenomenology.

At the turn of the twentieth century, the first wave of German sociologists formally introduced verstehende (interpretive) sociological antipositivism, proposing research should concentrate on human cultural norms, values, symbols, and social processes viewed from a resolutely subjective perspective[clarification needed]. As an antipositivist, however, one seeks relationships that are not as "ahistorical, invariant, or generalizable"( not in citation given)as those pursued by natural scientists.

The interaction between theory (or constructed concepts) and data is always fundamental in social science and this subjection distinguishes it from physical science[according to whom?]. Durkheim himself noted the importance of constructing concepts in the abstract (e.g. "collective consciousness"

and

"social

anomie")

in

order

to

form

workable

categories

for

experimentation[clarification needed]. Both Weber and Georg Simmel pioneered the verstehen (or 'interpretative') approach toward social science; a systematic process in which an outside observer attempts to relate to a particular cultural group, or indigenous people, on their own terms and from their own point of view Social constructionism is not one thing, not one theory or approach, but rather a “creative resource” that enables a new, expanded way of talking and thinking about concepts. Indeed, it might be said that a constructionist view is one where all so-called “realities” are conceptual in nature, a product of our own personal “baggage” (values) and the relationship we have with the object of our experience (e.g., a person, a product, an event). In this way, a social constructionist orientation is devoid of the notions pertaining to “truth,” objectivity, and value neutrality; embracing instead the idea that “truth” is elusive while objectivity and value neutrality simply weaken our ability to look at and think about things from a multiplicity of perspectives that ultimately enriches our understanding and moves us toward new positive outcomes. Qualitative research design from a constructionist mindset, for instance, might lead to new methods of inquiry, or perhaps a greater emphasis on storytelling and the participant-researcher relationship in narrative research.

Social constructionism and qualitative research is a natural marriage, wedded by a mutual respect for the complexities of the human experience and the idea that any one facet of someone’s life (and the researcher’s role in exploring this life) intertwines with (contributes to) some other facet. That, as human beings we can’t be anything other than intricately involved together in the construction of

4

our worlds. We can see how fundamental this is to qualitative research by just looking at the “10 Distinctive Qualities of Qualitative Research” which includes the essence of constructionism such as the: Absence of “truth” Importance of context Importance of meaning Participant-researcher relationship Flexibility of the research design The question remains, however, whether this marriage – between social constructionism and qualitative research – can survive alongside a “framework” intended to guide research design down a path that ultimately leads to useful outcomes. Is a framework that helps guide the researcher to quality outcomes compatible with the creative thinking of the social constructionist? Absolutely. Not only can this alliance survive a quality approach to research design, it can actually thrive.

The Total Quality Framework (TQF)* is one such approach. Like social constructionism itself, it is an approach that is not prescriptive in nature but rather a high-level way of thinking about qualitative research design. The TQF aids the researcher in designing and implementing qualitative research that is credible, analyzable, transparent, and ultimately useful to those who sponsor the research as well as those who may look to adapt the research to other contexts. In doing so, the TQF asks the researcher to think carefully about design-implementation considerations such as: the range of people who are included (and excluded) from participation, researcher training and data gathering techniques, analytical and reflective processes, and the transparency of the reporting. Importantly, the TQF does not ask the researcher to compromise the critical foundation on which qualitative research is built, i.e., its distinctive qualities that celebrate complexity, multiplicity, flexibility, diversity, “irrationality” and contradiction.

Quality considerations walk hand-in-hand with social constructionism (and many theoretical or philosophical orientations), you might even say that they need each other. A quality approach is driven by the researcher’s understanding and utilization of the socially-constructed world (e.g., use of language, the imbalance of power) while the social constructionist ultimately requires research outcomes that are useful. ______________________ It is our belief that there is no single methodology that is superior to any other methodology in every case; different research questions lend themselves to different methodologies. We do believe, however, that methodology and theoretical/philosophical foundations are inevitably related in any research endeavor. In this document, we place in dialogue two perspectives sometimes assumed to be at odds with one another: Critical theory and constructivist qualitative methodologies. We wish to explore the reasons for these tensions, offering insights on how they might be employed together to fruitful purposes.

Critical theory and research:

5

The term Critical theory has its origins in the 20th century Frankfurt School, and now is associated with scholars across a range of disciplines. Among these scholars, Anthony Giddens and Jurgen Habermas are two who have been particularly influential in the current project. In media studies, scholars employing a Critical approach include persons such as Andrew Calabrese, Janice Peck, John Durham Peters, Hanno Hardt, Todd Gitlin, Douglas Kellner, Kevin Robins, Slavko Splichal, Thomas Streeter, Dan Schiller, Janet Wasko, and others. While early research in this tradition focused on class oppression, more recent works have argued that focusing only on one form of oppression (class vs. race, gender, sexual preference, etc.) denies the frequent interconnections to be found between them.

Research that aspires to be critical seeks, as its purpose of inquiry, to confront injustices in society. Following a tradition associated with Antonio Gramsci, critical researchers aim to understand the relationship between societal structures (especially those economic and political) and ideological patterns of thought that constrain the human imagination and thus limit opportunities for confronting and changing unjust social systems. Critical theorists are committed to understanding the complexity of such relations, however, and thus distance themselves from what they see as reductionist Marxist approaches. Critical theorists hold that these earlier approaches offered no ability to explain social change. Thus, in contrast to what they believe was an overemphasis on the determinative nature of economic and political structures, critical theorists are interested in social change as it occurs in relation to social struggle.

Critical researchers assume that the knowledge developed in their research may serve as a first step toward addressing such injustices. As an approach with a definite normative dimension, the research aims for a transformative outcome, and thus is not interested in “knowledge for knowledge’s sake.” Some critical researchers, in fact, argue that such a “neutral” stance toward research can too easily play into the conservative agendas of those who would rather preserve than challenge the status quo (see, e.g., Ferguson and Golding, 1998).

In media research, critical theorists have largely focused their efforts on analyses that highlight the relationship between various media industries, policies, and ideological systems, although some have focused primarily upon the ideological analysis of media texts. Early work in the Birmingham Center for Contemporary Cultural Studies, however, employed ethnographic methodologies to delineate relationships between class position and media preferences or “taste.” Other scholars have explored the relationship between interpretive strategies and hegemonic positions.

Humanistic and critical research:

Because critical theory brings a specific standpoint and theoretical orientation to its research questions, it cannot be said to be humanistic in the sense that usually defines qualitative research. While qualitative, interpretive research foregrounds the meanings research participants ascribe to their own actions, critical researchers seek analytically to place such actions in a wider context that

6

is limited by economic, political, and ideological forces, forces that might otherwise remain unacknowledged. Critical theorists thus require a greater measure of autonomy from the persons studied, or, to use anthropological terms, a more ‘etic’ than ’emic’ position from which to analyze and construct arguments. In the classic debate between Marxism and liberal social science, as Morrow (1994, 54) describes it, “materialism refers to the historical analysis that stressed explanations based on external “material” structures (social and economic), as opposed to the voluntary actions of individuals who choose their own fate.” In short, while constructivist or humanistic qualitative research is primarily interested in these voluntary actions, critical qualitative research is concerned with the constraints that limit such actions.

It could be said that Marxism, which obviously informs some assumptions of critical theory, shares an interesting point of commonality with logical positivism. With its emphasis upon structural determination, it might be possible to conceive of a Marxist analysis that explores human action in positivist, causal terms. Such an analysis would highlight the ways in which individual actions were determined by such “variables” as class position, ideological identification, etc.; such variables could be seen to be predictive of certain outcomes. Most critical theorists would reject such an analysis as reductionist, however. We would instead reserve some space for social change, in keeping with such theories of social action as that elaborated in Giddens’ structuration theory. This theory stresses that while individual agency is always subscribed within larger structures, there is still no way to completely predict how and in which circumstances voluntarism might be made available, or what its effects on society might be.

In contrast to some humanistic qualitative researchers who rely upon the claims of science to affirm their study’s validity, critical researchers distance themselves from methodologies that are imported from the natural sciences. Qualitative research that emerges from a critical tradition, therefore, often encounters from its audience less perceived need to argue for a study’s validity using terms imposed from logical positivism. Moreover, Critical researchers believe that in their attention to the role of power in social reality, their analyses are at the metatheoretical level. They thus may encompass and draw upon research from other paradigms, offering an explanation of the workings of power that are often unexamined in logical positivist approaches (with their focus on causal relations between variables) and in humanistic approaches (with their focus on human explanations of actions or meanings).

Shared assumptions between humanistic and critical qualitative research:

Despite important ontological and epistemological differences, critical theorists who employ qualitative research methods share several assumptions with more humanistically-oriented qualitative researchers:

1. Scholars in both humanistic and critical qualitative research traditions affirm that social relations, as well as analyses constructed by researchers, must be interpreted. Both traditions are thus more interested in offering interpretations than in elucidating natural laws of causality.

7

2. Both, therefore, offer a challenge to logical positivism, arguing that dynamic social and cultural structures, rather than certain distinguishable variables, constrain human actions.

3. Thus, both are open to the possibility of social change.

4. As a further challenge to logical positivism, both eschew the problem of bias in research. Humanistic, constructivist researchers argue that “bias” should be reconceptualized in light of the subjective position of the researcher, viewed as that which informs and strengthens one’s interpretation. Critical researchers, particularly those operating within post-colonialist and feminist paradigms, tend to insist upon a recognition of power differentials between research participants and those conducting the research, thus locating “bias” in social systems rather than or in addition to a particular research situation.

5. Both traditions stress that meaning and language are socially constructed (although critical researchers are quick to point out that while interpretations may be constructed, forces of oppression are real in their consequences and hence may be understood as such).

6. Both are also interested in how meanings may remain the same or change over time.

7. Both are concerned with a reasoned analysis of social life (although critical theorists extend this concern to relate such a reasoned analysis with emancipation).

8. Scholars in both traditions evaluate their arguments in light of a community of researchers of which they are a part.

9. As a result of the prior two commonalities, both are at some distance from the postmodernist turn that engenders skepticism toward such reasoned analyses and affirms radical relativism over a measure of credibility lodged in authoritative consensus.

Weaknesses and cautions regarding this paradigm: One of the charges against critical theory is its tendency toward elitism. With its proponents’ commitment to the idea that research can bring about a better and more equitable world, critics charge that critical theorists tend to assume that they are not only more capable of analyzing a situation than most; they are better equipped to offer a proscriptive plan of action. Critics charge that this often brings theorists outside of their realms of expertise so that the insights they offer are naive and unworkable in the contemporary setting.

Further, critics charge that critical theorists can be unwilling to listen to the experiences of those most adversely effected by current policies and the status quo, as they tend to focus their analyses on

8

persons and institutions in positions of power and authority. This, critics note, causes critical theorists to be out of touch with the very persons they purport to be most interested in helping.

The current project attempts to address these concerns, with its emphasis upon listening to people who are disadvantaged in the contemporary situation. The project retains the assumption that critical theorists aim to offer an emancipatory analysis, thus making it a non-relativist project. It is perhaps best described, using the Marxist anthropologist Sherry Ortner’s (1993) phrase, as an “issuesoriented ethnography,” as it seeks to explore the ways in which societal issues and their contradictions are worked out in the context of complex “lived” lives that are situated with reference to class, race, place, gender, and other identifications.

Addressing common concerns from the logical positivist framework: “Objective” analysis:

In their embrace of a normative perspective, Critical theorists make no claims that their analyses are “objective” in the sense usually meant by logical positivists. In fact, critical theorists argue that the subjective/objective dualism masks the ways in which both positions are limited by the social forces that inform all human action and analysis. Critical qualitative research acknowledges subjectivism in the sense that learnings and interpretations cannot be based on logic and scientific analysis only. While it affirms that knowledge can never be separated completely from the researcher’s own experience, it rejects the notion that all analyses are relative. It asserts that rational analysis is fundamental to human emancipation, and hence embraces what Morrow (1994) calls critical realism

Data analysis and verification:

Critical researchers assume that their task is to expose the hidden assumptions that guide both research respondent statements and often, initial analyses of data. Researchers therefore bring a level of scrutiny to their task that includes rooting out the meanings of what is left unsaid as well as that which is stated. The research is verified as other members of the research community offer corroboration that has come from their own research experiences.

Sample representativeness, typicality, and generalizability:

In a response similar to that of constructivism, critical researchers employing qualitative research would note that we are not seeking to explain the “typical” person, but to analyze that person’s possibilities and limits within a culture. Each person, following Sartre, may be seen as a “universal singular” – a being at once unique and the embodiment of the social world that has reflexively produced her. In this approach, individuals are not seen as “types” or members of aggregate groups (although they may be both of these). Individuals instead are approached as beings that inhabit subject positions that are possible within a culture. Because individuals are members of society and must act within the society, they share certain understandings and meanings; if they did not, they

9

could be considered insane, which is societal terms is the designation given to persons whose social realities have no seeming connection to those around them. Thus, taking an individual as a “unit” or starting point of analysis leads us to conclusions about cultural possibilities and limits, not to explanations that may be extended to others deemed to be “like” her in some way. Again, as in constructivism, we generalize not to peoples’ behaviors or motivations, but to the culture with its creativities and constraints.

Validity:

The test of validity in the case of critical constructivist research is directly related to its stated purpose of inquiry. The research is valid to the extent that the analysis provides insight into the systems of oppression and domination that limit human freedoms, and on a secondary level, in its usefulness in countering such systems.

Conclusion:

Many interesting works in media studies are addressing themselves to critical and qualitative approaches to study, and our work – especially on the Digital Divide – is a part of this collection. Because the Internet is a relatively recent popular media, there are many questions that emerge relative to how the Internet may inhibit or promote freedoms and justice. Studies linking qualitative and critical research can address these questions, adding an important historical perspective to analyses that are often either overly optimistic or pessimistic. We invite you to explore our publications and offer your responses to our work as it seeks to flesh out this emergent research paradigm.

Linked terms in the text:

Constructivist methodologies: Refers to a qualitative, humanistic research approach that foregrounds the social construction of knowledge. See Constructivist Methods.

Frankfurt School: A program of research established in pre-World War II Germany that was discontinued by Hitler and later reestablished in the U.S. Members of the Frankfurt School, including Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Hertbert Marcuse, Walter Benjamin, attempted to analyze culture within a distinctlyMarxist tradition. Inflected with their experience of the Holocaust and Jewish-German exile, their analyses of the role of culture in human oppression were understandably pessimistic. __________________

The Role of the Researcher in the Qualitative Research Process. A Potential Barrier to Archiving Qualitative Data

10

Abstract: The Danish Data Archives (the DDA) is as other data archives about to take up the challenge of archiving and disseminating qualitative research material in addition to quantitative material. But while the characteristics of quantitative research strategies and tactics correspond very well with the practice of archiving, this is not the case when one considers archiving of qualitative research materials.

This text will highlight the specific problems in relation to archiving and dissemination of qualitative data materials. It will be argued that a lot of these problems are due to the researcher's substantial role in the research process as he/she is personally involved in every step taken.

Key words: qualitative methods, qualitative research, work process, data, data archiving

Table of Contents 1. Introduction 1.1 Another approach to social research 1.2 Archiving of empirical social research 2. The Qualitative Research Process 2.1 Thematising 2.2 Designing 2.3 Interviewing 2.4 Transcribing 2.5 Analysing 2.6 Verifying 2.7 Reporting 3. The Qualitative Research Process as a Barrier to Archiving 3.1 Techniques for data collection 3.2 Character of data 3.3 Data processing and presentation 4. The Role of the Archive 4.1 Integrity of respondents 4.2 Proper documentation of data 4.3 Respecting the researcher's ownership 5. Final Comments and Future Plans 5.1 How do qualitative researchers view their method and data material? 5.2 How to archive qualitative research projects in practice? 5.3 How to improve practice of archiving qualitative data continuously? 1. Introduction Empirical scientific research within the social science tradition is often seen in favour of using objective, quantitative measurement, since social research intends to duplicate the way of carrying out research within the natural science tradition. Favouring of such quantitative research techniques is founded in the positivistic paradigm (WALLERSTEIN et al.1998). According to this paradigm social reality is to be understood as an objective entity, and it is the job of the scientist to uncover this entity bit by bit—to go out and find the truth. ALVESSON and SKÖLDBERG define this kind of research in the following manner: "From what appears or is presented as data, facts, the unequivocal imprints of 'reality', it is possible to acquire a reasonably adequate basis for empirically grounded conclusions and, as a next step, for generalizations and theory-building." (ALVESSON & SKÖLDBERG 2000, p.1) [1]

11

In this way data is seen as existing independently and indifferently. Data about some phenomena is unconnected to the researcher, who is collecting them—they were there before he came and they will be there to be collected by some other researcher afterwards. [2] According to this approach statistical methods are seen as the obvious techniques to analyse data concerning social phenomena (WALLERSTEIN et al. 1998). [3]

1.1 Another approach to social research However, the quantitative approach has been criticised of neglecting important aspects of human lives (McCRACKEN 1988) which the positivistic paradigm does not encompass. [4]

For one thing, meaning structures characterising our social reality, which do not have duplicates in Nature cannot be considered in an appropriate way when using quantitative techniques. Another thing is that one can question the prerequisite of social reality studied as "objective truth", since in fact what we believe to be "the truth" seems to have changed over time. Furthermore, there is the question of the scientist's ability to exhibit objectivity when collecting data, since the specific ideas and beliefs predominant in the society to which the scientist belongs, will affect or even determine "the kind of truth" he discovers. [5]

Then, to consider the existence of deep—often hidden—meaning structures, to encompass the idea of truth in society and to accept the fact that scientists too are exponents of dominating beliefs in society, another paradigmatic understanding is demanded. This paradigm is described using words as post-positivistic, phenomenological, post-modern, etc.1) Within this paradigm, the entity to be studied is the life world of human being as it is experienced individually. To study life worlds instead of an objective reality also suggests another method of research with an interpretative approach—qualitative research method.2) [6]

The researcher using qualitative method will argue that another human being (e.g. himself) is the only instrument that is sufficiently complex to comprehend and learn about human existence (LAVE & KVALE 1995). The implication is that social research will benefit from being performed as field research (BURGESS 1984) based on interaction between the researcher and the individuals studied. [7]

The significance of qualitative research is unified by the researcher's fundamental research question—he asks why? In comparison, the researcher carrying out quantitative research will ask how many?, how widespread?, how old?, etc. The research technique which the qualitative researcher uses is then to isolate and define phenomena/categories during the process of research in order to comprehend and learn, whereas the quantitative researcher's ambition is to determine the relationship between phenomena/categories already isolated and defined prior to the research. [8] Considering the two approaches' different research objectives and different ways of stating the fundamental research questions, it becomes visible how the methods can supplement but not substitute each other (PEDERSEN 1999; McCRACKEN 1988). An example:

12

Why are women more sceptical of the EU than men? the researcher wished to capture the complexity of the answer to this question How many women are sceptical of the EU compared to the number of sceptical men? the researcher performs an exact measurement to answer this question [9] 1.2 Archiving of empirical social research It was especially during the 1960s and 1970s that the quantitative approach to research was in favour among social researchers (McCRACKEN 1988). The exact period where many archives were established—e.g. the Danish Data Archives was founded in 1973. In fact, the entire practice of archiving data seems to have matured in line with the logic and techniques of quantitative research method. [10] As many other data archives the DDA has so far exclusively focused on data from researchers collecting data using quantitative research techniques. Viewed in this perspective, our practice has overlooked research strategies within social science not constituted of numerical measurements. The outcome is that vast amounts of Danish research data has been neglected. Furthermore, the use of qualitative methods has been diffusing during the last years (JENSEN 1991; KVALE 1996). Data archives all over the world have become aware of this fact and have taken initiatives to compensate for this development—most known is properly ESRC Qualitative Data Resource Centre, Qualidata, in the UK. [11] 2. The Qualitative Research Process Below is a description of the research process when using qualitative method. It should be derivable from this description how the role of qualitative researcher differs from the role of the quantitative researcher. Inspired by KVALE (1996) I have chosen to split the research process into seven stages: thematising, designing, interviewing, transcribing, analysing, verifying and reporting. This split is not made to imply that researchers ought to work in this orderly progressing way—in fact this is probably impossible. [12] Some of the stages will be only briefly described whereas other stages will be explained in greater details. Besides KVALE (1996), the text is based on McCRACKEN (1988) and STRAUSS and CORBIN (1990)—all well known for their work on the use of qualitative method within social science. [13] 2.1 Thematising Thematising is to answer the question of what is going to be studied, why this is going to be studied, and how this is going to be studied. The answers to these questions will become the background for carrying on with fieldwork, analysis and reporting. [14] Performing qualitative personal or group interviews is one answer to the question of how to collect data. Other techniques for data collection is participant observation, text analysis, discourse analysis and other techniques applicable from anthropological and ethnographic research (BURGESS 1984, SANDAY 1979). Here I will relate to interviews as technique for data collection, because it is our belief at the DDA that this is the most widespread technique. KVALE (1996) provides the following definition for the qualitative research interview: "An interview whose purpose is to obtain description of the life world of the interviewee with respect to interpreting the meaning of the described phenomena." (KVALE 1996, p.5) [15] One explanation of why interviewing as research technique dominates is given by KVALE (1996). The argumentation is very simple, since conversation is the common technique we all use to learn about phenomena in our world this technique could obviously be used for research purposes, too. [16] 2.2 Designing The design stage constitutes the step where the methodological procedure is planned and prepared. What is the time schedule and how do the different steps interrelate? When the chosen technique is

13

interviews, designing the research project will be to determine which kind of interviews to use— personal, collective (focus group), expert, etc.—and how many interviews to perform. [17] The individuals, who will act as respondents, are chosen according to criteria derived from the research objective. Such criteria could be based on demographic variables, but they might as well be based on "subtle" criteria such as life style characteristics or presence in a specific context. Sometimes the researcher will aim for similarity among respondents and sometimes for dissimilarity. One example of a technique used to select respondents is the so-called snowball sampling technique. Instead of deciding ahead of time who is going to be interviewed, the researcher selects respondents gradually by asking the first respondent to suggest who to interview next, and then asking the second respondent to pick the third and so forth. [18] Since what is collected is in-depth information, it is believed that a researcher will need only a limited number of respondents. In fact, a very large number of respondents can be expected to hinder the researcher's ability to get "in-depth" and miss the opportunity of getting an understanding of each respondent. The exact number of respondents will depend on the subject investigated. KVALE (1996) tells the qualitative researcher to interview "as many subjects as necessary to find out what you need to know" (p.101). [19] 2.3 Interviewing Interviews are structured according to an interview guide made by the researcher, which outlines themes to be covered during the interview. The interview guide is typically without specification of how to formulate exact questions, and questions will be open-ended to encourage the respondents to give long elaborated answers. [20] Interviews are usually recorded on tape or video. When videotaping, visual aspects of the interview situation are, of course, captured as well. Some authors argue that these recordings contain a richer representation of the interview situation than tape (e.g. KVALE 1996), and it is expected that the use of video will increase in the future. [21] Before, during and after the interview some researchers will take field notes as a supplement to recordings. The importance of these notes as data material will vary among researchers. The researcher will often write these notes by hand and some will later type and store them as text files, while others will use them in the handwritten form. [22] Generally speaking it is important to point out that an interview is recalled too—the respondent's bodily expressions, the interaction between interviewer and respondent, the atmosphere during the interview, etc. Even if recalling is a very insecure way of collecting data, recalling has advantages in relation to the goal of getting "non-verbal" information as well (KVALE 1996). [23] To use the research interview as technique means that the researcher or an interviewer picked by the researcher meets the respondents personally. This raises questions concerning the ethical responsibility and calls attention to how the use of qualitative method differs from quantitative research. I will comment further on this in the following section. [24] 2.4 Transcribing The next step of the research process is transcription of recordings—often done by assisting personnel. Different kinds of instructions will be given to assistants according to the researcher's preferences. Such standards for transcription can be conceptualised as a continuum—from a transcript incorporating (almost) every sound or silence recorded (breaks, sighs, stammer, etc.) to a transcript restricted to sentences of relevance to specific research questions. [25] One can often be inclined to look at these transcripts as an exact representation of the interview, but "[t]ranscripts are not copies or representations of some original reality, they are interpretative constructions that are useful tools for given purposes. Transcripts are decontextualised conversations, they are abstractions, as topographical maps are abstractions from the original landscape from which they are derived" (KVALE 1996, p.165). [26]

14

Therefore, transcripts are not to be seen as data similar to survey data in a quantitative research project, since an interpretation of data in the form of word and sentences recorded is made by the researcher/assistants while transcribing. [27] It is worth mentioning that often the interviewer does not recognise the value of the interview transcript immediately, but only after he or she has done some additional interpretive work. Specific comments in the transcript will probably trigger a multi-faceted recollection of the interview situation—e.g. the respondent seeming remarkably enthusiastic when talking about a specific subject. If a hired interviewer carries out the interviewing, this possibility is, of course, eliminated.3) [28] 2.5 Analysing The word coding is often used to refer to the first part of the analysis that concerns the naming and categorising of phenomena through close examination of data (STRAUSS & CORBIN 1990). Coding of data might be done using one of the computer-based analysis program packages (e.g. NUD*IST or Atlas.ti). However, whether one chooses to use a computer program or not, it is the researcher who defines and names the categories of data. [29] Upon coding data the researcher gets to the part of the analysis process where the codes must come together in one overall analysis. The analysis is to be viewed as the movement from the particular to the general (McCRACKEN 1988), since the objective is to comprehend the overall "narrative". The result of the analysis should be that codes connect to each other in what can be conceptualised as a web of meanings. It is the researcher who defines the strings that constitute this web (STRAUSS & CORBIN 1990) and thereby defines the "meaning structure's" logic and coherence. [30] Both by coding and analysing data the researcher uses his personal knowledge and experiences as tools to make sense of the material (McCRACKEN 1988). Therefore, some of these tools are the researcher's unique impressions, which might remain intangible and undocumented (STRAUSS & CORBIN 1990, McCRACKEN 1988). [31] 2.6 Verifying Verification of the data analysis concerns the generalisability, the reliability, and the validity of findings. Generalizability means that findings can be generalized, reliability refers to the consistency of findings/results, whereas validity questions if the study in fact investigates what was intended. [32] Although it is KVALE's argument (1996) that verification is relevant throughout the process, verification seems inevitable before reporting findings. However, tests of generalizability, reliability or validity will be performed intuitively by the researcher at all stages of the research process, although there hardly ever seems to be any explicit evidence of verification taking place. [33] 2.7 Reporting It goes without saying that reporting covers the part of the research process where the researcher writes a report to present his findings. As KVALE points out this report is not to be seen solely as a representation of data "seasoned with" the researcher's comments and interpretations: "The interview report is itself a social construction in which the author's choice of writing style and literary devices provide a specific view on the subjects' lived world." (KVALE 1996, p.253) [34] Again the researcher's influence is significant (ALVESSON & SKÖLDBERG 2000). It is the researcher who will be the one to judge how a specific respondent should be given voice or how understanding the context will be related to a respondent's remarks. The amount of context presented in relation to specific respondents or situations will also be the researcher's choice. Countless other examples could be given. [35] 3. The Qualitative Research Process as a Barrier to Archiving To compare the general picture outlined above, the qualitative researcher must be expected to feel very personally involved in every step of the research process, because every consideration and decision will have to be based on entirely personal grounds. A role I believe that seen from the

15

researchers' perspective is experienced as very complex to handle. Below I will argue that this role complexity can be related to three different themes: the techniques for data collection, the character of data as well as the way data is processed and presented. [36] 3.1 Techniques for data collection When KVALE (1996) describes an interview inquiry as a "moral enterprise" this has to do with one aspect of the researcher's role. Whether it is the researcher or an assistant who is doing the interviewing, forming relationships with respondents seems to be rather inevitable. While interviewing, the interviewer uses his personal empathy to make the respondents feel more at ease and therefore more willing to tell "their story". The result is that the researcher most often will experience a (close) relationship with the respondents and probably feel oblige to protect data from "outsiders" as e.g. other researchers. They might arrive at conclusions, which in the eyes of the researcher are disloyal or unfair to the respondents. The researcher's point could be that without the exact version of data as the one he has, analysis of data will be faulty or wrong. [37] Another aspect is anonymity. The respondents in the qualitative study will not be anonymous to the researcher as they will be in the quantitative study. It must be expected that this lack of anonymity in the relationship between respondents and researcher strengthen the researchers' loyalty towards respondents. [38] Therefore due to the technique of data collection, the qualitative researcher will probably feel more obliged to protect his data since data to him is in the shape of individuals of his acquaintance than the quantitative researcher will. [39] 3.2 Character of data Upon the description of the qualitative research process it can be argued that qualitative data is closely connected to the researcher and this adds another aspect to the researcher's role. Firstly data is collected during interaction between respondent and researcher, which points to dependence between data and researcher. Secondly the researcher collects a large amount of data from a limited number of respondents. This data material consists at a minimum of interviews, field notes and "recollection". The researcher will have fewer respondents than the quantitative researcher. This means that the researcher is dependent on a few respondents revealing a lot of personal information in order to get around the research question and in the end to be able to answer it. Since there are fewer respondents, the researcher's interpretation of comments made by each respondent will also have greater influence on the conclusion of a research project. This also adds to the responsibility put upon the researcher. [40] Another aspect of data is that parts of the data material obviously does not have an existence independent of the researcher, since some is stored within the memory of the researcher or as field notes without meaning to others. [41] Thirdly a transcription of an interview is never an exact copy of the conversation, which took place. No matter how thoroughly the transcript is done, "translation" has to be done with unavoidable inaccuracies, mistakes and interpretations (KVALE 1994). When analysing an interview transcript the researcher might feel that he is the only one who is able to use data with the proper caution. [42] 3.3 Data processing and presentation The part of the qualitative data material which has a physical existence, e.g. recordings, transcripts and notes, is data as words/conversation—a kind of data that intuitively is regarded as much more complex to analyse than numerical data. The result of both coding and analysis depends exclusively upon the researcher's interpretation of meanings hidden in data. This too adds to the fact that the qualitative researcher will cling to his data material since he feels at risk if he allows other researchers access to the data. Needless to say, qualitative interpretation encompasses no possibility of reference to exact means of interpretation as quantitative interpretation does. By allowing other researchers access to data the risk is not only that they interpret the material differently—and by doing this question the quality of the primary analysis—but also that this might conflict with the researcher's loyalty towards respondents. [43]

16

The researcher is accountable for reporting data without using any statistical means for presenting or legitimating findings. The quality of the findings/results of a particular research project will be based on the researcher's ability to present valid argumentation for findings/results to readers, while giving a fair presentation of data. [44] To summarise, there are many different aspects of qualitative techniques, character of data and processing and presentation of data, that the qualitative researcher must comply with as part of his role. On these grounds it must be expected that the researcher will be inclined to cling to his data and resist archiving. [45] 4. The Role of the Archive Until recently, only quantitative data were admitted into the Danish Data Archives. This practice is unquestioned by qualitative researchers, who seems inclined to regard their data as very personal belongings. However, as stated in the beginning of the paper, the Danish Data Archives wants to widen the kind of data material it archives and initiatives are taken to obtain qualitative data, too. It should be stated that this initiative must be regarded in relation to similar initiatives taken by data archives and universities around the world. For instance Qualidata was founded back in 1994. However, the prerequisite for DDA obtaining qualitative materials requires the approval from the Danish research community. [46] At the moment qualitative data is typically stored in the researcher's computer. However, seen from the perspective of a data archivist this storage medium has obvious limitations. Firstly, data risks obsolescence due to change in software products and program versions. This means that even the researcher who has the data will risk his future access to his own data. Secondly, access to data is limited to the researcher who has collected the data, although a data material is often of great interest to other researchers. Thirdly, as society we need to document scientific research whether it is quantitative or qualitative. [47] The possible resistance to archiving has been related to three aspects as described above. A prerequisite for obtaining qualitative data is that the archive is capable of complying with demands from researchers—this will define the role of the archive. [48] The challenge for the archive must then be to convince researchers that by archiving their material they are not at risk. In other words, archiving of qualitative data will not make them less suited for acting the role as responsible qualitative researcher. In the following part it is presented what the archive is able to offer as well as what the archive should be able to offer. [49] 4.1 Integrity of respondents To ensure researchers that the integrity of the respondents is respected by the archive, the researcher will be requested to: Erase or change all names in transcripts and other material Erase information pointing directly to an individual [50] An interview transcript or field note will sometimes contain names of the respondent or individuals mentioned by the respondent as well as information that points at one specific individual. In order to respect the anonymity of the respondents it is therefore necessary to erase or sometimes change information. [51] However, it will have to be pointed out to the researchers that substantial changes in research material will diminish the material's applicability as data source. [52] 4.2 Proper documentation of data A prerequisite for storing qualitative data is, as it is for quantitative data, that data is documented. Proper metadata documentation is the basis for archiving, since documentation is the basis for "making sense" of data—especially considering re-use of data by other researchers, documentation has immediate relevance. The archive must offer that donor is met with extensive documentation

17

demands such as description of information research tactics—criteria used for choosing respondents, copy of interview guide and other material used as "back up", etc. [53] The preparation of standards for documentation of qualitative research materials will not only be a very challenging job do-but also a very important job. It is our wish to apply the principles of the Data Documentation Initiative (the DDI) to archiving of qualitative data, since it is our ambition to provide a "universally supported metadata standard for the social science community" (The Norwegian Social Science Data Service 1999, p.1). The decision to apply the DDI standard to the documentation of qualitative data must be regarded in relation to the decision of other data archives to use the DDI. The Finnish data archive (Finnish Social Science Data Service-FSD: http://www.fsd.uta.fi) has already taken a great step forward in applying the DDI (KUULA 2000). [54] From an overall perspective the documentation (standards) should be based on getting extensive answers to the following questions: Why was the research project done? How was the research project done? [55] At the moment we still have to work out the specification for answering these questions sufficiently. But the questions are to be viewed as cornerstones for the removal of barriers to archiving qualitative data. In the DDA we expect to learn a lot from the experience already gained, e.g. Qualidata (CORTI 2000), FSD (KUULA 2000) and Universität Bremen (KLUGE & OPITZ 2000). [56] 4.3 Respecting the researcher's ownership Until now we have concentrated on obtaining and documenting data, but the archive's aim is also to disseminate data for use as secondary source of information by researchers. Donor determines the extent of the period before data becomes available. Donor is in full control of who receives the material. Donor is informed whenever material is distributed. [57] Ad I: Timing before availability When a researcher hands in material he will be asked to provide a date when his data can be made available for distribution. Some researchers will, of course, not allow access to data at all. A lot of researchers would probably prefer a period where data access is relatively restricted. One reason for this need for restrictions might be due to the researcher's wish to keep information to himself as long as he is using it as basis for research. Integrity of respondents/personal sensitive information might cause a need for a period of restricted access too. [58] Ad II: Control of who is given material The dissemination of quantitative data materials has so far been regulated by six access categories. Category 1: "No access restrictions at all" Category 2: "No restrictions when used for scientific/statistical purposes" Category 3: "No restrictions, but a consultation of donor before use is recommended" Category 4: "No restriction for use, but any publication requires a written permission from donor" Category 5: "Any access requires a written permission from donor" Category 6: "Any access requires a special agreement with donor, usually no access at all" [59]

18

When a donor hands in a data material, he is obliged to tell what kind of restriction should be applied. Category 1 stands for free access for reuse for anybody and the other five categories are different variations of access restrictions. Corresponding categories could be used for qualitative materials. In relation to timing before availability one would expect a researcher to use the more restrictive categories at first and then—after some time—be ready to place less restriction on re-use of the material. [60] Ad III: Distribution of material Whenever a data set is distributed for secondary analysis the primary researcher/donor of the material is informed even when he has allowed free access to the material. This routine will be adopted from the current practice of the archive. Donor is told by whom the material is requested and the purpose of the request. [61] I will have to add that since we at the DDA expect to obtain data as transcripts of interviews. One argument for this procedure is that transcripts are still the commonly used basis for researchers' coding and analysis and therefore it seems straightforward to make this the storage entity. Another obvious argument for storing transcripts instead of recordings is that a transcript as storage entity has similarity with the present storage entity for quantitative data material (both text files). This will make it easier to incorporate this new practice into the routines of the archive. However, alternative storage entities must be considered continuously as practice changes among researchers. [62] 5. Final Comments and Future Plans The general opinion might be that data sets consisting of numbers in rows and columns are better suited for archiving than qualitative data materials. Though part of the explanation behind this opinion could be that this is what we are accustomed to—our long tradition of interpretation of numbers in social science. Since the development of data archives cannot be separated from the dominance of quantitative research during the sixties and seventies, data archives are now facing a challenging job in transforming to incorporate another kind of data. [63] As it has been shown the significant role of the researcher in the qualitative research process seems to unify the barriers the archive will meet. Some procedures used for archiving quantitative material can be adopted, but others will have to be developed in order to meet demands within the research community. With the purpose of getting answers to our questions concerning the handling of qualitative data at the DDA, we have decided to turn to experts of the field: The researchers themselves. We wish to answer the questions listed below. [64] 5.1 How do qualitative researchers view their method and data material? Technique: Personal interviews with researchers During the spring/summer of 2000 we conducted personal interviews with a number of Danish researchers, who are using qualitative techniques—predominantly researchers who carry out personal or group interviews. Firstly, the interviews provided us with knowledge of what it means to perform qualitative research in practice, the purpose being to uncover which barriers appear to be the most essential ones. Secondly, we have gathered information that provides input for the specification of the DDA's documentation standard for qualitative data materials. Interviewing before the DDA actually begins to locate and receive qualitative data sets will hopefully give the archive the advantage of being well prepared for such a job. [65] 5.2 How to archive qualitative research projects in practice? Technique: "Case study" In order to get knowledge of the way the archive in practice obtains and archives data material, we will use one material as a "case study". The purpose of the study is to gather concrete and specific information about steps to be followed when actually archiving qualitative data at the DDA. [66] 5.3 How to improve practice of archiving qualitative data continuously? Technique: Steering committee

19

For the time being we are recruiting members for a steering committee led by researchers carrying out qualitative research. The purpose of the committee is to perform continuous assessments of project initiatives at the DDA, both before and after they are taken. By doing this we hope to create competencies concerning archiving qualitative data in order to catch up with competencies concerning quantitative materials as fast as possible. [67] Still a lot of challenging opportunities remain. For instance, there is promotion of the idea of archiving among members of the qualitative research community in order to encourage them to consider future archiving when they begin their research project. [68] To sum up, without ignoring or underestimating the difficulties in handling qualitative data, barriers to archiving will have to be overcome in order to let data archives embrace all aspects of contemporary research within social science. We will expect that co-operation between archives sharing an interest in qualitative data will be very fruitful in many ways. [69] Notes 1) These words are not at all synonymous but they all refer to critique of the positivistic paradigm and thereby calling attention to the use of alternative research methods. 2) The distinction made between quantitative and qualitative methods according to their belonging to a positivistic, respectively an interpretative based tradition is not original e.g. qualitative techniques can be used according to positivistic principles (DENZIN & LINCOLN 1994). 3) This is part of the explanation why it is much recommended in literature (e.g. STRAUSS & CORBIN 1990) that researchers perform the interviewing themselves. References Alvesson, Mats & Sköldberg, Kaj (2000). Reflexive Methodology—New Vistas for Qualitative Research. London: Sage. Burgess, Robert G. (1984). In the Field—An Introduction to Field Research. London: Routledge. Corti, Louise (2000). Progress and Problems of Preserving and Providing Access to Qualitative Data for Social Research—The International Picture of an Emerging Culture [58 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line Journal], 1(3), Art. 2. Available at: http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/3-00/3-00corti-e.htm. Denzin, Norman K. & Lincoln, Yvonna S. (1994). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Jensen, Mogens Kjaer (1991). Kvalitative metoder i anvendt samfundsforskning, Rapport 91-1, København, Socialforskningsinstituttet. Kluge, Susann & Opitz, Diane (2000, December). Computer-aided Archiving of Qualitative Data with the Database System "QBiQ" [36 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line Journal], 1(3), Art. 11. Available at: http://www.qualitativeresearch.net/fqs-texte/3-00/3-00klugeopitz-e.htm. Kuula, Arja (2000, December). Making Qualitative Data Fit the "Data Documentation Initiative" or Vice Versa? [28 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line Journal], 1(3), Art. 19. Available at: http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqstexte/3-00/3-00kuula-e.htm. Kvale, Steinar (1996). InterViews—An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Lave, Jean & Kvale, Steinar (1995). What is anthropological research? An interview with Jean Lave by Steinar Kvale. Qualitative Studies in Education, 8(3), 219-228.

20

McCracken, D. Grants (1988). The Long Interview (Qualitative Research Methods, Vol. 13). Newbury Park: Sage. Pedersen, Søren Hviid (1999). Qualitative and Quantitative research strategies: towards a possible convergence. Conference paper at the IASSIST (International Association for Social Science Information Service and Technology) Conference 17-21 May 1999. Strauss, Anselm & Corbin, Juliet (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research. Newbury Park: Sage. Wallerstein, Immanuel; Juma, Calestous; Keller, Evelyn Fox; Kocka, Jürgen; Lecourt, Dominique; Mudimbe, v.y.; Kenan, William R.; Mushakoji, Kinhide; Prigogine, Ilya; Taylor, Peter J. & Trouillot, Michel-Rolph (1998). Luk samfundsvidenskaberne op!. Report from "The Gulbenkian Commission of the Restructuring of the Social Sciences". Copenhagen: Roskilde Universitetsforlag. ____________________________ Approach

Practice

Postpositivism

Scientific, Reductionism oriented, Cause/effect, A priori theories

Inquiry in logically related steps; Multiple perspectives from participants not single reality; Rigorous data collection and analysis; Use of computer programs

Social Constructivism

The understanding of the world in which we live and work, The development of multiple meanings, The researchers look for complexity of viewpoints

Researchers ask broad general open-ended questions; Focus on the 'processes' of interaction; Focus on historical and cultural settings of participants; Acknowledge their background shapes interpretation, 'Interpret' the meanings others have about the world.

Postmodernism Perspectives

Knowledge claims in multiple perspectives such as race, gender, class and group affiliations; Negative conditions revealed in presence of hierarchies, power, control, by individuals in the hierarchy and multiple meanings of language; different discourses; marginalized people that are important; Metanarratives or universals hold true of the social conditions; Need to 'deconstruct' text to learn about hierarchies, oppositions and contradictions.

Interpretive biography; Narrative; Grounded Theory; Ethnography

Pragmatism

Focuses on outcomes; 'What works' to address research problem; Researchers freedom of choice of methods; Many approaches to collecting & analyzing data

Researchers use multiple methods to answer questions; Research is conducted that best addresses the research problem

Feminist Theories

Focus on women's diverse situations; Subject matter focused on domination within patriarchal

The need to examine researchers background to determine validity and trustworthiness of

21

Approach

Practice

society; Lens focused on gender; Goals focused to establish collaborative relationships to place researcher within study - not objective, but transformative.

accounts; The need to report womens' voices without exploiting them; The need to use methods in self-disclosing & respectful way.

Critical Theory

Focus concerned with empowering people to transcend constraints placed on them by race, class, and power; Interpret or illuminate social action; Themes include scientific study of institutions and their transformation through interpreting meanings of social life; historical problems; domination, alienation, and social struggles.

Focus on changes in how people think - encourage interaction, networks for 'social theorizing'; Focus on use of intensive case study or historically comparative cases; Formation of formal models; Use of 'ethnographic accounts' (interpretive social psychology).

Critical Race Theory

To present stories of discrimination; Eradicate racial subjugation while recognizing race is a social construct; Interact race with other inequalities such as gender and class.

Research places race and racism in the foreground of the research process; Research looks for ways to explain experiences; Research offers transformative solutions.

Queer Theory

Related to complexities of individual identity; Explores how identities reproduce and perform in social forums; Uses term 'Queer Theory' to allow incorporation of other social elements including race, class, age; Holds binary distinctions are inadequate to describe sexual identity.

Uses postmodern or poststructural orientation to deconstruct dominant theories related to identity; Focuses on how identity is culturally linked to discourse and overlaps with human sexuality.

Disability Theories

Focus on addressing inclusion in schools, encompassing administrators, teachers, parents of children with disabilities; Focus on disability as a dimension of human difference rather than defect.

Research process views individuals with disabilities as different; Questions asked, labels applied to these individuals, communication methods, and consideration of how data collected will benefit community considered; Data reported in respectful way.

In order to carry out any kind of research that uses either part or all qualitative methods, it is important to consider the philosophical assumptions as well as the interpretive frameworks described here. I will be referring back to these as I develop my own study, however for a better understanding of these concepts, please refer to Creswell’s book referenced below. References:

22

1. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. ________________ Distinction between qualitative and quantitative research An obvious basic distinction between qualitative and quantitative research is the form of data collection, analysis and presentation. While quantitative research presents statistical results represented by numerical or statistical data, qualitative research presents data as descriptive narration with words and attempts to understand phenomena in “natural settings”. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or to interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them.” (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000, p. 3). Quantitative research makes use of questionnaires, surveys and experiments to gather data that is revised and tabulated in numbers, which allows the data to be characterised by the use of statistical analysis (Hittleman and Simon, 1997, p. 31). Quantitative researchers measure variables on a sample of subjects and express the relationship between variables using effect statistics such as correlations, relative frequencies, or differences between means; their focus is to a large extent on the testing of theory. Stake (1995) describes three major differences in qualitative and quantitative emphasis, noting a distinction between: explanation and understanding as the purpose of the inquiry; the personal and impersonal role of the researcher; and knowledge discovered and knowledge constructed (p. 37). Another major difference between the two is that qualitative research is inductive and quantitative research is deductive. In qualitative research, a hypothesis is not needed to begin research; It employs inductive data analysis to provide a better understanding of the interaction of “mutually shaping influences” and to explicate the interacting realities and experiences of researcher and participant (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). It allows for a design to evolve rather than having an complete design in the beginning of the study because it is difficult if not impossible to predict the outcome of interactions due to the diverse perspectives and values systems of the researcher and participants, and their influence on the interpretation of reality and the outcome of the study. However, all quantitative research requires a hypothesis before research can begin. Table 4.2 below shows a summary of major differences between quantitative and qualitative approaches to research. Table 4.2: Differences between quantitative and qualitative approaches Orientation Assumption about the world Research purpose

Research methods and processes

Quantitative A single reality, i.e., can be measured by an instrument. Establish relationships between measured variables - procedures are established before study begins; - a hypothesis is formulated before research can begin; - deductive in nature.

Qualitative Multiple realities Understanding a social situation from participants’ perspectives - flexible, changing strategies; - design emerges as data are collected; - a hypothesis is not needed to begin research; - inductive in nature.

23

Researcher’s role

The researcher is ideally an The researcher participates objective observer who neither and becomes immersed in the participates in nor influences research/social setting. what is being studied. Generalisability Universal context free Detailed context-based generalizations generalizations In qualitative studies the researcher is considered the primary instrument of data collection and analysis. The researcher engages the situation, makes sense of the multiple interpretations, as multiple realities exist in any given context as both the researcher and the participants construct their own realities. She/he strives to collect data in a non-interfering manner, thus attempting to study real-world situations as they unfold naturally without predetermined constraints or conditions that control the study or its outcomes.

Qualitative Research Purposes Maxwell (1998) enumerates five research purposes for which qualitative studies are particularly useful: 

Understanding the meaning that participants in a study give to the events, situations and actions that they are involved with; and of the accounts they give of their lives and experiences;



Understanding the particular context within which the participants act, and the influence this context has on their actions;



Identifying unanticipated phenomena and influences, and generating new, grounded theories about them;



Understanding the process by which events and actions take place; and



Developing causal explanations.

Assumptions of Qualitative Research Every research methodology labors under certain assumptions or characteristics. Qualitative research can be differentiated from quantitative methodology in several ways. The following underlined areas are a synthesis of the methodological and philosophical assumptions and characteristics of qualitative research articulated by Merriam (1988, 1998) and Creswell (1998) and how they relate to this study, the non-emphasized areas.

1. Qualitative researchers are more concerned with process rather than outcomes. Example, In a certain study about various adult education programs in Kirtland, the process by which the various adult education programs in Kirtland came about and functioned were more important than the outcomes of the programs, though this was a concern as well. 2. Qualitative research is interested in meaning - more particularly, how people deal with and make sense of life experiences. This is an area that requires the researcher to interview those involved in the experience. 3. In qualitative research, the researcher is the primary agent for data collection and analysis. Example, data collection for a study can be through historical records and journal entries searched by myself.

24

4. Qualitative research normally involves fieldwork. 5. Qualitative research is descriptive. 6. Qualitative research is approached inductively. The process involves examining the data to form an understanding of the person, phenomenon, or event being researched.

From this,

concepts, hypotheses, and theories can be built. Thus, the researcher “studies the topic within its context, and uses an emerging design” (Creswell, 1998, p. 75). In this same study example above, after examining the data relative to the adult education programs in Kirtland, it was possible to determine why the adult education schools were established, the mission and philosophy of the programs, and the causes that led to the disestablishment of the programs. 7. Qualitative research is concerned with the nature of reality. “Reality is constructed by the individuals involved” including the researcher, the individuals being investigated, and the reader or audience interpreting the study. “The researcher needs to report these realities, rely on voices and interpretations of informants through extensive quotes, present themes that reflect words used by informants, and advance evidence of different perspectives on each theme” (Creswell, 1998, p. 76). Example, Since this study was a historical study, the information relative to the reality of the adult educational schools of Kirtland was dependent upon those who were involved in the programs and who chose to say something about it in their journals or histories. 8. Qualitative research is concerned with the role of values in a study. “In a qualitative study, the investigator admits the value-laden nature of the study and actively reports his or her values and biases as well as the value-laden nature of the information gathered from the field” (Creswell, 1998, p.76-77). Example, The nature and success of the adult educational programs in Kirtland was based upon certain religious values and motivations held by the participants. These were shared values shaped by the common religious beliefs of the Church which promoted the adult education programs and which the individuals who participated belonged. Further, I, as the researcher, share the same values as those who attended the Kirtland adult education programs for I also am a member of the same church as they were.

Address

How to

Process

the

Where in

of

the Issue Type of

Ethical Research Table 3.2 the Ethical Ethical Issues in Issue Qualitati Occurs ve

Research